Talk:Islam/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Correct universal mistake about the meaning of the Arabic word "islam"

The word islam is derived from the Arabic verb aslama, which means to accept, surrender or submit. This sentence appears in Wikipedia and is a very common mistake that is easy to correct. Arabic, as is implied here, quite correctly, is made of derivations. Salima= came out safe, sallama = equiv., of "said hello", saleem = sound, reasonable; salaama = safety ; salam = peace ;on and on...dozens of verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs; all deriving from a single three (rarely four) letter root; always in the past tence third person verb. In this case it is SLM,a word pronouncible in a vowelless language as "salama" above. Aslama, in the sentence quoted from Wpdia does not at all mean to accept, which is Qabila (an entirely different root); nor to surrender , which is istaslama, the noun from which is istislam, not islam , same root yes; nor submit, if submission implies being submissive. Aslama , apart from its now acquired and eternally standardized connotation, viz : "became a Muslim" (and, certainly, not "moslem",absolutely nothing in Arabic is pronounced as in "mode" or in "rod" or in "gate" or "get") or " converted to Islam , ...etc . Arabic is all made of words construted upon these "meters" as I, possibly alone, like to call them. This is a discipline caltled "alsarf", essential to grasping language, culture and faith .Thus islam and istislam, like imdad and istimdad , iqbal and istiqbal idrak and istidrak are words deriving from the same roots but metrically reformed to carry related but different, sometimes reversed connotations .To this day, aslama can be used to say "delivered". "Delivered his soul" is "died", an everyday's expression . Deliverance, however, i.e. Islam, understandably, retains a certain exclusivity. Islam then, is the noun derived from a verb that means to deliver or hand over willingly. While surrender or the word for it in Arabic implies defeat or cooresion. Therefore we can say that the most correct translation of Islam is Deliverance (something similar to that word in English and Frensh). You deliver, that is, your soul to your Creator. --Mohamed Elhadidi 00:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Worth Mention

I suggest adding a mention of the "expose" phenomenon that has been increasing in the West lately. These include significantly mainstream documentaries that have made it all the way to theaters purporting to give fair and balanced accounts concerning radical Islam, often by Islamic speakers. "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" is one among many. This would help to give balance to this article's failure to address one of the religion's signature identities (justified or not). A small header with a link to another article concerning this is in order at the absolute least. The particular video I mentioned can be seen here for your consideration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMLJJEDDDGc&feature=related

It is important to understand that this article largely fails to explain the greater ideals of Islam, instead including discussions of "family life" and "diet." While these articles ought to remain, it is a POV violation to discount important facts about a religion merely because it is politically popular or advantageous to do so. Very little import in this article is given to the specific roots of the phenomenon of Jihad, of the tax system that Islamic states impose on other religious peoples, of the religion's views on gender equality, of the unique nature of the Islamic paradise among all religions, of the political nature of Islam as it has always been, or of many of the important, and oft' controversial, things that the Qur'an actually says. Many articles on Wikipedia include a "criticisms of" section, and as perhaps the world's most polarizing religion, it is downright silly to leave something similar out in this instance. As is, this article is nearly a stub. I understand that, for example, the Christianity article does not include discussion of the KKK, but the KKK did not set root at the moment of the bible's inception, has not lasted to modern times in anything like its original form, and is not based on sound reasoning centered around the ideology of the Christian Bible. The same cannot be said for Islamic Militantism or Jihad (Lesser Jihad if you prefer). Factual realities are not opinions, even if adherence to that factual reality is based on one.

Edit: I notice that there has been some discussion below regarding a "criticisms of" section, and am aware of the seperate article on such, but I want to be clear that this is not literally what I am asking for. I am asking that the components of many of the problems that Islam runs into when confronted with or confronting Western thought be put under a common umbrella. A working name for this section could be something fairly broad, along the lines of "Ideological Incompatibilities with Western Society," which would include many of the political and social impossibilities that occur in the West that could not if the West were under Sharia law. 76.177.211.28 (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Andrew

Please Change the Title for this

The section in this article called: "Ottomans and Islamic empires in India (1258–1918)," is inaccurate, because most Islamic Empires in SOUTH ASIA originated in Pakistan, which then expanded to India. It should be renamed to "Ottomans and Islamic empires in SOUTH ASIA (1258–1918)."

THANKS

In fact, what is now Pakistan, was considered India before 1947. So there is no need to change. 85.102.182.236 (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, Pakistan was part of India for a long time, so lay of the idiocy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xestox (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes

The section on Jihad is completely misquoted from the source mentioned. [Firestone (1999) pp. 17-18]. The source has been incorrectly quoted. I have tried editing but the original keeps reappearing a few seconds after I have edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anabbie (talk • contribs) 09:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"removed criticism section" ... if there ever was a definition of censorship ... this is it. Why does this page gets censored ? I understand that the information "is still in there" ... but now it has to be dug up. Only a full read of the page (which is quite lengthy) will reveal the criticism. Since criticism of islam actually is about mandating mass murders and worse (such as the current widespread persecution of christians, but even more jews and hindus in muslim and non-muslim lands) the criticism should be on top. Currently the criticism of islam is that it's causing thousands of deaths every year. As such, criticism is warranted and healthy. It should not be hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcpp (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a totally ridiculous argument, that's like saying that since the US is criticised all over the Muslim (and a great portion of non-muslim) world for its brutal policies then any article on the US must have a criticism section on top telling us all about how many illegal wars the US has been involved in, how many dictators and tyrants they have supported, how many people have been assasinated by their covert organisations, how their economic might has been used to systematically starve whole populations leading to the death of millions, how they have refused to abide by the geneva conventions etc. You get my point? Islam does not mandate the persecution of other religions and that has been explained to the non-muslims by the muslim world but you choose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your agenda (whatever that might be). Jihad of war is a doctrine of self defence which no Muslim would be willing to reject, you can criticise it if you want but the widely accepted muslim view must be portrayed first (because Islam is what the Muslims follow and not what you accuse the Muslims of following) your list of accusations can then be listed at the end so you can get your chance at spreading your propaganda to the reader.WasimKhan80 07:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, please provide the full quote for this strange passage and explain why the author is authoritative. Thanks.

The general understanding of Jihad by Muslims today consists of both an internal and external duty. One that gives priority to the inner struggle against evil. The external struggle includes the struggle to make the Islamic societies conform to the Islamic norms of justice. The general modern discourse on Jihad places the traditional understanding of Jihad in terms of warfare in the context of a specific time and place that has come and gone; as such Jihad is understood to be only defensive.

Arrow740 04:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is available on books.google.com --Aminz 04:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Provide a link. Arrow740 04:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[1], [2] --Aminz 04:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Per earlier discussions I've always supported a sentence or two on the modern conception of jihad, so this should be shrunk to that size. - Merzbow 05:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions. I tried to summarize the general modern view as much as I could. --Aminz 06:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this one is shorter: "The general modern understanding of Jihad by Muslims today gives The priority to the inner struggle against evil. As an external duty, it focuses on the struggle to make the Islamic societies conform to the Islamic norms of justice while places the warfare understanding of jihad in the context of a specific time and place that has come and gone; as such Jihad is understood to be only defensive." --Aminz 06:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Frozen slice of history argument and incomplete synopsis of the concept: Negating modern conceptions is kind of an inversed presentism as is a lack of mention on other facets of the Islamic concept.

Not modern argument: I have previously cited numerous sources that discuss the four kinds of Jihad dating to as early as the 8th century and the Sufi conception as early as the 12th century. These are both during the early periods of Islam and times of significant theological works. Humphrey and multiple other sources also show the concept of Jihad existed during the Meccan period and evolved into including war later in the Medinan. Seeing as how these thoughts have been in circulation and mentioned in major works I am not sure what constitutes "modern thought". Maybe refinements and greater emphasis because of the shift in perception on war with its historic social glamor fading.

Factually incorrect argument: The expression of Jihad militarily even in Islamic theology terms is not defined as only about fighting the infidel and the jizya.

Not Undue weight argument: Definitely war became a popular and political expedient expression of Jihad and has lately lost the same but all this clearly demonstrates that it was not the definition of Jihad. Other forms are invariably almost always mentioned as well so again I have no idea where you get impression that they are unimportant. A source has even been cited that more Jihads were declared against Muslims that non-Muslims so the narrow vision focus of only against non-Muslims is itself actually an expression of undue weight.--Tigeroo 09:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This was also discussed here. Maybe we have to list every applicable source on this subject on the talk page, and then modify the paragraph to give emphasis to each aspect of jihad according to the weight the listed sources give it. - Merzbow 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To Merzbow: It is always best to use various sources and combine their information. Hopefully they do not contradict :) Merzbow, I would appreciate if you could come up with a short summary.

To Tigeroo: Of course Muslims were not naturally uniform in their approach to expansion of the Islamic rule, etc etc. Even in military expansions, some were looking for money, some had religious motives, etc etc. Motivations were different. --Aminz 02:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

<reset> this is what Reuven Firestone (1999) says, p. 17-18:

The Meaning of Jihād

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 Various activities subsumed under jihād are said by Muhammad(pbuh) to distinguish true believers who are loyal to God's Prophet:

Every prophet sent by God to a nation (umma) before me has had disciples and followers who followed his ways (sunna) and obeyed his commands. But after them came successors who preached what they did not practice and practiced what they were not commanded. Whoever strives (jāhada) against them with one's hand is a believer, whoever strives against them with one's tongue is a believer, whoever strives against them with one's heart is a believer. There is nothing greater than [the size of] a mustard seed beyond that in the way of faith. 16

Muhammad(pbuh) 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-aṣghar), with the former representing the struggle against the self and only the "lesser jihād" referring to warring in the path of God.

i don't believe that the various categorisations of jihad are a modern conception, the distinction was made by as early as Ibn al-Qayyim. ITAQALLAH 12:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Earlier, Eight century by Abd Ar-Rahman Al-Awza in a treatise dealing with Jihad. Enien and Humphreys say the military expression of Jihad came out in Medinan period, it existed in the Meccan period as well in the non-military sense.--Tigeroo 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, the issue with the earlier arguments made for the position was the lack of sources substantiating that stance. Since that discussion multiple sources have been incorporated to substantiate those positions. As editors begin to edit gaps in information are closed. That is the strength of multiple editors, one can bring to light what others have missed and thus improve the informative value and accuracy of the content. Note the sources references and added since then do not really conflict with what was there initially, they add to it and improve its accuracy improving the collection of, as wikipedia puts it: "human knowledge". I don't really see the problem, the initial entry was not really inaccurate, it was just not complete.--Tigeroo 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You know guys what I think the problem is. I think Jihad is a general concept. Within one specific Islamic science, i.e. "Islamic jurisprudence" which deals with legal issue, it had a more specific meaning. Within Islam as a whole, its meaning is broader. I think the confusion arises from the fact that this relevant section seems to give undue weight to Fiqh without mentioning the general meaning of Jihad in Islam first; it doesn't talk about the meaning of jihad within say the Islamic science of Akhlaq (ethics). I guess it is only within "Islamic jurisprudence" that the majority view of traditional and modern Muslims differ. Just my 2 cents. --Aminz 19:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. I know Lewis and Britannica hold to the narrower view of jihad, and from the earlier discussion it seems that EoI does (I don't have EoI myself though). And from the above quote, "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..." So I think the meaning of unqualified jihad is still the most notable meaning, and should be listed first. - Merzbow 19:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you Merzbow with perhaps one qualifier: according to the first source, within the modern discourse of jihad, the priority is given to the inner struggle against evil. --Aminz 19:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

When Britannica presents the concept in condensed form it does not emphasize war but goes for the wider concept as well. See this from Britannica concise. Even Britannica seems to have some trouble with this issue, but it always launches into the four types almost immediately. I don't see any serious issue with moving the line, "Jihad without any qualifiers .. war" up so that it appears much earlier in mention but gets fleshed out more only later after the other aspects of Jihad have also been covered. Weight by first mention?--Tigeroo 23:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the first p of the Britannica entry does give the "war" meaning - "jehad (“struggle,” or “battle”), a religious duty imposed on Muslims to spread Islam by waging war; jihad has come to denote any conflict waged for principle or belief and is often translated to mean “holy war.”". The second paragraph goes into the alternate meanings. The war meaning should get a sentence, followed by mentions of the others- Merzbow 17:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It treats it differently by reducing that emphasis in its concise version. "In Islam, the central doctrine that calls on believers to combat the enemies of their religion.According to the Qur'an and the Hadith, jihad is a duty that may be fulfilled in four ways:.." Anyway, your proposal sounds just like my proposal so let me put a version up for comment:

Jihad means "to strive" or "to struggle", especially in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)". Some Muslim authorities consider it as the "sixth pillar of Islam". The term Jihad used without any qualifiers is generally understood to be referring to war on behalf of Islam. Within Fiqh Jihad can be fulfilled in four ways: ... (then back to Jihad as war and exposition)"--Tigeroo 08:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The "without any qualifiers" is a way of disguising the fact that the main meaning of the word "jihad" is martial. Arrow740 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Jihad thus cannot be equated semantically with holy war, for it's meaning is much broader, includes many activities unrelated to warfare...It would not be inaccurate, to however, suggest a definition of the sub-category of "Jihad of the sword" as any act of warring authorized by legitimate Muslim authorities..." (Reuven Firestone, Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam, pg. 18) "without any qualifiers "is actually the way the source says it and even emphatically says that the meaning of Jihad is not primarily martial. It just means thats its the more commonly referenced mode of expressing the concept of Jihad, there is a reason the term "Jihad of the sword" even exists, even in classical and pre-classical dialogs. More importantly "Muslims in general do not view jihad as holy war but as a moral idea.." {Reuven Firestone, Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Judaism for Muslims, pg. 70) I agree that the military expression was more common at one point in the past, but then the others expressions have always existed alongside it in parallel. A corpus of both judicial and extra-judicial literature including the hadith carry such mentions. It's a question of things being both true yet not quite the complete equation. Case in point, targets of military Jihad were not solely or even through fiqh solely non-muslims. That the Sahfi'i held that truces were impermanent and first allowed for fighting non-muslims on the basis of religion (albeit initially limited to non-muslim arabs) in the 9th century, yet the Hanafi, who are both the oldest and the most widespread of the schools, were diametrically aligned and opposed to both stands. At any rate, I have offered up the Multiple relevant sources at all turns to substantiate all edits made. I have offered a proposition for playing up the military aspect to meet the concerns voiced without resorting to truncating and entrapping the concept into a narrow prism and it appears to me that Merzbow concurs with the proposal.--Tigeroo 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

i think most of us agree that there needs to be more coverage about the various categorisations. the section already specifies that within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad refers to military activity. outside of it, however, such as in the field of tazkiyya or `amr bi-l ma'ruf, it's clear that jihad refers to multiple things. ITAQALLAH 13:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, please explain the reason for this revert of yours? [3]. --Aminz 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, why don't you explain why you revert my edit [4]?--Aminz 20:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't my edit summary make it clear to you? You cannot simply insert the word "traditional" to imply that there is a new body of jurisprudence. There isn't. Offensive jihad is still on the books. Some Muslims may think that jihad should only be defensive, and that's fine. I made minor changes to your added sentence to avoid merely muddying the waters. Arrow740 04:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the source says [5], [6].

