Talk:Islam/Archive 17

message: I'm going to add the meaning of the word Islam in the first sentence, inside the pronuntiation parenthesis. Any objection?
Well, the meaning that was given in this Talk Page was "Submission (to the will of God)". I really cannot give references for it... --euyyn 15:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look below the introduction, you'll find a section under its own "Etymology" heading. I commented it out and am planning to look over a few sources over the weekend so I can verify its content. BhaiSaab talk 18:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i had a go at attempting to rewrite it but it was more difficult than i had thought, especially as i am still learning the arabic language. i found in the EoI article however that "Islam" is the masdar of the root variation IV (aslama/istisilm; see above lexicon) of the triconsonantal root S-L-M. that's all it says about the etymology, the rest is about the forms and instances of the word 'aslam' that occur in the primary texts. ITAQALLAH 18:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: S-L-M does not always mean 'peace', different variants have different meanings. Islam is from the fourth variant of S-L-M, and is derived from istisilm and aslama which literally means to submit, so "submission to God" is the most accurate rendering here. this is supported by lane's lexicon, as linked to above. ITAQALLAH 18:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Consider editing S-L-M. --Striver 13:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of ethymology 

message: :I oppose this structure. The current structure is fine as it is and need not be added to. In fact, I would suggest that in the current article we delete Islamophobia and Symbols of Islam, which aren't really related to the religion. What do other editors think? Dev920(Mind voting here?) 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have said before that a reduction of "Islamophobia" is needed but now the criticism section is ridiculously long. BhaiSaab talk 17:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to remove the last two paragraphs. It's a perfect example of recentism and mentioning minor characters like Ali Sina whereas significant scholars like ibn Taymiyya or Rumi are not mentioned is not appropriate for this article. BhaiSaab talk 17:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've cut down Salafi, deleted Islamophobia, and am fine with your reductions of Criticism. Your thoughts on Symbols of islam (which seems to exist to say "Islam has no symbols")? Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've reverted that, there needs to be an Islamophobia section, shrunk, maybe, but still present.  Further, the details clipped from the salafi one are the most important.  I'm of the opnion that the salafi one should remain as is, but the sunni one increased (Explain some basics concerning Imam Malik, etc). --Irishpunktom\talk 17:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it need to be there? And what bits of Salafi are important that I deleted?  Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Length 

message: ===Practices/Islamic law===
Should we add Hijab to "Practices"? I think it's a notable practice these days. BhaiSaab talk 18:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sa.vakilian has deleted teh section, so I'm guessing that's a moot point now. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd rather put Jihad, Hijab and other relevant issues under Islam#Islamic law--Sa.vakilian 18:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hijab I think is largely irrelevant to the article, but I would agree that jihad should go in there somewhere. But I don't think it fits udner Islamic Law.Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we resurrect Other Practices, we can put jihad, dietary laws and Islamic calendar in it. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we either delete or merge Islamic knowledge? Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. Islamic knowledge is too important. We can debate about the best position for it.--Sa.vakilian 19:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's evidently not very important if it's a bunch of links. Justify your inclusion first. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sharia isn't a part of Islamic knowledge. It's a part of religion beside beliefs and tariqas.--Sa.vakilian 04:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree - Islamic symbols is not necessary in this article. BhaiSaab talk 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagreements

message: Should we add Hijab to "Practices"? I think it's a notable practice these days. BhaiSaab talk 18:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sa.vakilian has deleted teh section, so I'm guessing that's a moot point now. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd rather put Jihad, Hijab and other relevant issues under Islam#Islamic law--Sa.vakilian 18:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hijab I think is largely irrelevant to the article, but I would agree that jihad should go in there somewhere. But I don't think it fits udner Islamic Law.Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we resurrect Other Practices, we can put jihad, dietary laws and Islamic calendar in it. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Practices/Islamic law

message: I really do not think Islamic knowledge should continue as a section on the article. It is mainly links, breaks the flow of the text and really does not add to the article I think maybe some links added in Sharia could help, but as a section shouldn't be there. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we either delete or merge Islamic knowledge? Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. Islamic knowledge is too important. We can debate about the best position for it.--Sa.vakilian 19:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's evidently not very important if it's a bunch of links. Justify your inclusion first. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sharia isn't a part of Islamic knowledge. It's a part of religion beside beliefs and tariqas.--Sa.vakilian 04:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamic knowledge

