Talk:Islam/Archive 21

message: Itaqallah, I hadn't meant to revert this edit, only my own attempt to restore the Esposito material about forced conversion being rare - which didn't really work, because the paragraph is about jurisprudence, not practice (and anyhow doesn't say that conversion of dhimmis is required.) However, since I have reverted it, what is the problem that you'd meant to correct?Proabivouac 20:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the first part of the sentence is nowhere to be found in Lewis, even implicitly (from my own reading anyway). the point Lewis is making about the economy was that the majority of economic reliance was upon dhimmis - however, as there was a mass wave of new mawalis (soon outnumbering the Arabs) who subsequently did not need to pay jizya and paid the lowest zakat rates, then this resulted in decreased revenue and increased expenditure. as a result, conversions were at times actually discouraged. the prose in the article doesn't reflect that, and as i was copyediting to trim the text a bit i removed the extraneous point. i also reinserted the information re Abu Muslim, for mawali discontent was only part of the reason for Ummayad destruction. Shi'i resistance to the Ummayads, in alliance with individuals like Abu Muslim, found some support amongst mawalis. ITAQALLAH 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i'll reinstitute that change if you're happy with it. ITAQALLAH 17:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not the knowledge necessary to arrive at an opinion on this, though I may develop one as the situation becomes clearer. My reversion of your material was inadvertent (look at the edit times!)Proabivouac 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Lewis (and other sources on this subject) carefully. The whole point of the existence of mawali was that non-Muslims couldn't convert to Islam merely at will: they first had to find a willing Arab patron who would accept them as clients (mawali). If Lewis is unclear on that point (though in my reading, he is pretty explicit), then probably Hawting is (The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate AD 661-750, p. 4): "Although it can be debated whether the Koran was addressed to all men or to the Arabs only, the Umayyads and the Arab tribesmen who first conquered the Middle East regarded their religion as largely exclusive of the conquered peoples. There was no sustained attempt to force or even persuade the conquered peoples to accept Islam, and it was assumed that they would remain in their own communities paying taxes to support the conquerors. Although from the start there was some movement of the conquered into the community of the conquerors, the separation of Arabs from non-Arabs was a basic principle of the state established as a result of the conquests. This is clear both from the procedure which a non-Arab had to adopt in order to enter Islam and from the fact that there were, from time to time, official measures designed to prevent such changes of status. Islam was in fact regarded as the property of the conquering aristocracy." Beit Or 18:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i see. thanks for the extract. ITAQALLAH 18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Aminz pointed out below (and in his edit), the Esposito cite clearly lists additional reasons for the widespread discontent with the Umayyads, in addition to the situation of the mawalis. Edit-warring to remove this is utterly pointless. - Merzbow 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beit Or's version is closer to Lewis' treatment in The Arabs in History. Arrow740 03:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I split the difference between Lewis and Esposito. That's why multiple cites are listed. - Merzbow 03:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two versions are completely different. Arrow740 04:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: last time i checked, the Cambridge History of Islam also notes a number of reasons. ITAQALLAH 04:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It is important to note that in the early years Islam was only a religion for Arabs (or people closely connected to Arabs). Lewis mentions this in his intro to The Arabs in History. Arrow740 04:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrow, did you read the Esposito cite? He lists the mawali reason first and foremost. There is no justification for removing the other listed reasons as contributing factors. - Merzbow 07:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version also mentions inter-Arab strife as a reason for the Umayyad downfall. There is no need to list all the reasons in the general article about Islam. However, it is very topical and fascinating to note the view of Islam as a religion for Arabs only, which was dominant under the Umayyads, and how it contributed to their overthrow. Beit Or 14:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lapidus mentions the poor Arabs of Khurasan and the Shi'a as significant factions. In fact, he says the revolt was supported "largely by Arabs" (that's a quote), mentioning the mawali second. I've added mention of this, supported by Lapidus. Unless you want to rewrite half the History section to remove all Lapidus material, please let it be. - Merzbow 15:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Umayyads

message: I am busy now but can someone correct Beit Or's selective representation of the significant reasons for the downfall of Ummayad. --Aminz 21:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  --Aminz 03:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective representation 

message: I am a bit confused as to why the phrase about dhimmis being a lower status was removed. How is that POV? Muslim law says they have to pay higher taxes (the jizya), which is plainly discriminatory.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 12:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't infer from fact X (paying of jizya) that Y is the case (they are lower class). This is original research which has no place in WP. If you can find any reliable sources which show that dhimmis were treated as a lower class, then you can include it with the relevant reference. → AA (talk • contribs) — 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops. Sorry about that.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 13:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: All  these kind of edits which are done without references are POV. If you wish to change the use multiple references and do not add your personal views here. They will be reverted back. --- A. L. M. 12:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, such edits are not necessarily POV. However, at least one of them DOES violate WP:NOR, as AA pointed out above.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 13:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dhimmis as a Lower Class

message: Learn about Islam from featured article: "Thus jihad is perpetual in nature; there can, theoretically, be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states, only temporary truces, which can be repudiated as soon as the circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities ".  Woh that is great and sourced too and administrator User:Briangotts even do not allow to take it out .--- A. L. M. 14:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like OR again as the EoI does not make any such statements (and there are no other sources indicated). → AA (talk • contribs) — 15:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added without citing any additional sources and seems to be OR. → AA (talk • contribs) — 15:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the EoI does refer to its perpetuality, but then again the EoI does indeed mention the opinions of eminent, early jurists like Sufyan ath-Thawri who considered the offensive jihad to be mustahab as opposed to wajib. ITAQALLAH 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not ILIKEITPEDIA. Al-Thawri's school of jurisprudence disappeared without a trace about a thousand years ago. Please do not try to bring those views that have good propaganda value instead of those that are dominant. Beit Or 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't see the relevance of your comments, i'm simply mentioning what the EoI itself feels appropriate to mention. ITAQALLAH 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is for suggesting edits to the article. If your comment above on al-Thawri didn't suggest any, it shouldn't have been made. Beit Or 19:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: One thing that's missing here is an short explanation of how the Shi'a view on jihad differs from the Sunni. - Merzbow 17:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent ideas about Jihad 

