Talk:Islam/Archive 3

message: I have removed following edits by 131.181.251.66 because...
* False statement: Traditionally however, the statement Muhammadur rasulullah - ";Muhammad is the messenger of God" is appended to the statement by Sunnite muslims.
* No reference for the following statement: In modern times there has been much controversy over whether the ahadith are necessary for the guidance of an individual. There are groups of God-alone muslims who accept only the Qur'an as being binding and they therefore reject the ahadith as necessary for guidance.
* Vague statement: from a vastly larger body of sayings numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
Hiwamy 04:09, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting Edits 

message: Could some knowledgeable person please have a look at Aashurah? It really needs a bit of clarification regarding the meaning of the festival. -- ChrisO 20:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Review requested of [[Aashurah]] article

message: I did an NPOV modification yesterday, changing the statement "Islam is the fastest growing religion" to "according to many Muslims, it is the fastest growing religion}".  Someone changed it to "according to many sources" - without naming any, of course.  The edit comment made a reference to CNN, without any specifics.
Are there any sources beyond Muslims repeating, without any attribution, that Islam is the fastest growing religion?  "According to many sources" is not a good reference - if there are many sources, surely specific references can be provided?
I will change this back to the NPOV "according to many Muslims" unless I see specific references, or some other convincing evidence that "Islam is the fastest growing religion" is NPOV.
--Michael V
:  - Mustafaa 05:50, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: has a bit more detail from a wider range of sources.  As you can see, actual knowledge seems pretty sketchy; however, if the U.S. Center for World Mission came up with Islam growing faster than Christianity, I for one am inclined to believe them!  In any event, it provides sufficient evidence that "many sources" is correct. I suspect the main factor in this is simply the birth rate. I also note a reference from the World Network of Religious Futurists, led by a rabbi: .  Google also comes up with a few claims that atheism is growing faster; true or false, that would be irrelevant, because atheism is not a religion, but the absence of religion. It should probably also say "numerically highest" - the highest religions in percentage growth rates are of course the small ones (Falun Gong, Bahai, Scientology, etc.) - Mustafaa 06:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: How about "According to sources such as the World Network of Religious Futurists, the U.S. Center for World Mission, and Samuel Huntingdon, Islam is growing faster numerically than any other religion; the largest factor in this is natural population growth." - Mustafaa 19:45, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Islam - Fastest Growing Religion?

message: It answers my questions, sort of.
What I am trying to do is to think of some NPOV way to describe the conflict of values between some aspects of Islam and some aspects of the West. (I think it it an overstatement to say that there is a conflict between "Islam" and the "West" - since neither is a unified entity.)
The general view among Muslims, and among educated Western liberals, is that the negative perception of Islam is due to misinformation.  I think this view is in many cases mistaken.  The negative perception is there because the values are different - not because one side or another necessarily has its facts wrong.
For example, I enjoy drinking alcohol, I see nothing wrong with fornication or gay sex, and I think demolishing the arguments in favour of God's existence is good, clean fun.  Further, I think that any attempt to ban the above activities (beyond reasonable restrictions like no drinking and driving, ages of consent, etc.) is morally wrong - and if I found myself in a state that tried to ban these activities I would either fight it (I would not rule out using violence) or go elsewhere.  By Islamic standards, I am a bad person.  Am I missing anything here?
--Michael V.
Islam - like, apart from the alcohol, Christianity and Judaism - is of course opposed to all those things* - and a state dominated by committed members of any of those three religions will almost certainly try to ban, or at least severely restrict, them - as history proves.  That does not happen in the West today because no Western country is in fact dominated by committed Christians (nor is Israel dominated by religious Jews, despite the growing power of the ultra-Orthodox); if one truly were, I suspect (along with many a liberal warning against American or Israeli fundamentalists) that you would quickly see their historically recent traditions of accomodating secularism weaken.  So yes, there is a deep value conflict at work - but it's not between Islam and the West, it's between revealed religion and libertarianism.  And that line cuts right through the middle of the West, through the old Western battle between the "Enlightenment" and the "Church".
And of course what counts as "reasonable restrictions" is very culture-dependent indeed; 100 years ago I guarantee you would have said banning gay sex was a perfectly "reasonable restriction" on fornication! We ban drunk driving because of its consequences to other people; but alcoholism and extramarital pregnancies have terrible consequences for other people too... Where you draw the line on consequences is a very finicky decision, and in fact is the Trojan horse by which restrictions on other people's behavior (aka law) can be reintroduced to almost any degree into non-anarchist libertarianism.  - Mustafaa 06:50, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic and Western Values

