Talk:Islam/Archive 24

message: Hajj is not a ritual. it says on the picture of hajj it is. It makes it seem like muslims take part is shamism or something. 
The meaning of the word Ritual to many people means "Magic and Witchraft"
Please change  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.224.55 (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite a sweeping generalization of what many people think a ritual is. A ritual is something performed by a person because it has some sort of personal or religious value. It mostly applies to religious practices, but even everyday practices can referred to as a ritual. Such as brushing one's teeth and making a cup of coffee can be referred to as your morning ritual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual Digital Jedi Master (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rituals of the Hajj (pilgrimage) (HAJJ IS NO RITUAL) 

message: The article is locked, but a citation for the missing one at the end of the first paragraph is at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080330/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_muslims
--Jimbo42 (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That piece has already been included as a reference in the article. Celarnor Talk to me 23:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Islam is not a denomination. OUChevelleSS (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I just wanted to add that neither the Yahoo link nor the Vatican states that Islam is a Denomination.  It clearly says that it is a larger religion than Catholicism.  It can be inferred that the Vatican doesn't consider itself a denomination, rather a religion unto itself.  mpa|mpa68.249.127.44 (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for Islam being the largest single religious denomination 

message: Not sure if this has been brought up before or not, but the main article for Islam contains more Shiite things than Sunni, so is there any way we can clean/discuss this? Thanks DevilAshTalk! 19:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Islam is not a new religion originating from teachings of Muhammad (PBUH) , its revival of teachings of Christ and Moses. Muslims believes in teachings of Christ and Moses and Quran - the Muslim holy book - is the revival of teachings of Bible. 
looking for citation to add this sentence to article introduction
usman 19:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see the second sentence of the second paragraph. ITAQALLAH 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: First and foremost Mohun, I believe you are mistaken. There are no records of any predictions millions of years ago. Science indicates that modern humans have only been around for a couple hundred thousand years total, and even less in a civilized form. Secondly, if you are referring to the Pratisargaparvan of Hinduism (which I would like to state for the record that I do not consider to be 'pagan') it is evidenced that it was created somewhere between 700 and 800 AD, **after** Muhammad, and seems to have been written in a vilifying and accusatory manner, and certainly can't be called a 'prediction.' Thirdly, as I am sure this is patent nonsense and that you would not have any verifiable sources I fail to see how this conversation can have any bearing on this article. So I must assume, for the sake of courtesy, that I have misunderstood you. If this is the case, could you clarify what you actually meant? - Peter Deer (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: "Heavily edited" the texts. Wow, goes to show what you know of the Bible in other Churches, such as the Nestorians, Ethiopians and other non-Ephesian Churches. Gabr-el 20:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

text: See Israelites: Islamic theology and Surah Yunus
Thanks. Omar 180 (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It is true to say that the heresy of Islam is not a new religion, it is the continuation of Christianity...at least that is what it claims. However, as Wikipedia does not hold the Islam to be true it can only view it from a scientific historical perspective- It is distinct enough to be called a separate religion by Anthropologists and Religious Studies Experts and so Wikipedia must comply with these assertions. Gavin (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bluntly put, Christianity got KO'd so God used a phoenix down, and renamed it Islam. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to think of it as- God revealed the path of salvation to the world...a worried Satan released his final WEAPON and called it Islam. Gavin (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to think of it as Cecil, once pure and being corrupted into a Dark Knight, finally finds his true path as a Paladin. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam - not a new religion 

message: alSala'amu alaykum. Since most of our prophets are Hebrews and Aramaics, and looking over to the Qur'an, it is quite clear that modern Islam is a re-birth of a faith gone wrong, especially between the time of Eliyas and that of I'sa. I was hoping the "History of Islam" would make significant reference to the Israelites/Children of Israel before the Muhammadan era.
:See Israelites: Islamic theology and Surah Yunus
Thanks. Omar 180 (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true to say that the heresy of Islam is not a new religion, it is the continuation of Christianity...at least that is what it claims. However, as Wikipedia does not hold the Islam to be true it can only view it from a scientific historical perspective- It is distinct enough to be called a separate religion by Anthropologists and Religious Studies Experts and so Wikipedia must comply with these assertions. Gavin (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bluntly put, Christianity got KO'd so God used a phoenix down, and renamed it Islam. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to think of it as- God revealed the path of salvation to the world...a worried Satan released his final WEAPON and called it Islam. Gavin (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to think of it as Cecil, once pure and being corrupted into a Dark Knight, finally finds his true path as a Paladin. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Israelites as among the first Muslims