Your personal views doesn't count. --Aminz 04:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, either out of error or intentionaly, you are misrepresenting the source. It says nothing about new jurisprudence. It even explicitly makes statements about jurisprudence, starting on page 107, in the present tense. The "understanding," i.e. the incorrect personal views of Muslims, is at odds with the actual Islamic texts and jurisprudence. I'm not stating that in the article. However, you are bringing wikipedia into error by stating it is false. If you need further clarification, feel free to ask. Arrow740 06:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The source talks about a "traditional Islam" and contrasts it with a "modern Islamic discourse". The assumption that the reference to modern here is to an "incorrect personal view" is not supported especially when it elaborates/ lists the modern jurisprudential arguments for defensive war (pg. 108). It even makes reference to Qutb and Maududi arguing against the concept of Jihad as a defensive war, which coupled with the known fact that defensive war was argued for by Ibn Taymmiyah and against by Qutb merely illustrates that both arguments have co-existed in Islamic jurisprudence for a while. Therefore it does not follow that the existence of one version means the other is "off the books" so to speak. Saying one but not the other is the correct Islamic interpretation found in "actual Islamic texts and jurisprudence" is wrong; out or in favor with the majority view during a particular age is a better understanding. Hope that makes things clearer.--Tigeroo 07:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If no one can find even one source saying there's new jurisprudence, we certainly won't include a false opposition created by wikipedians. Arrow740 04:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The source contrasts modern and traditional interpretations. Even Friedmann quoted in later sections distinguish between modern, classical and time evolving interpretations so on that score the sources clearly differentiate between them. However as the sentence stood it was unnecessary and has been duly removed. The differentiation between modern/ traditional has been reflected in the more relevant portions. Hope this works better at addressing the relevant concerns.--Tigeroo 12:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, remember in the Islam and slavery we had: "At the end of 19th century a shift in Muslim thought and interpretation of the Qur'an occurred, and slavery became seen as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality."

Do you see any Muslim country today engaging in military Jihad? --Aminz 00:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your point. According to every Islamic text and the example of Muhammad(pbuh), if there's a Caliph, Muslims have to attack other people. I personally think your idea that Muhammad(pbuh) and the early Caliphs were right to kill masses of other people to spread the control of the Islamic state, but today it would be wrong and the relevant texts are not relevant, is completely contradictory and illogical. If you have other things to discuss that are not relevant to this article, please send me an e-mail. Arrow740 00:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple sources have been listed and cited on these pages which clearly indicate that the particular understanding you are pushing is not a comprehensive one and one that is significantly flawed. We certainly should not be propagating the errors of wikipedians, the cited sources make the necessary clarifications.--Tigeroo 11:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

this isn't really the place to discuss personal opinions, especially when they don't reflect the issue accurately ("attacking people" and "kill[ing] masses" for example, implying wanton indiscriminate killing, is highly inaccurate). as for distinguishing between traditional and modern, i don't think it's quite necessary. the sources clearly say that jihad has multiple categorisations which have persisted throughout Islamic history. we are agreed that this needs mention. let's focus on incorporating this one passage first before proposing other changes related to other distinctions. as for mentioning a modernist perspective about defensive jihad being the only legitimate one, it is a noteworthy view, but currently the weight given to it is a bit much. ITAQALLAH 15:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I mentioned the modern reading more briefly. I've also mentioned the general definition of Jihad. --Aminz 03:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What is "Isra'iliyat Salaf"?

Hello: Is there any article or information that explains what an "Isra'iliyat Salaf" is so that Category:Isra'iliyat Salaf makes sense to those who have no idea what it means and can be "in on the secret", and why the articles that are in it are there? Thank you. IZAK 06:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

replied here. ITAQALLAH 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Islam Just A Religion

Islam is also a law code and a political philosophy. This must be mentioned in the opening sentence as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.205.125 (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

True - but don't most "religions" involve an all-encompasing worldview? 72.191.188.200 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Image for the history parts

There should be some images which shows different aspect of Muslim history--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Golden Age (750–1258)

There should be a picture which shows technical and scientific advancement of Mulims. Which one of these picture do you prefer:

• #1
  #1
• 
  #2
• 
  #3
• 
  #4
• #5
  #5
• 
  #6
• 
  #7
• 
  #8
• 
  #9
• 
  #10
• 
  #11
• 
  #12

Please add your idea: They weren't necesarily Muslims, you have no way of telling how islamic they are Protest against islamic imposition (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Modern times (1918–present)

We need two images which show the different aspect of Re-Islamization and Modernization of Mulim world. Feel free to add other pictures.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I added an image to the proposal below which I believe best represents islamism. Yahel Guhan 09:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• For Modernization I propose these pictures:

• #1
  #1
• 
  #2
• #3
  #3

• For Re-Islamization I propose these Pictures:

• 
  #1
• 
  #2
• #4
  #4

religion

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Button_lower_letter.png Subscript —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.163.254 (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Extremists

Ibn Warraq and Robert Spencer are not considered reliable sources. Unless they are quoted by a reliable source, in which case they belong, their opinions should not be given space on this article.Bless sins 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

They are notable critics and are mentioned by others as such. - Merzbow 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Start a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that impartially states a question about this and refrain from commenting on it (that is to say the regulars here already butting heads over this should exercise restraint in cluttering such a discussion up with their usual disagreements). A related discussion of interest can be found here. As long as you only discuss reliability here the head butting will continue. Seek less partial perspectives on the matter.PelleSmith 20:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

there already was one. there was no consensus, but it seems there is some general agreement that he may be quoted for critism only, and then if must be attributed to him. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Robert Spencer) Yahel Guhan 22:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and consensus was achieved there (except a couple of users). Basically it was that Spencer may be used as long as he is quoted in a reliable source (CNN for example). The same consesnsu was achieved on Ibn Warraq: Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad(pbuh)#Protection. This way we ensure that only notable opinions of Spencer are presented. Secondly, giving Spencer and Warraq room here is UNDUE. Far more notable attacks on Islam are being made by Daniel Pipes.Bless sins 01:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, there wasn't consensus. Consensue isn't determined by how many users think it is extremist; it is determined by a general agreement, something the discussion lacked. It isn't undue. They are given one small sentence here, attributed to them, in the criticism section (the place where they are reliable), and compared to the rest of the article, that is hardly any weight. They are not "attacks" on Islam, they are legitimate criticisms. Please keep your opinions of them to yourself; it isn't relevant to the improvement of this article. Yahel Guhan 02:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me, exactly how Robert Spencer is an "extremist"? He is WP:RS as far as I'm concerned. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 18:46 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

we have real Islamic studies scholars saying he isn't reliable. that is sufficient. ITAQALLAH 17:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to show me these Islamic scholars where they say he isn't reliable, and on what grounds. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:09 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

[7] by Carl Ernst. ITAQALLAH 18:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I will read it and give my opinion on it. It would also be nice, if you could provide more Islamic scholars who have disproved Robert Spencer. I'm open for alternative opinions. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:00 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

All right, I just read it. That was the dumbest thing I've ever read. Carl Ernst just wrote that he doesn't consider Spencer a scholar on Islam. That is Carl's opinion. Then he makes a few attacks on Spencer's publisher. Yeah? Who cares. He doesn't refute what Spencer has written about Islam. Look, let's not be hypocrites here. It's a well known fact, that Muhammad, married a child (paedophilia), murdered Jews and Christians, was a warlord, and promoted a dictatorial Caliphate system. These are all historical facts. Just because Spencer criticizes Muhammad for his psychopathic behaviour, it doesn't mean that Robert Spencer is not a WP:RS. You don't have to be a rocket scientist in order to write critical a book about Islam. Robert Spencer is just as much a scholar on Islam as anyone else. He simply belongs to Islamic scholars who don't bullshit you by saying "islam is a religion of peace". Either you give me sources that disprove what Robert Spencer has written about Islam and how it's inaccurate, which would obviously devastate his credibility, or, if you can't give me such sources, you will simply have to accept that we cite Robert Spencer here on Wikipedia. By the way, I liked this one: The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice. "Islamophobic extremism"? Right-wing? Come on, Islamophobia is a good thing. You can't be an extremist Islamophobic. It's a good thing to criticize a religion which holds a warlord as the perfect human. It's common sense. Sorry, but you'll have to give me real sources that actually disprove what Robert Spencer has written about Islam, not this bogus Carl Ernst dude. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:33 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

your personal views are irrelevant. the fact is we have a qualified expert in Islamic studies discounting a non-expert, who doesn't even have a qualification in this area. thus, there is no reason to believe why Spencer is a reliable source. in fact, we have contraindications in that regard. ITAQALLAH 21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

He didn't disqualify Spencer, he just made ad hominem attacks and attacked Spencer's publisher. You disqualify Spencer by pointing out inaccurate stuff he has written (provided that he has written something inaccurate about Islam, which he hasn't). Again, I ask you, I would like to read some sources of yours where Spencer is actually proven wrong. The fact that Spencer is a so-called Islamphobe, only makes him more reliable. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:44 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

actually, Ernst does disqualify Spencer, as he raises points taken into account by WP:RS#Scholarship (i.e. by saying he is a non-scholar, noting the point that Spencer's works aren't blind peer-reviewed, aren't published by scholarly presses or reviewed by the academic community and so on). ITAQALLAH 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think you get it. If I write something, let's say a book about World War II. It doesn't matter if I'm a scholar or not; I get my facts straight, my book will be a reliable source. Suppose that I didn't get my facts straight, then it would be easy to disprove me simply due to the inaccurate content of my book. No one has proven Spencer wrong and disqualified him based on what he has written about Islam, because they can't since he's quoting directly from the Qur'an and the Hadith. They all attack his lack of scholarship, which is really irrelevant since facts are facts. Just because Spencer lacks a scholarship on Islam, it doesn't make Muhammad(pbuh) less of a paedophile because Spencer claimed that Muhammad(pbuh) married a child. Look, let's be honest here, you don't want to cite Spencer on Wikipedia, simply because he criticizes your religion. That is what it's all about, and we know it since it so obvious. It's not about Spencer being right or wrong; he isn't wrong about Islam. It's about the fact that he criticizes Islam, and you don't want to give him credibility. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:04 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

in reference to your example: i don't think a book about history written by an untrained amateur would ever be considered a reliable source, especially if it had an ideological axe to grind. there's no point linking to WP:RS if you aren't looking at the criteria it mentions. as for needless bad-faith allusions, it can be turned right round on you, and it can be claimed that you are promoting unreliable figures like Spencer solely because you endorse and defend his anti-Islam views. in the absense of any evidence indicating reliability, we cannot conclude that he is a reliable source - especially, as mentioned before, in the light of contraindications. ITAQALLAH 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong claim

The classical Muslim jurist ash-Shafi'i (d. 820) established the importance of the Sunnah in Islamic law, and Muslims were encouraged to emulate Muhammad's(pbuh) actions in their daily lives.

What does it mean? As I know Sunnah was important in Islamic law from the beginning and you can see former jurists referred to it.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

he is the one who formally codified usul al-fiqh and he argued vehemently in raising the status of the sunnah and putting it virtually on par with the Qur'an when it came to legal instruction. i have restored the sentence for now, you can find out more by reading the cited works. most academic works credit al-Shafi'i with that development. ITAQALLAH 11:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this part established the importance of the Sunnah in Islamic law should be changed. Maybe established is too emphatic.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What's your idea about promoted instead of established. I suggest this one:The classical Muslim jurist ash-Shafi'i (d. 820) established the importance of the Sunnah in Islamic law.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

how about: The classical Muslim jurist ash-Shafi'i (d. 820) established the importance of the Sunnah in Islamic law, and Muslims are encouraged to emulate Muhammad's actions in their daily lives. - this makes it sound less like Muslims before al-Shafi'i weren't aware of following the Sunnah - but still retains the importance of Shafi'i establishing the role of Sunnah in legal theory. ITAQALLAH 12:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose this:''The classical Muslim jurist ash-Shafi'i (d. 820) promoted the importance of the Sunnah in Islamic law by codifying usul al-fiqh and putting it virtually on par with the Qur'an when it came to legal instruction. It would be more POV and clear if we mentioned what former jurists had done.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose using some encyclopedias and other sources to mention role of former jurists. At present the text overemphasizes the role of one jurist and neglects the others. These are some links which can be useful:Jafar ibn Muhammad, Abu Hanifah, Malik ibn Anas and Sources of Islamic doctrinal. These are some other articles: Abu Hanifa, Fiqh, Ijtihad in Shiism and Ejma.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)--Seyyed(t-c) 06:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

from the EoI article on "Sunnah":

"Eventually, some time after the preaching of Islam had begun, the term sunna came to stand for the generally approved standard or practice introduced by the Prophet as well as the pious Muslims of olden days, and at the instigation of al-Shāfiʿī, the sunna of the Prophet was awarded the position of the second root ( aṣl ) of Islamic law, the sharīʿa , after the Ḳurʾān."

from the EoI article on "Hadith":

"But while traditionists were collecting traditions and attempting to verify their authority, there were others who were not prepared to lay great emphasis on the importance of tradition. As a result there were disputes between parties; but largely as a result of the genius of al-Shafi'i (d. 204/820) [q.v.] the party of Tradition won the day, and Hadith came to be recognized as a foundation of Islam second only to the Kur`an. Al-Shafi'i laid emphasis on an argument which seems to have been current even before this time (cf. ZDMG , lxi (1907), 869), that when the Kur`an spoke of the Book and the Wisdom (cf. ii, 151; iii, 164; iv, 113; lxii, 2) it meant Kur`an and Hadith. Thus hadith was given a kind of secondary inspiration. Though not the eternal word of God, like the Kur`an it represented divine guidance."

most other sources say the same thing. while many other scholars before and after recognised the Sunna, it was actually al-Shafi'i who actually codified it as a major root of Islamic law (see his magnum opus al-`Umm). ITAQALLAH 22:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

i changed 'established' to 'emphasized' in the interest of compromise. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 14:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Apostasy

I think the original definition should be kept. It expands on the issue, and offers detials, something "apostasy" alone does not do. Yahel Guhan 01:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

apostasy here means to 'depart from' or 'reject' one's religious beliefs. the elaboration offers no new information of pressing importance. there was previously such an elaboration, but the consensus achieved was to just keep it short and sweet in conformity with FA guidelines promoting concise language. ITAQALLAH 12:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but maybe it's too concise. If people aren't going to be informed of what is actually meant, I suggest we remove the sentence altogether, as it isn't really saying anything. Or, we can elaborate on the term. — Adriaan (T★C) 13:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

the sentence currently conveys the meaning that that Islam prohibits apostasy, and (in very general terms) it is punishable by death in an Islamic state. that explains its presence in the section ('Other religions') altogether, as it pertains to the status of Muslims who become non-Muslims.

if i am understanding correctly, your contention is that people won't know what is meant by apostasy. i am inclined to disagree because a) apostasy is a non-specialist and common word in the English language, and b) the article Apostasy in Islam is linked for anyone seeking further information. ITAQALLAH 14:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok. Well I am not a native English speaker, so I wouldn't know how widely-known the meaning of the word is. But if it is as you say, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. — Adriaan (T★C) 17:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism is not a syncretic religion.

