Talk:Islam/Archive 18

message: This article has been placed on a 7 day hold. I can see a NPOV dispute in one section and substantial portions of the text not referenced with inline references. Please sort out these issues before a GA review can proceed. Beit Or 20:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you tell us what sections you see a NPOV dispute on?  Criticism?PelleSmith 20:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok that was stupid ... you mean the dispute tag on that section clearly.  I just wanted to be sure there wasn't another possible problem section in terms of NPOV.  Thanks.PelleSmith 21:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I meant. I just want to make it clear that I haven't studied the article in detail, but the issues I mentioned just stand out. Technically, I could fail the article on this basis, but I'd rather see these problems fixed. Beit Or 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: With the issue of references, we're currently the nominated article for the Article Referencing drive, and with all the work everyone has put in over the past few months, there's really only a few paragraphs without references. I think we can deal with this in a week. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I noticed the Non-Muslim views section has been changed to a criticism section "because not all non-Muslim views are critical." The original section did seem to place much emphasis on criticism, but why not expand more favorable views so that the heading "Non-Muslim views" would be appropriate? I hope that makes sense. Tidaress 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is no article "Non-Muslim views of Islam" (and I realise Striver is going to go off and create it immediately now) - there are non-muslim views scattered throughout the article anyway. Additionally, the criticism section has several views by other muslims. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Seeing that the article is long, and that there is no merit to this section at all anyway. A link will suffice. I think the entire section should be shot down. Or at least modified to non-muslim views with accouts criticising and others in favour of the religion. To achieve NPOV both views should be presented. --Djihed 19:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not NPOV either. Zazaban 23:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: Right, lets sort that out then. Does anyone feel that the text in the section is actually POV, or have we settled that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I noticed the Non-Muslim views section has been changed to a criticism section "because not all non-Muslim views are critical." The original section did seem to place much emphasis on criticism, but why not expand more favorable views so that the heading "Non-Muslim views" would be appropriate? I hope that makes sense. Tidaress 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is no article "Non-Muslim views of Islam" (and I realise Striver is going to go off and create it immediately now) - there are non-muslim views scattered throughout the article anyway. Additionally, the criticism section has several views by other muslims. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Seeing that the article is long, and that there is no merit to this section at all anyway. A link will suffice. I think the entire section should be shot down. Or at least modified to non-muslim views with accouts criticising and others in favour of the religion. To achieve NPOV both views should be presented. --Djihed 19:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not NPOV either. Zazaban 23:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I've just been looking through the article for sections that haven't been referenced (I'll write them up later, I've too much work on for a detailed effort now), and it struck me how far this article has come. It is, for the most part, well-written, and in most cases well-sourced. We have really done a good job on this, and I can really see the possibility of it becoming FA this year. Well done guys. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Well done

message: Can someone please help with resolving this dispute by giving you comments Talk:Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_%28expression%29. I will appreciate it. --- ALM 12:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with the dispute 

message: This page is not only written in a 4th grade manner- it also is an unpleasant hodgepodge of apology, attack and proselytization. In short, the whole article needs to be rewritten, and substantially decreased in size.  Frequently, when discussing the beliefs of Muslims, the page treats them as simply true. In this fashion, matters of religion are treated as matters of fact. At times, the page defends the historical veracity of Islam's claims. In particular, the statement that 'Western historians' don't doubt Muhammed's sincerity is unacceptable. Any such attempt to persuade the reader of the sincerity of the Prophet are out of place here, and cannot be reconciled with an objective presentation of the facts. I don't know what should be done with this article. It may be that this is a case where the Wiki format is going to fail due to the sensitivity of the topic. A 'pedia entry should be detached and objective; this entry is a swamp of technicalities, pieties, and innuendo.
Dcowper 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there has been some drastic changes on thr article since I edited it last, I have eliminated every piece of "piety" I could find. There is nothing substantially wrong with this article besides lack of citation (I admit that Western historians thing has concerned me in the past but I have never got around to deleting it). If you continue to have issues with bits of text, rewrite it yourself. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is far from the actual really. There are still all kinds of unresolved disputes about this article. Trying to hide them under the rug and going happy to nominate will do no good in the long term as the arguments will popup again. "There is nothing substantially wrong", so there are some less than substantial wrongs? --Djihed 06:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivity and Quality of Writing 

message: Excuse my ignorance, folks, but I'm not clear what is meant by "ovular discharge" in this section. Perhaps the solution is to abbreviate the section so that it does not go into so much graphic detail. Itsmejudith 09:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lolz! You can put the definition of Janabah in footnote, if you think is more appropriate. TruthSpreaderTalk 15:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do this. Itsmejudith 13:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Customs/behavioural laws 

message: Hello, I'm curious: what would be the most important reason behind the growth of Islam? Was it because the Byzantine/Persian empires were weak and this gave way for Islam to spread? Was the message popular by persuasion or did Islam "spread by the sword"? I mean no offense, but history is what history is, and no offense intended to Muslims and all other institutions that "spread by the sword." Were the early Islamic armies better than their enemies? Were they good politicians? How did they threat new provinces? Thanks. :) --69.210.130.186 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may want to ask this at the Reference Desk. Cheers. — Seadog 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You might like to see article Itmam al-hujjah, especially its last section. TruthSpreaderTalk 13:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would he consult a couple of quotes from the Koran when looking for history? GavinZac 14:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading Quranic quotes is upto him. What I am really asking him is to read opinion of Karen Armstrong. TruthSpreaderTalk 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Reason behind the Rapid Spread of Islam? 