message: I've deleted Islamic symbols, and I think the article as it stands, including Islamic knowledge (though I think it needs a better title), is now fine. Does anyone else have any other sections they wish to add? Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 19:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - Islamic symbols is not necessary in this article. BhaiSaab talk 23:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current edit

message: Would anyone be opposed to be giving Salafis once sentence under the "Sunni heading." Right now, I think Salafis are being given too much attention in this article as they are a minority. BhaiSaab talk 23:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 23:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also agree. Sentence should mention Salafis' importance in Saudi Arabia. Itsmejudith 15:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salafiyyah 

message: Please add facts whenever you can , if you want make a good article.--Sa.vakilian 04:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed

message: It looks like there was discussion about merging these and consensus to merge, but no action taken. This should be sorted out quickly before the collaboration on this article finishes. Itsmejudith 15:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tawhid is different from concept of God. It is the concept of oneness of god and his abilities uniquness. Hence both article should exist seperately. However, many things from Tawhid should be moved to Islamic concept of God. --- ALM 16:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "concept of God" have that "Tawhid" does not? How are they different? Examples? --Striver 17:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an unnecessary fork. The two should be merged. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic concept of God and tawhid articles - urgent action needed 

message: I have nominated Islam at the Wikipedia:Article Referencing Drive. It needs three votes to stay, your votes would be appreciated. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 20:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should wait and reevaluate the article after the improvement drive. BhaiSaab talk 20:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article never gain references during an improvement drive. I'm setting up for the next big obstacle (If it wins the reference drive, it will start after the improvement drive has ended). Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 20:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would articles never gain references during an improvement drive? BhaiSaab talk 21:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked through some of the past improvement drives, and drives tend to deal with structure and weak prose, and copyedit, more than reference. This is why I am so concerned that the editors here get some sort of referencing programme going - hence my attempt at a simultaneous referencing drive on Sunday. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 21:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, makes sense. BhaiSaab talk 21:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Referencing

message: Halal and Jihad are two notable aspects of Islam. I'm sure maybe the latter got deleted as a controversial subject, but there are two forms of it afterall. Wiki-newbie 20:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Halal got deleted by Sa.vakilian, although I think it should be in this article. I don't remember Jihad being in this article. BhaiSaab talk 20:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise not sure about Jihad, but why are standard practices "not important to maintain" (as that edit summary said)?  Should they be added?  In a condensed form?PelleSmith 22:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The latter is a minority opinion. BhaiSaab talk 01:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in English it isn't. I Googled the word "jihad", and out of the first 20 related websites, about half were about violence, about half mentioned both meanings, and none were only about non-violence. Compare how Wikipedia treats the opposite word "crusade", which has a similarly duplicate meaning. Several of the first 20 Google entries like this one were strictly non-violent, yet Wikipedia's crusade article is over 90% about the violent sense of the word. Art LaPella 03:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you considered that is because "Jihad" is most often taken as "holy war" in the west? A google search doesn't tell you what scholars think about Jihad Al-Asghar and Jihad Al-Akbar. You will have to read sources about fiqh to find the various opinions on this subject from Muslim scholars.BhaiSaab talk 05:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Jihad is extensively used in Qur'an for military compaign, spiritual Jihad is only inspired by a few hadith only, which are even thought to be doubtful by people like Ibn Taymiyya. I think article Jihad can be useful in this respect. TruthSpreaderTalk 03:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: done! TruthSpreaderTalk 04:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just where did dietary laws and Jihad go? 

message: I'm really happy with the expansion of this article, however, I suggest you guys don't let it go past 80KB. Once an article goes past 80KB, a lot of Featured article candidate reviewers ask that the article be trimmed. Right now it is 72KB so that means we need to prioritize and decide what is critical and what is not critical to this article. BhaiSaab talk 05:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Length 

message: In the last paragraph of Islam#Qiyamah is this:
all men and women will fall unconscious. Muhammad is the first to awake and he sees Moses, who may or may not have awoken prior, holding up the Throne of Allah at the mountain of Tur. On the other hand, those who truly believe in Allah, and are pious, the Al-Ghurr-ul-Muhajjalun, due to the trace of ritual ablution performed during their lives, repent their sin and return to "jannah (the Garden) beneath which rivers flow,". The world is destroyed. The dead will rise from their graves and gather, waiting to be judged for their actions (Qur'an).
A direct transcription/translation of the Qur'an itslef? If it is, could it be made more clear that it is so? I'm wondering, isn't there a style guide somewhere on how to quote printed materiel? --Ohms law 08:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea. I copied it straight from Qiyamah. If you think it should be rewritten, go for it.Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 11:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not from qur'an. I've never heared this before. I prefer to put some first verses from Sura Haj  and Waqia --Sa.vakilian 18:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, you caught me mid edit. I changed the formatting of the text to be block quoted. not knowing (and having been led to beleave otherwise) I added the template for Quran references. I'm clueless as to where to actually look for more appropriate material to reference, however. If you could find an appropriate reference and edit the page Sa.vakilian, I'm sure others would appreciate it. --Ohms law 18:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting passages 