There are numerous online (and I stress online) sources to confirm this:

• [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pureaswater (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

This is a highly debatable issue.

It is doubtable the Encyclopedia of Islam is a reliable source about Sikhism.

Thanks,

Pureaswater 13:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

none of the above websites qualify as reliable sources. online sources produced by publishers who are unknown or have no verifiable reputation for accuracy cannot be considered as reliable sources. Encyclopedia of Islam, published by Brill Academic press, on the other hand, is a reliable source. ITAQALLAH 20:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

wrong subheader

The header "Predestination" should be "Predestination or Divine Justice".

This is clear both from the next line referring to this two -- and from the two paragraphs.

The beginning of the second paragraph has to be changed a bit as well. It's not that the Twelver call Predestination Justice, but: Whereas the Sunnites stress the Omnipotence of God Almighty, the Twelver Shiites stress the Divine Justice. The first view allows God to make arbitrary decisions, the second sees his present and future Freedom of Choice "diminished" by his earlier decrees and promises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.8.114 (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Qur'an section

please refer to the assertion of consensus by FE. Peters:

"... few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad(pbuh) taught, and is expressed in his own words... ...The search for variants in the partial versions extant before the Caliph Uthman’s alleged recension in the 640s (what can be called the “sources” behind our text) has not yielded any differences of great significance" (Peters, F. E. (Aug., 1991) "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad(pbuh)." International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 291-315.)

for similar points about the fragility of such variants see the Qur'an article in the Encyclopedia of Islam:

"Western scholarship has not reached a consensus on what value this mass of allegedly pre- Uthmanic variants has for our knowledge of the history of the Kur`an. Confidence in the variants declined during the 1930s as they were being collected and analysed. Bergsträsser ( Gesch. des Qor. , ii, 77-83, 92-6) still gave a fairly positive appraisal, but Jeffery (Materials, 16) wrote: “ With the increase of material one feels less inclined to venture on such a judgment of value ” , a view that came to be shared by O. Pretzl. Then after the project to prepare a critical edition of the Kur`an came to a halt, A. Fischer ( Isl. , xxviii [1948], 5) concluded that most of the allegedly pre-Kur`anic variants were later attempts by philologers to emend the `Uthmanic text."

minority views (i.e. of Luxembourg, Weil etc.) do not affect the presence of general consensus as asserted by Peters - thus your edit which presents a minority view alongside the majority view violates WP:NPOV - see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE (in any case the presence of variant modes - ahruf - has no bearing on the assertion that the Uthmanic script was representative of Muhammad's(pbuh) recitation). ITAQALLAH 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.You have showed view.You have not proved that they are majorty view.Moreover even if it was minorty it should be mention at least as minorty view.also pay attention that it say "has not yielded any differences of great significance" that don't mean there was no differences.And Encyclopedia of Islam "Western scholarship has not reached a consensus ".Therefore there is no consensus about this issue.You have just proved it.-Oren Tal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.70.229 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

there is no consensus as to the significance of the pre-Uthmanic texts, hence, its significance cannot be established. therefore the basis of this 'different versions' notion belonging to a minority view is even less credible. i don't see what your lawyering with the sources is trying to prove, please read Peters more carefully, for he concludes that "few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad(pbuh) taught, and is expressed in his own words". 'differences of great significance' refers to actual words missing or added (which naturally -are- of great significance), variations in the form of qira'at were and still are accepted. that's got nothing to do with "different versions of the Qur'an" notion you are trying to promulgate. you admit that the POV you are pushing is a minority view, refer to WP:UNDUE ("Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."). please obtain consensus for these changes before imposing them onto the article. ITAQALLAH 22:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't admit it belong to minorty view.I just said even if it were.They don't represent minorty view.Moreover I believe you are Muslim and in that case you should know very well that according to the Hadith Uthman ordered to burn all other versions.Anyway there are also Muslim scholars that mention missing verses in the Quran,including verses that Aisha said that they were part of the Quran/Muhammad revelation and they were not included in Uthman's Quran.Anyway most research agree about it (that Uthman ordered to burn all other version) and just for your knowledge on Al-Aqsa Mosque wall there are verses that don't appear in the current Quran.Oren.tal 23:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

that in no way responds to the above sources (i.e. the Peters quote) showing that most academics consider today's Qur'an to be Muhammad's(pbuh) transmission. you are engaging in your own original research by citing irrelevant incidences (e.g. those related to naskh al-tilāwah). researchers do agree about Uthman's standardisation in which he destroyed texts containing other accepted ahruf - that's not the same as claiming a) that there were different "versions" proper i.e. with different verses, nor b) that Uthman's rendition was inaccurate. b) is what the topic of the passage is - and what Peters refutes and claims consensus against, yet you try to claim b) by way of establishing a). ITAQALLAH 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your source don't say there is consensus about the originty of the Quran.In fact they say the contrast.Moreover it (what I added) don't claim that the Quran was corrupted but just there was more than one version,other versions could be false as well.Maybe the Uthman Quran is what revealed to Muhammad(pbuh) but Most scholars agree that during the time of Uthman there were more than one version.In fatc I don't know about any scholar what so ever that claim the opposit.And Peters admit there are differenceses however he say it is NOT of great significance.Make the text even more accurate, but it must to be mention that there were more then one version of the Quran (during Uthman) and it shouldn't express consensus that don't exist.Oren.tal 00:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I add that all other version were false according to Uthman.Oren.tal 00:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

the source says that "few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad(pbuh) taught, and is expressed in his own words" - it's in plain English. everything else you highlight in an attempt to refute that, such as the presence of accepted dialectic qira'at and ahruf, is just plain OR and misuse of sources. ITAQALLAH 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Peters say "has not yielded any differences of great significance" show that he admit that there are differences.As for the few,they indeed failed to refute but that don't mean that any one prove it or that most scholars believe that the Quran never changed.The text (of Peter) defenialty don't say that.Also what I have said do NOT say that the quran was corrupted.Oren.tal 00:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The differences are far more than Qira'at.Oren.tal 00:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"has not yielded any differences of great significance" is vague and likely refers to qira'at and ahruf, not verses (omissions or insertions would be significant). thus, he concludes that the current Qur'an is representative of Muhammad's(pbuh) recitation. the only evidence you provide is in the form of sources and reports suggesting variants (that's true, there were seven accepted ahruf, Uthman changed it to one when confusion and cross-mixing arose) - but that in no way contradicts Peters' assertion. judging from your above comment, you seem to accept that, yet your edits have been contructed as your own original antithesis to Peters' claim. ITAQALLAH 16:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it s not about qira'at and ahruf.If you read the sources you see they speak about missing and adding versions in th version of Uthman.All of them mention difference.Non of them talk about qira'at and ahruf.They actually speak about verses tht don't appear and verses that add.Oren.tal 16:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

and that is very the notion Peters refutes (`few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad(pbuh) taught, and is expressed in his own words`). you were certainly talking above about ahruf and qirat when you claimed that all scholars were aware of the variants and of Uthman's recension; but now you seem to be conflating it with this strange minority view of ommissions and insertions in the Uthmanic mus-haf. Peters claims consensus, you are trying to disprove that with your own selection of either misinterpreted, unreliable, or minority sources. ITAQALLAH 17:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter my claim consensus but Encyclopedia of Islam say there is no.Anyway there is big' difference between failed to convince the Quran was changed and proving it preservation.Therefore the word "find" is wrong.Moreover things were changed from the time of Peters "These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed.” Oren.tal 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

<reset>::"Peter my claim consensus but Encyclopedia of Islam say there is no" - they are writing about two different things - please read the texts more closely. the quote-mining from the internet isn't relevant here, i have responded to this red herring. ITAQALLAH 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

pay attention "Confidence in the variants declined during the 1930s as they were being collected and analysed" Oren.tal 17:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

that disproves what you are saying. ITAQALLAH 17:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No,It don't.The fact is there were more than one version of the Quran during the time Uthman and scholars agree about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.77.82 (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oren.tal, if you are having difficulty understanding such a simple passage, you should reconsider these novel in-depth analyses you are offering. ITAQALLAH 19:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they are less certain about the reliability of the pre -Uthman text don't say it is proof that there were none.Maybe the text they have is not so valid.Oren.tal 19:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)\

and by the way I am not the subject here.So don't change the head line because it is about the Quran preservation and not me.Oren.tal 19:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oren.tal, please have the courtesy to not change my comments. "different versions of the Qur'an" is your own perception. ITAQALLAH 23:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not your comment.I don't touch your comment.Yhis is a name of subject.The name right now is only confusing.

I think there is dispute over the order of the quranic verses; over the readings of certain words (at the time of writing "dot" was not used) so some variant recitations. That's pretty much it. Maybe Oren.tal can cite an specific example. --Aminz 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus among scholars (and WP editors) is the view asserted by Peters which is cited in the article. → AA ^(talk) — 10:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Here I give you the links:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KSZhy_x7r2QC&pg=PA1&dq=Quran&as_brr=1&ei=Y0ZRR9OKO5mepgLcwYy5DQ&sig=E3meVpjYpu9PR2m8PjR-XZxVmJY#PPA3,M1

http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=kXvhz04I-0YC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=kpQ9ds5Urw&sig=KsG2PwOvYMxLCc01AdoPdPnLCew

http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=kXvhz04I-0YC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=kpQ9ds5Urw&sig=KsG2PwOvYMxLCc01AdoPdPnLCew http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=cbfORLWv1HkC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PA112&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=tWSoEn5iSY&sig=e6iIpKbdKQEpIYo0AMi1p4-jIaU http://www.jstor.org/view/13561898/ap020033/02a00080/0 http://www.islamlighthouse.com/admin/1sub/books/098enchbook.pdf http://www.jstor.org/view/05855292/ap050077/05a00020/0 http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=qIDZIep-GIQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=Biwda4VKNv&sig=4n8XXkmNv47B_1a1SCWKY0MxyNA http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=WBx2ejzo_v0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=ULZ4eonsEw&sig=zns_n-SVuI8OxyxJIRa98rmvAeA#PPA81,M1 I will back to this topic in the —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.151.98 (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Section break

I would suggest to change the wording of the sentence discussed here to emphasize that it can only be proven, there were no changes since the time of Uthman:

It now says: From textual evidence, modern Western academics find that the Qur'an of today has not changed over the years.[25]

I suggest: From textual evidence, modern Western academics find that the Qur'an of today has not changed after Uthman's standardization.[25]

NineBerry (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am totally agree.Oren.tal (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a sensible suggestion, and it's certainly not what Peters says. ITAQALLAH 23:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Would you please give the title of the book by Peters. I cannot find a book published 1991? Thank you very much in advance. 88.67.255.86 (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's at the beginning of this section. Thanks. ITAQALLAH 00:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I agree with the current wording then. :) NineBerry (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter is only one historian and other contradict him.You can not based it only on one historian when many other contradict him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.151.98 (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Peters is declaring consensus. I have also relayed similar comments from the Encyclopedia of Islam. You have merely attempted to compile accounts hardly relevant to what you are attempting to argue, Oren.tal. I interpret it as original research. ITAQALLAH 15:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

there is a big problem to declare consensus when many other claim the opposite.Base this one one scholar is problematic.Anyway I will write down all the issue because here there is too much mess.132.72.151.98 (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

new evidences reveal new theories.Dr Gerd R Puin a renowned Islamicist at Saarland University, Germany,claim and show evidences that the Quran had evidences.The article you give in from the time before Dr Puin research. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4048586,00.html So it is important to mention the opinion of Dr Puin.Oren.tal (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Immigrate, Populate, Dominate

The article on Organization of the Islamic Conference asserts:

In 1982, the foreign ministers of the OIC adopted the controversial plan to Immigrate, Populate, Dominate to serve as a guidance for the member states in the matters of Islamic presence in other non-Muslim countries.

But there is no source, and I can find no references for it. Nor does it seem likely that such an explosive plan would have escaped the notice of right-wingers and the media worldwide.

Could someone please verify this?

-- 99.226.23.121 (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. If someone wants it to go back in they will have to find a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

sigiwan is da best and u know dis man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.219.189.8 (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is more or less a revival of the same type of hatred that European leaders showed towards Jews not even a century ago. They may as well start writing a book called "The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca." Muslim immigration to Europe is not rapid enough to succeed in doing such a thing, the majority of the Muslims in Europe were brought over by Europeans; they are not illegally immigrating for the most part. France did it to themselves due to immigration from French Algeria, Germany did it to themselves because they had a shortage of male labor following World War II. Even if a source is found, I think it's wishful thinking by both the right wing and "Islamic Radicals" that this passive invasion will ever take place. Most Muslims do want to integrate in most of their countries, and perhaps the problems lay moreso with the Europeans because the United States has virtually no problems with its 7,000,000 strong Muslim community, most of whom are middle-class or better. -68.43.58.42 21:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous! Muslims in the United States are always complaining about discrimination. Just look at the C.A.I.R. website! Epa101 (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

First Sentence

The first sentence of this article states that Islam was founded by Muhammad scum. Please delete "scum" from this article.