message: I am currently doing a lot of religious studies, and I have to admit, this article is not informative at all. With the Christianity link at least I get a balanced view. This whole article looks like it was written for simply the promotion of Islam, and not the actual reality of Islam. There is little or no true history on Islam here that is of any academic significance.
Please could we have some balanced information in here. Could we also get a real time-line of Islam and its history. Pref. from an objective view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W1z4rd (talk • contribs) 09:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true, but there is also another side to the problem.  There are other editors who will label you an appologist, or a pro-Islamic propagandist if you don't buy into their idea of criticism and what they consider "NPOV".  This article does need balance, but those who have tried to provide it, like Dev920, quite often get fed up and leave.  Its a shame really because Dev920 was doing really good work here.PelleSmith 18:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You can delete this as soon as you want, just an observation 

message: I put a link into the category of Islam and polygamy, which was deleted by a bot.  So, I guess this is a controversial topic that should be put in here first.  Islam teaches polygamy, so I think it should be linked to Category:Religious_organizations_which_tolerate_polygamy.  I am not sure why or if that is controversial, so I submit it here for discussion.  Fundamentaldan 22:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it should be controversial. However you should not say that Islam teaches polygamy but instead you can say it allows it.  --- ALM 16:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is why I put it in that category.  It is religous organizations which tolerate it, not necessarily those which actively promote it.  I understand that there are different thoughts on this topic, depending on the sect or branch of Islam.  Is that correct? Fundamentaldan 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about first looking into Polygamy#Islam section! TruthSpreaderTalk 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, TS!  I appreciate the link.  I did not think of looking under the general polygamy section. Fundamentaldan 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: one problem: i don't think "Islam" qualifies as a religious organisation, unlike the way that the other churches/groups in the cat can be classed as religious organisations. Islam is a religion, and a religious organisation would be an organisation or a group basing its values upon (a) religion. applying the term "religious organisation" to Islam sounds a little awkward. ITAQALLAH 08:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: may i remove the cat if there are no objections? ITAQALLAH 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep. Islam is an organized religion. It is better to have the category of Islam overall marked than to go through every single Islamic organization in Wikipedia and mark them all as teaching polygamy. --Petercorless 09:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Polygamy

message: Why is it dodgy? could you please provide details of why you think it should be deleted, before deleting a whole paragraph contributed by fellow wikipedians? It looks very NPOV and references adequently, so it isn't one of the TODO's, it was submitted like that for nomination and the review didn't address it. There are other things to address, this will create yet more problems, keep the article as stable as possible please until resolving all disputes and issues. --Djihed 17:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I'm fed up with Muslims endlessly coming onto this article and having a go at me for removing POV. Wallow in your own badly written POV mess - I am never going to edit this article again. I'll remove my name from that disgrace of a WikiProject: do you never wonder why you haven't got a single FA or GA, and your members keep getting blocked? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave a message on Dev's talk page, hoping that she will get over her frustration and come back to the page. This is my view on the paragraph. 1) First two sentences are essential information and should stay, unless someone has a reason for them to go that I haven't thought of. 2) Question of the Prophet's sincerity. Though they are written up from an impeccable source, I find that these points read very oddly at that place in the article. The problem is the leap into the question of sincerity. In general, people who say they receive divine revelation, do so sincerely. Take Joan of Arc (who like the Prophet was also a military leader). She said she heard voices and saw visions and historians don't generally doubt that she did. How could modern historians or even contemporaries be in a position to either to prove or disprove it? So I would suggest that the sincerity question is either taken out completely or moved to a different point in the article, perhaps as a reply to criticism of Islam. Itsmejudith 20:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rming Dodgy paragraph? 

message: I know this is usually a subject best left alone--but.  I have just created the "Islam bookshelf on Project Gutenberg.  It should serve to collect all books related to Islam and sort them by author or some other means.  For a good example of a PG bookshelf see the science fiction bookshelf.  I didn't want to just add it ... but, can we all agree that public domain texts about Islam from a reliable and neutral source is a good thing to link to? gren グレン 20:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I worked on some of those books. They're all pre-1923 and none of them are up to current scholarly standards. If readers are sent there, they should be warned that the texts are old and usually inaccurate or prejudiced. If you're interested in the history of Western thought re Islam, they would of course be essential. Zora 20:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: ok so i looked at the GA comments above and decided that the Jihad section did indeed need a bit of a rewrite (and a slight trim). jihad in islamic jurisprudence almost always refers armed warfare, both offensive and defensive (per above and another authoritative source i have provided). more recently there have been those opining that it is merely defensive, and i have tried to represent that too, though the fact remains that the majority of scholarship has always regarded it as both offensive and defensive. i also took out the reference to itmam al-hujjah, as this doctrine by name i have not seen in any of the scholarly works, and basically the way it has been expressed in its article gives the impression that there is no offensive jihad (and if this is intended, then such a doctrine is not supported by the majority it seems). i also removed the apologetic recentism. ITAQALLAH 12:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mine views on Jihad are similar to yours. I feel so bad when some Muslims say that Jihad-Akbar is self-struggle and Jihad is always defensive. For example few people from Tablighi Jamaat. --- ALM 16:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ITAQALLAH can you please also correct this Jihad#Greater_and_lesser_Jihad and look at whole article of Jihad. --- ALM 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the whole Jihad article needs a rewrite.. i thought i'd concentrate on the Islam article because it really should be of GA and hopefully at some time FA status. we have so few GA/FA's in WikiProject Islam, so i thought this would be a nice place to start. ITAQALLAH 18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: what i mean is that when you open the books of jurisprudence, the chapter of jihad is always about the rules of military engagement, what is permitted and what is foribidden, its preconditions, requirements, and so on. of course, jihad has numerous meanings, and scholars have written about varying kinds of jihad. the jurisprudential meaning refers to military activity. ITAQALLAH 07:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Ok. Carry on. ZeroFive1 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrote Jihad sect 

message: Given that the inquisition isn't mentioned on the Christianity page, why is there so much space and time given to the discussion of Terrorism on the Islam page? This really seems quite biased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.150.149 (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism 

message: The size of the article is getting out of control again. It is now 81 kbs long. Is it enough, or we need to trim or expansion? Any ideas? TruthSpreaderreply 12:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we shouldn't worry about size for the moment. there are plenty of huge articles (which are FA) which are so simply because it's necessary in order to cover the entire topic. Islam is a massive topic, i wouldn't be suprised if the article went into the 100kb range, and that's only the non-forkable material. currently, there is still more material needed if this article is to be as comprehensive as it should be. once we've achieved a comprehensive coverage, we can focus on making things more concise if necessary. ITAQALLAH 16:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  size of the article 

message: The article says: "Shi'a jurisprudence holds that hadith is secondary to the Qur'an, disregarding without further inquiries those hadith that contradict or abrogate Qur'anic verdicts. Also, qiyas and Ijma are not used as tools, while logic is. In contrast to Sunni's, Shi'a only follow the Ahl al-Bayt, or family of Muhammad with regards to fiqh, outright rejecting the views of those Muslims who fought with the Ahl al-Bayt."
Well, I think it is not completely true. I think Shias (at least some of them) believe that the interpretation of Qur'an should be understood through Hadith. One striking example(but not the only one) is the verse on Khums; it is clearly in the context of warfare but they generalize it. No doubt anything that makes people to give more charity is good :P but that verse in its immediate context doesn't support it. So, It seems to me that the Qur'an and Hadith are used in a mixture way. --Aminz 15:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hadith 

