Talk:Islam/Archive 19
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
almost at GA
We need to make the final push to get this to GA, with an eye to eventual FA. I'm making a word choice/grammar/flow pass over all the text. - Merzbow 06:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- As I go through, I'm tagging non-trivial stuff that needs sourcing or is improperly sourced with fact. This should be simple to do; if someone can pick these off, I'd be grateful since I just want to focus on the text for now. - Merzbow 07:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done with this; for now I avoided touching the three sections we are thinking about compressing since they may change a great deal anyway. Next task is to make a pass through the references and clean them up again; some minor messiness has accumulated there. Also there remain a handful of fact tags that need sourcing. Finally, someone should make a pass over the images to verify they abide by policy and are all formatted properly in the text (the Dome of the Rock image seems to be too high). - Merzbow 06:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- thanks Merzbow. a peer review after GA would be the way to go methinks. ITAQALLAH 21:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done with this; for now I avoided touching the three sections we are thinking about compressing since they may change a great deal anyway. Next task is to make a pass through the references and clean them up again; some minor messiness has accumulated there. Also there remain a handful of fact tags that need sourcing. Finally, someone should make a pass over the images to verify they abide by policy and are all formatted properly in the text (the Dome of the Rock image seems to be too high). - Merzbow 06:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
his/His?
When referring to God with pronouns, should we capitalize the first letter? Not sure if there is a Wikipedia standard for this. - Merzbow 06:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion, definitely not.Proabivouac 06:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was lazy; actually WP:STYLE does explicitly say we should not capitalize the pronouns: "Pronouns referring to deities, or nouns (other than names) referring to any material or abstract representation of any deity, human or otherwise, do not begin with a capital letter." - Merzbow 06:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
the split of the Islamic Civilization section
Somebody suggested that this should be split up and moved to another page. I strongly support this proposal. If we want to make this a good article or a featured article, this has to happen. It is partially unsourced, and just adds irrelevant material to this article. No other religous article has any section similar to this. Its inclusion gives Islam special treatment.--Sefringle 01:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC) please can you to ut these web site in principal page on
- We definitely should shrink the article a bit. It could probably achieve GA without it, but probably not FA; anyways, if we have the hands and can get consensus, there's no reason to delay. I think the biggest space hog is actually the "History" section. My thought is to compress both the "History" section and the "Islamic civilization" sections each by one half. Probably a few of the History sub-sections could be merged. I think the number of sub-sections in the Civilization section could probably stay the same, they seem sufficiently broad. "Islam and other religions" is a mess, it should also be compressed in half. - Merzbow 02:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
please can you to put thes web site on prncipal page of islam: http://www.55a.net/firas/english http://nooran.org/en http://miraclesofthequran.com
- I a) added a lot of the material in the Islamic civilization section. Unsourced leaving other people to put in the work cleaning up after me and sourcing it. And I b) recently suggested that we should consider merging it with the history section. Yes, other religions do not have such a section. But other religions are not identified in the same way with a particular form of civilization. I agree with Merzbow that it could be reduced, mainly because of the way that I tend to approach the writing process, i.e. expand on a subject then tighten it up rigorously. I would be strongly against losing all reference to Islamic civilization because without it there is no chance of understanding Islam historically, i.e. encyclopedically. Itsmejudith 02:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- "But other religions are not identified in the same way with a particular form of civilization."
- That is not at all the case: Christianity throughout the majority of its history is uniquely associated with the Roman Empire and European civilization generally, which could easily be called "Christian civilization" if the same standards were to be applied. How much more is Hinduism uniquely associated with India, Confucianism with China, Zoroastrianism with Persia, etc.