message: Mustafaa - thank you for your comments about secularism vs. religion.  I will comment more on this, as there are issues there that need to be added to the Wikipedia, but are very difficult to NPOV.  
But first I would like to make a suggestion concerning dealing with the anonymous moron who insists on bringing up honor killings.  
I agree with you that honor killings have no place in the discussion of Islam per se.  They are not part of Islamic doctrine, and there are many Islamic cultures where this practice is not present - e.g. Indonesia, which is the most populous Islamic country in the world.  
Unfortunately, the practice is firmly linked with Islam in the mind of some poorly educated induhviduals, and in this case this moron may continue adding the totally POV honor killing entry whether we like it or not.
Rather than engaging in a Wikiwar with him, perhaps this issue should be addressed.  I have just done an NPOV edit for the honor killing entry - perhaps a link to that should be placed from the Islam page, or a summary of that entry should appear under "Honor Killing" heading.
Thoughts?  - Michael Voytinsky 03:39, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy. . . the user in question used to go by the handle OneVoice, and did exactly the same sort of thing back then. I suggest a phrasing like this, with neutral wording of course: "Western media often associate honor killings with Islam, and feeble-minded ignoramuses accept this view uncritically, even trying to force it into encyclopedia articles on Islam, but the association is a load of bullshit; as evidence, X, Y, and Z."—and put it in the section on Islam in the modern world, not in the section on the role of women. How's that? —No-One Jones 06:35, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Or we could write something to the effect that a strict interpretation of Islamic law prescribes severe punishment, up to and including death, for all adultery (including premarital sex), whether by men or by women; then describe how this law has been interpreted in different ages and places, and mention honor killings in Islamic countries within this context, where it belongs. (But that would be so much harder than saying "Muslim women are liable to be murdered, if family members believe that the woman has misused her sexuality. See Honor killings", eh, OneVoice?) —No-One Jones 06:46, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiMoron Insists on Bringing Up "Honor Killing"

message: I have been looking at the following part of the Islam article:
*The Qur'an, also spelled Qur'an or Koran, is the holy book of Islam. Its title means "Recitation" or "Reading". It consists of 114 chapters or Surahs laid out roughly in order of size, the largest being near the front, the smallest near the back. It describes the origins of the Universe, Man, and their relationship to each other and their Creator. It sets out laws for society, morality, economics and many other topics. It is intended for recitation and memorization. The Qur'an is primarily taught from one generation to the next this way. Muslims regard the Qur'an as sacred and inviolable.
The problem with it is that it sounds like all Muslims are fundamentalists.
I mean, a Christian who believes that the Bible "sets out laws for society, morality, economics, etc" would generally be described as a fundamentalist.
Most Christians are not, however, fundamentalist.   In a discussion of Christianity it would be highly inaccurate to state that Christians believe that the Bible sets out laws for society, morality, etc. - since not all, and probably not most, Christians believe this.
Does this description of the Qur'an suffer from the same problem?  Or are Muslims much more prone to fundamentalism - which is a claim made by some people (e.g. Daniel Pipes).  -Michael Voytinsky 20:15, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would say virtually all Muslims agree that the Qur'an sets out some rules for society, morality, etc. - though they disagree on whether these rules should be implemented as law.  In that sense, virtually all Muslims are "fundamentalist".  However, in an Islamic context the word fundamentalist normally has a more specific meaning - someone who believes that the Sunna and Hadith, together with the Qur'an, are a complete source of law and morality, and should form their sole basis.  Fundamentalists in that sense are a small minority, though their numbers vary with the country.  But really, the definition of "fundamentalist" is pretty unclear; its usage varies so widely. - Mustafaa 20:36, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Islam and Fundamentalism

message: I removed the following paragraph:
:The Qur'an describes two forms of Jihad ("struggle"). One form, the "Greater Jihad", is described as a struggle with oneself for mastery of the soul, another form, the "Lesser Jihad", is described as a holy war that Muslims are obligated to wage against those who are enemies of Islam. There are differing opinions as to what forms of conflict are considered Jihad.  Jihad may only be waged to defend Islam. However, some groups hold that this applies not only to the physical defense of Muslims, but to the reclamation of land once belonging to Muslims, or even the protection of Islam itself against corrupting influences. The idea of Jihad as a violent war has become more popular in the latter half of the 20th century, especially within the Wahabbi movement and in the Islamist movement. According to most forms of Islam, if a person dies in the middle of Jihad, he is sent directly to heaven without punishment for any sins.
The Qur'an does not describe two forms of Jihad as above. This paragraph doesn't even belong here. Who put it here? If you're a Muslim, I suggest you check carefully before making a statement on what the Qur'an says or doesn't say.  Misquoting the Qur'an is a grave sin. --Aidfarh 09:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno, but you can find out by checking the history. Mustafaa 18:49, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