message: it's a good idea and it's something i was considering implementing. i changed the format just slightly to make it flow better (i hope). i might need to change the heading allocations a bit when i get round to (re)writing up the 1200—1500 period and 1500—, but please feel free to alter them as necessary. ITAQALLAH 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  history section subheadings 

message: I'm trying to put the referencing into a more consistent style. Doing this throws into relief the fact that some points in the article are now seriously over-referenced. This is probably a left-over from edit-warring, when we editors have been trying to convince each other by bringing in authorities, but it is not helpful for casual readers of the article. I can't see that any point really needs more than two references, or three at the most, so if people could help reduce these it would be much appreciated. Thanks.Itsmejudith 16:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. The references do need a technical cleanup like I did to Muhammad; I'll do that first, then over time we'll examine them again from a content-oriented viewpoint. - Merzbow 03:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks. If you have any problem with the technical changes I've been making, please do raise it here. Itaqallah is another editor interested in improving this aspect. Thanks, Arabist, too. Itsmejudith 11:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things to note for now... I'm trying to get the cite:encyclopedia template changed to make the title field optional because I think it's better to put the article name in the notes while having just the encyclopedia name in the References (to reduce duplication of information like publisher, ISBN, etc.). If people prefer this the other way let me know. Also, do people prefer the usage of "last=Smith | first=Joe | authorlink=Joe Smith" or "author=Smith, Joe"? I like the former now because it works "automagically".- Merzbow 18:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll follow any emerging consensus on how encyclopedia references should look, so long as it's consistent within this article and avoids unnecessary duplication. How about in the notes (example) "Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam" and in the references "Encyclopedia of Islam, x, y, z (editors), date, publisher". Like the authorlink magic too.Itsmejudith 12:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, so you would prefer the article name to go first in the note? - Merzbow 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is normal for article names to come first, followed by the volume in which they appeared. In these cases, it is the article which is being cited; a volume is, like a journal, merely a vehicle for publication.Proabivouac 20:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OTT referencing 

message: Watt's claim that historians must accept that Muhammad was sincere in claiming that he received revelations is clearly false, so there is no reason to include it. Similarly, there is no reason for him to conclude that we must all conclude that Muhammad did not create the Quran with his conscious mind. This is rendered even more ludicrous by the fact that Watt himself did not believe the sahih hadith had any value to historians. If he had been present at the time and was a trained psychologist, maybe then it would be worth listening to this. Watt is widely known, but it is clear from these quotes of him alone that his writings should be taken with a grain of salt. Schimmel's statement is more reasonable. Arrow740 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Schimmel's statement that studies indicate that he was sincere is more reasonable than saying all historians must accept that Muhammad was sincere. There is no need to have both and Watt is clearly wrong, so let's keep the Schimmel one. Arrow740 07:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Itaqallah is correct: none of this belongs in this article, which is about Islam, not Muhammad. Islam is (at least) the belief that Muhammad was sincere, and the beliefs that grew around this core assumption. Whether it is true or not is, if not irrelevant, best left to the reader to decide without adding prejudicial and speculative asides from selected scholars (from any direction).Proabivouac 08:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I put in a reworded version of Watt's first statement, but left out the convoluted statement where he psychoanalyzes Muhammad because this is history we're writing, not psychology. I also took out Reeves' statement since Minou Reeves is apparently a linguist, not a historian, so she is not qualified to make grandious statements like "European experts on Islam have concluded...". Lewis or Esposito could get away with a statement like that, but not Reeves. - Merzbow 08:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite her fellowship, Reeves isn't a linguist, but a career diplomat and a translator. This entire thread is irrelevant, and I've removed it. Where there is a debate about Muhammad's sincerity, then there is, but let's not introduce one where none is warranted. There is hardly any discussion of the historical founding of Islam, where it might be considered topical, and even here it would be better to restrain ourselves to the disinterested presentation of facts.Proabivouac 08:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: He is wrong. They don't have to accept it. We don't have to repeat falsehoods. Arrow740 08:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because we're allowed to quote doesn't mean it's always appropriate. Watt is making a very hyperbolic statement here, clearly for effect. He says "must", but his is just one opinion among many nonetheless, so it's more accurate to not quote that part and to say "thinks". Anyways, I think Pro has a point here that there is no need to hammer home the fact that everyone agrees that Muhammad was being sincere in his belief to have received revelations - there is no scholarly dispute over this (apparently), so why dwell on it? Honestly, I am fine either without this section or with a small version of it. - Merzbow 08:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What did the diplomat write about? Arrow740 08:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Reeves is probably marginally notable enough for us to quote her opinion on a specific issue, but she is definitely not notable enough to be used as a source for summarizing other's research. It's one thing to say "I think the sky is blue"; it's a much stronger statement to say that "I think everyone else's research has concluded the sky is blue." - Merzbow 08:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quibble: I wouldn't say sources are to be judged by their notability, rather by their reliability. A young academic's first book could be much more reliable than a non-scholarly lightweight book by a famous author. Academics are meant to be able to summarise the research of others; in the natural sciences and sometimes in the social sciences too there are large-scale reviews of research. What we could look out for is evidence of how much time and attention the academic author has spent on reviewing the research.Itsmejudith 20:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a good site all you guys should visit:  4.159.5.247 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  God exists and Muhammad was his prophet. Watt says it, you cannot deny it! 