Qu'aran and Bible Criticism

On the Article Christianity Under the section "bible" There is a see also link to "Criticism of the Bible" I thought that this did not portray a neutral point of view, as the Section on the koran in this page does not have a link to criticism of the koran.

After edititing, and having my edit removed several times, i thought, for the sake of neutrality, that instead of removing the Bible Criticism link, i should instead add a Criticism of the Qu'aran link, for the sake of fairness to both Christians and Muslims and not portraying either in a better light than the other.

I added the link here on Islam, to Criticism of the Koran, and it has been removed. For the sake of Neutrality, either the link to "Criticism of the Bible" should be removed from the Christianity page, or "Criticism of the Qu'aran should be added to the Islam page. I am happy with either personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathaytace (talk • contribs) 18:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

well... this article doesn't need to employ a feature just because another article does. the general criticism article, Criticism of Islam, has been linked in the text body and on the Islam template. you may also note that Criticism of the Qur'an is linked to in the Islam topics template at the bottom of the article. ITAQALLAH 18:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The article has been targeted by vandalisms will someone please fix it and lock it, its embarrassing. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.200.174 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

could you please clarify? ITAQALLAH 17:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The western world has been targeted by islamic vandalisms will someone please fix it and lock it, its embarrassing. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.196.95 (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.72.243 (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam seems to have been removed, would someone please fix this? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.136.194 (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya Movement

I see no problem with putting the Ahmadi in the others section of the various sects and groups in Islam as I do know like other sects not associated with the main 2, it holds controversial beliefs. What I do however see a problem with is putting it in the same group as different religions and off-shoots of Islam. Ahmadis do not claim to not be Muslims or not follow Islam but as the differences I gave in the paragraph I suggested for them as well as their page does, they have mainly have certain latter day beliefs that are very different from the mainstream but not enough to say they created a different religion as they do essentially follow Islam. The sources aren't hard to find if that was all that was the problem though. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

how about changing 'religions' to 'traditions'? thus reading "The Yazidi, Druze, Ahmadiyya, Bábí, Bahá'í, Berghouata and Ha-Mim traditions either emerged out of Islam or came to share certain beliefs with Islam. Sikhism, founded by Guru Nanak in late fifteenth century Punjab, incorporates aspects of both Islam and Hinduism." the reason i wouldn't suggest a whole paragraph on Ahmadiyya is because of undue weight, i don't think it's so much more significant than these other groups to merit mutliple sentences.. ITAQALLAH 14:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Traditions? I don't know what you meant to imply by that but I didn't say that the designation given to the other groups is wrong, it is right b/c none of the other groups claim to be part of Islam AFAIK and so they are separate religions. The reason I do suggest Ahmadiyyat have its own paragraph is b/c not only is it a significant modern day movement in Islam but if a group like the Kharijites can be put separately, I see no problem with this being separate either. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

i suggested traditions because i thought you objected to referring to Ahmadiyya as a religion. i think we could mention Ahmadiyya in the para about Kharijites (the reason they have a little more info is that they were the first sect to have emerged), but i think we should keep it to a well-sourced sentence or two. ITAQALLAH 18:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I do reject Ahmadiyyat being called a separate religion and then being grouped with other beliefs that make it clear that they are separate religions. Calling them Traditions wont make them fit together better and I'm still not sure what that was supposed to imply they were. If it can be separated into at least 2 or 3 sentences, that would be satisfactory. I doubt however a short summary could be jammed into one sentence appropriately. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see, thats what IIRC they're called on the Muhammad(pbuh) page. Still not sure what it implies though. Traditions are sayings and practices of Muhammad(pbuh), why would they be called that? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

religious traditions simply means religious practices, conceptions or ideologies. it's not related to what's written on Muhammad. if you don't consider that an appropriate solution, could you propose the passage you'd like to see implemented in the article (with the relevant sourcing) in this section? ITAQALLAH 20:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

perpetuality/treaties

was looking at the EoI articles on Dar as-Sulh/Dar al-'Ahd. it was the opinion of those who divided lands into only dar al-islam/harb, for example that any such treaties would be of temporary nature until conditions became favourable. others, however (such as Shafi'i) stated that an 'ahd (agreement/covenant) could be established so long as they paid kharaj (in which case war cannot be declared upon them) - in return maintaining autonomous rule - in theory, these lands were to be ultimately considered dar al-islam (due to payment of kharaj). the EoI elaborates on certain treaties formed by Mu'awiya (with Armenian princes), and by the Ottomans (with Christian tributaries). i don't think it's as simplistic as currently expressed. ITAQALLAH 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mu'awiya and the Ottomans were not sources of Islamic law as the caliphs until Ali were. So your point is that one of the four schools said that if non-Muslim vassal states paid dhimmi taxes then theoretically they were in dar al-islam? Maybe this section needs some more work. Something between the current version and your version would probably be best. Arrow740 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

it's got nothing to do with who is or isn't a source of law, it's about how jurists - early and latter - interpreted the primary texts (in any case, people might argue for an earlier precedent with the Christians of Nubia). i didn't say one in four, i gave the example of al-Shafi'i as a proponent of this view that agreements may be established and that the nation may continue controlling their land and maintaining autonomous rule, subject to payment of a land tax. so the issue cannot be painted as black and white as presented in the article. ITAQALLAH 18:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're creating a false opposition. It is a fact that unless some state submits to the authority of Islam in some way, either by being occupied or surrendering or becoming a tributary, then there is no permanent peace. That's the sourced material we have and your new addition doesn't contradict that. There might be some disagreement as to the degree of subjugation required but the principal is that without subjugation there is no permanent peace. Arrow740 (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

the peace lasts so long as the autonomous states pay tribute to the neighbouring Islamic state (hence it becomes dar al-'ahd) - in which case the Imam may not repudiate the agreement when he thinks conditions become favourable for attacking - and that's the difference. ITAQALLAH 19:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too difficult to state this the right way. The point is that unless a state pays the jizya and kharaj as a sign of submission then the Muslims can break the treaty. Please provide the extract saying that imam cannot break it in Shafi'i jurisprudence. Arrow740 (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

no, the agreement is that they pay kharaj - if they fail to pay it, then they have broken the agreement. ITAQALLAH 19:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

this is a classic case of WP:SYNTH, as it attempts tie two sources in making novel, confusing assertions. the whole issue of repudiation and agreement length is disputed as expressed previously (i.e. the opinion of those who say that so long as kharaj is being paid, the state remains autonomous and the Imam may not break the agreement)- which is why i kept the prose simple. also, the language is needlessly slanted with the insertion of imperatives- and there is no explanation for why my copyedits are being undone. ITAQALLAH 00:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What novel assertion is being made? That's your only argument for removal. Explain it. Arrow740 (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's expained quite clearly above - some authorities state that agreements may not be repudiated by the Imam; and that states in dar al-ahd may remain autonomous and independent so long as they pay kharaj. You've formed a narrative expressed by neither source. ITAQALLAH 21:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You were unable to produce a novel assertion, because there isn't one. Arrow740 (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've explained it twice now at least - please cease this disruption. ITAQALLAH 14:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Hanafi see no automatic resumption without provocation or some lapse in terms and the pre-conditions for the definition of Dar al Harb are proximity, muslim rulers but most importantly a lack of security of Muslims in the land. There is no Dar al Ahd for them, non-payment of Kharaj would be treated as provincial rebellion.
2. There is also the general understanding today that the generic requirement of the military Jihad has lapsed as a result of global treaties (Globally a Dar al Ahd).
3. Majid Khadduri mentions Jihad as a perpetual state of war but he also states that is not an official theologically formulated position but an extrapolated opinion (as one of a missionary bent) therefore any such statement requires attribution to the source and is not an Islamic fact. He also states that this concept of perpetual war did NOT equate to a theological understanding requiring a perpetual state of fighting but one that can be achieved passively, through prosletization and the maintainance of safety in Dar al Islam via a strong deterrent capability.--Tigeroo (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a logical fallacy with the inclusion of the termination material because it pre-supposes that Jihad is defined as war against non-Muslims. Theologically jihad does not single out non-Muslims as the only valid opponents in a Jihad. They are again one sub-category in the fiqh literatures discussing whom it may be waged against.

The military expression of Jihad as its communal expression was a "tool of statecraft" used both for and against the Islamic state. While raids for the expansion of the state are a part of the Jihad history and literature, singling them out exclusively for mention tends to singularly impose a definition as "military war directed exclusively against non-Muslims". This is incomplete. Jihad has an equally long history in theological/ judicial discussions and literature on its legality as a vehicle for legitimizing use of force in situations of internal resistance and sectarian strife (note that Humphreys states that most Jihads were waged against Muslims).

Yes, there is a POV that places the focus solely on the non_Muslims aspect but it is not the only POV. To this end I agree with the editor who had truncated the section earlier along the lines that the Jihad section in this article just needs to get the gist out (see comparative size with other sections) and that the details be addressed in the main article. Details of how, or under what conditions and what the differing POVs on the situation are should be detailed in the page on Jihad where there is adequate room for the proper treatment of all the facets. I am not familiar with the contents of the EoI article, however from the representations reflected in the article, it seems to appear a bit generic or of a particular POV by appearing to raise content issues with other works dealing more fully with the subject. I favor a return to the last stable version of this section because there is not sufficient space in this article for a balanced treatment of the issues raised by the current edit.--Tigeroo (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

you raise some valid points, Tigeroo. i don't think we should favour deferring it to the Jihad article however, i am sure a brief and neutral summary is possible. ITAQALLAH 23:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see some sources. Explain what you disagree with in my latest edit, itaqallah. Arrow740 (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

i explained your innappropriate synthesis above. ITAQALLAH 14:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo, you may be ashamed of certain aspects of Islam. That doesn't mean you have to be dishonest. In your latest edit, you state: "Under most circumstances and for most Muslims, jihad is a collective duty (fard kifaya): one whose performance by some individuals exempts the others; for the rest of the populace, this happens only in the case of a general mobilization." This is only true of offensive jihad. We were saying that from the sources, but you removed it and replaced it with falsehood. If you don't like certain parts of Islam you have certain options. Lying about them on wikipedia articles is not one of them. Arrow740 (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"you have to be dishonest", "replaced it with falsehood", "Lying about them". I urge Arrow740 to stop these violations of WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA.Bless sins (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources there are numerous, Humphreys and Firestone have already been mentioned and quoted, two other works are War And Peace in the Law of Islam by Majid Khadduri and Is Jihad a Just War? by Hilmi M. Zawati and a fair summary covering the various POVs on the issues can be found in Warrant for Terror: The Fatwas of Radical Islam and the Duty to Jihad by Shmuel Bar. There is really no shortage of sources for this at all. I've turned it into as a neat a brief neutral summary as I can see. The problem I see is pinning down fiqh discussions concerning the expression Jihad as so and so when they have infact evolved over time as the masala and dururah have changed. Or in simple english, the underlying assumptions of the age. If possible go ahead and add a line summarizing this, I left it out because I was not able to see how it could be done without extending the section even more.--Tigeroo (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740 I don't believe I have to remind you of wikipolicies on acceptable behavior. No that sentence is not true of only offensive jihad as you misinterpret it applies equally to defensive jihad. i.e. if a Muslims nation is attacked it is not the obligation of the entire ummah to take up arms. Heck there is even that there is no such thing as a Offensive Jihad and only a Defensive Jihad. I have already highlighted how your statements are only one aspect of a bigger picture. I could counter-posit that you are pushing a particular POV to exclusion of anything else. Everything can be further sourced and substantiated if you would like it to be.--Tigeroo (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits discussion points