message: This article makes the statement that a woman recieves half the inheritence a man does, but does not explain why.  In Islam, a man is required to provide for his family, and any money he has must be used for the general good of his wife and children.  He is also expected to care for elderly parents.  A woman's money from any source, however, is hers and hers alone.  She is not required to spend it on necessities such as food, adequate clothing, shelter, heat, oil, etc.
Please ensure that statments such as this are fully explained.  The last thing we need is people using articles like this as "proof" of Islam's negativity toward women simply because they are not complete.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblebeltmuslimah (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. I don't think it implies any negativity by not explaining, but if you can locate any academic reliable sources expounding upon this then we can decide on how to briefly incorporate it. Further discussion is likely warranted at daughter articles like Women and Islam. ITAQALLAH 18:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I would worry about adding any explanation on this page.  Mostly these justifications are ad hoc attempts to counter Western critics.  And that doesn't mean they're not valid... but it does mean it's hard to represent in the sentence we are giving to the issue.  And, fundamentally, for most of the history of Islam it's just how it is and it makes sense.  It needs no more justification than any other law. gren グレン 10:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and we do not want to add unnecessary complications. The statement made above is not valid in the case of a widow with children, who does often have to use her own money to provide necessities. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessary Update: Women 

message: There are many devout Muslims who do not trust the authenticity of recorded ahadith and sunnah of Mohammed (pbuh).  There are also many devout Muslims who, regardless of their authenticity or inauthenticity, believe that the Qur'an itself is complete (by its own statment, many many times within its pages) and that ahadith and sunnah are simply unnecessary.  These beliefs are definitely worth mentioning, especially since questionable ahadith and sunnah have formed the backbone of many "Islamist" regimes.
Please include a section on these beliefs, as the number of believers who ascribe to them is growing.  I will gladly provide any information and documentation that may prove helpful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblebeltmuslimah (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of "Qur'an-only" adherents is extremely small when weighed against even other minority sects such as Ibadis or Ahmadiyya. So as per undue weight I don't think this merits mention, and this has been the general view when this issue came up previously. ITAQALLAH 22:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Three or so years ago I was supporting the inclusion of some of the Qur'an alone viewpoints in Islam--I'm glad I have gained better perspective.  But, I do think there is a valid point about skepticism--since skepticism comes in other forms than Qur'an only.  There is Sunni-Shia hadith collection disputes.  There is Fazlur-Rahman-ish/liberalized scholars who argue more scrutiny is necessary but don't call for rejection.  There are Hamza Yusuf types who talk about needing to study matns to make sure they do not contradict the Qur'an--even of sahih hadith.  So, I would have no problem if some of that skepticism was worded in... but, I'm not sure it's necessary. gren グレン 10:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The issues of authenticity, as well as the existence and standpoint of Quran-alone Muslims, are addressed in the hadith page. On an unrelated note, that Qur'an Alone page is very poorly done. I'll take a look at it myself later, but if any of you would like to take a crack at fixing it first that'd be just fine. Peter Deer (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The hadith page looks like it could do with some improvement too. ITAQALLAH 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it could. Suppose I'll have to actually crack open a book or two. Swell. Peter Deer (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be happy to help... I have a few good sources available. :-) ITAQALLAH 15:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be particularly helpful. I look forward to working with you. Peter Deer (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejection of Ahadith and Sunnah 

message: Hello, I noticed when i type Muhammadan it redirects to Islam. Muhammadan refers to (Pagans) that are Hindus and Buddhists that were known as Muhammadans before Islam was created. Note, there was no name of Hindu or Buddhists that time they were known as Muhammadans beacause of the Muhammadan Dynasty that arrived in South Asia. Muhammadan shold be an article about the pagan clans that were with Muhammad and shared all rituals and also described in the sacred vedas by pagan religon. Later, it was already predicted by the sacred vedas that Muhammad will be born as a reincarnation of another god and would be the one to lead the pagans and goes on and on. So its better to redirect Muhammadan to Muhammad article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohun (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually no that is completely untrue. Muhammadan is a western term for Muslim/Islamic that has become mostly archaic. You will find that in western terminology predating about 1960 the terms were interchangeable in western society. Peter Deer (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Muhammadan is a catch-all.  It covers the same people as are now covered by the far more commonly used word in English, Muslim.  I think you are trying to read too much into the name.  Historically it is based from the fact that Westerners originally came to know Islam as the religion brought by Muhammad and that, they were Muhammadans.  It's just a matter of nomenclature and Muhammad has been phased out for various reasons including that some feel it is derogatory. gren グレン 10:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammadans 

message: Why external links don't have eastern Muslims websits are nonMuslims afraid of the truth?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.112.228 (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than play the fear card, try helping the article. Post links to sites written in English whenever possible however, as this is the English language Wikipedia. Also, the suggestion you make that only eastern Muslim websites have the truth sounds quite biased. You should clear up any misunderstanding without throwing the 'afraid of the truth' idea around like a common conspiracy theorist.74.67.17.22 (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Our linking policy has been to try to present a few basic introductory sites which are not overly pushing a strong religious or anti-religious point of view; a few sites that will have audio, video, and visual art of Islam related works; and, primarily the DMOZ directories.  There are far too many sites about Islam to chose which belongs and keep the number of links manageable.  This is why we linked to the DMOZ directory which should give a large array of sites of all sorts. gren グレン 10:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic Page Isalamic External Links 