message: In the 'Jesus' discussion page there has been some discussion regarding whether that page should be more neutral rather than being slanted primarily toward Christianity. I just set up a poll to gauge opinion as to how the topic should be introduced in that article. If anybody monitoring this discussion wishes to register a vote in that poll please do so.
--Mcorazao 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you know that Voting Is EVIL?? Just kidding.  But this is the wrong article for that.  For what it is worth, I think all articles should be NPOV. Fundamentaldan 15:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll regarding the 'Jesus' article

message: Are muslims allowed to masturbate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SCB '92 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Religious_views_on_masturbation#Islam for detail. --- ALM 16:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masturbation 

message: The discussions above regarding how long the article is becoming made me think a little and thought I might throw out a suggestion on the History section.
Arguably, there are really two things being discussed in the History section (and others), namely the history of the Muslim religion and the political history of the so-called Muslim World. Granted these topics are not entirely independent but they actually are different topics. The history given here actually discusses more of the political history than the evolution of the religion. Since there is an article called "Muslim World" I wonder if it makes sense to move most of this history to that article and focus this discussion on the religion (i.e. how did the different sects evolve, major and minor ones, what changes in thinking about the religion have happened over the centuries and why, etc.). There are a lot of events that, although they had a major impact on lives and government in predominantly Muslim countries, they had minimal impact on the religious thinking. Arguably the same could be done with Christianity as well.
Doing this might save space in this article. Just a thought ...
--192.94.94.105 18:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say that it is a very good suggestion. Although, Islam gives some basic ethics for politics but to the best of my understanding, most Muslims venerate Muslim history (mainly political), which causes many other confusions in religion. I don't know how much other wikipedians are of this opinion. TruthSpreaderreply 07:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's almost impossible to discuss any sort of spread or diffusion of Islam, and Muslim/Islamic history in general, without going into the (internal and external) politics of Islamic caliphates and its expansion. the sect aims to provide a quick overview of Muslim history from the time of Muhammad until pretty much this day. the legal and theological developments of Islam are substantial topics in themselves, and belong under the "Islamic law" and "Beliefs" (or maybe the philosophy sect) sections respectively; similarly, a heresiographical overview belongs in the "denominations" sect. the previous GA nom revealed that the history sect wasn't anywhere near as comprehensive enough in outlining Muslim history, and i generally agree with that. ITAQALLAH 11:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good analysis. - Merzbow 18:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with Itaqallah (although the Thought was welcome as a spur to discussion). But some of the historical sections are difficult to follow for a non-specialist. They could be condensed somewhat, tightening up the writing style, also bringing in some more interpretation and context in a few places (from good authors, of course).Itsmejudith 19:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Thought on History 

message: i was thinking we could put this under the community sect so that it's with "customs and behavioural laws." i was also thinking we could trim it down a little bit and be as concise as possible, so we don't leave ourselves with too much compressing to do when we've had all the content issues sorted out. as soon as i finish the history sect i'll focus on removing as much generally extraneous material as possible. ITAQALLAH 09:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aminz, I hate to say it, but the more you "complete" it, the more contentious it gets. We can't be doing this sort of thing in mainspace. We just can't.Proabivouac 10:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Scratch that, thanks to a revert and some unseemly bullying from User:FayssalF on your behalf, you can do that. Shame about the encyclopedia.Proabivouac 11:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please save accusations and refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Proabivouac. You only can discuss reasons of removing sourced content here. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 16:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethics sect 

message: I find it highly doubtful that there are 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. That estimate is probably from a biased site. It is a common concensus that there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, and we should stick with that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Galati (talk • contribs) 17:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic Population 

message: This section does not belong here as it is. We don't need a summary of rebuddles to criticism here. If anywhere, it belongs at the end of the Criticism of Islam article. This "response" doesn't even fit in with the surrounding content. It has no relevance here.--Sefringle 08:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can have some rebuttal, but that section wasn't appropriate; only the first part of that section is even verifiable, as far as I can tell. - Merzbow 09:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict with merzbow)An article has to present balanced views. so the response to criticism should not be deleted. But i think it's better to be made a subsection to criticism section rather than section. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 09:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A rebuddle is one thing, however in this article, the criticism section is a history and introduction to criticism, and doesn't really bring up any of the actual critical arguements. However arguements are mentioned in the rebuddle. That does not fit well with this criticism section. If a rebuddle is included, it should be a history of the orgins of the responses, and a list of people involved, without actually mentioning the arguement. Either that, or arguements need to be mentioned in the Criticism section.--Sefringle 10:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: We Americans pronounce it like that. Arrow740 16:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good thing editing of this article is being blocked for now. This article is still under attack by people who do not want to establish a neutral POV. I do not see Bahá'í Faith, Christianity or Judaism having POV problems (or implied slogans). - Qasamaan 20:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we're arguing about Christianity's criticism section too on its talk page.... Homestarmy 13:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. However, all the same. I will end the POV disputes by removing the unnecessary elements off the article itself. - Qasamaan 18:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Muslim responses to criticism

message: We really need to cut down. Zazaban 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links. 

message: Why is green the traditional color of Islam? My buddy here is a Muslim and he doesn't know either. Chris 22:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked it up at Flags of the World, where it says "...plain green banner (similar to Libya's) as a broad representation of Islam (said to have been borne by the Prophet Muhammad PBUH), there is not an Islamic flag.
Fatimids ruled most of the North Africa and for some time parts of West Asia. Fatimids belonged to Ismaili sect of Shiites (Shias). They claimed to be descendant of Ali, which has never been accepted by authentic sources. They used a green colored flag as being part house of Ali." Chris 20:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: green in Islam

message: ...is doing a lot of things these days.  It was respecting and now it's claiming.  Pretty impressive for a book.  But, after I saw this edit I realized that no matter how you people want to portray the issue in terms of POV that you've got a bigger problem on your hands: an anthropomorphic book.  We should be talking about how people interpret the Qur'an except in very literal cases where we are citing actual content without interpretation from the book. gren グレン 06:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean?--Sefringle 07:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "respect" cannot be used with a straight face in light of , , , etc. More here:  for those interested. Arrow740 07:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point, both of you, is that the Qur'an is a meaningless book--that is--until humans humans give it meaning.  Some editor had added "The Qur'an respects" and Sefringle changed it to "The Qur'an claims".  Arrow just posted a link to "What the Qur'an Really Says About Violence".  The Qur'an is a collection of Arabic words.  We can use 'says' as an idiom while quoting exactly from the Qur'an.  However, when it comes to the meaning of the Qur'an "Muslims interpret the text".  We are all non-Muslims.  We have no stake in the "true meaning" of the Qur'an.  When we get involved in saying "the Qur'an says" we are involved in saying that certain interpretations of the Qur'an are True.  This is not encyclopedic in the least.  Muslims over the centuries have taken different verses to mean different things.  Sometimes a verse may be important for juristic understanding--sometimes it may not be.  Many of the jurists had lists of a few hundred or so verses that were meant to be made into law.  Not every verse made it into that list and that list is not a stable one.  When Arrow implies that the Qur'an says to be violent against the Jews and Christians he is trying to delegitimize the Muslims who feel that they are meant to be tolerant.  When a Muslim apologist says "The Qur'an says respect Jews and Christians" he is trying to delegitimize the Muslims who want to do otherwise to the two groups.  We are not in the business of telling people the Truth of the Qur'an.  We are here to tell them what Muslims over time believe to be the Truth of the Qur'an.  It is clear that Muslims have used Qur'an verses to justify violence against Christians and Jews.  They are not wrong--they are not right.  And Muslims have used called the Qur'an a guide to pluralism to help link the faiths.  They also are not right or wrong.  We are meant to report what Muslims believe and to portray the predominate beliefs in our article.  Therefore, if there are any polytheist Muslims out there--they are not wrong, they are just unimportant.  So Arrow, when you scoff at respect for Jews in the Qur'an it is meaningless to this article.  Now, if you wish to portray Muslim belief as interpreting the Qur'an as a condemnation of Jews then that is another debate.  We can try to explore how Muslims interpret the Qur'an on the subject of Jews.  But we are not here to debate its meaning--unless you want to cook me up a nice meal and arrange a halaqa. gren グレン 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Gren, you could not be more correct. Proabivouac 07:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Qur'an... 