- I agree that the history section(s) is far too long.Proabivouac 04:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- If we would like to reduce the sizes, we should make sure we move these materials to their parrent articles. A lot of energy is spent on them. On each section, we can have a see also pointing out to the specific section where the relevant articles are moved. --Aminz 06:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Since the parent articles generally seem comprehensive (like Muslim history), it doesn't seem likely we can just move whole sections as-is - but we can merge new references and new coverage into the parents (portions of the text), to make sure that no information is lost in the end. - Merzbow 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- If we would like to reduce the sizes, we should make sure we move these materials to their parrent articles. A lot of energy is spent on them. On each section, we can have a see also pointing out to the specific section where the relevant articles are moved. --Aminz 06:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I a) added a lot of the material in the Islamic civilization section. Unsourced leaving other people to put in the work cleaning up after me and sourcing it. And I b) recently suggested that we should consider merging it with the history section. Yes, other religions do not have such a section. But other religions are not identified in the same way with a particular form of civilization. I agree with Merzbow that it could be reduced, mainly because of the way that I tend to approach the writing process, i.e. expand on a subject then tighten it up rigorously. I would be strongly against losing all reference to Islamic civilization because without it there is no chance of understanding Islam historically, i.e. encyclopedically. Itsmejudith 02:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
To be picky, I said that other religions are not identified in the same way with a civilization as Islam is. Of course religions are all connected to forms of civilization but in different ways. In the end it all comes down to helping the reader. Someone who is curious to know more about Islamic art might initially click on Islam and should be able to orientate themselves from there. Someone who wants to know about Christian art might click on Christianity and again ought to be able to find a good lead but is highly unlikely to click on Roman empire. Itsmejudith 13:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Surely, readers interested in distillation or the cultivation of almonds, both of which are attributed here to the religion of Islam, is no more likely to search for Islam to learn about these subjects. Instead, this list is here to defend against a perceived prejudice on the part of readers that is never stated in the article; that Muslim-majority nations are somehow inherently and hopelessly backwards.Proabivouac 07:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- If any of the aspects of Islamic civilization are attributed directly to the religion then that is a misinterpretation and the wording should be changed to clarify that. As for your assumption about what the section is intended to do, I don't recognise it. My own assumptions are a) that an encyclopedic article cannot be complete without an accurate historical account of how this religion has developed and b) that social, economic and political developments are all part of the history of Islam, which is always a way of life as well as a religion. Itsmejudith 09:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there any justification for claiming that Islam is "violent?" -- Mr.Bunny 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- re:'Islamic civilisation' - we discussed why this section merited inclusion at length on several occasions, with several good sources establishing a direct link. i tried to do some ce/trimming, if anyone thinks more needs to be done then please propose it. yes, the history section needs a significant cut-down, i made a request to one editor who offered to do it but he has not responded. if anyone wants to have a go at doing that trim, while ensuring the general continuity in narrative is retained (i.e. it gives a comprehensive summary of 750 to modern era), then please do so. i personally have refrained from doing that, because it is quite a big task to undertake. there were just a few other content issues i wanted to highlight.. i intend to go over the "Islam and other religions" and "Contemporary Islam" sections which are the main areas for improvement (IMO) apart from the trimming. ITAQALLAH 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Images
I went through the images looking for license issues. They all look OK, except for one. Image:Dates.jpeg - [1] - has been tagged as potentially not being used correctly because of a licensing issue with the stock photo website it came from. This image doesn't seem crucial by any means, so if there are no objections I'll just remove it. - Merzbow 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I actually like the picture. But we can live without it. --Aminz 03:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I like it do, but we'll be knocked in GA/FA review for pictures without good licenses. I'll see if there's anything else we can use. - Merzbow 05:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
polygamy category
Islam is listed under the category "Religious organizations which tolerate polygamy" ([2]). This doesn't seem right because Islam is not a particular religious organization, it's a religion composed of many different organizations, of which there is no central authority. This is a crucial distinction. Should we remove it? - Merzbow 19:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, Islam is a religious organization. Arrow740 05:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is not an "organization". It doesn't even has a church-like structure.--Aminz 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- From dictionary.com: 5. a group of persons organized for some end or work; association. Wouldn't we say that Muslims form an association? Or that they're organized for the purpose of following the commands of Allah, such as bowing and praying in a certain direction 5 times a day, killing animals a particular way, etc? Arrow740 06:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yesterday I was reading in an Encyclopedia that the Muslim world is so diverse that it is hard to find effective common grounds except belief in God and prophethood of Muhammad.