message: "Recently, some Muslim scholars have said that jihad only obligates warfare of a defensive nature." Maybe so, but this is the general, introductory article on Islam. It must be about the most common views and practices, not on what some (which?) scholars have recently said. A discussion of the whole range of opinions is fine, but please confine it to subsidiary articles. I undertand Merzbow complaint that the next sentence only serves to debunk this one, but, sorry, they can only leave this article together. Beit Or 18:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We might rephrase this by attributing it and avoiding the appearance of taking sides...though I observe that the word "recently" pretty much makes this clear without saying it out loud.Proabivouac 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't made much of a case against it. You just seem to be saying that some classical authorities differed on the level of goodness of offensive war. Arrow740 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if the classical authorities differed as to whether it was mustahab or wajib, they are differing over whether or not it is obligatory. ITAQALLAH 23:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Itaqallah, I've made a very specific point on a specific issue to which you gave no adequate response. Rants like "the focus and tone of your version is misleading and inappropriate" are uncivil and do not help your case at all. Beit Or 19:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beit Or, please spare me the wikilawyering. if you're going to make baseless accusations of incivility, then please do so without espousing your own. ITAQALLAH 23:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't address his points? Arrow740 23:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i've already expressed that the opinion concerning jihad has been covered in the EoI. yet, it's being argued that it's too much for an introductory article. i have also expressed concern with the general tone of the changes made: if this sentence is too much, what on earth are we doing repeating information already in the article - for which most of a section is already dedicated? what are we doing discussing in an introductory section about when and how it's fard kifaya/`ayn, or when the jihad is stopped, or the repudiation of truces, when we neglect discussion even about it's pre-conditions, how it's started, the basic rules of jihad, as well as other more pertinent information? ITAQALLAH 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone whose ancestors' country suffered an Islamic holocaust I can tell you that just who jihadis are supposed to kill is more relevant. Arrow740 05:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: an appeal to emotion is not a valid encyclopedic argument. ITAQALLAH 14:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not an appeal to emotion, but a reasonable comment that the bloodiest conquest in human history is not covered in this article well enough. Beit Or 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's not the point he is making in this particular discussion. ITAQALLAH 19:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must have read some other comment then. Beit Or 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an encyclopedia, not an Arabic dictionary. Just like the word "crusade" in English and many other languages, the word "jihad" in Arabic can refer to lots of things. An encyclopedia entry, however, must cover the Islamic concept of jihad rather than the Arabic word "jihad". Beit Or 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as argued above, jihad as a form of striving to obtain religious perfection is a concept in Islam (as verified by EoI, Esposito, and probably others), and not just an etymological argument. ITAQALLAH 19:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: False, jihad is the effort, which encompasses and is most commonly understood as warfare, aimed at establishing the global domination of Islam. This is what academic sources, including EoI, and works of authoritative Muslim scholars say. Beit Or 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nobody is denying what jihad is commonly understood as, however: . ITAQALLAH 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However what? Please do not make self-referential comments. Beit Or 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Esposito as usual is overly apologetic on these matters, even Lewis says that some modern Muslims use it in a moral and spiritual sense. Britannica splits the difference, saying that "Modern Islam places special emphasis on waging war with one's inner self. It sanctions war with other nations only as a defensive measure when the faith is in danger." Also: "Islam distinguishes four ways by which the duty of jihad can be fulfilled: by the heart, the tongue, the hand, and the sword. The first consists in a spiritual purification of one's own heart by doing battle with the devil and overcoming his inducements to evil." The sentence is clearly supportable. - Merzbow 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: look, no one is denying that "some modern Muslims" may something. The question, however, is about the views that were and are (if no longer, then show me the evidence) dominant in Islam. In addition, no one is saying that Islam can only be spread by the sword, but please go beyond the quotes. Pick any reasonably scholarly text on jihad, and you will see that it's overwhelimngly about warfare: how it commences, how it's funded and conducted, what are the duties of the fighters and ocmmanders, how to divide booty, how to conclude a truce and how long to keep it, what conditions of surrender to demand from infidels etc. By turning the section into a piece on "jihad-is-not-what-you-thought-but-a-spiritual-struggle-for-self-perfection" ths article invades deeply into Esposito's territory. Beit Or 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we know what the primary meaning of jihad is, this is why the section dedicates most of the discussion to its application in jurisprudence - and it makes crystal clear that jihad in the books of all jurists refers to combat. to suggest that the addition of one sentence has turned it into "a piece on "jihad-is-not-what-you-thought-but-a-spiritual-struggle-for-self-perfection"" is a distortion. i referred you to my other comments, because they expressed quite nicely what i wanted to say. ITAQALLAH 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Itaqallah is right on the mark here. The modern concept is notable enough for a one-sentence mention. Your beef is not with us but with the editors of Britannica; they found it notable enough for two sentences (in an article only slightly longer than this section). - Merzbow 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't see it as worth mentioning, but as it's obvious that consensus to remove it will not be achieved, I'll settle for due weight as a footnote to the main idea, which is where it is now. Annoying, but no big deal.Proabivouac 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument that we must imitate Britannica's judgment regarding the due weight issues is self-defeating. As I have pointed out above, the EoI, which is much more scholarly and comprehensive, gives very little attention to this argument, only to dismiss it as apologetics. Beit Or 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the "Islam means peace" red herring, which is similarly mentioned in many sources, we all (including our sources) know it's insubstantial and basically irrelevant, yet many want to include it anyway. I guess it makes people feel good. What can you do?Proabivouac 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "the EoI, which is much more scholarly and comprehensive, gives very little attention to this argument, only to dismiss it as apologetics." -- i don't see its dismissal. the word jihad is frequently used in Islamic discussion (outside fiqhi discourse) to refer to purification (i.e. jihad an-nafs). ITAQALLAH 01:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere have I seen a reliable source claim that "Islam means peace"; the strongest I've seen it put is that the two words share a root. - Merzbow 02:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some recent scholars 