message: http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/
http://en.fgulen.com/
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cicm
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0027-4909
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/calm
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cjmm
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/15564908.asp
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/ils
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.52.66.10 (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Please make an account an help improving the article. --Aminz 10:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the anon meant or whether it is an issue. Academic journals are normally published by one of the big houses: Brill, Taylor & Francis (=Routledge), Oxford etc. I shall do a quick check that all the of the journals cited here are published by an academic house. If any one of them is not, its standing as an academic journal may be in doubt.Itsmejudith 11:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps  the contributor wanted to provide some useful links for us. I personally liked the links. --Aminz 01:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the info of the accademic journal on this topic included?...such as... 

message: Husain Kassim  in Encyclopedia of religious rites, rituals, and festivals writes:
 The nature of Islamic rituals is different from that of other religions. The rituals in Islam fall under the category of ibada (submissive obedience to God) and form a necessary part of religous worship and practice, as opposed to muamalat(mutual relations amongest humans). Therefore unlike other religions, the main object of religous rituals in Islam is not only to bring the believers spritually closer to God, but also to carry out religious practices as laid down in theory by the Muslim jurists... 
Statements like "The nature of Islamic rituals is different from that of other religions." and "Therefore unlike other religions," seems odd to me. For example, is it different from the Jewish Law in these senses?
--Aminz 01:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an incoherent way of saying Islam is the best religion. Arrow740 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic rituals 

message: *The sources of the section Islam#Political_and_religious_extremism need a clean up. Please note that the Encyclopedia of the Orient is not a very scholarly encyclopedia. It is written by Tore Kjeilen who does not have any PhD degree. The other sources are also better to be replaced with better ones. --Aminz 01:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you're aiming for discussion you should probably add it to Talk:Islam/to do. gren グレン 11:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moved. Thanks --Aminz 09:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do list 

message: Why dont we have a section on anti-islam sentiment or Islamophobia . These things are very much predominant in the western world, much more than anti-semitism . We have criticism section, so I guess the article needs to be balanced a bit. F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 10:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beacuse "Islamophobia" has nothing to do with Islam--it has to do with Muslims.  If you look at Judaism then you have a very short section on persecution... and, regardless of your opinions about who is discriminated against more now, I think it's clear that by virtue of being a minority group for much of its existence that for Judaism (as a religion) it is more important.  I also find the criticism section be be rather worthless, poorly defined, and generally abysmally written. Crone is not a critic of Islam.  She studies the early history and her conclusions differ from orthodoxy.  And a discussion of people who criticize Islam on religious basis would never end.  So, things are bad enough... let's not make them worse.  gren グレン 11:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Islam sentiment