1. )"striving in the way of God" (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)
   This is what makes Jihad an Islamic concept and not just a normal struggle. Why does this keep getting struck out? Everyone from Lewis & Spencer to Osama or Ibn Baaz talk about it and it is present in almost every intro section of a Jihad book. As Michael Bonner puts it : "When followed by the modifying phrase fi sabil Allah, “in the path of God,” or when—as often—this phrase is absent but assumed to be in force, jihad has the specific sense of fighting for the sake of God (whatever we understand that to mean)."
2. )"Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to establish the universal domination of Islam. Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against states which refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule."
   All Books on Jihad fiqh state that Jihad can be declared against both Muslims and Non-Muslims, classiy them separately and detail the rules governing each type. Here is what I put in:
   Jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law and may be declared against apostates, rebels, highway robbers, violent groups, unIslamic leaders or non-Muslim states which refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule.
3. )It implied that this quest for domination requires a perpetual active military engagement. Fiqh has evolved to deal with the change since the age of empire and does not require this anymore and that passive means are acceptable means to the goal. See Michael Bonner quote again summarizing this difference in POVs For others, jihad represents a universalist, globalizing force of its own: among these there is a wide spectrum of views. At one end of this spectrum, anti-Islamic polemicists use jihad as proof of Islam’s innate violence and its incompatibility with civilized norms.4 At the other end of the spectrum, some writers insist that jihad has little or nothing to do with externally directed violence. Instead, they declare jihad to be a defensive principle,5 or else to be utterly pacific, inward-directed, and the basis of the true meaning of Islam which, they say, is peace. The solution I propose to the universalize statement is achieved by moving it to the intro paragraph and not getting drawn into the debate by characterizing/ expounding on either of the POVs here.
4. )It ceases when Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians submit to the authority of Islam and agree to pay the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax), and when polytheists convert to Islam. Treaties (`ahd) may be established, subject to payment of the kharaj, although jurists differ over its permitted longevity.
   There are two issues with this. One, it is redundant after the statement that Jihad's goal is universalize Islam, the hows (and this only one of them need again not be detailed here; this allows us to trim the section. Two, it only covers how one type of Jihad may end and then again only in the case of a victory. Three, there is only agreement on the requirement of conversion for Arab polytheists. Most schools do not hold the requirement of conversion for non-Arab polytheists.
5. )One common understanding of Jihad by Muslims today is that it should only be defensive, and that the concept includes a struggle to make the Islamic societies conform to the Islamic norms of justice.
   One, this then becomes redundant because we don't have to include this as to depov the section by including a mention of the modern view to contrast with the older version. Two, this is already implied or can be synthesised with the earlier quote in the intro by Esposito.
6. )Some Muslim authorities, especially among the Shi'a and Sufis, distinguish between the "greater jihad", which pertains to spiritual self-perfection, and the "lesser jihad", defined as warfare. Jihad also refers to one's striving to attain religious and moral perfection.
   Again the second sentence logically can be struck and the first placed beside the Esposito quote because it is talking about the same theme. It makes no sense and makes for awkward transition.--Tigeroo (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The points you raise are very interesting. I'll have a closer look at the specific arguments in a while, but I would encourage all to participate now instead of reverting later. ITAQALLAH 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo, itaqallah's last version is the result of long collaboration. It relies on the EoI article and the others sources cited. If you have demonstrably reliable sources which contradict the sources cited, provide them. If not, stop this disruption and respect the consensus. Arrow740 (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:CCC. EoI presents as both being a particular POV which has been demonstrated as being non-comprehensive. The current section is sourced and cited as well and additionally various other works and quotes have been cited both in the discussion and at various places. If you have something in particular which you wish me to further cite to you for clarity that can easily be done. It would have been easier to have this discussion had you taken advantage of the space provided by the protection period.--Tigeroo (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked you to provide sources, and you didn't. You are removing a large amount of sourced text from itaqallah's version. Arrow740 (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow, the question isn't here of adding sourced content. This article is HUGE. Rather it is of presenting notable views without giving a minority view too much space. Please see WP:UNDUE in that regards.Bless sins (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Durant quote? Do you think his is a minority view? A quick search on google books reveals this to be a highly notable quote and and accurate description of events. Do you have a substantive criticism of it? Arrow740 (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you are going to have to be a bit more specific. A source for what? There are multiple points and arguments that I have raised which are cited across the page. Which one in particular do you want me to cite in greater detail??--Tigeroo (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You have removed a large amount of sourced text from the jihad section. Could you explain these removals? Arrow740 (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats just what this section is about.--213.42.21.60 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tigeroo, please log in. My point was you have removed sourced content but have not provided the extracts from the sources you claim contradict this material. Arrow740 (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested

In the discussion [here]. Abtract (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Abtract, regarding your reinsertion of the criticism section, it was diffused into the rest of the article as per consensus here. it can now be found in the various sections of Islam#History. ITAQALLAH 15:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Principles of Islam

Is there a reason why the Principles of Islam are not mentioned in this article? That is, islam (submission to God and God alone), iman (faith in God, his messengers, and angels), and ihsan (to do what is beautiful). It seems like these three concepts are fairly necessary for a complete understanding of the Islamic faith and practice. Bgamari (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we should get an admin to do it since its locked til Jan. 3 (a thanks to who locked it) --Maz640 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources which codify this in the way stated then I am sure it would be fine to incorporate it. ITAQALLAH 14:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the section Beliefs section can be easily changed slightly to reflect the six articles of Iman: mainly beleif in Allah, the angels, his books, his messengers, the last day and divine destiny (Qadr). It is the same thing currently, but probably just need some cleaning up and retitling to align with the sub-pages. As far ash Ihsan and Taqwa go, not sure how or even if they need to go up here as they have more to do with how to be a "good" muslim, than just a muslim--Tigeroo (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can some one prepare demographic map like increase speed map

It would be great to see such map as Islam is fastest groving religion. Regards, S. Pal, Istanbul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.194.87 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You idea sounds interesting. I know what a demographic map is, what is an "increase speed map"?Bless sins (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think he means a map that illustrates the rate of increase (or decrease) of the percentage of Muslim population by country. We need a list of such rates in order to produce such a map. NikoSilver 15:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Imperialistic Jihad is an oxymoron

Some of the statements made in the Jihad section seem to be incorrect. Jihad can not be declared against a non-muslims for the simple fact that they do not believe in Islam. Fundamentally, Jihad is a struggle against injustice and/or opression. The idea of Jihad within the context of idelogical warefare for the sake of millitary expansion was a mechnisim used by Arab rulers to rechannel their subjects' aggressive pre-Islamic way of (dessert) life. The contemprary idea of 'jihad' came from pakistan abd began with Sayyid Ahmed of Bareili (d. 1831), and later controversially expanded by Gen Zia-ul-Haq . The Quran further suppourts this idea (urah al-Hujurat 49:13) in stating that God has created man of different tribes and nations in order to get to know one another. This in no means contradicts the idea of defensive jihad which would allow millitray tactics such as pre-emptive stike. I recommend the removal of portions that define Jihad as anti-nonmuslim or imperialistic in nature.

18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The nature of Jihad is dependent upon the situation and the interpretation. Obviously, the decline of ijtihad (striving by the pen/Jihad by the pen)is one of the principal reasons why technology, science, philosophy and learning began to decline in the Muslim World. On the other end, it would be nonsensical to not consider Ottoman expansion into Constantinople to have not been a part of Jihad by the sword. The nature of Jihad includes many facets; it should be included that one of these facets is political expansion, however, it should also be noted that Jihad is not a pillar of Islam, nor is it limited to one interpretation or form. From the Sufi era until the beginning of British Imperialism, Jihad was primarily considered figurative in much of Central Asia, South Asia, and on the Iranian plateau. -Rosywounds (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not dispute that Jihad may manifest itself in a multitude of forms based on circumstance, culture and time. However, what I dispute are faulty corollary statments that define Jihad based on millitary situations where muslims may have been involved. For example, an inaccurate argument would arise from any premise that would imply that the Turkish Ottoman empire was (let's be charitable and say) anything close to a utopian Islamic caliphate. If it is agreed to keep the 'political expansionist' face of Jihad, then I must insist on a credible citation from an aunthentic Islamic source. Straight from the horses mouth. -Al 21:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

New additions

Please discuss these new additions here before inserting them into the article. Those sections reflect substantial collaboration to maintain balance, and also reflect longstanding consensus. Inserting opinionated or otherwise biased material to disrupt that is not on. ITAQALLAH 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You know that my new additions are reliably sourced. No one is concerned with the old concensus, as Tigeroo, BS, and you have all been simply edit-warring. You yourself have shown no concern for the consensus version of the jihad section. If concensus has changed we have to accept that and move on. Arrow740 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you inserting opinionated tidbits from Lewis, and when people revert you requesting involvement on the talk page, instead of reverting, you just carry on adding other material to continue the disruption. There's no indication that consensus has changed, and there's certainly no consensus on your changes. You have yet to explain these additions. ITAQALLAH —Preceding comment was added at 22:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your vandalistic attacks on this article are the disruption. What do you need "explained?" Are you having trouble accessing the text? I think these sourced additions speak for themselves. Enough vague insinuations. You mentioned that you thought Serge Trifkovic, a trained historian, was not a reliable source. Could you explain that? Arrow740 (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)::::My new addition from Trifkovic could also be sourced elsewhere. I'm not saying Trifkovic is unreliable, because he's not. But if you'd prefer another source that's fine with me. This information is not in dispute, is it? Arrow740 (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The additions do speak for themselves: what needs to be explained is why you are selectively taking certain tidbits from authors and imposing them on the article to serve some sort of agenda.

As for Trifkovic, you already asked about him on Talk:Muhammad. I had responded, so you can reply there. ITAQALLAH 23:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you dispute the devshirme section? Arrow740 (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This article, as you know, is a brief overview. Mentioning selected issues to forward a particular skew is irresponsible, even if the sourcing is fine. This approach is illustrated well in the example you mention: as if the devshirme were the most significant, most notable aspect of Ottomon rule, culture and legacy. Of course, it isn't, but you persist in pushing this tidbit over the 101 other more significant aspects of Ottoman rulership that could be discussed. ITAQALLAH 23:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is highly significant to the Christians in the Balkans, who still hate all things Turkish to this day, according to Trifkovic. I believe the material is relevant, and that more importantly, slavery as a component of Islam and Islamic history needs to be properly addressed. What is your opinion on the invasion of India matter? Do you object to some mention of the brutality there as well? Arrow740 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, to suggest that of all things about Ottomon legacy we should mention a subsection of the Ottoman army is incredibly unbalanced. It might be "important" in forwarding a sensationalist perspective, but it certainly ain't reasonable or balanced. ITAQALLAH 00:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you propose an alternate treatment of these issues that we could discuss? Arrow740 (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The question with many of your insertions is whether or not they merit mention in what is supposed to be a brief overview (e.g. this undue focus on janissaries). In most cases, I'm not convinced they do. ITAQALLAH 00:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise on the janissaries issue (though it is discussed quite prominently in the treatments of the Ottoman empire that I've read) if the issue of slavery can be properly addressed comprehensively. You've consistently removed all mention of it in this article. Arrow740 (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly not one of the most important aspects about the Ottomans, and the space currently given towards the Ottomans is sufficient and balanced. The janissaries deserves no mention here, like most of your additions. As for the general issue of slavery, you will notice that we removed the material on Islamic civilisation almost totally in favour of a briefer and more general overview. Please suggest precisely what text you would like to see included and where. ITAQALLAH 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear here on just what you've removed (you didn't actually remove every one, I noted the ones you didn't below):

• In Islamic thought, enslavement of non-Muslims is sanctioned by God as punishment for unbelief, and capturing non-Muslims in the course of a properly declared jihad is one of the two ways available for the procurement of slaves.

• Non-Muslim occupants of occupied countries must pay taxes as a sign of humiliation and submission known as jizya: failure to pay the jizya could result in Muslim rulers' pledge of protection of a dhimmi's life and property becoming void, with the dhimmi facing the alternatives of conversion, enslavement or death (or imprisonment, as advocated by Abu Yusuf, the chief qadi — religious judge — of Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid).

• Muslim invasions of India began in the first century of Islam with Muhammad bin Qasim. These invasions were characterized by genocide and cultural obliteration. Historian Will Durant, writing in 1939, called the Muslim conquest of India "probably the bloodiest story in history." The new Muslim rulers built mosques on the ruins of destroyed temples, and many Hindus were sold into slavery.

• Muhammad revived and redirected Arab expansionism; the facts that his career was paralleled by others in different parts of the peninsula and that his death was followed by a new burst of activity show that his career was the answer to great needs.

• Apart from a small religious levy on Muslims, all taxes (including jizya and kharaj) were collected from subject non-Muslim inhabitants of the conquered territories.

• Islam recognizes a basic social inequality between man and woman, which is sanctioned and sanctified by the Qur'an.

• The Ottomans instituted the practice of devshirme, or "blood levy." In Arabia, those families unable to pay the jizya had been obliged to give their children to tax-collectors, but the Ottomans went further and periodically enslaved one fifth of all the Christian boys in their territories to bolster their army. These boys were trained as janissaries.

• As the West exerted increasing power and authority over the Muslim world, it was able to use its status to compel Muslim rulers to give their Christian subject the legal equality denied them by Islamic law. Jews were the incidental beneficiaries of these changes.

• The Ottoman era came to a close at the end of World War I. Muslims developed no secularist movement of their own until the West came to dominate geopolitics. Bernard Lewis attributes this to the contrasts between Muslim and Christian history and experience.

  From the beginning, Christians were taught by both precept and practice to distinguish between God and Caesar and between the different duties owed to each of the two. Muslims received no such instruction.