message: what's the procedure for getting a page semi-protected? this is getting somewhat rediculous. --Ohms law 18:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 18:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: anon vandalism. Looks liek one of the admins came along and did sprotect the page. Everyone should note that semi-protection only prevents anon editing. if you have a UN and are signed in, you can still edit the article without problem. --Ohms law 07:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-protect? 

message: A slightly unclear point in my mind which hopefully someone who is more knowledgeable than myself might be able to answer. In the intro the line, "According to Muslim belief, Muhammad was God's final prophet " currently reads "was".... is it more accurate to say "is" thusly, "According to Muslim belief, Muhammad is God's final prophet"? I realize this might seem a minor point but I've seen both ways of expressing this and wondered which was more predominant? Thanks. (→Netscott) 02:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why it is "was". Any ideas? --Djihed 19:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "is" vs. "was"

message: The customs and behaviours, which were discussed in this section, are universally accepted in all Islamic societies around the world. Even so, Sunnis and Shias even agree on these basic customs as part of the religion. I think Ummah wide practice of these customs definitely deserves place on wikipedia. All the customs were taken from a writing of ghamidi, who is a member of Council of Islamic Ideology. TruthSpreaderTalk 04:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: . TruthSpreaderTalk 07:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: ah, i see what you are refering to now. That should certainly be put back, in my opinion. I find that it's removal without any prior discussion is bad anyway, so it should probably be reverted just on general principles. --Ohms law 07:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just curious that how can we improve its presentation, so that the "reason" why it was removed can be addressed. The information can't be changed, as it is already very concise, but maybe the presentation or words. TruthSpreaderTalk 07:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: well, the edit summary for that revision is: (→Customs and behavioral laws -Badly written and with little theological support. Removing customs section.). I believe that the "little theological support" point is very arguable, and you yourself have provided some great counter points. As for the badly written portion, I tend to disagree with that as well. As you said, it is already very concise. perhaps some of the individual points could be rewritten, but those would only be small edit's really.  I'm left wondering if the editor left some other reason for removal unsaid. --Ohms law 08:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done! TruthSpreaderTalk 08:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well! this section is there just because "Dietary laws" are there. It is all about the impact ,what the religion has on its adherents. You've got the point that Bullets are frowned upon. Let me see, if it can be put in a paragraph format. TruthSpreaderTalk 08:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I hadn't realised that it was a reacent addition to begin with. Regardless, I have rewritten the opening of that section and the festivals section. Both are referenced, and do seem to be adding to understanding of the subject in my opinion. Perhaps the materiel should simply be rewritten and even moved into other categories, rather than simply removed? I understand what you are saying Dev920, in terms of this aparently being reacently added, but I'd think that adding without discussion is much preferable to removing without discussion. At least adding information seems to be a constructive act to me. --Ohms law 09:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: the other relevent discussion on this subject is at  Talk:Islam#Just_where_did_dietary_laws_and_Jihad_go? --Ohms law 09:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the bullets. I hope that it looks a little better. TruthSpreaderTalk 09:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: humm, I don't think it is, but i'll leave this up to you and Dev920. --Ohms law 09:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, you've inadvertantly reverted an edit I made to a couple of the ex. bullet points. I think that the manner in which I edited them before you removed the bullets themselves was more natural. The way that the points currently read seems awkward to me. --Ohms law 09:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is conscise, yes, but it is not prose: it is a list. The section needs to be more prosey. :) Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 13:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: * That much I will certainly agree with! --Ohms law 13:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *is it that bad to have a bullet-point list? I don't think any attempt to prosiefy  (yet another addition to the variations from prose :-p) it would make it clearer than a bullet point list. In my opinion either leave it the way it was, or remove it all together :) --khello 04:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to read WP:MOS - "Do not use bullets if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs. If every paragraph in a section is bulleted, it is likely that none should be bulleted." Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 09:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the comments. The list is not implying that whether it is obligatory or recommended, but all of these are coming to us through Sunnah and perpetual adherence of Ummah. :) TruthSpreaderTalk 04:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know, but It might be better to make this also clear. --Aminz 04:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people may think that it is recommended, others like me, might believe that it is obligatory (as stated in hadith literature). Hence I think, we should not discuss that whether these things are obligatory or recommendary. The important point is that there existence in Islamic society is universal, which we all agree. TruthSpreaderTalk 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't know that according to some, these are considered obligatory. Interesting :) --Aminz 05:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is now divided into three sections: Customs (or maybe utterances), hygiene, and burial rituals. TruthSpreaderTalk 10:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say it was brilliant prose, but that's absolutely fine. Nice and prosey. :) Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 10:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Custom and Behavioral laws 