message: Isn't this article kind of long? ΞΞΞ 03:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is because to represent the subject comprehensively it is not possible to write a short article. --- ALM 09:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, the article is getting rather long. as soon as one or two more sects are sorted out, i think there won't be as much article expansion. we can then focus on trimming away as much as is necessary and making things as concise as possible (also doing a few rewrites). as ALM said, the subject is huge, a lot must be covered for the article to be comprehensive. ITAQALLAH 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better to just have sub-articles.--Sefringle 23:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have moved the Islam#Islamic Civilization to Muslim World. It makes more sense there. This section needs a brief summary. This should help shorten the article a little bit.--Sefringle 00:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly oppose with outright removal. I am not saying we shouldn't trim it. But let's source everything and write things down first and then we can decide how to trim it. --Aminz 00:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it, not removed it. It really isn't that relevant to Islam.  But a short summary would be appropiate.--Sefringle 00:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is your view that it is not relevant. Please take a look at other encyclopedic articles on Islam, such as Britannica Encyclopedia. And please don't unilaterally removal material from this article. Thanks --Aminz 00:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you tell me what art, architecture, and acheivements in math and science have to do with religion?--Sefringle 00:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For a featured article, we should be comperhensive. History of Islam, Islamic arts, Islamic architecture, Muslim culture, are all relevant. Were they not relevant, other encyclopedias didn't have that subsection in Islam article. e.g. see the article in Britannica Encyclopedia--Aminz 00:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sections are relevant to "the connection of religion and society in the Islamic world." --Aminz 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The relevance is, however, minimul. It certianly does not diserve as much attention as we are giving to it. At most maybe a paragraph or two would be relevant. It is far more relevant to Muslim world or Muslim society. Religion alone does not necessarily make a culture.--Sefringle 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can trim it later. At the moment, it is not completely sourced. And I don't agree its relevance is minimal. --Aminz 01:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does need to be trimmed, and can you tell me how it is relevant to Islam? Why shouldn't we move it, as Wikipedia:Summary style suggests we should do?--Sefringle 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it already does conform to summary style, the main articles as given in the section headings cover the topics in much greater detail. Islamic civilisation (i.e. Islamic contributions to art, architecture, etc.) is relevant to Islam, its history, its development, its influence, and the societies that lived under it. ITAQALLAH 19:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This section could be further summarized to shorten this already way too long article.--Sefringle 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's already written in comprehensive summary style. why is the article "way too long"? there are plenty of good and featured articles which are larger. ITAQALLAH 00:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example...?--Sefringle 03:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sefringle just can't stand looking at Islamic related achievements in the areas of science and math: most likely a personal issue.206.126.81.88 00:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And as far as consistency is concerned, I think it is improtant to note that there is no section similar to this on Christianity, Judaism, or Buddhism, Sikhism or the Bahá'í Faith. Hinduism is the only other religous article with a section like this.--Sefringle 00:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For "featured" articles, we should have this sub-section. --Aminz 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why? It still needs to be shortened. If the article is too long, it won't get featured either (see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria- 4th criteria and Wikipedia:Summary style#Basic technique).--Sefringle 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said above, we will summerize the sections. But outright removal is not the way to go. --Aminz 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK than write a short summary for the entire section. I agree. A short summary would be relevant, but as much attention as we are giving it right now is too much, especially since this article is so big.--Sefringle 01:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the topic of Islamic civilization is massive, and the section has indeed been written in brief, summary style. i am also rather astounded that you are contesting that Islamic civilisation has little to do with Islam. as we've stated numerous times: we're not too worried about length right now until we get content issues sorted out. furthermore, there are plenty of articles which are huge yet are featured. length becomes a main issue when you're covering things in too much depth. this is the case currently with the Muhammad section and the hadith/sunnah subsections. Islam itself is a massive topic, there should be no surprise if it ends up at around 90kb-100kb when it's done. ITAQALLAH 19:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that is the problem; maybe we should be worried about length. And I contest that it is irrelevant because scientific or cultural discoveries and traditions have very little to do with Islam. That is probably why the Christianity article doesn't talk about the art and culture of the middle ages or early christian discoveries. Most of the other religous articles have no section even remotely like this one either, or give this as much attention as Islam gives to this. --Sefringle 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i don't see any reasonable basis for your contention, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. we don't sacrifice comprehensiveness for length. furthermore, there are plenty of articles which are way over 100kb which are featured or good articles (AIDS, Sound film, Che Guevara, Schizophrenia, The X-Files, The Holocaust, Lyme disease, etc.). so i believe this concern about length is unfounded. as for islamic civilisation, of course it's relevant. maybe you could explain why the major reference-points, such as the Encyclopedia of Islam, Britannica, Cambridge History of Islam etc. discuss Islamic civilisation at good length when discussing the impact/history of Islam in general. in fact, the Cambridge History of Islam has one whole volume dedicated to this topic. we don't need to copy what's in Christianity. you're looking at the topic of Islam far too narrowly as simply a set of beliefs, which is not a comprehensive outlook, nor a one shared by academics. ITAQALLAH 00:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: you should explain why the academic references do not conform to your narrowing down of the topic of Islam. they call it "Islamic civilisation" for a reason. with that kind of fragile reasoning, the "History" section doesn't belong in here, yet, the consensus is that it is essential. the article should reflect what the academic have written about the different facets of Islam, and Islamic civilisation is a significant part of that. you should read the introduction of the Cambridge History of Islam, 2B, for an answer as to how and why Islamic civilisation is directly related to Islam as a religion, as a territory, and as a culture. ITAQALLAH 03:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this section is not history, it is culture. There is a difference. But overall, it is still irrelevant. Culture and religion are often unrelated. This is no exception. I don't know why other sources have this section; my guess is because they have to put it somewhere. And why don't you check if they treat Christinity, Judiasm, and Hinduism in a similar format; it might be they write articles in a different style than wikipedia does. but still, you still haven't explained the relevance of that section, and this article is too long as it is anyway.--Sefringle 03:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Islamic history and Islamic civilisation are two closely related subjects. as Holt says "... Another question which the reader of this work may ask is, 'What are the sources on which knowledge of the history of Islam is based?' The Islamic civilisation of the first three centuries (in this as in other respects the seminal period) evolved two characteristic types of historical writing...", as well as "...Islam, then, as it will be examined in the following chapters, is a complex cultural synthesis, centred in a distinctive religious faith, and necessarily set in the framework of a continuing political life. ...". i don't want to quote further, there are chapters written on this stuff in the same work. as i have explained, the topic of Islamic civilisation is directly relevant to Islam and Islamic history, and the Islamic impact on history - as academics note. i feel that you're providing a stream of interchangable excuses as to why you don't want the section there. furthermore, the article is not "too long", as i have shown. ITAQALLAH 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About those articles, the only one that is about this size is the Holocaust article. And while this section may be relevant to islamic or muslim history, it is not relevant to Islam itself.--Sefringle 04:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  no.. they are all around 100kb and in most cases well over. Islamic civilisation is related to Islam, as per the reasons expained above, and per the fact that it is discussed simultaneously with other aspects of Islam, and per the fact that academics consider it as such. ITAQALLAH 04:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you still didn't answer my question. Do they treat other religions similarly? We need to be consistent.--Sefringle 04:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: whatever they do for other religions is irrelevant. i doubt they say much on other religions anyway, academics qualified in Islamic studies don't speak authoritatively on other religions. the apparent appeal to 'consistency' isn't persuasive. oh.. here's another ref too (Introduction to Islamic Civilisation, Cambridge University Press), "So we have come to the rise of Islam, the faith and culture that has given this vast, disparate, shapeless, often divided area its one common overriding interest...", there's more establishing the same thing, cf the chapter on "The historical background of Islamic civilisation", as well as the rest of the book. as i have stated numerous times, the academic view of Islam is more than a religious dogma, it is "a complex cultural synthesis, centred in a distinctive religious faith, and necessarily set in the framework of a continuing political life". no comprehensive article on Islam can neglect this. ITAQALLAH 04:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and another: "Yet, culturally, another great paradox revealed itself: Islam, with certain clearly defined limits, set its own (as we might say) 'Arab' mark on the western half [of the Middle East]..." ITAQALLAH 05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I checked. It turns out they treat Christianity, Hinduism, and Judiasm the exact same way in Encyclopedia Britainica. (See Christianity P. 262, Hinduism P. 554, and Judiasm P. 429) So we can safely conclude that we are giving special treatment to Islam by having this section.--Sefringle 20:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am refering to the Encyclopedia Britainica and Oxford encyclopedia. And consistency is important, so yes it is relevant. The article can be complete without this, and secondly, it seems like it is just taking up space. Other religous articles don't discuss history of culture. We need to be consistent. But now we are starting to repeat ourselves.--Sefringle 05:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there is no policy or guideline dictating that we regulate what's in one article because of what's in another. you're ignoring the fact that academics include discussion of Islamic civilisation in any comprehensive overview on Islam. it's not "just taking up space", that's a nonsensical objection Sefringle. it has been shown that Islam is directly related to Islamic civilisation. ITAQALLAH 05:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They do the exact same thing for Christianity, Judiasm, and Hinduism, yet we don't. For consistency this section is irrelevant. Either that, or somebody needs to add a similar section to those articles.--Sefringle 20:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i've already stated and substantiated that academics believe that Islamic civilisation is closely relevant to Islam. "Either that, or somebody needs to add a similar section to those articles" if numerous academics and academic publications mention it when talking about the religion, then go for it. as far as i know, Islam is analysed differently by academics, because Islam is assessed as a doctrine, a territorial entity, a culture, and so on. this is exactly what i substantiated above. ITAQALLAH 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They "believe" that because they believe that for every religion. Yet relevance of such a topic in other religions has not been presented in those articles. That is inconsistent. For some consistency, this section needs to go. But as we are getting nowhere, does anyone else have an opinion on this topic?--Sefringle 02:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, i have provided conclusive evidence to the contrary, which you are not addressing. this appeal to consistency is becoming stale: we don't need to imitate other articles, and you refuse to provide any policy or guideline sttaing otherwise. i have provided the quotes establishing its relevance above, and that is sufficient. "They "believe" that because they believe that for every religion."- needless to say, merely reviewing Britannica is inadequate. ITAQALLAH 02:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea we do need to be consistent. We are not going to give Islam special treatment.--Sefringle 02:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the only consistency we apply to all articles is based upon policy and guidelines, your concerns are based on neither. to suggest that covering a key feature of Islam (as proven above) constitutes giving Islam "special treatment" is extremely distasteful. ITAQALLAH 02:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: you're not actually responding to my points: your concerns about consistency and 'special treatment' have no basis in policy. the scholarly extracts above verify that it is a key feature of, and relevant to, Islam. until you bring policy substantiating your point, we have little more to discuss. ITAQALLAH 05:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that some mention should be made of Islamic Art, because Muhammad chose to restrict this form of human expression quite severely. Also, the history of the Islamic states should be covered because Islam is a system of government - I guess "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is the result of tahrif? Otherwise, this section is just poor advertising. Arrow740 05:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: history of the Islamic states is given here: Islam#History. ITAQALLAH 05:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is too long