You removed all but the Ottoman material, which you are now attacking. Please explain. What is your stance on the Lewis quote regarding women? Arrow740 (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Islam's treatment of non-Muslims is discussed briefly in Islam#Other_religions. Because this article is about Islam, it should focus on Muslims, as opposed to non-Muslims. Secondly, while some believe that Islam justifies the enslavement of non-Muslims, the fact is most non-Muslims were given the status of "dhimmi", not slave. Here, we present the facts that were generally true, not the exceptions.
• As stated elsewhere, the quote has failed verification. You appear to be mistaken about the page number/book/author.
• Serge Trifkovic is not a reliable source. The second question is, which section do you want to place this in. The early invasions of India appear to have a very insignificant role in the entire history of Islam (it may be significant for Hindus and Buddhists, but not for Muslims).
• Lewis appears to be saying that the desire of conquest was there before Islam - Muhammad(pbuh) merely redirected it. Thus the desire of conquest may be a notable part of Arab history but not of Islamic history. The desire existed before Islam did.
• Jizya is already covered in this article. See (Islam#Other_religions). The kharaj itself is a rather insignificant tax, that, unlike jizya, is not sanctioned by the Qur'an and it wasn't applied consistently in Islamic history.
• Yeah, and you forget to report that Lewis says that Muslims women have had unparalleled property rights, that even the West couldn't match until recently. It would be best to include it with evidence. What does Lewis provide?
• Trifkovic doesn't seem to be a reliable source. If you can reject (on Muhammad's(pbuh) wives) eminent university professors as reliable sources, you'll have a hard time justifying Trifkovic as a reliable source.
• If you want to include it, we need more details. When and where did this happen?
• This is, perhaps, the only acceptable addition, but I'm not sure whether Christianity is relevant. What do others think?Bless sins (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough with this Shibli Nomani nonsense. Serge Trifkovic has a PhD in history. Maybe you will actually discuss here before engaging in edit warring, next time. It would help to cite guidelines when you try to remove sourced content, as well. Arrow740 (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire only deserves brief mention, mostly because it was the final seat for the caliphate. References to the Ottoman Empire should not be given undue weight in an article that is about Islam as a religion, though. The Ottoman Empire was, after all, only one out of dozens of different Muslim empires. In fact, the Ottoman Empire was only one of three different Muslim empires during much of its own life span (the Safavids and Mughals being two others that were contemporary challengers to the Ottomans). Giving undue weight to the Ottomans in a general article on the precepts and character of Islam is an unnecessary POV edit. The purpose of an article on Islam is not to simply include a laundry list of grievances against Muslims, Muslim empires, and Islam. There is a proper location for these edits; we have articles on the Young Turks, the Ottoman Empire, and the Ottoman Empire's military structure. We also have an article for Criticisms of Islam. Devshirme is a Turkish word; the practice was related to the Ottoman social structure, but it has very little to do with Islam as a faith (even if religious discrimination existed within that system). Moreover, the Muslims are certainly not the first people to ever take advantage of prisoners of war or conquered peoples; however, based on your string of edits, I think we can reasonably infer that you have an agenda here. I think this is enough of a response that your post deserves; the remainder of your post was filled with a list of more grievances and quotes that even you fail to elaborate on. You even misrepresent Bernard Lewis's general views in order to further your own POV-edits; Lewis generally takes a sympathetic stance towards Islam and, more specifically, the Turks and the Ottoman Empire. -Rosywounds (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow has conveniently listed for us all of the changes he has been making to this article within the past day or so. All of them are incredibly tendentious and one-sided; and, I agree, they don't reflect well on the editor making them. ITAQALLAH 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to with your last sentence, but I am willing to keep almost all of this material out while we can discuss how to proceed. My latest edit is itaqallah's most recent concensus version with a sentence added about India. I hope everyone will consider the merits of that edit and discuss here calmly. Arrow740 (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence you are referring to is this "Umayyad general Muhammad bin Qasim expanded Muslim territory into India; this invasion was particularly brutal." right? The inclusion of a sentence or two on expansion into India seems fine; it is an important piece of history. The wording sounds a little POV with words like "brutal." You could simply say outrightly that many people died during Muslim expansion into India, but the word brutal is fairly loaded and borderline offensive (brutal is synonymous with "savage"). The term is also kind of redundant, because I don't think any political expansion (Muslim or otherwise) was peaceful. But I wouldn't oppose any type of sourced reference to expansion into South Asia, so long as it is worded neutrally. -Rosywounds (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that that sentence is a summary of the following well-sourced sentences quoted above: "Muslim invasions of India began in the first century of Islam with Muhammad bin Qasim. These invasions were characterized by genocide and cultural obliteration.[4] Historian Will Durant, writing in 1939, called the Muslim conquest of India 'probably the bloodiest story in history.'[5] The new Muslim rulers built mosques on the ruins of destroyed temples, and many Hindus were sold into slavery.[6]" It's a fact of history that it was a brutal invasion. In one town it took the invaders three days just to execute their male prisoners. Are you familiar with the events at all? Arrow740 (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "genocide" immediately makes the sources come off as POV or loaded, since none of these events are recognized as genocidal by the International Association of Genocide Scholars. The Muslim invasions were certainly bloody, but they weren't any more "genocidal" or bloody than the Third Punic War or the Mongol Invasions, for example. Alexander the Great burned numerous cities to the ground, as did the Persians, the Athenians and the Spartans. We would never use terms like "brutal" or "savage" or "barbaric" or "subhuman" to describe those events in an encyclopedia, either. Moreover, the source is Will Durant. While I would consider Will Durant to be a good-enough source, he should be used carefully. For one, he is known for writing very general, accessible history books that attempt to combine essentially all the history of the world into one collection. While it's a noble idea on his part, it would be safe to say that Durant only peripherally understands Muslim conquests, but it was not necessarily his area of expertise. He writes in an informal, literary style. Durant was actually opposed to specialized study on history (which is what is most widely accepted today in academia). Certainly many people died in these conquests, but the use of terms like barbaric are intended to dehumanize and represent a strongly charged POV. Further, the section that this is being included in is about conquests; the nature of these conquests could be elaborated on in Muslim conquests or in conquests on the Indian subcontinent, but does not necessarily deserve depth in an article on Islam itself. Those two articles I just mentioned would actually be a good place to go in depth, since the Muslim conquests article only gives a very brief overview. As for this specific case, I strongly disagree with terms like "barbaric"; perhaps we could get a few more opinions on it. -Rosywounds (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The word is "brutal." Various writers make the point that the Muslims were purposefully brutal in India, because they classed the Buddhists and Hindus as polytheists, guilty of a great crime against God. A quick search on google books will reveal to you that some jurists even found it to be illegal to let a captured polytheist male live. Whether or not there were other conquests in world history as brutal as the Muslim conquests of India (and I don't think that there are), we have reliable sources testifying that this was worse than the Muslim conquests in other areas. Do you really think that it is "POV" to use negative adjectives when describing the execution of tens of thousands of prisoners of war, and the utter destruction of religious monuments? Hajjaj's letter to bin Qasim (which I can quote as reproduced in Trifkovic) specifically quotes the Qur'an as the motive. Do you have any proposals on how we should handle this material? Arrow740 (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow740, all your additions are biased and you know that well. I'll just discuss one of them: Your point number one for example "In Islamic thought, enslavement of non-Muslims is sanctioned by God as punishment for unbelief, and capturing non-Muslims in the course of a properly declared jihad is one of the two ways available for the procurement of slaves" can not be more biased. There are two thesis regarding the whole issue of slavery at the first place and your sentence does not even try to summarize one of them in any decent manner. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your opinions on slavery in Islamic thought are highly idiosyncratic. Arrow740 (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow, you know well that these additions are all POV. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Aminz, these are almost all facts, not POV's. Arrow740 (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow740 seriously needs to re-read WP:NPOV. Apparently, for some reason the "Somnath temple" is important to this article. We haven't even mentioned important Islamic shrines like those at Karbala and Najaf. Nor have we mentioned the Mount Arafat, which is where one of the most important rites in Islam takes place. What, then makes Arrow740 think we should talk about the "Somnath temple"?Bless sins (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What does WP:NPOV have to do with this? Military excursions against India are a highly important aspect of Muslim history. Arrow740 (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Military excursions in general are indeed a notable part. And we already cover this notable part. But please do tell me why the "Somnath temple" is important to Islam? Even more important than mount Arafat?Bless sins (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If an army of Hindus killed 50000 Muslims and then destroyed the Kaaba, that should go in Hinduism too. It's the exact same situation. Arrow740 (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether the Kaaba is notable in Hinduism or not, please take that to Talk: Hinduism. I will try not to comment on Hindu beliefs and practices here. But I will comment on Islamic beliefs. And the Somnath temple in not important to the faith.Bless sins (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As I commented on Arrow's talk page, if Arrow would like to write something about India, summarize the whole story (when the war started; the peaceful/non-peaceful periods) in a way that it does not give undue weight to India. For this, you need to use a source that provides the summary without giving undue weight to anything. To choose and quote something as a summary is original research. In this case, your summary is clearly biased. The very source that Arrow is using compares the peaceful period and the protection of the temples before the conquest of Mahmud of Ghazni. But apparently Arrow has no interest in it.

In any case, Arrow's unilateral addition of undiscussed material is an important issue here. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was a summary. You seem to have missed something. Arrow740 (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow, Your source talks about a peaceful period when the temples were protected, then the conquest of that guy and other incidents that happened later. But you have decided to choose and pick a sentence there as a summary of all that. This is a good example of original research through choosing what to say and what to hide. If you would like to write something about India, summarize the whole story (when the war started; the peaceful/non-peaceful periods) in a way that it does not give undue weight to India. We don't have much space in this article to go into details and we have to summarize everything. For this summary, you need to use a source that provides the summary without giving undue weight to anything. To choose and quote something yourself as a summary is original research (and your list of addition above shows why this is problematic)--Be happy!! (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Including terms like "brutal" are POV-pushing; I think we've discussed this enough. I can use dictionary references if you don't think the term brutal is intended to be offensive. I already showed you a place where you can go more in depth in Muslim conquests of India; in an article on Islam itself, it would be good enough to mention that Muslims expanded into India. It would be tangential and POV-pushing to provide commentary on how "brutal" that was in an article on Islam as a faith. -Rosywounds (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The violence was religiously motivated, and was one of history's great tragedies. That's the point, and that's why it's notable in the article about your religion. Arrow740 (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that the violence was religiously motivated? If it was so, why don't you by the same logic consider the toleration part not religiously motivated? Any reason why you go through sources and pick whatever bad things the kings did? You can easily find examples of kings that say killed their son or generals. What does that tell? How do you know if someone was religiously motivated? Have you interrogated them? How do you know they were not primarily motivated by power, or by plunder motifs? --Be happy!! (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I already told you that the invasion of India is notable and that it ought to be briefly mentioned. We are not, however, going to use words like "barbaric" because they are emotionally charged words that dehumanize the subject. Moreover, can you verify that someone is behaving barbarically? No, you cannot; there are no standards or metrics for one to follow. If a terminology is unverifiable, then it is unfit for Wikipedia. At this point, I do not think I will entertain anymore of your whining on this issue. You have already made it quite clear, based on your edit history, that your only intention here is to pass blatant POV edits on Islam anywhere that you can find a location to do so - in a featured article, no less. -Rosywounds (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You avoided the issue with this long-winded response. It's interesting that you used the word "dehumanize." Answer these questions; was the treatment the Muslims gave their polytheist captives religiously motivated, and if so is that notable in the article about the religion. Arrow740 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hindus and others were included in the Dhimmi category (non-polytheists) after the conquest of India. See my comment above re the motivation. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think my opinion on the motives of the Muslims would constitute original research. The problem here is not that I am "avoiding the issues"; the problem here is that you are avoiding Wikipedia's policies for page editors (repeatedly). I will not entertain your baiting questions. Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussions on Islam; it is not a soapbox for you to vent about how much you hate Muslims or, at least, insinuate that (as your edits clearly do). Your pointish edits on the Islamic conquest of India article and your whining on this page are quite enough, Arrow. I think I have given you a fair answer already; the conquest of India is a notable event in Muslim history that should be included here. Words like barbaric are associated with words like savagery and would be inappropriate here just as they would be in an article on the British Raj in reference to the Asian Indian natives. Certainly it would be offensive and POV-pushing to refer to Asian Indians and American Indians as noble savages. Do not play stupid here. It is enough. -Rosywounds (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You again avoided the issue in an incivil manner. I provided secondary sources which make the case that the violence was religiously motivated and a great tragedy. Answer this question; is that notable? And you should know that you're not getting anywhere by writing "whining," "you hate Muslims," "do not play stupid." Just answer the question; is this religiously-motivated violence notable? Arrow740 (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is with your usage of the sources, Arrow, as I mentioned above and not the sources itself. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are referring to individuals such as Trifkovic that have no expertise on Islam (or even medieval history in general for that matter), then those sources do not deserve to be discussed. You have already been given a proper response and I have provided links to all of the Wikipedia policies that you have already violated. The sentence on this page that we were discussing was the sentence that included the word barbaric; I have given you a response. You are having trouble reading it; that is not my problem. Whether or not these conflicts were religiously motivated is a debatable issue, but they do not deserve placement in an article on Islam as a faith. Similarly, an article on Christianity should not discuss forced conversions during the Spanish Inquisition and whether or not religious scripture or politics was the cause. That would be inappropriate. There are other articles where these issues can be included. Your baiting questions will not be entertained because they are not pertinent to this article. I already clarified this for you. It is interesting that you call me uncivil, while at the same time you accuse me of sock puppetry on my user page, but I will let that insult slide. -Rosywounds (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You are uncivil. You will be blocked for this or some other infraction before long. It is not debatable that the violence was religiously motivated. Hajjaj told bin Qasim to be more violent and specifically quoted the Qur'an as the reason why. It is not debatable. Now let's try again. Why isn't it notable? Arrow740 (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I say if the source you are using uses the term "brutal" then it's fine. If not then just say what the source says. However I disagree that the brutality can be credited to Quran 47:4 since that verse describes what most any military force on earth does, kill the enemy until it is possible to take them as prisoners, then don't kill them. Those aren't instructions to be uniquely brutal, that's just war. -Bikinibomb (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It says smite unbelievers' necks. Regarding slavery, this verse [13] and the ones after are later and abrogate the earlier one regarding releasing POW's. These later verses say that after a great slaughter, Muhammad is permitted keep prisoners of war as slaves. The Qur'an goes on to say that Muhammad would have been punished in the past when he ransomed prisoners instead of keeping these gifts from Allah if this new verse had been revealed at that time. Arrow740 (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, smite unbelievers, or drop smart bombs on them, or whatever, like in any battle. Until they are manageable, then don't kill them. There's nothing particularly brutal about that verse. Especially if he allowed them to go free for a ransom which sounds more civil than keeping them as slaves.

Quran 47:4 Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

Quran 8:67 It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

I don't see that this says anything different either. If some guy fights with a cop, the cop clubs, tazes, shoots, whatever, until the guy is subdued and submits, then the cop arrests him and takes him prisoner. That's just common sense. Muslims and non-Muslims alike twist the Quran to make it say things it doesn't and blow it out of shape. So I'd be inclined to add all that for NPOV along with your statements if they are ever used somewhere. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Qur'an says that Muhammad(pbuh) can keep prisoners of war as slaves. No one disputes that, and that's Islamic law. We're getting off-topic. The point is that Hajjaj quoted the Qur'an as a reason for why bin Qasim should be more violent than he was being. Arrow740 (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Or keep them as prisoners until they are deemed to be trustworthy and work to earn their keep, like prisoners who make license plates, do you consider them to be slaves? Quran 90 says to take the righteous path of freeing slaves, feeding the poor, and helping orphans. As I indicated, some Muslims also distort the Quran to justify aspects of Islamic Law.

So the point maybe is, Hajjaj quoted the Quran as a reason for why bin Qasim should wage a more effective war to quickly subdue the enemy in order to avoid even more loss of life, an early example of shock and awe. So we have gone from barbaric brutality and violence, to common and effective military strategy. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Freeing slaves is recommended, but not commanded. The Qur'an specifically says that the Muslims can have sex with "those whom your right hand possess." Is that a common military strategy? You should also know that the assault on Sindh was a war of aggression; you cannot produce an analogy to justify it. Let's quote Hajjaj:

The great God says in the Qur'an, "O True Believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth, grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man.

Arrow740 (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Later, he wrote: "My distinct orders are that all those who are fighting men should be assassinated, and their sons and daughters imprisoned and retained as hostages." Sind So it appears that he meant to kill all those who still wanted to fight, not everyone. Again, common modern practice for everyone from police to soldiers on the battlefield when enemies continue to fight. And when they were deemed to be trustworthy, they were supposed to be freed.

As for female slavery, this may help...

It is a fact that the Qur’an makes a distinction between free women and “those whom your right hands possess”, the latter being women taken as prisoners of war. But there could be no intimacy even with the latter without marriage as is clear from the following verse:...(4:25). Thus, marriage for the sake of satisfying lust only, or secret marriage, is not permissible in Islam. It requires that husband and wife should live together in a bond of wedlock.