message: --TruthSpreaderTalk 11:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is conscise, yes, but it is not prose: it is a list. The section needs to be more prosey. :) Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 13:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: * That much I will certainly agree with! --Ohms law 13:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *is it that bad to have a bullet-point list? I don't think any attempt to prosiefy  (yet another addition to the variations from prose :-p) it would make it clearer than a bullet point list. In my opinion either leave it the way it was, or remove it all together :) --khello 04:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to read WP:MOS - "Do not use bullets if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs. If every paragraph in a section is bulleted, it is likely that none should be bulleted." Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 09:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the comments. The list is not implying that whether it is obligatory or recommended, but all of these are coming to us through Sunnah and perpetual adherence of Ummah. :) TruthSpreaderTalk 04:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know, but It might be better to make this also clear. --Aminz 04:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people may think that it is recommended, others like me, might believe that it is obligatory (as stated in hadith literature). Hence I think, we should not discuss that whether these things are obligatory or recommendary. The important point is that there existence in Islamic society is universal, which we all agree. TruthSpreaderTalk 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't know that according to some, these are considered obligatory. Interesting :) --Aminz 05:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is now divided into three sections: Customs (or maybe utterances), hygiene, and burial rituals. TruthSpreaderTalk 10:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say it was brilliant prose, but that's absolutely fine. Nice and prosey. :) Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 10:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: People had been adding proselytizing links and I removed them. If you want your site covered, make sure it's in DMOZ. Zora 23:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruned links 

message: Can it be explicitly written on the article that Qur'an needs the interpretation from hadith literature, as it will imply that qur'an is not an independant source. For example, Sources of Islam and Maliki school of thought considers Qur'an and practice of the Ummah to be independant source and hadith to be a dependant source. TruthSpreaderTalk 08:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: . TruthSpreaderTalk 08:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Qur'an as not being independant source

message: I have some recommended reading and source of references for the non-muslims in this group:
The Koran translation by Rodwell at www.gutenberg.org.  It's an old translation, but modern ones tend to get colored by political attitudes.
I would recommend reading the whole thing (it isn't that long), but if you want to start with just a little, I recommend Sura 8 "The Spoils"
AKA "The Spoils of War", and the last Sura in it, Sura 114 "The Table" (a diatribe against other religions).  I also recommend the book "Islam and Terrorism" by Mark Gabriel, if you want to learn a little about how Islam is actually taught and enforced (as mentioned in this article, it's also a political and judicial system, not just a religion).
I also recommend "Islam and Dhimmitude"; this could help clean up the comments about Dhimmi.  Dhimmi status allowed people to survive, and sometimes thrive, under muslim rule, but it had these severe problems for the Dhimmi:
1) They are not allowed to be armed, so their armed neighbors can do with them as they please, and authorities feel no need to protect them.  Also, pogroms occured every few generations when attitudes changed, so Dhimmi populations eventually converted, migrated away, or were wiped out.
2) They must pay Jizya, which wasn't some minor tax; it was supposed to be severe.  Enforcement varied.
3) They must acknowledge the Muslims as their superior, through various ways.
I also take particular issue with "The validity of an Islamic justification for these acts is contested by many Muslims, in particular defying some of the rules of Jihad.".  Many is vague -> does this mean 5% of Muslims?  I might buy that.  Show me a major Islamic figure who has come out stating that the suicide bombings killing civilians in Dar-al-Harb (outside Muslim countries; literally the "House of War") is morally wrong (not stupid, morally wrong, there is a HUGE difference).  The references cited are fringe groups.  Polls in Gaza + the West Bank actually argue that most consider such bombings acceptable, and at one time there was 77% support http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2005/p15a.html.
A more accurate comparison is to compare supposed "fundamentalist" Islam in terms of its acceptance level in the religion more with Orthodox Judaism or observant Roman Catholics -> the Koran calls for Jihad against unbelievers in many different places, and later Suras make clear that this includes Christians and Jews.  I do not claim most Muslims really believe that this is their religious duty, but those polls suggest that it isn't some tiny fraction of the religion -> it is a major branch recognized by most Muslims, and which few Muslims dare condemn.
Another reference of interest for Arab culture, which is strongly tied to Islam because the Koran is in Arabic, and the original considered to be the word of god, and thus untranslateable -> thus devout Muslims learn Arabic, and absorb some Arabic culture in the process:
"The Closed Circle".  It is important to note that the King James Bible is a translation of a translation; the tie between Christianity and Roman culture is thus weaker, and thus most Christians don't see the strength of the Islamic/Arabic tie.
I don't claim that any of this is nice to think about, but Islam is what it is.  Hiding from what Islam really is does a disservice to the reader.  All religions have their differences, and stress different priorities.  Jihad is clearly a major priority of Islam, and if you doubt me, read an accurate translation of the Koran.PeaceThroughStrength 09:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Reading 