message: We have pictures of the founders of all the other major religions. TharkunColl 23:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TharkunColl, shall we first sort this out properly on Muhammad? All of the argumentation that is occurring there is essentially going to be equally applicable here and what is the point of spreading it all out? I question your good faith in editing in this regard in view of the fact that you make commentary like this wherein your mention Muhammad's name followed by "(sbuh)". User:Grenavitar warned you that if make such commentary again you'll be blocked. I posit the thought that your editing here and on Muhammad corresponds to such incivility.  00:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So freedom of speech is doomed, then? What do you think "sbuh" stands for?  How can a meaningless string of letters be regarded as uncivil? TharkunColl 00:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF requires that we "assume good faith" but not to the point of stupidity. You know perfectly well what the hell that means. Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech.  00:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do people who slag off Hitler, L. Ron Hubbard, St. Paul, or any other cult founder get threatened with banning? Are we still treating Muhammad differently? TharkunColl 00:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you'll find that the word is spelt scepticism. TharkunColl 00:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added more in the section about aniconism, also mentioning iconoclasm, and citing an external site with more information. I hope that helps innocent and honest questioners as well as deflects ingenuous inquiries. --Petercorless 01:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had wondered whether the section on aniconism and iconoclasm in Islam needed to be broken out into its own section. I raise the question for genuine reflection by those interested. There has been a fair amount of controversy recently about provocations against this proscription, as well as many genuinely curious inquiries. Thoughts? --Petercorless 01:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, I have put this into a section under Art and Architecture called "Aniconism, Iconoclasm and Arabesques". --Petercorless 01:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i think the topic of aniconism and the reasons for it was covered briefly in the arts section anyway really. i think the general summary that no depictions of God exist in Islamic tradition (unlike some other cultures/religions) probably merits mention briefly in the God section. per the GA assessment above, Encyclopedia of the Orient isn't the best source to be using anyway. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 01:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why no picture of Muhammad?

message: This link is pretty interesting.  and also this one  --Aminz 23:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Highly dubious propaganda in my opinion, the research is sponsored by the Aga Khan program of Islamic Architecture whose aims are to promote such notions. Not exactly a reliable source but rather a paid media advertisement campaign. The most that could be said is the craftsmanship is intricate and detailed.--CltFn 07:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is the official webpage of Harvard University . BTW, please source the claim you stated.  --Aminz 07:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its in the reference at the end of the sentence.--CltFn 07:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The math behind the construction of Medieval Mosques 

message: Can I use :Image:Mohammad Rasul Allah.jpg somewhere? Please let me know. Furthermore, there are many other not-used images to add in different Islamic article at my page. Please use them too. Wassalam --- ALM 10:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we use it? 

message: in line with the EoI's summary of the essential beliefs, i intend to reorganise the 'Beliefs' section a little bit. i also aim hopefully trim it down somewhat, especially the Muhammad and Afterlife sections because a lot of the discussion contained therein is a little too intricate and extraneous. ITAQALLAH 17:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok so i did a little trimming and a bit of a rewrite for the beliefs section. just wanted to mention that i removed the text about Western academics' evaluation of Muhammad - that more appropriately belongs in the Muhammad article, i think the sect here needs to be more of an 'introduction'. ITAQALLAH 23:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  beliefs section rewrite 

message: Arrow, We have criticism of Islam section in this article. Also, please don't remove the etymologies  since everybody knowing Arabic knows it is true. --Aminz 08:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Everybody knowing Arabic" isn't a reliable source. Arrow740 09:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more. No sources are mentioned for that claim.--Sefringle 09:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll source that. Sefringle, what do you think of the criticism links at the end of the sections? --Aminz 09:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Please provide the full quote for the Lewis citation. Arrow740 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find the full quote in Criticism of Islam#Modern criticism of Islam and Edward Said#OrientalismSa.vakilian(t-c)--10:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vakilian's edit