message: If we're going to have one sentence on Islamic rulers of India, it's quite insulting to the memory of the millions of murdered Hindus to have it be "The Mughals were noted for their achievements in art and architecture, exemplified by the Taj Mahal, which Shah Jahan built as a memorial to his wife." Arrow740 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: is this the most pertinent tidbit of information concerning the Mughal empire? ITAQALLAH 23:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a working assumption that all pre-modern empires climbed their way to the top over the bodies of hundreds of thousands. This doesn't excuse the Mughals, but neither does it make them notable for doing such. - Merzbow 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about forced conversions, and death to those who refused. Arrow740 01:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Christians, Jews, etc. all did the same thing. The Catholic and English Protestant have all done  it -- convert or die -- too, I suspect even more recently than the Islamic Rulers of India. I'm not insulted that someone in my lineage was killed because of their beliefs, nor do I care. Thanks, Monkeyblue 06:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're talking about millions of people here, cultural imperialism at its worst, and I'm not excusing any other such brutal acts. Why is it that many whites on WP often need to say that western culture was bad whenever problems with Islam are brought up? Arrow740 07:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know who is "white", Arrow? The above user appears in fact to be blue. I think the reason that people compare the rise of the Islamic with the rise of the Christian states is that the latter was so very much more brutal. Itsmejudith 08:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a misapprehension we need to correct. Arrow740 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Such was definitely not the case in India, which is what Arrow740 is talking about. I'm not certain how important this is to the article, but you'd have to look to Genghis Khan (or the twentieth century) to find something comparable.Proabivouac 19:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to see some references for this in order to judge how and if it should be noted. - Merzbow 23:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, we must include the period of Delhi Sultanate, which is arguably atleast as important as the Mughal empire in every respect. Second, since this is supposed to be the history of religion, it would perhaps be better to talk about developments pertinent to religion instead of art and architecture. Some key ideas include Barelwis, Deobandis, Ahmadis, Chishti Order, Din-i-Ilahi, etc. deeptrivia (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i believe we did have mention of the Dehli Sultanate and some of the basic chronology of the Mughal empire, but much of it was excised to bring the article to < 85kb ITAQALLAH 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would perhaps have been a better idea to take out mention of a memorial someone built for his wife instead. Again, as I mentioned, I think more important than mentioning the ~200 years of Mughal rulers (they lingered on for a bit longer in a nominal sense) and ~300 years of Delhi sultans, and what they did and constructed, is to talk about the religious aspect of this 500 year period. Remember, roughly every third Muslim on Earth lives in South Asia, and their concept of Islam is very much shaped by the historical developments in this region in the last 1000 years. deeptrivia (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's a valid point, i'll provide a link to a previous version which had a bit more about the history in India, but do make any additions you feel would would be productive. ITAQALLAH 02:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mughals 

message: The article states in a few places that Muslims are split roughly 85% Sunni and 15% Shia, as does the article on Shia Population.  However, this article provides no reference for that and the Shia Population article provides a color shaded map as its reference.  I do know that here you can find a citation stating that Shia are just over 7%.  In addition, the Encyclopedia Brittanica 2006 edition states that Shia are "less than 10%".  I think that more research should be done with verifiable sources to help update the article.  There will most likely be a few different estimates, which should all be stated as examples of the differing numerical counts. MezzoMezzo 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deserves looking into (don't have much time myself as I'm on vacation for the next few days). - Merzbow 05:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: "This article will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on 2007-06-23."
Cool. Everyone make special plans to stay available on this day, if you can, to keep an eye on this article. Be careful not to accidentally violate 3RR; only vandalism reverts don't count toward 3RR. - Merzbow 05:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that possible to make it fully protected few days before it apprears on main page? --- A. L. M. 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection gives arguments for and against semi-protection. Given the article normally is quite contentious, I think it would be beneficial to RPP it. Is there a consensus for logging it at RPP? → AA (talk • contribs) — 13:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Full protection is of course impossible for a main-page FA, but semi is logical here. I would consider it very poor form if an admin removed the semi-protection the article has been under for many months. - Merzbow 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's just wait until consistent vandalism gets in. Anonymous users have the right to edit too.--BMF81 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As I had suggested that would be better to be on the main page in a especial day like Eid ul-Fitr. Can you please change the date. I mean 13 October 2007 is a better choice. If another article has been chosen for that day, we can ask Raul to substitute.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  that is a good thinking. :) It will be good to be display on Eid day.-- A. L. M. 07:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it will give the impression that the English wikipedia is celebrating Eid. Arrow740 07:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I don't really mind whether it's put up now or later in the year, I don't think it should be rejected because wikipedia will be seen to be "celebrating Eid." Featured articles are often placed on the main page on significant dates to create interest, eg a cricketer on the day of the cricket world cup final. It is no statement of support or celebration. Recurring dreams 07:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cricket is not controversial. WP cannot be seen to be in support of Islam in any way. Arrow740 07:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And how is the proposal controversial? Or how will wikipedia be seen to "support" Islam? Recurring dreams 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be some kind of official recognition. Arrow740 07:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, how? "Official recognition" that it exists and a certain group of people celebrate it? How is that "support"? Recurring dreams 07:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By making our choices based on the Islamic calendar. Arrow740 07:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And all other choices are made based on the Gregorian calendar. Is wikipedia covertly supporting Catholicism and Pope Gregory XIII? Recurring dreams 07:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, due to western imperialism the Gregorian calendar is now secular as well as religious. The Islamic calender is not. Arrow740 07:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright then, using the calender endorses a secular, non-Islamic and non-whoever doesn't use the Gregorian calender point of view. My point is there's nothing inherently biased in choosing a particular date from a calender. Is it saying the calender is more appropriate and should be implemented? Not really. Recurring dreams 08:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would oppose that as well. Arrow740 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a wise decision. Beit Or 20:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note - if the dispute is resolved before the article was to have gone up, someone please let me know and I'll do some reshuffling in the queue. Raul654 20:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We're gonna be on the main page 