message: The story regarding Qiyamah is completely lacking sources. If it is taken from Qur'an or hadith, atleast a reference and a reliable secondary source should be there in the article. TruthSpreaderTalk 10:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it in the Dummy's Guide to Islam... Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 10:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I found it in the Dummy's Guide to Islam... Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 11:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would doubt that dummy's guide to Islam is a WP:RS and WP:V compatible source. Because such sources rely more on popular culture and not on its actual significance in the religion. TruthSpreaderTalk 18:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would strongly recommend removal of this part of the section, which is under discussion as it will not make much difference. TruthSpreaderTalk 19:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you even looked at it? It was written by a Muslim. It's perfectly acceptable as a source.[http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9781592572724,00.html} Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Dummy's guides are definitely not acceptable sources for anything in WP. The encyclopedia would become a laughing stock. Itsmejudith 00:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *That isn't a valid reason not to use "Dummy's guides". The reason outlined by 's earlier are very valid (that the books are more pop culture than reference works). This reply seems to be more of a personal attack, and at the very least is not constructive. --Ohms law 09:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Qiyamah

message: Over the past five days, I think more has been added to this article than was in the past five months. Which is brilliant, because it probably needed it. However, we are now approaching 80kb sizewise, and I think it's time to consolidate what we've added. Aminz has been doing a marvellous job of referencing his contributions, and, as before, I think this is something we need to continue to work on. Additionally, focusing on nice, concise, readable prose should be another goal. Reducing the size of the text without losing facts is important for an FA. I also think that, in a few days, once the article has stabilised, we should renominate for GA. I think it's beginning to deserve it now. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 10:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidation. 

message: The text which I included in resurrection section is completely sourced by peer reviewed sources. Secondly, the information is true regarding Islamic beliefs whether someone believes that sin will earn hell or not. It is Vandalism to remove sourced text. TruthSpreaderTalk 06:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And since when including Islamic beliefs in Islam article constitutes WP:NPOV problem? TruthSpreaderTalk 06:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of sourced text 

message: In addition to grammatical corrections, I changed a quote attributed to Yvonne Hadad and Jane Smith: "May of the details..." to "Many of the details...". I don't have the original book, but it doesn't make sense with "May". The word "consists" is also likely to be a misquote, but I left it alone.
I also corrected (I hope) a Qur'an quote, by matching it more carefully with the link already provided, to 3 translations of chapter 17 of the Qur'an. The words "think that" are in the original scripture according to the Qur'an link, so I added them to Wikipedia. The quote mark I added isn't duplicate - one quote mark is needed to balance a quote mark in the scripture, and the other quote mark ends the entire scripture quote. Also, the scripture quoted is from verse 49 to 52, not 51 to 54 according to the Qur'an link. Art LaPella 07:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for you edits and your edits were helpful. I've put back your edits. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 07:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explaining my edit