- I don't think Muslims are "organized" to do anything. --Aminz 06:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I withdraw my objection. Arrow740 06:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- From dictionary.com: 5. a group of persons organized for some end or work; association. Wouldn't we say that Muslims form an association? Or that they're organized for the purpose of following the commands of Allah, such as bowing and praying in a certain direction 5 times a day, killing animals a particular way, etc? Arrow740 06:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is not an "organization". It doesn't even has a church-like structure.--Aminz 06:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Levy quote
I noticed some editor requested for verification of the quote attributed to Ibn Khaldun (i.e. "Knowledge of the rules of God which concern the actions of persons who own themselves bound to obey the law respecting what is required (wajib), forbidden (mazhr), recommended (mandūb), disapproved (makruh) or merely permitted (mubah).") can someone check it please; source: Levy (1957) p. 150 --Aminz 02:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was confused about the quote because it originally said "owd themselves", was wondering whether it was supposed to be "owe" or "own", but it looks like somebody clarified it. - Merzbow 07:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Concrete proposal to compress "Islamic civilization" section
As discussed above, I've attempted a compression of the "Islamic civilization" section in my sandbox. You can see it in this diff. Also as agreed above, I made sure that all information removed was duplicated in other articles - namely Islamic art and Islamic science (see the article histories). I also added a small bit about poetry from the Islamic world. If people like it, I will migrate the change to the main article. - Merzbow 04:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is better, but see if you can compress it further, maybe remove the sub headings and make the paragraphs slightly shorter. Keep in mind there is a copy of the origional text at Muslim world.--Sefringle 05:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've tried out your suggestion in my sandbox here; let's call it alternative 2. I'm open to this also because the depromotion saves 3 precious lines of TOC space. - Merzbow 05:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- How about this version, I'll call it Idea 3. I'm a little concerned about the lack of citations, but its dealable for now.--Sefringle 05:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, probably no need for the unpromoted headings at all now. And the "See also" type links won't be missed since I can wikilink them into terms like "Islamic philosophy" (which isn't done completely now). - Merzbow 05:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Re one particular reference in Merzbow's new version, the reference to Mintz does not now reflect the source well. Mintz's book is actually about the history of sugar, although in the early part of his account (pp23-29) he does digress into the spread of Arab civilization. An important sentence would seem to be "And many significant crops - rice, sorghum, hard wheat, cotton, eggplant, citrus fruits, plantains, mangoes, and sugar cane - were diffused by the spread of Islam." (p25). The source for this is Watson, A.M. (1974) The Arab agricultural revolution and its diffusion, 700-1100. Journal of Economic History (34(1) pp8-35. This source should be relatively easy to find. Mintz goes on to note "But it was not so much, or exclusively, new crops that mattered; with the Arab conquerors there also traveled phalanxes of subordinate administrators (predominantly non-Arab), policies of administration and taxation, technologies of irrigation, production, and processing, and the impulses to expand production." It may well be that this point too can be found in the Watson article. Good practice would be to reference both sources. Mintz describes on p.26 some irrigation methods that the Arabs spread, but does not mention the windmill. For other articles it may be useful to note that Mintz says that the Arab sugar industry used slavery but slavery became more important when the Europeans took over the industry. Itsmejudith 07:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good points... I'll investigate. - Merzbow 07:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Re one particular reference in Merzbow's new version, the reference to Mintz does not now reflect the source well. Mintz's book is actually about the history of sugar, although in the early part of his account (pp23-29) he does digress into the spread of Arab civilization. An important sentence would seem to be "And many significant crops - rice, sorghum, hard wheat, cotton, eggplant, citrus fruits, plantains, mangoes, and sugar