Talk:Islam/Archive 19

message: We need to make the final push to get this to GA, with an eye to eventual FA. I'm making a word choice/grammar/flow pass over all the text. - Merzbow 06:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I go through, I'm tagging non-trivial stuff that needs sourcing or is improperly sourced with fact. This should be simple to do; if someone can pick these off, I'd be grateful since I just want to focus on the text for now. - Merzbow 07:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done with this; for now I avoided touching the three sections we are thinking about compressing since they may change a great deal anyway. Next task is to make a pass through the references and clean them up again; some minor messiness has accumulated there. Also there remain a handful of fact tags that need sourcing. Finally, someone should make a pass over the images to verify they abide by policy and are all formatted properly in the text (the Dome of the Rock image seems to be too high). - Merzbow 06:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks Merzbow. a peer review after GA would be the way to go methinks. ITAQALLAH 21:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  almost at GA 

message: When referring to God with pronouns, should we capitalize the first letter? Not sure if there is a Wikipedia standard for this. - Merzbow 06:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, definitely not.Proabivouac 06:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was lazy; actually WP:STYLE does explicitly say we should not capitalize the pronouns: "Pronouns referring to deities, or nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, do not begin with a capital letter." - Merzbow 06:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  his/His? 

message: I went through the images looking for license issues. They all look OK, except for one. :Image:Dates.jpeg -  - has been tagged as potentially not being used correctly because of a licensing issue with the stock photo website it came from. This image doesn't seem crucial by any means, so if there are no objections I'll just remove it. - Merzbow 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually like the picture. But we can live without it. --Aminz 03:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it do, but we'll be knocked in GA/FA review for pictures without good licenses. I'll see if there's anything else we can use. - Merzbow 05:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I noticed some editor requested for verification of the quote attributed to Ibn Khaldun (i.e. "Knowledge of the rules of God which concern the actions of persons who own themselves bound to obey the law respecting what is required (wajib), forbidden (mazhr), recommended (mandūb), disapproved (makruh) or merely permitted (mubah).") can someone check it please; source: Levy (1957) p. 150 --Aminz 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was confused about the quote because it originally said "owd themselves", was wondering whether it was supposed to be "owe" or "own", but it looks like somebody clarified it. - Merzbow 07:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the passage was written by myself. i've checked up on it, and yep it says "own"... would you like the extract? ITAQALLAH 12:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I believe you, "own" certainly makes more sense. - Merzbow 17:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levy quote 

message: As discussed above, I've attempted a compression of the "Islamic civilization" section in my sandbox. You can see it in this diff. Also as agreed above, I made sure that all information removed was duplicated in other articles - namely Islamic art and Islamic science (see the article histories). I also added a small bit about poetry from the Islamic world. If people like it, I will migrate the change to the main article. - Merzbow 04:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is better, but see if you can compress it further, maybe remove the sub headings and make the paragraphs slightly shorter. Keep in mind there is a copy of the origional text at Muslim world.--Sefringle 05:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried out your suggestion in my sandbox here; let's call it alternative 2. I'm open to this also because the depromotion saves 3 precious lines of TOC space. - Merzbow 05:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this version, I'll call it Idea 3. I'm a little concerned about the lack of citations, but its dealable for now.--Sefringle 05:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, probably no need for the unpromoted headings at all now. And the "See also" type links won't be missed since I can wikilink them into terms like "Islamic philosophy" (which isn't done completely now). - Merzbow 05:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re one particular reference in Merzbow's new version, the reference to Mintz does not now reflect the source well. Mintz's book is actually about the history of sugar, although in the early part of his account (pp23-29) he does digress into the spread of Arab civilization. An important sentence would seem to be "And many significant crops - rice, sorghum, hard wheat, cotton, eggplant, citrus fruits, plantains, mangoes, and sugar cane - were diffused by the spread of Islam." (p25). The source for this is Watson, A.M. (1974) The Arab agricultural revolution and its diffusion, 700-1100. Journal of Economic History (34(1) pp8-35. This source should be relatively easy to find. Mintz goes on to note "But it was not so much, or exclusively, new crops that mattered; with the Arab conquerors there also traveled phalanxes of subordinate administrators (predominantly non-Arab), policies of administration and taxation, technologies of irrigation, production, and processing, and the impulses to expand production." It may well be that this point too can be found in the Watson article. Good practice would be to reference both sources. Mintz describes on p.26 some irrigation methods that the Arabs spread, but does not mention the windmill. For other articles it may be useful to note that Mintz says that the Arab sugar industry used slavery but slavery became more important when the Europeans took over the industry. Itsmejudith 07:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points... I'll investigate. - Merzbow 07:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah I thought of removing those other sources, it can all be written completely from Lapidus, which I used for some of it. I think after the major work is completed we should make a pass over the article with an eye to rooting out all substandard sources completely. I'm also working on compressing History right now; I finished duplicating all the material into Muslim history. Should have a sandbox proposal out today. - Merzbow 16:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concrete proposal to compress "Islamic civilization" section 