message: "There are between 1.2 billion to 1.8 billion Muslims, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world after Christianity,[4] ---> but the largest single religious denomination.[5]"
What about Sunnis, Shi'a, Kharijites, etc?  The article even has a section on denominations, so the above quote is clearly false hype.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.140.180 (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree here 100%.  The Pope's use of "denomination" is unconventional and probably says more about how the Vatican considers "Catholicism" than "Islam."  It was also clearly not spoken in English but has been translated as such.  The conventional use of "denomination," which we have adopted here on Wikipedia makes the statement entirely illogical.  Why are we publishing this strange perspective in the lead?  I'm removing it ... please do not simply revert it because it is "sourced."  Please provide a good rationale for including this oddity, and in the lead no less.PelleSmith (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly think it's an unnecessary insertion. The ambiguity over religious groups etc. also doesn't really help. Broadly speaking Christianity is still the largest world religion, and the Vatican finding that Muslims have overtaken Catholics to become the single largest "religious group" is more of a footnote really. ITAQALLAH 19:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Itaqallah on this one. It is unnecessary. Yahel Guhan 05:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, completely unnecessary and very political whether you decide that Islam is one or many.  Better to leave it out gren グレン 10:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: So why is it still there afer 16 days?Tourskin (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam is not one denomination 

message: Islam is now the largest religion in the world as per a few days ago.
*Muslims "Overtake" Catholics, Become Largest Religion - March 31, 2008
*Islam overtakes Catholicism as world's largest religion - March 31, 2008
*Islam is world's largest religion: Vatican - March 30, 2008 at 2:51 PM EDT
*'Islam world's largest religion'
CaribDigita (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the above section. Yahel Guhan 07:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Just my two cents.  If the Vatican says that Islam is the largest religion, next to Catholicism, then that pretty much dismisses any arguement.  The Vatican is clearly saying that Catholicism is not a sect, denomination or anything other than a pure religion.  Why there is so much resistance with grouping together Catholicism and Protestantism, when the Vatican has clearly implied that is not correct, is beyond me.  Therefore either the Vatican is wrong,  or you guys are right.  So I agree that changes will have to be made to this article, and the articles in Christianity and Catholicism.  Islam is the largest religion in the world, and apparently that is a hard pill to swallow. MPA 00:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article +others may need to be updated. Islam now = Largest religion in the world. 

message: I'd like to weigh in on the map situation.  The new map, put up by Moshino, is much more intuitive than the one we had up previously.  That's not to say that the old map was no good, but the gradient of greens from light to dark (low to high) makes more sense than arbitrary colors assigned to the different percentages.  Another similar option would be to go between two colors in a gradient, like yellow and red, but I think this one is supurb.  I'm going to revert back to Moshino's map and I'd like to hear a good argument for keeping the old one.  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if the darker side of the map, with the high percentages isn't clearly distinct enough between some of the groups I'm assuming Moshino can tweak the coloring a bit.  That problem does not change the fact that this map is much more informative for what it does and requires much less work to figure out.PelleSmith (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree as well with your comments thanks a lot, plus for the old maps, I have also given links to them on the maps if people are having trouble viewing them.. for all of them. Moshino31 (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: You should propbably credit the CIA World Factbook and the other map as a source.  I almost disagreed with the change because I thought yours was unsourced until I checked the difference between the two and saw none. gren グレン 07:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New map is better 

message: Tahrif is a significant Islamic belief, but not significant enough to be in the lead. A more significant belief, that in the Day of Judgment, would be much better suited. We should also state Tawhid more explicitly (saying that Islam is monotheist is not enough).Bless sins (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tahrif 

message: The article says that Muslims view Muhammad as the greatest prophet, this is untrue. According to hadith the Prophet Muhammad said to the Muslims never to say one prophet was better than another. So please change this  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.45.241 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It says that "Muslims view Muhammad as the greatest prophet", it doesn't say "Muhammad said he was the greatest prophet". So, I think the distinction is clear or I am mistaken? --Be happy!! (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am a muslim, and I dont view him as the greatest prophet! (I view each prophet has come down with his own miracle/sign and Job/duty and) what distinguishes Muhammed is that (in islam) he is the final prophet to be born with the final message. A more appropriate sentence would be "Muslims view Muhammad as the final prophet born bringing the final message (the Koran)" User:Cs1kh (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the same can be said about Jesus - him saying he was the Son of God versus that's what Christians view him as - many newer schools of thought, especially in Eastern Orthodoxy are beginning to somewhat merge with the Islamic view of him being a messenger - rather than a Demi-God. My point is all those figures are historically very obscured - if you believe they existed even! Best we can do is just reflect what the majority followers of the religion believe. I doubt you can prove anything about him - let alone what he said. We should edit this article so it reflects what Muslims view him as, which has a much stronger bases in ancient texts etc than the virtually non-existant historical accounts of him. Pink Princess (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Prophet Muhammad 

message: "The Alevi, Yazidi, Druze, Ahmadiyya, Bábí, Bahá'í, Berghouata and Ha-Mim movements either emerged out of Islam or came to share certain beliefs with Islam. Some consider themselves separate while others still sects of Islam though controversial in certain beliefs with mainstream Muslims. Sikhism, founded by Guru Nanak in late fifteenth century Punjab, incorporates aspects of both Islam and Hinduism."
This paragraph is currently located under Denominations: Others but I think it would fit better under Islam and other religions. Oore (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The influence of Islam... 