message: I had added By the late 8th century the first collections of Hadith,speaches of Muhammad, were gathered, the first historic books of Muslims were written, the first Madrasas had emerged and different school of theologic thoughts and juriceprodential sects were formd. Then the movement for translation of the books of other culturs began and in the 9th century Abbasid dynasty established House of Wisdom which was the biggest library and translation institute in the Muslim civilization. and Merbow removed it and said sorry to remove this, but it's too much, unsourced, and inaccurate in places 
You can shorten it if it's too much. You can add source because I don't have any English book about this issue. I propose using History of Islamic Philosophy by Henry Corbin. Inaccurate in places!!! No the place is completely correct.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hadith weren't his speeches, they were recorded anecdotes about Muhammad and his close companions that often included his words. I think the history section already sufficiently covers theological disagreements and legal developments better in other places. I don't think the establishment of a library is important enough to mention here. - Merzbow 02:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me but you may misunderstood. So I clarify the issue. In the first century of Islamic history Muslims had been forbidden to write the prophet's Hadith. Since 99 AH they allowed to do so. They began gathering his Hadiths and in the second century numerous collections of these Hadiths were gathered. About 400 collections have been collected by Shia's. At the same time the first historians like Ibn Ishaq and Abu Mekhnaf collected the history of Islam. Ja'far al-Sadiq established a  school in Madina which includes at least 4000 students. Hasan Basri made a school in Basra. The first schools of theological thoughts and jurisprudential sects were formed. House of Wisdom was not just a library like what you're familiar with. It has collected the cultural and intellectual legacy of other civilizations comprising Roman, Greece, Persian, Indian, Egyptian, etc. Unfortunately the story has been written from the middle in this article. There's written The Golden Age saw new legal, philosophical, and religious developments. Islamic law was advanced greatly by the efforts of the early 9th century jurist al-Shafi'i; he codified a method to establish the reliability of hadith, a topic which had been a locus of dispute among Islamic scholars. Philosophers Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Al-Farabi sought to incorporate Greek principles into Islamic theology, while others like the 11th century theologian Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali argued against them.[71] Finally, Sufism and Shi'ism both underwent major changes in the 9th century. Sufism became a full-fledged movement that had moved towards mysticism and away from its ascetic roots, while Shi'ism split due to disagreements over the succession of Imams while it was not the beginning of the cultural and intellectual development. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: They were not forbidden to write it. Even Ibn Hishams text is reported to be based on earlier versions. They were just never collated in one place because of the difficulty and oral nature of the initial/cultural traditions. Everything was quite in the present in a small muslim community, issues when arose when mass migrations, deaths and new converts & generations came around and you couldn't quite pop around the corner to ask anymore.--Tigeroo 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You are right however that the "Golden Age" was important, not only for the philosopical impact in general but especially for its influence on the development of Islamic theology, which definitely requires a mention. I'll see what I can do about making a concise accurately section on it since in principle it remains unopposed.--Tigeroo 13:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intellectual development By the late 8th century

message: I know there is a specific page on Islamic Terrorism but there is surprisingly very little mentioned on this page, and I consider it a major component of Islam past and present.  I think a specific section regarding terrorism, forced conversions, honor killings, etc. ought to be included. Talmage 00:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so too. The muslims diaagree.--SefringleTalk 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not covered sufficiently. In the hadith it is a different matter. Search in this page for "terror." Arrow740 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I consider it a major component of Islam past and present" - you do, academics don't. ITAQALLAH 01:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a single one of them considers Islamic terrorism important at all in today's world? I find that rather difficult to believe.... Homestarmy 01:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's not quite what Talmage asserted. ITAQALLAH 01:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Guys, can we be specific here? Jihad does not necessarily equal terrorism, while forced conversions and honor killings have nothing to do with terrorism at all.Proabivouac 01:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using terrorism against civilians is an innovation and Muslims didn't use this tool. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Muhammad terrorized his opponents in Medina by assassinating many of them. He then killed all the males of the Banu Qurayza with pubic hair and enslaved the women and girls. Don't you think that counts as terrorism? Arrow740 03:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pre-modern warfare was a bitch. Even modern warfare has been quite a bitch. Rules for acceptable treatment of prisoner's of war were vastly different. Plus terrorism is an inherently POV conception. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter or oppressor. It's a case of mutual accusation by antagonistic parties.--Tigeroo 05:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Apparently there is disagreement about the meaning of terrorism. What you've mentioned were military campaigns(Ghazw). --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can argue about whether terroirsm is a part of Islam all day, or we can enter serious discussion. To those who propose putting something like that in this article, please bring forth reliable sources that clearly establish the notability of this in the Islamic faith.Bless sins 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. There should atleast be a section on Islamist terrorism. Talmage, feel free to create a small summary section with a "main" link to Islamist terrorism. This will be a welcome addition to the article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this issue is extremely controversial please write your proposal here and after building consensus add it to the article. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not up to you to give people permission to make additions to the article, Matt57.  You need to seek a consensus first like everyone else. MezzoMezzo 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: absolutely. ITAQALLAH 12:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Presumably, we will also be adding a section to the main Christianity page of a similar type, since there have and continue to be Christian terrorists in many parts of the world. Buyo 13:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism 

message: I believe that Islam means both Peace and Submission. This is debated all over depending on your political views but the overall belief is that it means both, I believe, tell me if I am wrong. I put in that it means both in the article but it is removed why? I think this needs to be discussed. Robert C Prenic 10:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without giving any references I believe Islam means "to make peace" and "to submit".  Some scholars due to recent critism has start using that Islam meaning as Peace. However, traditionally it means to submit your will to one God. Given that I dislike all people who change truth, I will support submission (or both). --- A. L. M. 10:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the overwhelming majority of academic sources say Islam literally means submission. very few would say Islam literally means peace because that's not really etymologically correct. ITAQALLAH 13:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you won't forget that etymology is not the same as the current meaning. The word "Islam" today means the religion. Etymologically it is related to words meaning "submission" and "peace". Perhaps it is etymologically closer to "submission". Itsmejudith 13:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed, Islam can be both a noun and a verb. as a noun, it refers to the religion, as a verb it refers to submission. it is obtained from the root S-L-M; the fourth derivative of which is aslama - from this the word `Islam` is obtained. salam is not related to the fourth variant. Lane's lexicon is a good resource for this. ITAQALLAH 13:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we have 2 conflicting meanings of Islam's roots from these 2 sites: About.com and USC-MSA, which one to believe? ~atif - 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please check google-scholar and google-books. You will find most of the time that Islam meaning is submission. Both sites are agreed on submission and stressing on it too. Traditionally that what it mean but people start stressing on Peace thing, to make western happy. --- A. L. M. 15:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel that USC-MSA is a very genuine site for Islamic text and it removes the misconception that Islam means "peace". However, don't we all agree that secondary root, if not primary, of Islam does mean "Al-salaam" or "peace". Does not it validate that Islam is derived from the word "peace"? ~atif - 15:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A more reliable source is needed, like a book from a scholar. Last time I checked I could only find one such source, which only mentioned the common root in passing. Not notable enough for mention. - Merzbow 15:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The reliability of the USC site depends completely upon the author of the material. The page you cite is unsigned, and was created by unknown members of the politically active Muslim Students' Association.Proabivouac 22:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It clearly refers to the peace that you get following a surrender. Not the best sort. TharkunColl 23:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's clear then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to provide some linguistic evidence demonstrating that.  I'm fairly sure that's not the case, though.  I'll try to get to work on looking that up soon. MezzoMezzo 06:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, don't. As with the moon God nonsense above, there's nothing here but misunderstanding; pursuing it will only prolong the misery of this thread.Proabivouac 06:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning of Islam - Peace and/or Submission