message: Somebody posted a large bit of text in the To Do box - I moved it here instead. - Merzbow 18:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from "To-Do" 

message: Now we have an archive index which help us not to repeat former discussions. Thanks God.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive index

message: Check it out here in my sandbox. First, I merged all the existing text into the Muslim history article, and then shrunk it by about half. I also upgraded the quality of the sourcing. I think after this we'll be good enough for GA (after cleaning up the few remaining fact and clarify tags.) - Merzbow 23:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no immediate objections, I was bold and inserted the revised section. (We are almost below 90KB now!) Comment/edit as you see fit. - Merzbow 05:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: looks good at first glance.. i haven't looked at it in much detail yet. ITAQALLAH 20:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the only thing that i think needs mentioning is that the last section virtually skips ~ 1500-1850, mainly because i had neglected to write an overview on this time period, but anything of note within these periods should probably be mentioned. i also think that the discussion re: oil, Israel etc. is just a little tangental, a good cut-off point IMO would be the formation of protectorates post destruction of the Ottomans. anything else like Islamism probably belongs under the modern movements heading. ITAQALLAH 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add more on the events between 1500-1850. I'll leave out mention of Islamism since modern movements are indeed better covered in the other section. I still think we need to say something about modern history though; the topics of oil and Israel seem to be most notable, but I can keep that to one sentence. - Merzbow 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concrete proposal to shrink "History" section 

message: Have an idea for reorganizing some top-level headers that is kind of major, so I'd thought I'd run it by here first. My idea is to create a new top-level section called "Practices". The "Five Pillars" section would become a sub-section of this (with perhaps some compression). The sub-sections of "Community" would also become sub-sections (with perhaps some compression/merging also). "Islamic law" could also become a sub-section. (Any objections to also including "Jihad"? Though Muslims disagree about how it should be practiced, I think it also classifies as a "practice").
This is how some other major religion articles like Christianity and Hinduism are organized. I think this would make the article much clearer, since the common denominator between the sections I've proposed including above is that they represent Islamic practices that are derived from belief, as distinct from belief itself (and as distinct from cultural topics covered elsewhere). - Merzbow 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Among the five pillars, I think strictly speaking Shahadah (a formal profession of faith) is not a practice. But maybe "Practices and ?" makes it work. --Aminz 07:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: how is "practices and institutions"? --Aminz 07:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A little long maybe... how about "Duties and practices", which emphasizes the importance of the Five Pillars (which Britannica describes as "duties incumbent upon every Muslim"? - Merzbow 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That works for me. --Aminz 03:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for new top-level section "Practices" 

message: Itqallah, I noticed during the compression you removed the following sentence:"The final goal is to break down the barriers between oneself and God, achieving unity (al-fana` fi’llah, "annihilation in God").Trimingham (1998), p.1" Do you think it deserves mentioning in this summary? --Aminz 07:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a nice suitable sentence. Please leave it there.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fana' is a bit too much detail for a bried three-line introduction to be honest, especially as the concept itself is rather intricate, with differences in what exactly it means (as far as i know). ITAQALLAH 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sufism

message: THe artical about islam is simply way to long and should be reduced somehow 
== REduce the page)) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.107.137 (talk • contribs) 
:Believe me, we've tried - it's down from 110KB to 86KB now, and absolutely shouldn't get any bigger. But I think it's at an acceptable size now given the complexity of the topic. We will see what kind of feedback we get in Good Article and Featured Article review. - Merzbow 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduce the page

message: Is the following image copyrighted? It is a nice pic. --Aminz 03:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be OK to use; the image's page says it's from the Wikimedia Commons with a proper license. - Merzbow 04:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyrighted Image? 