message: Well, I think that the history is already told, and the history section should be converted to "Political History" or "History After Muhammad". Will someone change that section? --Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • &site= count) 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-Do List 

message: IS there any room for this topic here or should a new page be written.
I ask as Indonesia is numerically the most populous Muslim nation- and there is much variety and discussion within Indonesia about Islam.Starstylers (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is notable and sourced, add it to Islam in Indonesia. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indonesian version of Islam? 

message: Talk page has been semi-protected for 48 hours given graffiti. Marskell (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I'm surprised by the lack of allusions to unorthodox Islamic sects. No allusions to the Druze, Ahmadiyah, Ansariyah...It's non-scientific to repudiate those branches of Islam, only because they are opposite to the Islamic orthodoxy. And, certainly, leaves an impression of pro-political correctness bias.
:See the last paragraph of Islam#Other religions. ITAQALLAH 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unorthodox Islamic sects 

message: hello, what is actually said about alcohol consumption, in 13th warrior he said only not by grain and by grapes. Therefore he could drink alcohol made from honey. Is that correct? Please help Mallerd (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very simplistic interpretation of the Quran which prohibits alcohol made from grapes only. This was probably because the Arabs of that period had no conception of alcohol from grains. According to later interpretations done by Islamic scholars and held in general agreement by the community (see a theological concept called Ijtihad) all intoxicating substances are prohibited in Islam.--Shahab (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you, is the judgement of Islamic scholars supreme: like the church or pope in catholicism? The article does say the interpretation is only for the scholar himself, explaining my "confusion". Mallerd (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The interpretation is actually not binding in Sunni Islam. But in the case of alcohol the difference is that, the 'consensus' of the Muslim community has denounced it and placed the prohibition. There is no consensus in many other matters, for example, the use of credit cards etc, despite contrary judgements of Islamic scholars.--Shahab (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Islam is only about 1500 years old, in a certain sense. But the point is that the tribes of Arabia did not know about all the discoveries the world had seen when the Quran was supposedly revealed. The Arabs had not heard of alcohol from grain then. (Believe it or not I know people who still haven't heard of it!) The Quran discusses concepts relatively more closely related to Arabian life.--Shahab (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  no alcohol 

message: I'd be grateful if someone more knowledgeable than myself could have a look at Talk:Black Stone#Hindu view and this edit, which an anonymous IP editor has repeatedly been adding. Essentially the editor is claiming that the Ka'aba in Macca was originally a Hindu temple (!) and is citing an apparently fringe scholar in support of that claim. I've had a look at the sourcing, which seems to be very thin indeed; some second opinions would be useful. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An Indian temple? I have never heard of such a thing. In all likelihood, that "scholar" would be some xenophobe who is trying to attack Islam by saying that Kaaba is an Indian temple, or could just be plain stupid in that belief. Tourskin (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes thats true, it was worshipped by pagan arabs before Muhammad. Tourskin (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange claims about the Black Stone 

message: A couple of questions about Islam have been asked on the humanities reference desk. It would be great if some editors knowledgeable about Islam could pop over there and answer them. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions on the humanities reference desk 

message: Within Judaism, you're considered jewish if your mother is jewish, or that's how I remember it in any case. Within Islam, are you considered a member of the faith if your father is muslim? If your mother is muslim? If either is muslim? And is the rule a hard-and-fast kinda thing, or does it possibly vary from country to country?--Mr Bucket (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Islam teaches that everyone is born a Muslim. But for clarification, Muslim women may only marry Muslim men, so in this obvious scenario the children will be raised Muslims. Muslim men that marry non-Muslim women will do so with the taken-for-granted assumption that she will submit and become a Muslim too, so again the children are raised Muslim. Tourskin (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In secular countries, Muslim women marry non-Muslim men. In this case, are children considered Muslims? Masterpiece2000  (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I guess it depends. I'm not a Muslim, but I know for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim is not to be taken lightly. In such cases, Islamic law has already been broken with her marrying a non-Muslim. Islamic law teaches that whenever a Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim man, she will fall under his influence and religion, becoming an apostate. Furthermore interpretation of the Qu'ran says that such relations are to be avoided, against all non-believers. It is assumed that Muslim men will not fall under the religion of their wives, hence they can marry non-mulsim women. Some blog sites discussing this suggest that the Qu'ran does not allow any marriages, regardless if its a Muslim man or woman, but for that, I do not know. Point being, if a Muslim woman does marry a non-Muslim, and the man stays a non-Muslim, then I guess the couple probably don't have Islamic law on their minds and so won't raise the kids Muslims anyways; the Qu'ran leaves no room for interpretation when it comes to who is allowed to marry non-Muslims (permanent non-Muslims who don't convert). Tourskin (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Also everyone is a Muslim by name. So only difference is that you say you are Muslim. I am proud to say I am a Muslim. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 15:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I humiliate myself before God to say I am a Christian, for I am not worthy - please keep our personal opinions to ourselves. Tourskin (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was kinda unnecessary, Tourskin, IMHO Nautical Mongoose (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And why is it unnecessary for User:Lord of Moria to say that he is proud of being a Muslim? My example was designed to illicit a reaction; now you know that wikipedia discussion pages are not for stating what one is proud of. Tourskin (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