message: Shouldn't we add also link to site that criticize Islam like faithfreedom.org?
I think that site supply a lot of information that Islamic site will never supply and people should know both side of the coin.I mean there should be pro-Islamic links and ant-Islamic links.Oren.tal 12:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism section links to the criticism article, that is enough. faithfreedom.org is not a reliable source. - Merzbow 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a reliable source for criticism. Arrow740 20:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Merzbow faithfreedom.org is reliable source.It is true that it has an agenda but also http://www.islamworld.net/ (Islam page) with you do include .The first one  as an anti-Islamic agenda and the other has an pro-Islamic agenda.If we include the the pro-Islamic why not to include the other.faithfreedom is consider as one of the most important sites about Islam by Richard Dawkins.Richard Dawkins will not consider  unreliable web-site as important if it is not reliable.Second it is also important to include this site here since many people can learn a lot from this site about Islam that they can not learn ion other web-site.That why it is important to include this site here.132.72.41.221 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case another solution would be to remove the islamworld.net site. WP isn't an internet directory. The links should be restricted to unbiased and scholarly resources. Richard Dawkins is not an authority on Islam - I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that he was. Itsmejudith 17:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticize islam 

message: Do you agree to add something about this issue in Islam#Modern times (1918–present)?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting document, which declares invalid any human rights that are in conflict with the sharia, but too minor to be worth mentioning. Beit Or 17:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, with Beit Or, that it is too minor. Jersey John 00:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Beit Or--SefringleTalk 05:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I, too, agree with Beit Or.Proabivouac 05:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree.--Flamgirlant 16:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam]]

message: i found some material of relevance in Reuven Firestone's work "Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam" (Oxford University Press) related to this current dispute. i wasn't actually looking for it, but came across it while looking for something else. anyway (p. 17):
The meaning of jihad
The semantic meaning of the Arabic term jihād has no relation to holy war or even war in general. It derives, rather from the root j.h.d., the meaning of which is to strive, exert oneself, or take extraordinary pains. Jihād is a verbal noun of the third Arabic form of the root jahada, which is defined classically as "exerting one's utmost power, efforts, endeavors, or ability in contending with an object of disapprobation." 14 Such an object is often categorized in the literature as deriving from one of three sources: a visible enemy, the devil, and aspects of one's own self. There are, therefore, many kinds of jihād, and most have nothing to do with warfare. "Jihād of the heart," for example, denotes struggle against one's own sinful inclinations, while "jihād of the tongue" requires speaking on behalf of the good and forbidding evil. 15 ...
(removed large quote from a narration about the varying kinds of jihad)
... Muhammad is also credited with saying: "The best jihād is [speaking] a word of justice to a tyrannical ruler." 17 The qualifying phrase "in the path of God" (fi sabīl Allah) specifically distinguishes the activity of jihād as furthering or promoting God's kingdom on earth. It can be done, for example, by simply striving to behave ethically and by speaking without causing harm to others or by actively defending Islam and propagating the faith. Jihād as religiously grounded warfare, sometimes referred to as "jihād of the sword" (jihād al-sayf), is subsumed under the last two categories of defending Islam and propagating the faith, though these need not be accomplished only through war. When the term is used without qualifiers such as "of the heart" or "of the tongue," however, it is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam (equivalent to "jihād of the sword"), and the merits of engaging in such jihād are described plentifully in the most-respected religious works. 18 Nevertheless, Muslim thinkers, and particularly ascetics and mystics, often differentiate between the "greater jihād" (al-jihād al-akbar) and the "lesser jihād" (al-jihād al-asghar), with the former representing the struggle against the self and only the "lesser jihād" referring to warring in the path of God. 19 
--ITAQALLAH 19:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with "in the way of God", since the sentence is phrased as giving jihad's meaning, not its literal meaning. - Merzbow 03:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Too bad those guys weren't around during Muhammad's time. Arrow740 09:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's refrain from trolling. Such comments do not generate confidence in the assumption of good faith on your part for the purposes of this discussion.--Tigeroo 16:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: One can always fnd some quotes like the two above in a serious book on jihad. However, 99 percent of Firestone's work is about, yes, warfare. Beit Or 20:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a good reason that they mention those aspects, because that is the bigger picture and to put things in context. Just because Firestone and most other editors then proceed to focus themselves on the subset topic that they are interested in exploring, aka the military one does not mean the other part does not exist or is not a significant aspect.--Tigeroo 14:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The above is from Firestone himself. Quite clearly he indicates that there is a lot more to the term, again as supported by other sources I have quoted on this page such as Stephen Humphreys as well. Even when considering the meaning of the term in classical Islam. Jihad being solely warfare is clearly not supported by the sources, they all treat it a sub-set. The sub-section is too narrow in its focus giving undue weightage to one aspect of the term. I thus propose to place the larger context of the meaning in the beginning of the definition of the Jihad section before developing the sub-category of warfare aspect.--Tigeroo 14:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're beating a dead horse. Arrow740 20:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Beit Or 21:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but can you do me the courtesy of explaining your cryptic comments?--Tigeroo 21:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "in the way of God" 