message: Aminz, What exactly is this image supposed to show? How does it benefit this encyclopedia article?--Sefringle 05:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is repitative. It shows the distribution of different demoninations of Islam in different countries. Maybe a table containing some statistic would be better.--Aminz 05:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, probably.--Sefringle 05:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll try to find a table. --Aminz 05:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The other images are good though - thanks for finding them. - Merzbow 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you very much for raising this article to GA status. --Aminz 05:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, and likewise; lots of people have made fantastic improvements to this article over the past 6 months. I think we're also very close to the level of quality that would justify asking for a Wikipedia:Peer review in preparation for FA. - Merzbow 06:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Muslim distribution.jpg]]

message: The last sentence is not clear. It should read "They believe that their first Imam, Ali ibn Abi Talib, was explicitly appointed by Muhammad by divine command to be his successor." Also the sentences in that section are really repetitive. Most of them start with "They believe..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.89.228 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; that section does need another round of copy-editing. - Merzbow 19:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shi'a section 

message: I do not know that why we are still waiting. It time to apply for GA status. I think this article is even better written as compared to many feature articles. Please nominate it now.  --- ALM 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Otherwise set a deadline. Let say for seven days and we all spend whole week on it. After a week whatever we have we nominate it. Any comments? --- ALM 19:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it has been nominated. see at the top of the page :-) ITAQALLAH 19:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. That is great. --- ALM 20:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merzbow has done an extremely great job to bring this article to GA status. Thanks to him. --Aminz 20:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please nominate it for GA status now 

message: I think we need to mention that as well. Notable intellectuals of this group include, I guess include Asma Barlas (for works: e.g. see "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an", University of Texas Press) --Aminz 21:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, Asma herself disagrees with the term: Islamic Feminism unless it is defined as "a discourse of gender equality and social justice that derives its understanding and mandate from the Qur’an and seeks the practice of rights and justice for all human beings in the totality of their existence across the public-private continuum.". --Aminz 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this definitely needs a brief mention.Itsmejudith 11:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic Feminism 

message: Merzbow, this is a good source. It is not like Catholic Encyclopedia or Jewish Encyclopedia. Why should we replace it? --Aminz 21:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its focus is Christianity right? I think there are more reliable sources for information about Islam - I'm sure that everything we cite from there can be cited from EoI or Britannica or Esposito also. - Merzbow 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can of course change it if you would like. It might not be the most qualified source, but I don't think it is noticably biased towards Christianity either.--Aminz 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I think we should check who the author of the articles are. But anyways, you are welcome to replace them. One author, Heinz Halm is Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Tübingen--Aminz 22:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia of Christianity 

message: Ruthven is a genuine scholar and recently published Islam: A Short Introduction. It is what it says, a very short and introductory text, but in line with the other sources that we are typically citing here. What do people think about this as a source? The advantage is that the author has had to summarise and therefore this source might be easier to draw on than longer expositions. He may have some summary statements about Islamism, liberal movements, Islamic feminism etc. Itsmejudith 11:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection as long as she has impeccable credentials; for me, the less "scholarly" a book is the more credentialed the author should be to make up for it (since there are literally 101 "Introduction to Islams" floating around Amazon). - Merzbow 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You might be referring to this edit. Wikipedia isn't a platform for proferring original research, nor for that matter peer-reviewed research marginal at best to the article's topic. / edgarde 16:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that came out of left field... that is absolutely not what judith is talking about...? - Merzbow 17:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. I was confusing Ruthven with another author. I'm striking my thoughtless, mistaken comment above. / edgarde 18:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The short article on Malise Ruthven makes it clear, pace Merzbow, that he is male.  What it doesn't say is that the surname Ruthven is, surprisingly, pronounced // (ie to rhyme with "given").  --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: PS You can check this in the snappily-titled List of names in English with non-intuitive pronunciations.  --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malise Ruthven as a source 