text: And User:Lord of Moria, you are incorrect; according to Islamic belief, everyone is born a Muslim, but not everyone remains submitted to God, and not everyone who submits to God does so according to the Qu'ran. Besides, hadn't I answered all of these points anyway? Tourskin (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't think Moria's statement was something to worry about, but...I think I'll stay out of this one n.n;; Nautical Mongoose (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I wasn't being hostile or anything like that why take offence? LOL. I'm sorry if I meant any. I did not mean to insult anyone, sorry. I can say I'm proud to be a Muslim, I was giving myself as an example of who is a Muslim i.e. I proclaim it like my religion demands. People can say they are proud of themselves (I mean they do do it on their user pages). I am not incorrect however I have done my research so no need to be hostile towards me. Any more questions? Lord of Moria (Avicenna) Talk Contribs 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I am happy that we cleared this. I too apologize if I insulted anyone, although I think neither me nor User:Lord of Moria need apologize. Tourskin (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Inheritance" of religion in Islam 

message: I don't think having an image of the Taj Mahal as the standard image for all the Islam pages is a good idea. The Kabba would have been more suitable as it's the Islamic first and main mosque. The Taj Mahal is not a religious structure, just an architectural aspect of the Mughal Empire and not a place of worship as it's a mausoleum (glorified tombstone for a grave). it also steretypes, suggesting an 'Indian' landmark is in some way a major part of the world faith and it isn't. It's irrelevant and misleading and should be replaced with the Kaaba or Qu'ran etc. Thanks.
80.249.48.115 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should discuss this perhaps at the relevant wikiproject. Tourskin (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Taj Mahal Has nothing to do with Islam. Its a tomb for his lover not for his religion! Maybe a mughal mosque such as the Badshahi Mosque in Lahore would be more appropriate and significant. --80.194.30.187 (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam portal image 

message: I have noticed that the Naqshbandi article does not cite any sources. There seems to have been some edit warring too, and I suspect that if future additions to the article were based only on reliable sources that some of that problem would be reduced. (My own knowledge of Sufism is so slight I would not attempt to edit such an article.)
Now that I think of it, the much larger Islamic art article also has very little sourcing. It seems to be an excellent article, but if some knowledgeable editors could add sources it would be a good act for an important article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naqshbandi 

message: I don't see the text in the source, but the text printed under the "pronunciation" heading is inappropriate. I suspect this article has been vandalized. Maybe an established user will kjnow how to correct this?
Bulkley bouncer (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been reverted, and the editor who placed it has been warned and reported to the administrators. Thank you for reporting this.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct pronunciation... 

message: The sentence "Muhammad (c. 570 – June 8, 632) was an Arab religious, political, and military leader who founded the religion of Islam as a historical phenomenon."' is confusing. It seems to guess at Muhammad's intentions. There was no way of knowing that the religion would become the 'historical phenomenon' that we know now. So, I am proposing to remove 'as a historical phenomenon".
Also, there has been an obscenity in the first line of the article for many hours. I'm a new user and I don't know how to edit a 'semi-protected' article, so any help is appreciated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick poloney (talk • contribs) 04:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muhammad 

message: The link for Moses in Articles of faith section in line (The Qur'an mentions the names of numerous figures considered prophets in Islam, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, among others) should be changed from Musa  to Moses   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.180.146 (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moses - Link 

message: User:AAA765 removed the following section writing in edit summary: "to last version by Itaqallah. unsourced or unscholarly":
 Pascal Bruckner and Paul Berman on the other hand have entered the "Islam in Europe" debate. Berman identifies a "reactionary turn in the intellectual world" represented by Western scholars who idealize Islam.
Since it's both sourced and scholarly I am re-adding it. —Cesar Tort 06:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  re-added section 