text: BTW, well spotted - keep checking... The number of errors that creep into this page is phenomenal.  I've managed to remove a few, but I've never gotten around to giving it the thorough, careful going-over it needs. - Mustafaa 19:13, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Some parts of the Qur'an attribute differences between Muslims and non-Muslims to tahref-ma'any, a "corruption of the meaning" of the words. In this view, the Jewish Bible and Christian New Testament are true, but the Jews and Christians misunderstood the meaning of their own Scripture, and thus need the Qur'an to clearly understand the will of God. However, other parts of the Qur'an make clear that many Jews and Christians used deliberately altered versions of their scripture, and had altered the word of God. This belief was developed further in medieval Islamic polemics, and is a mainstream part of both Sunni and Shi'ite Islam today. This is known as the doctrine of tahref-lafzy, "the corruption of the text".
- Mustafaa 20:35, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Jihad reference in Qur'an section

message: Although it is commonly held that this group includes the Jews, Christians and Muslims, it is equally evident that Muslims are the only extant group to legitimately hold this title. - I strongly suspect this section is the politically motivated opinion of a small segment of radical Islamic fundamentalists, who promote this view as justification to be intolerant, if not actually violent, to Christians and Jews. In fact, this section is inserted, I believe, as part of a war on the West. On NPOV grounds alone, this section could be deleted, as it is advocating an opinion on the part of the article writer, and not stating a fact. It is NOT "equally evident" that Christians and Jews are today not "People of the Book." Many Christians and Jews will assert that their "book" has not changed from the time that the protections given to "People of the Book" were instituted, and therefore this entire section is, in my opinion, utter trash, and vicious to boot, as this philosophy is used in the Islamic world to justify violence against Christians and Jews. Wikipedia editors should not tolerate Wikipedia being used to promote violence. Bear in mind, that the protections given to "People of the Book" historically were responsible for Islamic society to being tolerant of Christians and Jews living in Muslim countries, as long as they paid the special tax imposed on them. By asserting that Christians and Jews of today are NOT "People of the Book", but rather polytheists, radical Islam sects and the Wahabists such as Bin Laden, justify actions against Christians and Jews. ChessPlayer 09:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this was put in by an apparent Westerner mainly interested in Buddhism, User:Usedbook - and I suspect it has more to do with his disaffection with Islam than with a crusade against the West.  But it's wrong in any event, so I support your delete. - Mustafaa 07:00, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I said "tolerant" not "equal". Historically, Muslims have been tolerant towards Christians and Jews living in Muslim lands, allowing them to practice their religions and live in peace, based on the teachings of Islam. Islam has not changed, nor Christianity or Judaism; what has changed today is politics. ChessPlayer 23:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically, indeed, those claiming to be Muslim have been tolerant and intolerant towards Christians and Jews living in Muslim lands. Whether or not religious institutions, their creed and documents change is another issue. Returning to the discussion, I'd appreciate seeing more written concerning abrogation in this and other articles. Take care. Usedbook 01:22, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  People of the Book 

message: Would whoever added the NPOV dispute notice please explain, below, why the neutrality of the article is disputed? —No-One Jones 23:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute?

message: <original>
Six Pillars of belief
There are six basic beliefs shared by Muslims:
    * Belief in God (in Arabic, Allah)
    * Belief in Prophets and Messengers (sent by God)
    * Belief in the Books (sent by God)
    * Belief in the Day of Judgment (Qiyamah)
    * Belief in Angels
    * Belief in al-Qadr, (Divine Predestination)
</original>
The last, Divine Predestination is not 'shared' by the Twelver Shias. We believe in neither absolute free will nor absolute pre-destination. Humanity has free-will, but within the contraints set by God. 
God is Just and to punish someone for commiting acts ordained by Him is injustice. BTW, Sunnis do not believe in Divine Justice for precisely this reason...
Hope that helps.
--azaidi
: azaidi, can you please provide sources for your contention?  Note to editors: any attempt to address this should change sections 2.1 and section 10 to keep the two in synch.    --Ibn Raza 16:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Six Pillars of belief is incorrect... 