message: I don't have an exact source for this, but it is kind of a summary of sourced content in the Muhammad article. Basicly, this section on Muhammad is bias, as it completely ignores Muhammad's military expeditions. We should include at least one sentence saying that Muhammad participated in raids and battles.--Sefringle 03:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some changes in that record; Muhammad's military exploits were underemphasized. - Merzbow 04:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Merzbow, Can you please provide full quote for "While in Medina, he brought many desert tribes under his control either willingly or by force." Thanks. BTW, Muhammad's reforms are also not mentioned. --Aminz 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On p. 27: "Sniffing the wind, Arabian tribes continued to throw in their lot with Muhammad." Those are the "willingly" tribes. On p.28: "Throughout the 8-year struggle, Muhammad had tried to gain control of the tribes in order to subdue Mecca. Missionaries and embassies were sent throughout Arabia, factions loyal to Muhammad were supported, and tribes were raided to compel them to pay allegiance and zakat, the alms tax, to Muhammad." Those are the "by force" tribes. - Merzbow 07:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those tribes were Pagan I persume. Does the text says that? --Aminz 07:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An interesting question. Arrow740 07:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I assume from the text they were pagan, because if they were already Muslim they would already have joined Muhammad's community, and thus wouldn't have needed to be brought under his control. Lapidus also mentions Muhammad's societal reforms as very important, so I put that in. - Merzbow 07:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Merzbow, thanks for adding that. Can you please add the term "pagan" as Muslims didn't force Jews and Christians to Islam. --Aminz 07:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we certain that they must have been either pagan or Muslim? See Himyar. Christians and Jews were expelled during the reign of Umar; by this we can conclude that there was someone to expel.Proabivouac 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am personally certain based on what I know. --Aminz 09:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *i find Sefringle's concern unsupported, and i find little wrong with this version of the section ("During this time, Muhammad preached to the people of Mecca, imploring them to abandon polytheism. Although some people converted to Islam, Muhammad and his followers were subsequently persecuted by the leading Meccan authorities. After 13 years of preaching in Mecca, Muhammad and the Muslims performed the Hijra ("emigration") to the city of Medina. There, with the Medinan converts (Ansar) and the Meccan migrants (Muhajirun), Muhammad soon established his political and religious authority. By 629, he was powerful enough to return to Mecca and assert control in the bloodless Conquest of Mecca. By the time of his death in 632, Muhammad had succeeded in bringing the entire Arabian peninsula under his rule.") - it's not POV for failing to mention expeditions, for it similarly makes no mention of any of the other political avenues pursued. ITAQALLAH 12:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version is better. The previous version is POV for censoring out a major part of muhammad's life. It most certianly does mention his political avenues, as it mentions the Conquest of mecca, and implies that Muhammad never did anything violent to further his goals.--Sefringle 22:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the conquest of Mecca was a military conquest. it doesn't imply anything, i don't see how you arrived at this conclusion. neither his political nor military actions are mentioned with any specificity, for it would result in the section bloating. also, let's refrain from language like 'censoring' please. ITAQALLAH 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Small revision

message: I wish to congratulate the contributors to this article. I have reviewed it for GA (my very first review, and I hope I'm doing it right) and it passed with flying colors. You all really worked hard on it and you deserve congratulations. It is very well cited, very engaging, very extensive, well written, and as NPOV as one can get for an article on relgion. I know little about Islam but I learned a lot from this article. In addition to reading the article I've been looking at the recent edit summaries and the to-do list and I am very impressed in the diligence of the collaborative effort this has been. Alright, now make this article into a featured article.  --Valley2city₪‽ 07:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thanks! I think now we'll list the article at Peer Review as preparation for FA. - Merzbow 08:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Islam. Eventually we'll get comments there, so all interested editors should watchlist the page. - Merzbow 08:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for Itaqallah, Aminz, Merzbow, Itsmejudith, Zora and all of you for your hardwork on this article. :) and congratulations.... --- A. L. M. 09:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With no offense intended to any of the others you've named, Merzbow's was the persistent and level-headed voice that made this happen.Proabivouac 09:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i concur. Merzbow's participation was a significant factor. ITAQALLAH 11:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, thanks very much Merzbow. A special mention also to Itaqallah for attention to detail. Itsmejudith 11:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup. I bet you all. I thanked him in advance :P --Aminz 11:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not yet... the next step is peer review, which I've nominated it for (Wikipedia:Peer_review/Islam). - Merzbow 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Image:Symbol_support_vote.svg|20 px]] Good Article: Passed (congrats!) 

message: I thought the authors of this article would like to hear of this review of the article. In an attempt to judge the reliability of Wikipedia, The Denver post  asked 5 experts to review wikipedia articles, including this one.
The review has the following to say about this article:
:If any world subject is ripe for tampering or acrimony, it would seem to be the Wikipedia on Islam. Yet retired CU religious studies professor Frederick Denny, a 40-year specialist in Islam, was "quite impressed" with Wikipedia's 28-page entry. It looks like something that might have been done by a young graduate student, or assistant professor, or two or three," Denny said. He described the writing as clinical and straightforward, but not boring. Where important translations of Arabic language or fine religious distinctions are required, Wikipedia acquits itself well. "I have a feeling there are very responsible people out there who are making sure this doesn't become" a free-for-all, Denny said. 
Jens Nielsen 15:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we have a thread about it above. It's good to know that people are paying attention outside Wikipedia. :) - Merzbow 17:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  external review of article  