message: I went through it again, and it seemed we had the same concerns. So, what I basically did was moved statements of contention to where the issue was first introduced, and deleted lots of blanket statements (Shi'a believe ______, these statements were often almost exclusive to Usuli Twelver Shi'a). All in all, I think it makes the article cleaner without having a parenthesis in every pillar ascribing not only a Shi'a view, but a false one that not all Shi'a groups believe in. I toned down the language in those pillars as well, so as of right now, it seems pretty good. I'll tweak it as I go along. Here is the idea:
* I completely changed the predestination thing, I don't feel that was correctly worded at all.
* Took out statement about Shi'a eight pillars, and just mentioned a different set of pillars, which differs among Shi'a groups.  Also added this sentence, "Some Sufi and Shi'a groups believe these practices are symbolic and metaphorical, and in a minority of cases do not physically practice them" in order to give slight mention to the batini groups.
* Instead of going into the details of which groups pray how many times a day, I deleted all that and just simply put all Muslims pray multiple times a day, which even all batini groups can agree with. No need to say Twelver pray five prayers three times, Ismaili just pray three times, etc, as you pointed out. Also said salat generally faced Mecca, since that's not always the case.
* Deleted the mention of khumms which has nothing to do with zakat anyway, and also differs among Shi'a.
* Mentioned in a single sentence at the end of the fasting section that some Muslims fast other times of the year besides Ramadan.
* Added the phrase that most Muslims adhere to shariah, in order not to create a false blanket statement over a significant minority.
* Pointed out the secularism has been supported by some Muslim groups, such as the Alevi. We may want to take this one out.
:::Secularism is supported by some Sunnis too. It doesn't relate to Madhab necessarily.Seyyed(t-c) 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was taken out. --Enzuru 03:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

text: *Deleted this, I think it isn't needed. --Enzuru 06:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I think your editions are acceptable except one of them. Some Sufi and Shi'a groups believe these practices are symbolic and metaphorical, and in a minority of cases do not physically practice them. is unclear. I disagree with Some Sufi and Shi'a..... We should mention their name.Seyyed(t-c) 03:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bektashi, Alevi, Nizari, Ahl-e Haqq, are what I can name off the top of my head. Better to just put some Sufi and Shi'a groups. --Enzuru 03:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At least you can make an interlink and refer some Shia to Batinis. In this case  Twelvers are more similar to Sunnis, while that part may cause some misunderstanding. Seyyed(t-c) 03:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That works nicely, thanks! --Enzuru 04:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree with changing basic facts or statements - or making them terribly ambiguous - simply to cater for minority groups. Muslims do pray five times a day, that is verifiable from a hundred different reliable sources. A small minority, however, does not pray five times a day. That a small minority doesn't, in no way means the general statement should be changed. Refer to WP:UNDUE here. I'll review the changes made but the major ones may need further discussion. ITAQALLAH 14:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the sentence about Sufi/Batini Shia on the basis that it was inserted without a source. It's important to know how significant these views are in determining whether it warrants discussion, and how much so. ITAQALLAH 14:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't insist on adding it, but you can use Corbin's work ,History of Islamic philiosophy, as a source.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A compromise 

message: If one looks at the tawhid mentioned in the article, it seems inaccurate. Being a muslim, I can tell you that the correct translation of, "La ilahi-il-Allah.........muhammad-ur rasool-allah" is, "Allah is the only God and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is his prophet." I hope someone can correct it since the page is locked.—Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
: As one who understands Arabic, I can tell you that your translation is incorrect. lalib (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tawhid 

message: (Mohamedfakh (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The translation of "Allah" into English is literally "the God." Only Salafi and Wahhabi Muslims have an issue with the translation, most other Muslims will use the phrase God in English. --Enzuru 04:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

text: keep religion out of this... also: Allah is THE OD, therefor, in english, we will varry between allah and God: With god beign the prefered since the west is christian dominated (and therefor msot people here will have that kind of influence) and we never made a name for christian god. Oh and one last thing: Allah, Jenova, Yahweh(or howeve_ are all one entity: just different interpretations of that one being. --Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Indeed, hence most exercises in philosophy tending to try to prove the existence of God, not a Christian god or an Islamic god. Plus, the Qur'an in Arabic, despite not having gender, Allah is referred to as male. Even you said "there's none like Him" as opposed to "there's none like Her." Why is "Him" gender neutral to you, but "Her" isn't? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because when you do not know the gender but using genderless words would be insulting: people prefer the masculine name. That and the abrahamic religions are rather male dominated... so yah. Religion is sexist lol. --Ssteiner209 (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allah or God 

message: I note that the Shahada plaque was switched with the Salah pic as the lead image. I'd much prefer the latter personally (and that was the chosen img last time this topic was debated). ITAQALLAH 16:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt the shahada picture was much better, both for aesthetic reasons, and it is something all Muslims share. It also goes to show Islam's multiethnic dimension, which is something we stressed in the introduction as well. Also, I like where the salah pic is now, near the picture of hajj, they compliment each other. We can exchange the picture again, but I find the picture of the salah to be rather unattractive, but I'm not against picture of salah in general, since it is an important features of the faith, the foundation of faith. --Enzuru 22:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't particularly mind either way, I can see merits in both presentations. We can leave things as they are I guess and see how things go. ITAQALLAH 00:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead pic? 