message: That is the quote from Truthspreader edit summary. Its unacceptable attitude to neutral encylopedia. The giant quotes are symptom of the problem. Goal is to use the pages to 'spread truth' of Islam. Thats why every sentence saying what WILL happen on judgmenet day. What Allah DOES want and WILL do. Why any neutral language will be invisible behind the GIANT QUOTES from the Qur'an.
Not neutral at all! Instead 'definitely Islam POV'.Opiner 08:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mate! instead of removing a scholarly opinion, why don't you present another opinion from a WP:RS and WP:V compatible source, so as to neutralize it i.e. XYZ says that the descrition presented in Qur'an for judgement is not impressive at all etc. Censoring information is not the way. TruthSpreaderTalk 08:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: SORRY but the quote that Qur'an is 'awe-inspiring' is NOT 'information.'Opiner 08:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "awe-inspiring" is not helpful, quote or no quote. Why (why?!) is it not enough to say "these people believe the Quran is the word of God". If you believe that, of course it will be "awe-inspiring", I cannot quite imagine people saying "bugger, another message from the Old Man, why can't he shut up for a change, or at least keep it brief". Regarding quality of prose, I think it is justified to revert ungrammatical or garbled additions. If you want to contribute to an article, you should at the very least be able to form a coherent sentence in encyclopedic style without relying on other people to clean up after you and salvage what bits of value may have been buried in your edit. This is at least my view in theory. In practice I find it is mostly less bother to clean up after people after all. dab (ᛏ) 11:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: were you referring to me there?Abtract 15:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not at all. dab (ᛏ) 18:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: no, if a person says the shahadah, and internally rejects it, he is technically not a Muslim. he may still be considered a Muslim by other Muslims, because they don't know what he's thinking. a lot of sections still need work. ITAQALLAH 07:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is Islam article, definitely Islam POV will be here plus a few tweaks

message: An entire article on Islam, and not one mention of Hubal or the Crescent Moon in its history?
:Hubal? have you been exposed to any Chick tracts lately? That said, why isn't Islamic symbols linked anymore? dab (ᛏ) 18:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was taking up too much space, and a section entitled "Islamic symbols" that then went on to say "Islam has no symbols, they're left over from the Ottoman empire" seemed rather pointless... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon 

message: A central element in the Koran http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16955http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2800 and Islam as a whole is Jihad.  It should have its own section.  As the article is right now, it barely seems mentioned. (unsigned comments by User:PeaceThroughStrength)
: I think indeed Jihad is very important and this article should have section on it. --- ALM 19:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jihad section? 

message: The article is now 76kb in size. Given that Sikhism is 48kb and Bahai Faith 56kb, we have too much information in this article. I'm going to start removing less important bits of information. I would like to remind everyone that it's not about what is relevant to Islam, as recent discussion on Qiyamah and Islamic knowledge has assumed, but what is important. We need to explain the essence of Islam, and give links for the reader to find out more. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: Can you please add that islam is the fastest growing religion in the world according to http://www.adherents.com. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.156.102 (talk • contribs) 
:I would love to, but it is disputed in Fastest growing religion. TruthSpreaderTalk 04:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added that it is one of the fastest growing, as that seems indisputable. And adherents.com seems to be a reputable website. Itsmejudith 14:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't find your addition in the article! TruthSpreaderTalk 13:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I messed up, an edit conflict I think. I'll try again. Itsmejudith 20:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fastest growing?