message: Somebody deleted the characterization of Islam as an Abrahamic religion, It must be restored.--BMF81 10:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abrahamic religion 

message: Not an appropriate term for an edit summary. An editor, since banned, accused me of it, and another experienced editor intervened to explain that it is the job of WP to present the facts as described in the good secondary sources, not to condemn or absolve. In which case "whitewashing" can never come into the picture. Itsmejudith 09:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Itaqallah was removing such sourced material. Arrow740 09:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then tell him on this page what the value of the material is. No need for established editors on this page to fall out now when civility has got us as far as FA. Itsmejudith 09:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i had made the proposal to trim the section back to the size it previously was before the unilateral rewrite, and Arrow740 had ample oppurtunity to discuss or object to this proposal. unfortunately, "sourced material" will have to be removed if we are to reduce the current bloating, i removed that which was unduly repetitive, the meaning is still the same. please address each edit individually, substantial blanket reverts with a few words in an edit summary- quite intentionally undoing the uncontroversial edits also- aren't helpful at all, nor sufficient a justification. ITAQALLAH 11:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made my reasoning very clear, and it is correct. Arrow740 20:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: please address the issues with these edits. the removal of repetition does not detract from the meaning, and as such isn't necessary. regarding the sentence about exaltedness, Friedmann associates the rulings directly with the initial principle, as you can see from the extract above. ITAQALLAH 21:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Whitewashing" 

message: First of all, I want to give a hearty "Good job" to all the people who helped this article achieve Featured Status. I like the fact that it is semi-protected, which will prevent most vandals from messing with it. I'll try my best to revert anything wrong, but you people are QUICK, so that could be difficult. MarkBrownMusic 00:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA, eh? Good job 

message: This article contains only one mention of terrorism, when the vast majority of terrorists in the world today are adherents to this religion.  There is no place for bias in wikipedia, and while I am not suggesting that the article say that all muslims are terrorists, lets be fair and at least devote a section to terrorism within islam since it's such a major problem in the world today.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.61.226 (talk • contribs) 
It should be noted that this user is User:Rmisiak, not logged in, as noted here.
:It's covered sufficiently in Islam#Jihad. It's a 1500-year-old religion with a billion followers, so the actions of a few hundred crazies in recent times shouldn't be given undue weight because of bias towards recent events. Also, if you look at List of designated terrorist organizations, you'll see it's not a Muslim majority- these people tend to be spread out evenly in the population.-Wafulz 01:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I most certainly disagree. The most relevant aspect of a religion is its impact on modern society. In the case of Islam, the most relevant aspects of its existence (worldwide) today are violence, human rights violations and terrorism. This article does not even come close to addressing these issues properly. I certainly agree that it is unfair to categorize all Muslims as terrorist as that is completely untrue. However, violence is a major part of this religion's existence and that needs to be addressed. As it should be with all religions, regardless of how old they are or how many followers they have. If we are to paint an accurate picture of Islam, this article needs to increase in its level of criticism and focus more on Islam's impact on the world today.86.157.213.118 02:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you here. The muslims, on the other hand do not, and as a result we cannot say much about Islamic terrorism without this article becomming a POV fork, either for or against Islam, so we are stuck with little said about terrorism. I incourage you to read WP:NPOV.--SefringleTalk 02:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The muslims, on the other hand do not... Oh please, let's not go there. -- tariqabjotu 02:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: (Five edit conflicts later) Well, now you're getting into the realm of original/personal conclusions about both the relevant aspects of religion and what makes Islam relevant. This article has been through several reviews that you should read through. Review one, two, three, four, and five.-Wafulz 02:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe extending the criticism section or expanding the religion's impact on modern society would be contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I have not come to any personal conclusions here, it is simple fact that the violence in Islam is a major aspect of today's society and I feel this should be addressed properly in this article, as to represent a comprehensive overview. 86.157.213.118 02:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but at the same time, adding modern events isn't realistically examining the whole subject with a long-term historical perspective. Similarly, the Crusades are only mentioned once in the article on Christianity.-Wafulz 02:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already addresses the historical aspect of Islam very well. Adding information about the religion's impact on modern society would not detract from this whatsoever. As I stated before, violence should be expanded on with regards to all religions, as it has a substantial impact on our world today. Christianity's violent aspects should also be expanded upon, though that is another discussion. My whole point was that a broader and more complete view of Islam is necessary and current events and modern relevancies would help to accomplish this. 86.157.213.118 02:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To explain more about Islamic terrorism here would be blatant recentism. We have plenty of other articles, including Islamist terrorism, that deal with this topic at great length. -- tariqabjotu 02:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You might want to bring it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion; if there is a consensus there, it might happen, but I doubt there will be agreement to do this.--SefringleTalk 02:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: [outdent] That sort of section would be the epitome of recentism, topped only by a "In popular culture" section of every time The Simpsons, Family Guy, or The Colbert Report has mentioned Islam.  ShadowHalo 03:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is it recentism but most of the claims are inaccurate. The most "relevant aspects of its existence (worldwide) today" are not "violence, human rights violations and terrorism". Nil Einne 09:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: yeah; right.--SefringleTalk 03:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, most everyone seems to agree that this article is hopelessly biased; the only point of contention is if it's biased for or against Islam.Proabivouac 04:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is completely not NPOV; it doesn't even mention my beliefs.  It treats Islam as if it definitely exists, which I thoroughly refute.  I even made my own website about how Islam doesn't exist, per se.  That the article doesn't mention this means it's hopelessly POV.  ShadowHalo 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking?!?! Of course Islam exists. Agoras 05:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you think I was serious?  I was just joking about how everyone is saying it's POV because it's not written from their point of view.  ShadowHalo 06:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: We don't want to have the views on Islam of the average layman here. Christopher Connor 12:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  biased article 