message: A small section on that. I have some quotes at the moment. Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of the New Republic, took part in a debate between Edward Said and Bernard Lewis. Some parts of Edward Said's points were on how Media distorts Islam. His remarks were more of theoretical nature. Then,  Leon Wieseltier started his comments by saying:"I begin my remarks by saying that it is beyond any doubt that there is a disgraceful and almost systematically distorting image of Islam presented in the American media. More often the distortions are about Islamic culture and religion and society than of Islamic politics, and such distinctions must be made." Lewis as the other side of debate with Said said that: "First, a brief word on the remarks made by our two representatives of the media. Yes, of course, it is very easy to find examples of prejudice directed against all parties in the Middle East, and this does not prove that the media as a whole are biased one way or the other, merely that the media’s idea of impartiality is to balance opposing prejudices. And this, of course, is understandable, on television in particular. It makes a much better television than presenting a balanced and reasoned point of view. And we have just seen in the elections which have taken place in this country—where the discussion is not of remote places and foreign people, but of immediate domestic issues—how difficult it is (and most would say impossible) to arrive at any serious or balanced discussion in the circumstances of television and to a lesser extent in the other media." --Aminz 02:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal opinion on such a section is that it has a high potential for bias, and may be a pandora's box to include. Either it will become too anti-islam, or to sympathetic toward Islam, either way would create problems.--Sefringle 03:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds like criticism/response, and thus would belong in the criticism section. - Merzbow 03:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like something that would be more relevant to the Islamophobia article.--Sefringle 03:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. Islam in western media is a perfect topic and doesn't need to be a sub-article of "Criticism of Islam". It is a general topic. If media happens to criticize, then that doesn't mean we should put it under criticisms. --Aminz 05:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's notable, but probably not notable enough for this main article. It would belong in one of the three "Criticism" sub-articles along with a discussion of the "Submission" movie. - Merzbow 05:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why is it that the "depiction" section for Muhammad article is notable but "depiction of Islam in Media" doesn't deserve a section in this article? --Aminz 06:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is too controversial. Either it will be anti-Islam propaganda or Islam propaganda, not much in between. If we're going to get this article to FA status, the last thing we need is a major NPOV dispute.--Sefringle 06:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Because everything else already in the article is more notable than it. We have to pick and choose. What would you have us delete to make room for it? - Merzbow 06:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sefringle, if it too controversial, then it means it is too notable, thus deserves addition. To Merzbow: Do you really think we don't have space to add one small section on this? Really we don't? --Aminz 06:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would wholeheartedly support a section on this in a subarticle. - Merzbow 07:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam in the contemporary Media 

message: I have perused articles for several other major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shinto, Christianity and Judaism) and not one bothers to mention the scientific advances of places in which the religion is widely practiced. Some are far more obviously associated with a single civilization than is Islam, others can boast an even more impressive series of advances, yet evidently no one has thought these remotely relevant except here.Proabivouac 07:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Islam and Science

message: I was told by a muslim friend once, there are 3 ways God communicates with non-prophets;
1)  Vivid or recurring dreams (usually both).
2)  Feeling compelled to do something for absolutely no logical reason and, number 3 is....
He forgot.
Does anyone know what the 3rd way is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.63.78.97 (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about number 2; but finding something in the heart maybe one way. In a broad sense everybody (including animals) is recieving revelation in their daily life. --Aminz 07:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about listening to the advice of your loved ones? Itsmejudith 13:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 3 ways God communicates with people 

message: I think Muhammad's total preaching took 23 years (40 - 63). Merzbow? --Aminz 07:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Esposito (2004) p.17 says 22 years. But he doesn't use the word "preaching", he says "revealed to Muhammad over a period of 22 years". Perhaps he preached one addition year? - Merzbow 08:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dunno. 22 is suspect :P --Aminz 08:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  23 is what I have read too always. I will try to find some source too. --- A. L. M. 08:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Instead of 23, it is better to mention years (40-63). More information in the same space. --Aminz 08:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  22 Years or 23 Years 

message: I suggest to move following in critisum section. It is not a modern movement as such, at least for majority of Muslims. 
"Islamic terrorism refers to acts of terrorism claimed by their supporters and practitioners to further the goals of Islam. It has heavily increased in prevalence in recent decades, and has become a contentious political issue in many nations. There are Muslims and non-Muslims who have spoken out against this claim.[138][139] While these extremist groups sanctify their actions through the Islamic texts, according to Bernard Lewis: "At no point do the basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder. At no point — as far as I am aware — do they even consider the random slaughter of uninvolved bystanders."[140]" ---A. L. M. 09:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are a reactionary byproduct of the current politics. I agree that it is not a modern movement as such. --Aminz 09:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this should probably stay in that section because of its importance; people will claim we aren't being broad enough in our treatment of Islam if we don't mention the problem of terrorism in a modern Islam section.  - Merzbow 16:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a modern movement