message: This part apparently an original research. Please check it as soon as possible and add some references or remove it.Sa.vakilian(t-c)--10:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i suggest a rewrite and a rename to "Demographics". much of the material of substance seems to be concerning demographics, while the rest is speculation over liberalism vs. fundamentalism which we can briefly summarize in the daughter sect which can be renamed to "Modern interpretations" or something like that. ITAQALLAH 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contemporary Islam:Original research

message: This part is completely biased. I changed the title of this section and removed link to Islamic terrorism as the main article. But we should add all political aspects of contemporary Islam not some of them. Sa.vakilian(t-c)--10:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Islamic terrorism is a very notable concept related to Islam. We need to have some reference to it in this article.--Sefringle 02:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Islamism is more moderate article which represents more groups and its NPOV article. We can refer to it as the mane article and readers can find a link to Islamist terrorism in the text.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  One could say Christian terrorism is a very notable concept related to Christianity, its just a silly remark to make. Mikebloke 21:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Islamic terrorism comes up far more in the news though. There is more of a connection betweeen Islamic terrorism and Islam than there is between Christian terrorism and Christianity. At least in terms of notability.--Sefringle 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My dear friend, I remind you that it's an encyclopedia and we don't want to follow news articles. I chose Islamism instead of Islamic terrorism because it's more NPOV and includes more movements. Also the text is more relevant to this title than that one.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sefringle, please avoid recentism. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Encyclopedias present facts. The news is often the source for facts. It is also POV to turn a blind eye to violence in the name of Islam. --Sefringle 17:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said turn a blind eye? Encyclopedias are supposed to be timeless. If someone in 2000 years picks it up and starts reading it (assuming he/she still knows English), then he/she would want everything, not just day-to-day occurrences. In 1400 years of Islam, in the last 50 years there has been an association as such. 1400/50 is 28. That means if we don't want to give undue weight, modern criticisms of Islam should only cover 1/28 (0.78125%) of the subject. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 17:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political and religious relationship:POV

message: It's been a while since I looked at this article. It's not shaping up too bad, but its size is absolutely out of control. Above, I see a complaint that it is a 81k. It is now weighing 116k! Please please remember WP:SS and Wikipedia:main article fixation and cut it down to below 80k. Also, the ToC looks messy, it should be possible to have a clean ToC for a concise summary article (and a summary is all this whole thing should aspire to be). dab (𒁳) 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that we have few things in the article which are not referenced (not very important too). We have two goals reduce size and reference everything. Right? I can delete some less important and non-reference stuff. What you guys think? --- SAndTLets Talk 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the size could be reduced. Rather than delete text, could we in the first instance move it to the relevant sub-articles? Or if it doesn't fit straight into those articles, to the talk pages of those articles? An enormous amount of good collaborative work has gone into the article and we need to ensure it doesn't go to waste. Itsmejudith 18:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: size is a problem, though it can be rectified through trimming and copyediting somewhat as long as the article is comprehensive. glancing at the tags on the article right now, i don't think that the history/civilization sects should be necessarily forked out of the article. the previous GA nom revealed that some areas, such as the history section, were simply not comprehensive enough in summarising 1400 years, and so i've tried to keep that particular sect as close to a brief overview as possible without compromising comprehensiveness. some areas could probably do with trimming, such as the criticism, mosque, islam and other religions, arts sections and others. ITAQALLAH 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think history of Islam section is very good written but it should be half of its current size. It is really long. Islam and other religions should not have subheading and I can cut it to half without removing important points. Art and architecture could also be cut to half. I suggest we save current version URL somewhere and then reduce its size in one-two days. What you think? --- SAndTLets Talk 13:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i've been going by this GA assessment and the current state of the history section at that time. i agreed with Beit Or that the history sect was a little thin and not comprehensive, so i attempted a summary style coverage of Islamic history while aiming for it to be comprehensive enough to meet the relevant FAC. i'll try some trimming of the art/architecture section. ITAQALLAH 14:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i'd also propose ~90kb would be an acceptable size for this subject, especially in consideration of its breadth. ITAQALLAH 14:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: our maximal article size guidlines are not dependent on a topic's "breadth" (or what would you suggest as a suitable size for Earth or Universe?) History of Islam is one click away, and the interested reader can go there for an extremely detailed treatment. This article should give a global overview, yes, but in extreme brevity, just gesturing at the main developments. There is really no reason to duplicate 10k of material already treated in the sub-article. dab (𒁳) 14:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that's a reasonable point. ITAQALLAH 15:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: size, ToC clutter

message: I had added Islam (Bookshelf) at Project Gutenberg to our external links because I feel that it is a great source for books on Islam.  It is full books which means they contain lots of information, I suppose.  It has a decent variety from old scholars to Christian missionaries and I just added a work done by a Muslim to it.  Since links are trimmed rather tight on this page I figured I'd mention it and field objections. gren グレン 09:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Popular section, eh?  I have re-added since it was removed by someone with only a few edits who didn't leave any reasoning.  As stated, feel free to discuss, it, but I'd like a reason of full books online are being removed. gren グレン 18:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gren, I think it is best to use late 20th century sources on Islam on wikipedia.  as a directory in the external links, it is of course fine. --Aminz 23:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i concur, it is a good link to use. ITAQALLAH 00:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Gutenberg 

message: Proabivouac, would you please explain this edit:
--Aminz 08:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't change the meaning, just makes it easier to read. - Merzbow 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tahrif 

message: Arrow, why did you remove the link to Islamic ethics.  . --Aminz 08:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I refer you to my edit summary. It's still linked in the appropriate place in the article. Arrow740 08:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it merits inclusion in the relevant sect, which in this instance is the etiquettes sect. ITAQALLAH 17:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Islamic ethics 

message: I think the hour is near! :) --Aminz 09:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I should take more of an interest in this article. Arrow740 00:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article getting close to FA status 

message: Some rather radical structuring suggestions for discussion at this point, in the lead-up to FA reapplication:
1. Shouldn't the denominations section go much higher in the article?
2. Could the question of the Islamic civilisation section be resolved by incorporating it in the history section - most of it relates to the period roughly 700-1300?
3. Should there not be, for completeness, mention of some of the most liberal Islamic movements as well as Islamism? I am thinking not just of the Qu'ran only Muslims but also of a group of young very free-thinking Muslims in Indonesia who are active on the Web, also of Islamic feminists and others in the USA. Of course we must give a proper assessment of the relative importance of these different movements and not let minority currents appear to be mainstream. Itsmejudith 04:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structuring