message: Women are not equal under Islam, and saying: "Many Muslims counter the claim that only "liberalization" of the Islamic Sharia law can lead to distinguishing between tradition and true Islam by saying that meaningful "fundamentalism", by definition, will eject non-Islamic cultural inventions — for instance, acknowledging and implementing Muhammad's insistence that women have God-given rights that no human being may legally infringe upon."
gives the reader the false impression that women have equal rights to men under Islam.  This implication is explicitly not true, though I also agree with the point that many majority-Muslim countries give women less rights to women than they actually have under the Quran, and that Muhammad brought women more rights than they had before him in arabic societies.
I inserted "limited" to correct the false implication that women have equal rights under Islamic law.  I will reinsert that unless this is clarified or the false implication is removed in some other way.  
Women are explicitly inferior to men according to the Quran, and here are some citiations from Rodwell's translation of the Quran on www.gutenberg.org:
"The divorced shall wait the result, until they have had their courses thrice,
nor ought they to conceal what God hath created in their wombs, if they
believe in God and the last day; and it will be more just in their husbands
to bring them back when in this state, if they desire what is right. And it
is for the women to act as they (the husbands) act by them, in all fairness;
but the men are a step above them. God is Mighty, Wise." -Sura 2 (The Cow1) : 90
Sura 2 again, 91:
"Mothers, when divorced, shall give suck to their children two full years,
if the father desire that the suckling be completed; and such maintenance and
clothing as is fair for them, shall devolve on the father. No person shall be
charged beyond his means. A mother shall not be pressed unfairly for her
child, nor a father for his child: And the same with the father's heir. But
if they choose to wean the child by consent and by bargain, it shall be no
fault in them. And if ye choose to have a nurse for your children, it shall
be no fault in you, in case ye pay what ye promised her according to that
which is fair. Fear God, and know that God seeth what ye do."
Under Islam, men have custody of the children after they are 2 years old in a divorce.
Surah 4 Women:
3: Women are unequal in inheritance; they get half that of men
"With regard to your children, God commandeth you to give the male the portion
of two females; and if they be females more than two, then they shall have
two-thirds of that which their father hath left: but if she be an only
daughter, she shall have the half; and the father and mother of the deceased
shall each of them have a sixth part of what he hath left, if he have a
child; but if he have no child, and his parents be his heirs, then his mother
shall have the third: and if he have brethren, his mother shall have the
sixth, after paying the bequests he shall have bequeathed, and his debts. As
to your fathers, or your children, ye know not which of them is the most
advantageous to you. This is the law of God. Verily, God is Knowing, Wise!
Half of what your wives leave shall be your's, if they have no issue; but if
they have issue, then a fourth of what they leave shall be your's, after
paying the bequests they shall bequeath, and debts.
And your wives shall have a fourth part of what ye leave, if ye have no
issue; but if ye have issue, then they shall have an eighth part of what ye
leave, after paying the bequests ye shall bequeath, and debts."
4: Women are to be executed or permanently imprisoned for "whoredom" but men may be forgiven
"If any of your women be guilty of whoredom, then bring four witnesses against
them from among yourselves; and if they bear witness to the fact, shut them
up within their houses till death release them, or God make some way for
them.
And if two men among you commit the same crime, then punish them both; but if
they turn and amend, then let them be: for God is He who turneth, Merciful!"
5: Captured married women who are enslaved may be raped
"Forbidden to you also are married women, except those who are in your hands
as slaves: This is the law of God for you. "
9: Again, Men are superior, women should be obedient
"Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God hath
gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from
their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the
husband's absence, because God hath of them been careful. But chide those
for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart,
and scourage them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion
against them: verily, God is High, Great!"
This is probably worth adding as part of the article, though probably not with all these citations just because of size.PeaceThroughStrength 17:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add whatever you want to Women in Islam. Then come back here and sum up what you want to put in. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women's status under Islam 

message: I've been staying away from this article, being completely burned out after years of trying to maintain a neutral stance and academic credibility on a battlefield topic but ... I couldn't let the "fastest growing" claim stand in the first para. 
Sure, Muslims make that claim frequently, but I'm not sure it's meaningful.  It can't be interpreted as rate of growth; many of the Christian mega-churches that have mushroomed in American suburbs and exurbs can boast much higher rates. Or for that matter, an storefront church that goes from two members to ten in the space of a year -- 500% growth! So I think that the claim must be that it is adding more adherents every year than any other religion. So far as I can tell, this claim is based on world population statistics. But ... many Third-World Muslim-majority countries have high rates of population growth. All those children are being counted as "Muslims" simply by virtue of being born in a predominantly Muslim country. So, this is something of which Muslims are to be proud? Proof of the validity of Islam? I don't think so. It's a triumphalist claim, one that many religions make. (I did fieldwork in anthropology of religion: I've heard the "fastest growing" claim from Mormons, Bahais, Assembly of God, yadda yadda.) Best to keep such boasts out of the lead para and discuss matters in sober fashion in the demographics section. 
We've been removing this claim from the first para for years. It's WP crab-grass as far as I'm concerned. Zora 21:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The rate of growth issue is highly problematic, and it seems from edits on religion that some people are quite concerned with claiming their religion to have the fastest rate of growth.  I never really understood what the big deal is.  However, since it was brought up here, I wanted to note a couple of things.  None of the statstics referenced on religion for instance, claim that Islam  gains more adherents every year.  Christianity seems to be clearly in the lead there, but Christianity also has a far higher base population.  On the contrary, of the large world religions, Islam does seem to have the "fastest RATE of growth".  If one goes to population growth one can easily understand what a true growth rate is in terms of population.  It is a percentage growth, and the means of growth really don't matter.  Conversion vs. births for instance ... have no bearing on the growth rate.  This isn't a value judgment on what counts as growth but a pure demographic figure.  Are children born to Muslim parents in these afore mentioned countries not Muslims?  Is it because they are not adults?  I've seen this argument before and frankly its a bit disturbing.  But I whole heartedly endorse leaving these population growth claims out of the opening paragraph and perhaps out of the entry all together.  I just want to clarify that it is in fact a "rate" of growth that the claim goes back to.PelleSmith 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastest growing again 