Muhammad Asad, a noted modern commentator of the Qur’an, adopts the uncompromising position that the Qur’an never, at any point, gave Muslim men the sanction to acquire war captives as concubines. In his masterful commentary, Asad states that verse 4:3 of the Qur’an exhorts Muslim men to marry free believing women and if these not be available, then to marry those from the captives and by doing so elevate their status in Muslim society. Concubines

So then, there is no image of savage beasts raping slave girls, but where women may be indentured and possibly have no other place to turn after their people have been defeated and killed, Muslims were allowed to marry them and treat them as respectfully as any other woman. -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That is simply false. Muhammad Asad is a noted apologist. Muhammad bin Abdullah divided up the women captives after each battle to his supporters. How can you not know that? Have you read a biography of Muhammad? Muhammad himself had sex with at least one slave, Maria the Copt. Arrow740 (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Details regarding Maria al-Qibtiyya are as clear as mud, some say she was a slave, some say she was his wife. As for dividing women, if their husbands and families were killed in battle and they needed to be cared for, Mohammed would certainly be generous to enable that, dividing them up among Muslims so that no one would have too great a burden. What was he to do, leave them there to starve and suffer after their towns had been destroyed in battle? It's no different than US soldiers caring for Iraqis caught in the crossfire after battle there. -Bikinibomb (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You have an ahistorical idea of Muhammad. Rodinson quotes one of Muhammad's warriors, Abu Said Khudri:

We were lusting after women and chastity had become too hard for us, but we had no objections to getting the ransom money for our prisoners. So we wanted to use coitus interruptus. We asked the Prophet about it and he said: 'You are not under any obligation to forbear from that...' Later on women and children were ransomed by envoys. They all went away to their country and nto one wanted to stay, although they had the choice.

I can provide more proof that the Muslims were having sex with their female captives if needed. Arrow740 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That is from Hadith and the ideal is, Any hadith that conflicts with the Quran or logic is immediately thrown out. Not all Muslims accept Hadith, only the Quran, and when it is accepted, different Muslims accept different Hadith. So Abu Said Khudri is no proof of anything except that it is Hadith. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note chapter 4 verse 3 which proposes having a concubine as an alternative to marriage. Arrow740 (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No that says you can marry them, not make them concubines. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"If you feel you cannot deal justly, then one, or what your right hands possess." It is the alternative. Arrow740 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The other translation "then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess." saying marry only one Muslim woman or marry one in your care. If you ever saw The Scarlet Letter or Dances with Wolves when Native Americans did battle with the whites they would take survivors into their care. When a white girl Stands With A Fist grew up she was to marry a Sioux. Same thing. Not quite like making sex slaves of enemy women. -Bikinibomb (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You're adding a false opposition into the text. It doesn't say marry a Muslim or a slave, it says marry one or (no verb) what your right hands possess. All mainstream scholarship says that this verse justifies concubinage. Islamic history and practice does as well. You can throw out all this and the sahih hadith if you want, but adding new words to the Qur'an is a stretch. Besides, it is possible to have Muslim slaves: conversion of someone in captivity did not necessitate that they be freed. Also Muslim men are permitted to marry non-Muslim women. So your idea of the verse has all these extra, false assumptions. You're going to believe whatever you feel like believing. If you really want to believe in "Islam" then evidence to the contrary isn't going to make a difference. So let's just drop this. You could take the line that repugnance to slavery is an evil Western concept imposed upon the ummah like many do. Arrow740 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Quran 4:25 verifies that I'm not adding anything: And whoso is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. In both cases, the instructions say you can marry enemy women in your care, not make sex slaves of them. -Bikinibomb (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this discussion. There is a clear majority of editors who think these changes are tendentious and disruptive. Stop pushing it, Arrow. ITAQALLAH 22:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

ITAQALLAH we need to continue until we reach the true.It is not according to who have the most popular idea.It is about what is true and clearly in such issue Muslims are bias as well as any religious group.132.72.151.98 (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah every human is going to be bias, I wouldn't try to snow anyone saying Muslims are perfect. But then again admitting faults and accepting whimsical demonization are two different things. -Bikinibomb (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arrow740.Plus this article is pro-Islamic bias.Oren.tal (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh lemme tell you why..: cuz ur anti-islamic, get it? 216.99.54.234 (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

FAR + Numbers

After some back-and-forth, the FAR for this article is closed. I unpacked the rationale here. The principal point is that to show an instability breach, you need to show how the article content has been compromised. To put it in positive terms: this remains a good article. The writing is succinct, the coverage broad, the lead appropriate, and the citations copious. Most importantly for FAR, it's clearly recognizable versus the promoted version.

One thing that has changed is the number of Muslims in the first paragraph. "Islamic population" is clearly a non-neutral source in this context. At the time of featuring, it was 900 million to 1.3 billion from Teece (probably too low). Might we avoid a specific number? "Islam is the second largest religion in the world, after Christianity. Estimates of the total number of Muslims are usually above one billion and sometimes more than 1.5 billion." The reference could then list two or three different sources. Marskell (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the 'Islamic population' figures (as well as some other sentences in the rest of the article) have crept in and been preserved due to protection, but are not subject to agreement amongst editors. I agree that a range would be more appropriate. ITAQALLAH 15:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If there's consensus for an edit during protection, I'll add that change to numbers. I can do that with other things, as I've had no stake in previous content disputes. Marskell (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

On the Qur'an's not changing

The first paragraph of the Qur'an sections ends with "From textual evidence, modern Western academics find that the Qur'an of today has not changed over the years.[25]" This implies that all Western academics believe that this, which is obviously not true. It needs to be changed to say "some Western academics believe that the Qur'an of today has not changed over the years". Preferably, we should then mention some Western academics who dispute this. Also, we need to mention that there is more than one version of the Qur'an. Egypt uses the Asim of Kufa version whilst the rest of North Africa uses the Nafi of Medina version. It cannot a balanced article without this point. Epa101 (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Different qira'at don't make different "versions." Of course, some proposed alternate theories regarding the Qur'an, but they are an extreme minority. See the comments of Peters here. ITAQALLAH 18:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

They are not small minorty and even if they are they should be mentioned.Second there is new research this article.: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4048586,00.html your article about researchers is not update.132.72.151.98 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we've discussed the Sana'a fragments already. These were discovered in 1972, Peters wrote in 1991. ITAQALLAH 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with something about that sentence being wrong. The Peters article is a little odd because it seriously downplays the revisionists (although, he doesn't always disagree)... but, in any case I think he is referring to something different than the article is citing him for. Is the Qur'an the word of Muhammad(pbuh) is his point... and incidentally the article by Crone on OpenDemocracy agrees that it is (more or less). But the question is has the Qur'an changed. And I think the answer to that is after the Qur'an was set it didn't change (except for a few minor incidents... Rashid Khalifa comes to mind) the issue is that some Western scholars think (thought) it had a later compilation date than others. But, since the article is not debating later compilation theories I think it's safe to say that they believed it was unchanged after compilation. I am not sure exactly what the Peters page says so we might have to change the citation. But, does that sound agreeable to both of you?

As for "different versions" that is seriously misleading because I think even the most different versions (known) are about as different as two different printings of War and Peace and I think any mention of that should be on the Qur'an page were it can be properly discussed without misleading the reader. gren グレン 16:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's just about Peters saying the Qur'an is Muhammad's(pbuh) words, but it's about him saying that the Qur'an we have today is Muhammad's(pbuh) words (hence he says 'our copy of the Qur'an'). To that end, he cites the lack of noteworthy pre-`Uthmanic variants supporting any alternative conclusion. He elaborates, saying that the absense of variants doesn't suggest the presence of inauthentic material, nor the deletion of authentic material. I'll quote the paragraph in full if you wish, in case you don't have access to the article. IMHO it's quite unequivocal.

Khalifa's argument was basically that because the verses, barring one, fit into a mathematical algorithm he devised, that this verse must have been an interpolation. Not convincing given the lack of historical evidence, and the presumption that his mathematical analysis wasn't erroneous. ITAQALLAH 17:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, the two references given for that sentence are completely insufficient to say that Western academics find in favour of the Qur'an's authenticity point blank. It is far from an issue of consensus in the Western world. As to different versions of the Qur'an, a sentence could be inserted that said, "There are very slight differences in the Qur'an: for example, between the Asim of Kufa version and the Nafi of Medina version." Just because the differences are slight does not mean that it is not worth mentioning. Epa101 (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

They are merely differences in recitation styles. ITAQALLAH 16:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Epa... dig up some good sources about what you're trying to say and quote the relevant parts (since we all likely won't have access to scholarly databases / books) and then we might be able to talk more. As for now I think we can change "From textual evidence, modern Western academics find that the Qur'an of today has not changed over the years." to "Although there is some debate about when the Qur'an was originally compiled, scholars agree that the Qur'an has not changed since the first textual evidence in the 800s". That date is just my guess but Muslim and non-Muslims agree about the date for the first full versions of the Qur'an (we merely need to look it up). The issue is if it was compiled before the first textual evidence of the complete Qur'an. That issue can be discussed fully in other articles but I think changing it similarly to how I have it would clear up any ambiguity and show where there is broad agreement. gren グレン 02:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a long comment written out but I accidently closed the window :S. I'll just summarise my points. I don't mind tweaks with the current version so long as we can agree its precise replacement. However if you have Wansbrough et al. when proposing "Although there is some debate about when the Qur'an was originally compiled", then I'd incline against mentioning it given that it's a minority (or even extreme minority view". I'm also sure that textual evidence is available from well before the 800s. I should note, however, that the sentiments expressed by Peters in attributing general agreement on the authenticity of the Qur'an is repeated in Watt and Bell's "Introduction to the Qur'an", page 50 onwards. So it might be the case that there's currently no pressing need to change the current version. ITAQALLAH 22:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that I'm rereading the whole paragraph I think the last sentence is meaningless. If the Qur'an was standardized then it hasn't changed. The rest of the paragraph is written to give no voice to minority views--but more importantly doesn't even express any of the doubt that other scholars had (such as, many agree with the Muslim narrations for lack of better evidence--but still wish they had more evidence). I would just remove the last sentence which is repetitive and maybe add a sentence or clause about "some disagree" although I think the link to origin and development of the Qur'an will suffice. gren グレン 01:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree,we should changed the line in order to express the fact the only since Uthman it did not changed but before him it had changed.Oren.tal (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)plus anther link about diffirent version of Koran that were found on Yemen. http://cremesti.com/amalid/Islam/Yemeni_Ancient_Koranic_Texts.htm Oren.tal (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Making such a controversial change would require more than one web site, publication or book for that matter. Also, inclusion of POV sources will not go well. Some reliable neutral references must be found to back up this seemingly small change. For the moment, let's keep things the way they are.Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

it is not point of view source and situation as it is now is very bad.132.72.151.98 (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that people are missing my initial point here. Under the Wikipedia rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed , the burden is on those who believe that there is a consensus amongst Western scholars on this issue to state so. So far, all we have in the article is the opinions of two Western scholars. That is not a sufficient citation for the sentence, and it should be altered to state that only some Western scholars have expressed this opinion. The burden is not on me but on those who defend the current article. From readin the comments since my last edit, I think that it is unfair to say that proposed sources cannot be from elite scholarly journals and libraries, seeing as the current citations are of a similar kind of source. Wikipedia has a policy of not allowing "extremist" viewpoints, and it is quite hard in religion articles to define "extremist". If we start excluding university viewpoints as well, then it would be impossible to have a decent article. Epa101 (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We aren't talking about two or three individual opinions by scholars (i.e. "I think this..." or "I think that..."). Francis Peters is declaring general consensus on this viewpoint... please refer to what he states, which is "... few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words ...". So the claim that modern academics in general accept its authenticity is verified (as required by WP:CITE, WP:V). Similar attributions of agreement are also found in the Watt/Bell reference above. ITAQALLAH 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What sources does Peters use to make this claim? For such a bold statement, I would presume that he either went on to describe this consensus or gave a lengthy footnote. If he did not do so, the most can be written is "Franks believes that there is a consensus on this issue amongst Western scholars"; it would possibly even fall foul of this rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources If he did, those sources that he listed should be summarised here. Wikipedia acknowledges that it is hard to judge reliability in scholars of Islam, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28Islam-related_articles%29 , so this seems appropriate. I am still not convinced that such a sweeping statement as we are discussing is appropriate for an article on Islam. Epa101 (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think saying " modern Western academics find that the Qur'an of today has not changed over the years" is too much in the sense that it does not define "change". Some scholars think the alleged grammatical mistakes in the Qur'an are the result of copyists' errors (I am aware that this is controversial among western academics but that it is a result of changes is a POV). I think it is important to get the flavor of the type of alleged changes that scholars are debating. The debate is typically over how a few letters in a word in a sentence could have changed (that's the extent of the change usually debated over). Here is an example: "Ḥaṣab: fuel. Read ḥaṭab, with Ubayy b. Kaʿb, in q 21:98. Ḥaṣab cannot mean “fuel”; ḥaṭab occurs with this meaning in q 111:4 and q 72:15. The mistake was caused by a copyist omitting the vertical stroke of the ṭāʾ, turning it into a ṣād".

In other words, I think it is safe to say that "modern Western academics think that a sentence has not been added to the Qur'an" is reasonably accurate but letters within a word might have changed as a result of copyists' errors. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should be worry about the minor variation issue which isn't particularly major and was relatively early. Also "standardized" implies there wasn't change--so the issue would be the date of standardization which is uncontested in the article. My problem is the article implies no doubt. Yes, late dating hypothesis is a small minority view but I don't think doubt about to what extent we can trust the sources is. Much of the literature will discuss "can we trust the Muslim sources" and the answer often is "they are the best we have when used cautiously" which is very different from "they are true". I think that needs to be reflected in the article. Of course the Qur'an wasn't changed after it was standardized (hence, standardized) so why are we even worrying about that? gren グレン 00:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gren, what do you think of the following quote from Watt regarding the standardization of the Qur'an:

If any great changes by way of addition, suppression or alteration had been made, controversy would almost certainly have arisen; but of that there is little trace. Uthman offended the more religous among Muslims, and ultimately became very unpopular. Yet among the charges laid against him, that of having mutilated or altered the Qur'an is not generally included, and was never made a main point. The Shi'a, it is true, has always held that the Qur'an was mutilated by the suppression of much which referred to Ali and the Prophet's family. This charge, however, is not specially directed against Uthman, but just as much against the first two Caliphs whose auspicies the first collection is assumed to have been made. It is also founded on dogmatic assumption which hardly appeal to modern criticism. On general grounds then, it may be concluded that the 'Uthmanic revision was honestly carried out, and reproduced, as closely as was possible to men in charge of it, what Muhammad had delivered.
Modern study of the Qur'an has not in fact raised any serious question of its authenticity. The style varies, but is almost unmistakable. So clearly does the whole bear the stamp of uniformity that doubts of its genuineness hardly arise...