message: Is it supposed to be pronounced like IZlum or is it EESlum or EYEslam or what? Also, could I learn about iSlam from an iMam on my iPod and talk about it on my iPhone? --137.186.233.134 (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article discusses the pronunciation here.--Shahab (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I recommend replacing the text:
The year 1428 AH coincides almost completely with 2007 CE.
, which appears under "Calendar," with: 
The year 1430 AH began on December 29, 2008 CE.
Expo1892 (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  update AH year to 2009 CE 

message: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.168.69 (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what she said. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: Salam hi
I think the First pillar, Shahadah has been written phonetically not correctly perhaps, it should be: Lā ilaha illa al-Lāh, Muhammadun rasūlu l-Lāh
This is correct on the seperate wiki for the Shahadah but not for the Islam one.
Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uf007uf (talk • contribs) 22:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five Pillars: Shahadah 

message: Just wanted to report these unsourced, rather inflammatory articles about sex in Islam. I dont think their is any need of these kinds of articles either.
Islamic view of anal sex, Oral sex in Islamic law  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.106.232 (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The appropriate forum to raise this issue is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.--Shahab (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps an article like Islamic views on Sex would be more appropriate. Gabr-el 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex in Islam 

message: *Ethiopian Muslims History The Haven of the First Hijra (Migration): an African nation is the Muslims’ first refuge
:Austerlitz -- 88.75.220.190 (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please insert 

message: Hi to everyone,
I was thinking about hyperlinking "7th century" in the Islam article, but then it looks a bit like overlinking too.
On the other hand placing the birth of Islam in the right chronological context could help wikipedians understand better world history.
What do you think about it?
Thanks for your attention in reading me.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that linking a date is justified here. Cheers--Shahab (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  7th century hyperlink in the article 

message: First of all I'd like to say that Wikipedia is a very resourceful website.Alot of people,especially me, browse this website for research work that help make good reports and papers.
The subject name that I have given has two reasons:
1) Islam as with any other religion deserves repect, so the Prophets' or any name of Religious Books should be addressed with respect.For example: Instead of 'Quran' it SHOULD BE 'The Holy Quran'
And above all our Prophet Muhammed Sallallaho'alihe Wasallam deserves the UTMOST RESPECT when he is mentioned or addressed in any sentence or anywhere for that matter.So instead of 'Muhammed' it SHOULD BE 'Muhammed Peace be Upon Him.'
2) In the case of Islam God is used for the arabic word ALLAH.Here what I would like to point out is that God has a gender and an opposite which is Goddess whereas ALLAH has no gender and absolutely no opposite. Again what I am trying to rectify, hopfully,is that I as with any sound religion practicing person/individual would like this to be rectified as soon as possible, please.
I hope I have not offened anyone but keep hope that Wikipedia will do everything within its powers to rectify these honest mistakes.
Thank you  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.50.26.18 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll do that as soon as you add honorifics to Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, after all, we should respect him if we are going to respect Muhammad (AS), since he is the founder of a religious faith too! The point is, Wikipedia is a secular academic source, and secular academic sources do not add honorifics. If we add honorifics to Muslim figures, we'd have to add honorifics to everything and it'd just become extremely encyclopedic. Secular academic sources don't do things like that. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement that the Arabic word Allah has no gender is also incorrect - it is male. The female form is Allat, meaning Goddess. ðarkuncoll 16:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Allah literally means in Arabic "the God", and we use that translation on this secular encyclopedia. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 21:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam in general 

message: I see no mention of Alevism on the page about Islam.  I think it should be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.21.191 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alevism is considered by most secular scholars to be a movement within Twelver Shi'a Islam, that does not adhere to Jafari fiqh. It is a batingroup like Ismailism, and the Ahl-e Haqq, both of which are also within Shi'a Islam. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alevism 

message: shouldn't it be put somewhere that Islam is a very violent religion?  (if you are an orthodox muslim) The Quran and the rest of the writings from Muhammed do say that if you refuse to become a muslim, you should be killed, and the killer will go to heaven.  Also, somewhere there should be a section that talks about how the terrorists of 9-11 were muslims...?  It's just an idea, thought I might ask...thanks!
:You shouldn't believe all your bedtime stories, they are just to scare you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.72.61 (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What you said is incorrect. Orthodox Muslims who interpret the Qur'an and the sunnah of Muhammad do not believe if someone refuses to become Muslim, they should be killed, and that the killer will go to heaven. In fact, Muhammad said that if a Christian or Jew under the protection of Muslims was hurt, it would be as if you hurt Muhammad himself. There isn't too much of a reason to mention 9/11 here, because we would need to mention every violent religion with every act ever in each article, like a section on the Crusades on the article on Christianity or Catholicism. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  violence in islam 

message: This article is based on Sunni Islam and is not neutral.
99.247.0.42 (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What parts in particular? I am Shi'a Muslim, and I am trying to see if the batini point of view, as well as the pillars, can be changed a little. But in general, I would say the article is balanced. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: the mention of the sunnah ( muhammeds life and works ), should actually be listed under seperate sects of this religion and any mentioning of other than god ALONE is considerd blashpemy and idol worship by muslims who have copies of the true quran as revealed rashad khalifa.
comments?
Schulte123 (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:UNDUE. Most Muslims follow the sunnah in one manner or another, if small groups don't we cannot give them undue weight compared to the majority that do. The followers of Rashad Khalifa are too small to be represented on an article about how Islam is practiced and understood by the majority of it's 1.5 billion followers. If we were to try to fix the article as to make sure every group, even if the group was made of dozens of followers, agreed, we wouldn't have an article at all, and we would be breaking the Wikipedia policy of WP:UNDUE. If the group has a significant size (for example, Shi'a Islam) their views are obviously significant, and are to be written on this article. Size matters when most people come to read an article, and want to know what most Muslims believe, not what a small minority believe (that is of little importance to them). I hope you understand, insha'Allah. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 07:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  in regards to the mathematically irrefutable evidence of the quran 