message: "Some Islamic rituals are similar to pre-Islamic practices from the 
 Arabian Peninsula—in particular, the hajj and three of its associated 
 practices: circling the Kaaba, kissing the Black Stone, and the stoning of 
 three pillars outside Mecca.
These practices were probably left over from Ishmael son of Abraham.???? Abraham had built the first Ka'ba in Mecca.???? Adam ??? Muhammad is a direct descendent of Abraham - WOW - a genealogy of 2500 years" So, the Arab pagans (pre-islam) did the hajj, circling (naked!!), kissing the stone for 2500 year for no reason?? ALL THIS IS A 'BELIEF' - NOT A FACT ; please edit - STAY OBJECTIVE
There is no need to shout or to become angry. The hadith clearly states that men from many countries came to that place to make a pilgrimage; although not an islamic. A. 16:23, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-Islamic practices

message: I've been working on the clothing section and I'm planning a number of pages on religious uniforms/vestments/habits/attire. The only one I've done so far is the Muslim religious dress article. Since I'm not a Muslim, I'm sure the article could use some editing and additions. Please take a look!  Zora 20:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review Muslim religious dress article 

message: This intro sentence seems suspect and Christian-centric:
:Unlike Christianity, Islam has not undergone any period of reformation; however, that is essentially the goal of various liberal movements within Islam.
Reformation links to Protestant Reformation. Which begs the question: why would Islam undergo a very specific historical process that occurred to ONE other religion which was in completely different circumstances to Islam today? Furthermore, Islamic fundamentalism seems more similar to Protestantism then than the liberal movements. Maybe if it linked to the general topic of religious reformism, it would make sense.
Secondly, the paragraph on inclusive/exclusive religions seems unsupported, shallow and utterly biased. I checked both the Christianity and Hinduism pages and neither of them mention their status as either "exclusive" or "inclusive" religions.
-- Style 15:13, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC)
I agree completely that the inclusive/exclusive religions section is very biased, and intended to change it. But lately I am finding that all my edits have been reverted by user 68.94.198.21 - oh well.
I have no idea why reformation was mentioned. However, since it was mentioned, I put in the link to liberal movements in Islam.
 --Zeeshanhasan 18:41, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformation and Inclusive/Exclusive Religions 

message: I took out the disambiguation header for Yusuf Islam because there are many people who have Islam as part of their names (Islam Karimov, Afrika Islam, and Islam Akhun are a few I pulled up in a search) and we don't need to disambiguate all of them here. —No-One Jones (m) 21:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambig header 

message: Someone named Saeed Bak (new to Wikipedia, no user page) has taken out most of the online sources and replaced them with Salafi websites. This is blatant sectarian attack. I'm reverting the article. Zora 10:24, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete replacement of online sources? 

message: We've had at least three attempts in the last 24 hours to replace the external links with ones pointing only to Salafi websites. The users involved, Saeed Bak and 195.235.227.10, are new to Wikipedia, do not have user pages, have not engaged in dialogue, and seem dedicated only to "capturing" the article for their viewpoint. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia myself and am not sure of the best way to deal with this. I'm not sure it's vandalism in progress, so I reported it in Requests for Comment. We've had to do three reverts in the last day; I don't know if this will be enough to discourage them. If anyone else has any ideas for dealing with this, please  pipe up! Zora 18:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent Salafi propaganda attacks 

message: I was just wondering how the Islam chart on the right was added to the page, as the template and text contained in the chart is not present in the "edit this page" text.Pizzahunks 11:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a template; the text  transcludes it into the article. If you want to edit it go to Template:Islam. —No-One Jones (m) 14:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart template 

message: The recent Salafi attempt to hijack many of the links was noteworthy only because they deleted all the other links instead of just adding their own.
The links section seems to me to be growing, as followers of various sects try to stake a claim on the attention of Wikipedia readers. This is eventually going to make the links section worthless as a research tool.
I'd suggest that any links to specific sects, teachers, whatever, be limited to Wikipedia articles specifically devoted to that subject. Links in the main article should either be academic, or for sites and organizations without any pronounced sectarian position. Good general knowledge sites. 
If there are any links to sects or teachers that don't at present have their own Wikipedia articles, we should create the articles. We should make sure that all such articles are connected in some way to the main Islam page, so that no group is featured and no group is shut out.
Any comments? Zora 11:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mirv, thank you for adding the links to the Open Directory. The directory contains most of the links that I had edited out, plus others. It seems to be truly all-inclusive, so is a good resource. This is a great solution!  Zora 21:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. . . but probably only a temporary fix, I'm afraid. This article seems to require merciless link-trimming every month or so. :-) —No-One Jones (m) 21:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing online sources 

message: I am no muslim scholar, but I am suspicious of an anon removing many of the names on the list of the wives of The Prophet. There are only two listed now, I am pretty sure that Muhammed had more than two wives. Someone who actually knows about Islam please check this edit. --</b>metta,  The Sunborn ☸ 05:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Prophet's wives