message: what is the basis of this extensive spam of Guru Nanak's musings and thoughts about Islam, from what appears to be a partisan source. it's quite peculiar that such an unbalanced insertion was saved till the Main page appearance, without even a proposal, suggestion or hint on the talk page. i don't think it belongs here.. ITAQALLAH 02:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The author is definitely a reliable source for this information, having been a professor at the Sikh university. I don't see anything controversial here. Guru Nanak was the founder of the major post-Muhammad faith and his generally neutral reactions to Islam are quite notable. Arrow740 02:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The timing is coincidental. That might become more clear to you soon. Arrow740 02:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the timing appears to be quite calculated - we had already worked out the balance for this section through several months of collaboration, and within just over an hour of its main page appearance you insert this adulation without proposing, discussing, or even seek consensus for this substantial insertion (nor explaining your insertion through edit summaries). the source is partisan (as are Nomani and Mubarakpuri, remember?)... let's not be inconsistent in our stance, Arrow. currently, the section is unduly slanted towards Nanak's personal musings. ITAQALLAH 03:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is a reliable one for Nanak's views. I think you're reverting the editor here, not the edit. Arrow740 04:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: partisan sources aren't reliable Arrow. on what basis are Nanak's views notable enough that they merit dedicating that much of the section to what he thinks? the previous version was balanced, and the accepted consensus version. adding substantial, narrowly-focused material to the section unbalances it. ITAQALLAH 04:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The notability of Nanak's views has already been established. The source has been designated as the foremost source on Sikhism by the Sikh temporal authority. Western scholarship on Sikhism is almost nonexistent. I don't see the dispute here as the material appears to be uncontroversial, and I don't understand why you're so adamant about this. Maybe you're upset that this is figure of another religion being discussed in the article about your religion. It could simply be that you are undoing a good edit because I'm the one making it. Arrow740 04:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if there's so few academic sources discussing Sikhism or Nanak's view on Islam, it's a good indicator of the undue weight being assigned here - which, in your version, takes up virtually half of the section. ITAQALLAH 04:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrow740, I'm not certain it was a good idea to insert it at this time without discussionl; nerves are frayed, and as you see edit-warring resulted. There will be lots of time to look at this (or any other issue) after the article is off the main page.Proabivouac 04:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Timing? How is this relevant? Now, please explain how this section is "unduly slanted towards Nanak's personal musings"?--SefringleTalk 04:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: err, just under half of the section related to the numerous religions connected with Islam is about what Guru Nanak personally thinks. the consensus version is balanced and has a fair mention of Sikhism. see WP:UNDUE. ITAQALLAH 04:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sikhism isn't even in the category of Abrahamic religions. --Aminz 04:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though the section isn't titled "Abrahamic religions." It is titled "other religions." There is a difference.--SefringleTalk 04:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What makes you think Sikhism should be given much more weight than all other religions? --Aminz 04:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Aminz, why have you also been restoring User:Agoras's undiscussed changes?Proabivouac 04:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What are you refering to? --Aminz 04:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm referring to this, but you didn't do that in your last edit, so I'm going to guess that, like my restoral of the new Sikhism material, it was in error. All is well. We can take a calm look at the Sikhism material when the article is off the main page.Proabivouac 04:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wanted to remove the quote. --Aminz 05:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new insertion 

message: Just one thing - the fact that something is written somewhere doesn't mean that it's necessarily true. Especially when criticizing people (or there religion), we should make sure to say who says those things, and not just as a footnote, but in the text. In short, use more "according to" and similar devices. Zocky | picture popups 03:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing and attirbution 

message: The Notes section is very large. Please use the template . Then it would much shorter. -- Hermitage17 03:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scroll box 

message: Can all those involved please stop edit-warring on this article while it's on the Main Page? -- tariqabjotu 03:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I would like to revert Aminz' last edit, but without the recent Sikhism addition, which was not discussed prior to this point, and has proved controversial. Alternately, someone else (such as yourself) might do it for me: I've a feeling this may be the blue moon on which I am actually forced to count reverts, there have been several bad-faith reports lately in this space, and I made quite a few productive changes to one section earlier today.Proabivouac 04:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which edit are you talking about? I have removed the Sikhism addition. --Aminz 04:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as I've answered above, your last edit was exactly what I wanted to do - it was the earlier one that bugged me. All is well.Proabivouac 04:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention edit warriors 

message: Karl, once again you have changed the article arbitrarily without refering to the original source . The book is available on books.google.com and you can see what Lewis says --Aminz 07:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karl Meier's edit 

message: This part is weak and wrong. 
The Kharijites are a sect that dates back to the early days of Islam. The only surviving branch of the Kharijites (which was itself divided into numerous sub-sects) is the Ibadi. Ibadism is distinguished from Sunni Islam by its rejection of Uthman and Ali, and from Shi'ism by its belief that the Muslim leader should be chosen on the basis of his faith rather than his ancestry. Ibadi Islam is noted for its strictness, but unlike the Kharijites proper, Ibadis do not regard major sins as automatically rendering a Muslim an unbeliever. Most Ibadi Muslims live in Oman.
This introduction is clearer. 
Ibāḍīs regard other Muslims not as kuffar "unbelievers" (as most Kharijite groups did), but as kuffar an-niˤma "those who deny God's grace...The righteous Imamate is a topic of great importance in Ibadi legal literature.  The Imam should be chosen for his knowledge and piety, without any regard to race or lineage. He should be chosen by the elders of the community, who are also obligated to depose him if he acts unjustly.  
On the other hand Shia doesn't separate knowledge, faith, justice and ancestry. It means that Shia believe their Imams are knowledgeable, just and faithful person who are appointed by God and introduced by the prophet. It means Shia doesn't recognize somebody as Imam just because of his ancestry.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ibāḍīs

message: I know that it was protected before, but is the vandalism so high that new users cannot test-edit? I thought the philosophy behind unprotecting the main page FA was to show that Wikipedia really is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit?-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 09:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On this one article, I think there should be an exception. Given the recent attempted terrorist attacks in the UK, vandalism levels would doubtless be so high that we simply couldn't cope: in addition, this is hardly a vandalism-free article anyway. Cheers, Moreschi  Talk 09:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we just try unprotecting it for, say, half an hour and see what happens?--A bit iffy 11:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that will happen.  This article is already semi-protected from constant IP vandalism, it wasn't on the Main Page a few days ago because of edit warring, and there's edit warring now, even with semi-protection.  Removing the semi-protection would likely just end up as a Bad Thing.  ShadowHalo 12:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the semi-protection. How often have you seen a religious article as a featured article on the main page? Such articles are the focus of a lot of edit warring, POV, and vandalism, and it is a real feat and tribute to Wikipedia that this article made it to the position it is in. My congratulations to the editors that worked on this article. aliasd·U·T 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: More to the point, given events in the UK, I would question the wisdom of making this today's featured article in the first place. It's a bit like waving a red rag at a bull. Nick Cooper 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has been schedule since long time to be featured on July 1. --- A. L. M. 15:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And now we have the first main-page FA article to be fully protected. Was this wise? - Merzbow 17:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably.  The reason for not semi-protecting the TFA is because featured articles can still be improved.  However this article has been discussed ad nauseum to the point that its quality will decline if unprotected.  Even when semi-protected, it's the target of many users pushing their POV and edit warring against the consensus that's built up.  ShadowHalo 23:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is the first time I've ever seen a featured article currently on the main page semi-protected. 