message: salam
I am trying to contribute to a couple of articles and want a better understanding of how to organise references nicely. I see that some articles have a section for notes and another section for references, and it allows for brief citations mentioning author's last name, year of publication of the book, and page number in the notes section that one can check in the references section for full title, author's name, etc. Is there anyone here who can help me to understand how to organise references into these two handy lists? Thank you.
PinkWorld (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: wp:reference covers this and I hope should answer your question, but as this isn't solely related to Islam do you mind if I move this thread to your talk page? WereSpielChequers 14:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually does, since she and I are working to form Shi'a Islam into the mold of this article in hopes of making it FA-class. Editors from this article could help quite a bit for the specifics detailed in MOS:Islam. But, maybe she wants it moved, I'm not sure. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 09:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK well there's no harm in leaving it here if others might find it useful. By the way if you are thinking of taking a major religious article like   Shi'a Islam to FA, and indeed keeping this article at an FA standard you might want to look at what happened a few months ago when Roman Catholic Church went there. Standards at FA are rising and an article that passed a year or two back might not today. WereSpielChequers 15:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: That map is inaccurate, but the issue is in Pakistan Shi'a are 20% of the population and Pakistan has the second largest population of Shi'a of any country in the world. But the Shi'a population is very spread out: almost every ethnic group has a large amount of Shi'a. Shi'a exist among Pashtuns (like me), Punjabis, Sindhis, Saraikis, and many Muhajir ethnic groups such as the Gujarati. With the exception of a few places such as the Hunza Valley, there is no place where Shi'a make up the majority of the population, because Shi'a are spread almost evenly throughout the population. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help - References 

message: Much more should be said about the heterodox sects. Even the Ismailis are not give enough emphasis. I agree that a link to specialized article may be all that is needed but the current references are too off-hand. Sects which needed to named included the Alawites and the Bahai. A discussion of the political aspects of the Bahai and the Ahamadiya would be useful. Finally there should be something about the peripheral religuions like the Druse and the Yazidis. Again all that might be needed is a link. I am unsure about whether the Qur'an-only movement merits recognition as a sect. DKleinecke (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Traditional Muslims do not recognize Bahai's as Muslims, and the Bahai's do not consider themselves as Muslims too. So I am not sure whether Bahai's can be thought of as a sect of Islam.Shahab (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions needed to the description of heterodox sects 

message: I asked this on the talk page of Predestination in Islam, but I realized that many who would care about the changes I would make may not be watching that page and the best way to get feed-back would be to mention it here.  I said, "It seems to me that a summary of the the major schools of thought and major thinkers should be added to this page. It seems to me that this would be the #1 most useful section in an article of this sort. I will await feedback before adding these myself."  I have gathered some sources to make these additions, but these would constitute a fairly sizable edition so I wanted to make sure anyone who would oppose them has sufficient chance to make themselves heard.  I am new to Wikipedia editing, so please correct me on any breaches of etiquette I may be committing. LUbunkerman (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an FA-Class article, meaning it gives sufficient amount of information and detail to each category according to the goals of the Wikipedia project. For information detailing differences in Islamic aqeedah (creed) and fiqh (law), you may want to check the Islamic schools and branches.If I can branch off to my own opinion for a moment, the reason this would perhaps be most useful to you is because you are aware of most of the basic information of Islam that this page offers, which is what this is supposed to cover. Differences and details of Islamic thought, which are many extremely detailed in nature, should be covered elsewhere. Also, you should always add new sections to the bottom of the talk page, not the top, but no big deal! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reread what you said, and noted you meant it to be on Predestination in Islam. I will be more than willing to lend what I know about the subject, in particular on Ismailism. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions needed to the [[Predestination in Islam]] page? 

message: *This is written in the opening paragraph: "The word Muslim is the participle of the same verb of which Islām is the infinitive."....... This makes absolutely no sense.  Madritor (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam/Muslim=Verb?? 

message: I'm sure I beat someone to this that has more authority to do it than me, but Cmmmm's additions were terribly unbalanced at best and slanderous at worst.  I was going to appeal to him to revert or balance them, but to that I had to see his talk page which disabused me of any notion that he would do so.  If there is any way to take it private by e-mailing him, I couldn't find it.  As always, please correct me if I have over-stepped my bounds. LUbunkerman (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have done the same thing, wonderful action and thanks for coming to the talk page about it. This article is FA-Class, most edits done tend to worsen the article rather than help it. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Cmmmm's additions to "Further Reading"