message: I have nominated for GA. I think its good enough now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are too many tags on this article for it to succeed.  --Ideogram 22:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my recollection, they were all placed there for political reasons rather than to improve the article. I have removed them all except the POV tag on the criticism section, which was the result of an actual dispute. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: passes easily. GAs aren't FAs, and this article is close to FA standard. dab (ᛏ) 23:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: Shouldn't the Arabic words in this article be italicized? Azrak 02:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic Words 

message: The article seems very unstable, just take a look at the diff for the article around five or six days ago and the article now, and there appears to of been some edit war, but not being familiar with the article, I don't know everything about the situation. Since its just been nominated i'm not going to fail it or anything, but can anyone elaborate on this, does anyone think there will be any more substantial changes in the near future? Homestarmy 05:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. The substantial changes came in a period of massive change - we realised we didn't need many of the sections that we had, but that some important ones were rather lacking. In addition there was an edit war over the criticism section that has been ended and probably won't resurrect given its main proponent has now left Wikipedia. The ongoing discussion is about what to put into the lead section, but I don't think this really fluctuates, but steadily improves. I figured five or six days without the article changing substantially was stable; does it have to be longer? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just thought it might help anyone who comes to review the article, since they might end up wondering about stability themselves, and it helps when editors involved with the page have an explanation :/. Homestarmy 20:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note about GA Status

message: These three ideas all contradict each another:
'Muslims hold that the message of Islam is the same as the message preached by all the messengers sent by God to humanity since Adam.'
'From a Muslim point of view, Islam is the oldest of the monotheistic religions because it represents both the original and the final revelation of God'
'Islamic texts depict Judaism and Christianity as prophetic successor traditions to the teachings of Abraham.'Opiner 09:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These do not contradict one another. From a Muslim point of view, Islam the religion was founded by Muhammad in a direct line of succession from Abraham. Previous attempts to reveal Islam were corrupted by man and resulted in Christianity and Judaism. Therefore, although Islam is the descendant of Judaism adn Christianity, it is also the oldest rleigion because it was what Allah tried to reveal originally (and, apparently, failed in doing so). Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "and, apparently, failed in doing so" ? What do you mean? Please elobrate unless this is some kind of dumb joke attempt. (216.99.51.244 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've already explained above. There isn't a contradiction: however, the theology involved is very complicated, so someone may wish to consider changing it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "the theology involved is very complicated." That's a gentle way of saying it. Arrow740 23:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The contradictory section

message: I've created a stub called Islamic funeral that needs some information to be added. Hope you guys can help out there. Idleguy 06:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good initiative! --Striver 13:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic funeral 

message: You should read from good sources rather than "Gutenburg Project", which is simply translation of Qur'an and hence a "Primary Source" and also webpages like http://www.ntpi.org/html/womensrights.html doesn't fit as reliable secondary sources. Please use WP:RS and WP:V compatible sources. Thank you! TruthSpreaderTalk 04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding inherence, please read Women in Islam. TruthSpreaderTalk 04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I really liked, when you said that there are many secondary (I think we are talking about reliable) sources which are simply Wrong. Well! The point is very clear, if you will read the Qur'an yourself, you will only see what you want to see. An expert knows that there are other verses as well which gives women equal share in inheritence, although it explicitly depends on your relationship. e.g. a daughter gets half the amount as son, but parents get the same amount and also in kalalah relationship, there is no difference in gender at all. Hence, you have already seen that what kind of problems we can have if it will be allowed to use Quranic verses directly. Cheers! TruthSpreaderTalk 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I completely respect your point of view, but the fact is that we are only allowed to use WP:RS and WP:V compatible sources. And the sources, I put on Women in Islam's Lead section, are written by Non-Muslim scholars who suggest that Qur'an see women as equal. TruthSpreaderTalk 07:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And I will re-iterate, if we will read Qur'an, we will see what we want to see. Only experts know that what this verse means in its context and if there are other verses which suggest something differet. Yvonne Haddad, Professor of the History of Islam at George Town University, says very clearly that this subordination is only in family sphere, which I have already mentioned in women in Islam article. TruthSpreaderTalk 07:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women rights