message: I highly appreciate this. Five start for this change of User:Moreschi. --- A. L. M. 17:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: don't you mean "hurray"? ^_^ ITAQALLAH 17:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes. :) --- A. L. M. 17:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurray! 

message: The page is now back at its version as of yesterday, before it went on the Main Page. While you may edit it, I must ask you not to edit war. Anyone who does, I will block for the rest of the day. Fair enough? Moreschi  Talk 18:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - I see no reason for "involved" editors to make substantive edits while it's on the Main Page - there's been plenty of time for these to have been made prior to today. Please stick to vandal reversion. Changes that were made by some of the uninvolved editors were quite useful. → AA (talk • contribs) — 18:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. It's disappointing that so many involved editors felt it was a good idea to make substanial changes today. Even if you're sure that your changes are for the better and you're sure that the changes has been discussed extensively, any involved editor should have noticed by now that most substanial changes are likely to result in a revert war and as such should not be attempted while the article is on the main page (or even a day or two before it) Nil Einne 18:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disappointing, but sadly predictable.Proabivouac 20:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ladies and gentlemen

message: Hi everyone, The Islam article and the opening lines were on the front page today. I read the bit about the root of Islam meaning "to submit". Since the root letters are S-L-M, is it not correct that there is a dual root, i.e. 'silm' (submission) and 'salam' (peace)?
What do we think, has it been discussed before or something? Do I have permission to add this / somebody else add it? Thanks.
--82.46.212.51 19:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam, S-L-M? 

message: "In contrast, liberal Islam is a movement that attempts to reconcile religious tradition with modern norms of secular governance and human rights."
I don't think liberals in this context try to 'reconcile religious tradition with modern norms', since they do away with so many of the core religious traditions. How can a group 'reconcile Islam with the modern era' if they do away with what is in the Qur'an? Surely this is a misleading explanation of what Liberal Islam is?
Thanks.--82.46.212.51 19:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the `reconciliation` is typically done by reinterpreting the primary texts to reach a conclusion in accordance with their own views. i don't think liberal Muslims claim to reject the Qur'an. ITAQALLAH 19:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It takes a special talent for distortion to reconcile the Qur'an and Sunna with the mores of contemporary liberalism (or pacifism, as has been suggested above.) There are some points of agreement, of course - for example both are opposed to racism and caste systems -  but Islam cannot be subordinated to a secular humanistic outlook, or any other human-invented ideology, without losing its vitality and credibility.Proabivouac 03:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Islam isn't yours to define, Proa, it belongs to all the Muslims. I don't see many of them trying to subordinate Islam to any other outlook, but I do see people honestly trying to understand how their religion can bring harmony to their everyday lives. If you look up the websites on liberal Islam you will find them brimming with youthful vitality - as to credibility time alone will tell. Itsmejudith 21:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal Islam 

message: This material is unsourced, POV and irrelevant to the introductory article on Islam. It must be removed. Beit Or 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Gone. Moreschi  Talk 20:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: I'm a little uncomfortable about the intro statement that Muhammad PBOH originated Islam. This is the approach I would take as a historian, but I think it's not right from the standpoint of Islamic theology. Islam is delivered by the prophets and Muhammad is the final, culminating prophet. Most Muslim textbooks seem to present Islam as something present since Creation and in a sense, therefore, Adam is the human founder of Islam. Clearly, there is also a special place reserved for Ibrahim, and probably for Jesus too, in any theological account of the origins of Islam. I don't like adding to the intro. I am not a Muslim and would hate to mess up something that has probably cost a lot of thought and discussion already, so this is just a point for discussion. Might it be better to try for a formulation that Islam was consolidated or crystallized or brought to a definition (perhaps a good word because it carries a sense of finality) in the message of Muhammad?
:I'm not sure what version you're referring to but the current version  seems fine to me. It adequately sumarises the Muslim POV from what I can see "They do not regard Muhammad as the founder of a new religion, but as the restorer of the original monotheistic faith of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.". If this isn't sufficient for you, I believe the issue was discussed in the Muhammad article and the discussion there may be useful for consideration here. Nil Einne 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who originated Islam?

message: also the word islam also means peace, it is derived from the word salam, which also means peace, (but does not have the double meaning to give one-self as islam does), think about the greeting as-SALAMu `alaykum (peace be unto you), also islam is a dervitive of a second word eslim which means to give or give up, im not saying it cant also be a dervitive of aslama (which if im right, i think it should actually be al salama), i dont know enough arabic to say, but i know the other two are right—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.228.206 (talk • contribs) 
:We have discussed this extensively. The scholars never say Islam means peace. It is a myth. Islam means submission.--SefringleTalk 07:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of which, a non-problematic wording suggestion (I don't have permission to edit): change he wording in the introduction from "adherents" to "an adherent", so as to establish grammatical symmetry with "one who submits". 83.254.157.130 07:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Bless sins 20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a simplified version of a point Itaqallah spelt out in full grammatical terms. Itsmejudith 21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam (the word) 

message: The section on denominations of Islam now mentions Sikhism and Hinduism as denominations of Islam. "Sikhism's holy book, the Guru Granth Sahib, contains some writings by Muslim figures, as well as by Sikh and Hindu saints"
What? --Aminz 02:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't say anything about Sikhism and Hinduism being denominations of Islam.Proabivouac 02:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is under the heading of "Denominations/others" --Aminz 02:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sikhism a denomination of Islam??