--Be happy!! (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

"standardized" implies there wasn't change since the standardization and not before.Oren.tal (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't b/c thats not what standardization is referring to. The Quran was not revealed exactly in the form as it is today but in various pieces all around, with time, and each revelation fitting the situation at the time. There may or may not have been a plan for it all to have been organized in a certain way but until Uthman, many people organized it however they wanted and what not. Therefore, he organized a Standard version for which all Muslims to abide by. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the quote Oren.tal? --Be happy!! (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

the one that say that no scientist prove the Quran has been changed?Oren.tal (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The one I just quoted regarding the Uthman's gathering of the Qur'an: "If any great changes by way of addition..."--Be happy!! (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion: "Modern Western academics generally hold that no significant changes by way of addition, suppression or alteration had been made in the Qur'an over the years." -- the evidence is not just textual. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oren.tal, I would like to remind you that this kind of behaviour is extremely inappropriate. See WP:CANVASS and WP:MEAT. ITAQALLAH 13:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all you don't know that it is me.So I suggest you wont blame me.Second it is irrelevant.There was a discussion and people disagree with this sentence.Oren.tal (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oren.tal, I have actually found numerous fora where you have been canvassing this specific dispute over this very sentence, from around the time you raised this issue.[14] The phraseology (and generally poor English) used matches yours, as does the links you provided on those websites and here, as does the specific arguments raised. In fact, you have also been doing the same for other articles you are contributing to, such as Qur'an and miracles.[15] This is advocating meatpuppetry, Oren.tal, and I suggest you stop doing this. ITAQALLAH 20:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Article dispute & protection

What caused the dispute?? Who are the main parties in this dispute and how can it be resolved amicably?? I'm trying to help the situation here. Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 11:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please refer to this section. There were a lot of tendentious insertions being made without appropriate agreement on what, if anything, was to be inserted. One or two of these still remain in the article, and really should be removed once protection expires. ITAQALLAH 16:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Deep problems

This article has a lot of deep issues in regards to full coverage. I will provide a few examples. There is no discussion of the place of Islamic science and literature in the golden age of Islam. This preservation and development of knowledge had a massive impact on society, history and culture in the West. This influence is very widely discussed in reliable sources. The article completely fails to address the tenuous/heretical social position of Sufi in many Islamic countries and sects. It also completely fails to address the Salafi and Wahhabi, which are sects that have a huge impact on the modern Muslim world. The influence of both on modern Islamic radicalism and the latter as the dominating faith of Saudi Arabia is well-documented and vigorously discussed in reputable references. This article needs to appropriately reflect the body of reliable sources, which it currently fails to do. Vassyana (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a brief mention of the Islamic golden age in the history section. We previously had a fully fledged section pertaining to Islamic civilisation (art, architecture, culture, science etc.), but because of size concerns we decided it would be best to substantially reduce that and fork the content elsewhere. I am sure, however, that a sentence or two can be incorporated if you believe there is an omission.

The history section also does mention the development of Sufism and Wahhabism, the former is discussed in quite some depth in fact. As with the material on civilisation, the history section was trimmed down to keep the article at a sub-100k manageable size.

So I believe the points you raise are actually covered in this article. Given that this article is essentially a broad summary, concentrating on any single aspect may not be appropriate. ITAQALLAH 19:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there are plenty of places this article could be trimmed down, particularly in sections that are summaries of topics covered more fully in other articles. The history section does mention Sufism, but it gives the impression it is commonly acceptable with only "some" Muslims seeing it as bid'ah, while the Sufi are generally only tenuously tolerated in a handful of Islamic regions mostly due to historical factors (in Egypt for example). Wahhabism is mentioned very briefly, with no mention of its heated relationship with other sects of Islam or its central place in modern Islamic fundamentalism. It's completely baffling to me that the massive impact of golden age Islam on Western civilization would be cut out. Certainly, that is a crucial area of information about Islam. I understand this is a large and complex topic, but that's all the more reason that major points and significant information need to be properly represented in the article. Vassyana (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the major points are covered generally speaking. After all, it was an article quite similar to this which became featured (of course, that doesn't mean it's perfect). Yes, there is always the question of what the ideal depth of coverage for a particular point or aspect is, and that can sometimes vary given the size of the topic. I'd say that most aspects are covered only very briefly in the history section so that the general coverage is broader. There is some mention about criticism against Sufism by Wahhabis, with more general conflicts with the West mentioned in the context of Islamism. If criticisms of Sufism etc. are more widespread, it'd be nice to see some sources discussing this.

As for the golden age issue, perhaps it might be beneficial to have a few more sentences related to its general impact (upon the Renaissance, for example). Perhaps we could identify some of the reliable sources relevant here and develop a few sentences which can then be moved into the article once protection is lifted? ITAQALLAH 20:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To end edit-warring on this article, just block arrow760. He's the source of all disruptions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.54.234 (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested edit

I request two edits:

• In the section Islam#Rise_of_empire_.28632.E2.80.93750.29, the title should be changed to "Rise of the caliphate (632–750)". The reason is that the state wasn't merely an empire, but a caliphate, which is different.
• In the same section the link in "Further information" that reads "Muslim empire" should be removed, as it links to a disambig page which provides no real information.Bless sins (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Serious mistake in the article

the first line of this article says" Islam (Arabic: الإسلام; al-'islām (help·info)) is a monotheistic Abrahamic religion originating with the teachings of Jack FitzGerald a 21th century student political figure". this article has gone seriously wrong here. Islam has nothing to do with Jack FitzGerald and obviously its origination has nothing to do with 21st century. please fix this article as soon as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhorn ss (talk • contribs) 23:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It was just vandalism, I think its been cleared up now. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

who cares?

Terrorism

Isn't it a little ridiculas to have a whole article about Islam and not mention terrorism? a subject which is unseprable from Islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.187.32 (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, its not. Same way that the Christianity page does not mention the Ku Klux Klan and how the Judaism page does not mention the Jewish Terrorist campaign during the early years of the Israeli state. Its a totally different subject. --The Fear (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking about the Christianity page or the Jewish page, but the fact is that there is currently daily terrorist atrocities happening because of Islam. To ignore this fact is further abuse of the victims of Islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.65.91 (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesnt matter. The fact that you wish to single out one religion and ignore the rest is a matter of POV. This is suppposed to be a resource, not a battlefield for religious beliefs. --The Fear (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a short mention in the "Modern times (1918–present)" section. Yahel Guhan 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Glad to hear this little debate is over.The Fear (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How is terrorism inseparable from Islam? Over a billion Muslims have no trouble separating it. What a ridiculous assertion to make! Peter Deer (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Growth of Islam

I think a section should be added on Islam as the fastest spreading religion in the world. This has been verified by numerous sources over the years.

1. CNN 1997 article: Fast-growing Islam winning converts in Western world at [16]
2. Anayat Durrani, freelance journalist in 2000 [17]
3. TIMES ONLINE 2004: Islamic Britain lures top people [18]

Unimpeccable (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is often something claimed by many others too however, see Fastest growing religion. ITAQALLAH 15:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to cite those anywhere, cite them in the page mentioned by Itaqallah as it looks like the Islam section there terribly needs it. From the looks of it, it gives a very one-sided, not to mention POV, and definite outlook on growth in the Muslim population, something that doesn't seem present in the other religion sections. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Gaps in the historical narrative

There is nothing about the Mongols and their impact upon the history of Islam. Technically the Mongol Invasions and the later Turco-mongol empires had a much more substantial impact both culturally and historically than the crusades in the medieval world. Also a note needs to go in about the Ghazi emirates. The Ottomans did not rise from the Seljuks but came about almost two centuries later, another missing period in Muslims history, the Turks before the Mongols. Hope that clears it up.--Salikk (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a sentence of two about the Mongol invasions. The issue is that it's very easy to discuss in too much depth or detail, whereas the key here is to be succinct so that we present more of a brief overview which covers everything, as opposed to bloating the section and sacrificing brevity. It's important not to dwell on one area of history for too long so as to keep things balanced and neutral. Again, we could probably have a sentence or two on the Ghazi states, but that should be the limit I think.

Also, I changed the articles of faith section back to its previous layout. While the articles do indeed include all of the previous revelations and prophets, this is already mentioned in the main articles of faith section. We decided that on this basis we'd be better of focusing on the Qur'an/Muhammad as the core aspects of these two tenets. ITAQALLAH 16:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well, I will redo the history edits to make brief mentions. The Mongols were however a major so need a couple of more sentences. As for the Articles of Faith, using Muhammad and Quran is factually incorrect and also have their own "main articles". While putting more focus on them is ok the actual articles need to be represented and can form a lead into the "final versions", the significance of both is that they are the final, corrected version of the message and beleif in the entire chain is a fundamental tenet of the aqidah. Much like the Pillars of Islam, you have very definitely defined Articles of Faith. Infact they along with Ahsan stem from the same hadith of the angle Jibreel and always talked of together.--Salikk (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying in essence. This is why the opening paragraphs of "Articles of faith" attempt to explain Muslim belief in previous books/prophets. I understand that the section headings may not necessarily synchronise directly with the hadith of Jibril (kutubihi, rusulihi etc.) but all of the essential points are mentioned and the current layout makes for better clarity in presenting the core sources of the religion; that is, the Qur'an, and Muhammad (vis-a-vis Sunnah). ITAQALLAH 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think being an encylopedia we should still stick with the titles of the actual real Atricles of Faith that are Islam. Maybe however a the sections on the rest of the kutubs ands rusuls migbt be no longer than a line or two leading into the subsection which would deal mainly with the primary ones of this ummah, they do mention it anyway. That way the core one's still stand out without compromising factual accuracy.--Salikk (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Islam

We are learning about Islam in class! It's fun to learn about! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.6.202 (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

There's something very weird about the line "In modern times Islam has come under criticism from idealogues such as Robert Spencer..." In the first place, Islam has always been criticized from the West, and the particular criticisms that Spencer makes aren't even new or scholarly respectable. But I think what's more important here is that Spencer is a fairly minor figure outside of the American conservative movement, and Islam is a major world religion. It's like having the Judiasm page include "Roald Dahl, the British author, hated some Jews." Obviously we wouldn't do that. Hell, we wouldn't even say "Judaism has come under some criticism from Ezra Pound..." We are we doing it here? Ethan Mitchell (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a reasonable point. I think the source used (Front Page Magazine) is generally accepted by the community as unreliable as well, so I'm inclined to just leave in the one which does appear appropriately sourced (Ibn Warraq) for now. ITAQALLAH why there are two text for the same topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirk_%28polytheism%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirk_(polytheism)and every time you want to change in the second link changes will appear in the first one changes will be undo in the second on 16:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is "Divine revelation of God" correct expression?

There is an article in "The Quʼran as Text", which is written by Wild. It describes the meaning of revelation(p.137) in Christianity and propose not to use it for qur'an. As he explains and I, as a Muslim, understand we should use "God sents down Quran" and "Qur'an comes down"(pp. 137-156).--Seyyed(t-c) 03:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A very interesting point he makes. Indeed, the root used to describe the Qur'an is n-z-l (nuzul, anzalna); referring to descending/something sent down. However, as Wild himself states, "revelation" is the most inevitable descriptor for this in the English language, and from a stylistic perspective it's convenient because it's one word. However, Wild is mainly referring to the Christian concept of revelation and I think modern usage allows for a broader understanding - "God's revelation" is easily understood today as "communication sent down by God." As opposed to changing every instance of the word "revelation", it may be useful to include a single-sentence rejoinder basically stating that revelation isn't being used in reference to the Christian understanding and is intended as a word to illustrate the "sending down" of God's word. ITAQALLAH 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. However I explained the issue in Quran article and we can expand the idea in wahy and the other related articles.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Added information about haj

I would like to first thank you for this great explanation of islam. I would like to add some information as to explain the actions behind the some of the acts of Haj. Most of the acts are simbolic in tribute to prophets or religious stories. following you will find the explanation for some of the acts: 1- running seven times between Mount Safa and Mount Marwah: It is called al-saie. it is in the memmory of Hajar, wife of Ibrahim, when she could not find water to serve for her thirsty baby ismail. she ran 7 times between the two hills in hopes of finding a Convoy that could supply water. When she was about to despair, A miracule occured out of the mercy of god in which water emerged from under the feet of her son in the form of what is called the water of zamzam.THis well is still exsistant and millions of piligrimers drink from it every day. This water is said through the words of mohamed (pbuh) "the hadith" is a blessed water that could cure illnesses. 2-symbolically stoning the Devil : is tribute to Ibrahim when his faith in god was tested in which he had to slaughter his son had he really believed in god. while on the way to proceed with the deed the devil emerged 3 times to Persuade him against following god's orders. each time he stoned him and thus we do as well in his memory. 3- when Ibrahim demonstrated his true faith in god through intent in slautering his son, god spared his son and decended a sheep from the heavens to be slautered instead of his son. thus, in the end of each Haj season, we slaughter a sheep and donate the meat to the poor in tribute to ibrahim and in thank to god for his murcy.

Thank you so much Reemalqatami (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reem

This would be too much detail for this article. But we can probably add one sentence and provide a link to another article that discusses this in more details. But before that we need a reliable source WP:RS. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

jesus & other prophets

Islam teaches that all prophet from adam to muhammed including jesus preached islam. one cannot be a true muslim if he rejects any of these prophets.islam pictures jesus as a great prophet who did great miracles in the name of god and invited masses to islamic fold.At the same time islam rejects the divinity of jesus and asks christians to pray to that one God to whom jesus himself prayed whenever he needed help.Quran rejects the crucifixion of jesus and informs that he was raised to heaven alive and will return to earth again before the last day --Smilek (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the note at the top of the page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islam article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

--Be happy!! (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)