cane - were diffused by the spread of Islam." (p25). The source for this is Watson, A.M. (1974) The Arab agricultural revolution and its diffusion, 700-1100. Journal of Economic History (34(1) pp8-35. This source should be relatively easy to find. Mintz goes on to note "But it was not so much, or exclusively, new crops that mattered; with the Arab conquerors there also traveled phalanxes of subordinate administrators (predominantly non-Arab), policies of administration and taxation, technologies of irrigation, production, and processing, and the impulses to expand production." It may well be that this point too can be found in the Watson article. Good practice would be to reference both sources. Mintz describes on p.26 some irrigation methods that the Arabs spread, but does not mention the windmill. For other articles it may be useful to note that Mintz says that the Arab sugar industry used slavery but slavery became more important when the Europeans took over the industry. Itsmejudith 07:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, probably no need for the unpromoted headings at all now. And the "See also" type links won't be missed since I can wikilink them into terms like "Islamic philosophy" (which isn't done completely now). - Merzbow 05:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- How about this version, I'll call it Idea 3. I'm a little concerned about the lack of citations, but its dealable for now.--Sefringle 05:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've tried out your suggestion in my sandbox here; let's call it alternative 2. I'm open to this also because the depromotion saves 3 precious lines of TOC space. - Merzbow 05:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- i think the 'Modern movements' section needs some improvements. the strength of sources used isn't too good (i.e. Encyclopedia of the Orient, Encyclopedia of Christianity, and probably Encyclopedia of the Future) and so they should be looked at and preferably replaced. i think much of the material can be covered in one good paragraph.. some of the digression into specifics seems a tad unnecessary. apart from that, it seems the other main issue is the trimming of the History sect (i am under the impression that Merzbow is going to be doing that). ITAQALLAH 09:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah I thought of removing those other sources, it can all be written completely from Lapidus, which I used for some of it. I think after the major work is completed we should make a pass over the article with an eye to rooting out all substandard sources completely. I'm also working on compressing History right now; I finished duplicating all the material into Muslim history. Should have a sandbox proposal out today. - Merzbow 16:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Moved from "To-Do"
Somebody posted a large bit of text in the To Do box - I moved it here instead. - Merzbow 18:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Traditional Islamic sources should be allowed to speak for islam rather than any alien sources. A good example of a change to be inculcated in the Pillars of Islam in this article would be to remove the use of the word "Alms" for Zakat. Zakat is the collection of a fixed percentage of wealth by Zakat collectors selected by the "Amir" or local leader and the amount is based on surplus wealth. It was collected in real value goods traditionally and was never paid in fiat currency which is intrinsically usurious and alien to traditional Islam and Muslim societies. This pillar of Islam makes it mandatory for muslims to have a just ruler or locally an administrator or "Amir" who selects the Zakat collectors to collect zakat and a judge or "Qadi" to resolve differences among the people. The Amir also makes sure that the trading space or "bazaar" is a tax free space, not monoplolized by anyone and accessible to all. No permananet fixtures are permissible in this trading space. The trading spaces are taken on a "first come first serve basis" and every trader is supposed to vacate the space once his goods are sold or once the permitted time is over. The "Amir" makes sure that trade contracts based on the Shariah or islaic law are adhered to. For this purpose the judge or "Qadi" is usually a learned jurist and scholar of Shariah. Similarly the "Amir" makes sure that there is no usury or other unfair trading practices being put into practice, makes sure the trading routes or caravans are not monopolized and the currency is not intrinsically usurious but a real value asset like gold silver or other tangible goods of real value. The Pillar of "zakat" is fundamental to Islamic Polity and its translation as "alms" is not only misleading but grossly inaccurate - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.134.81 (talk • contribs)
Archive index
Now we have an archive index which help us not to repeat former discussions. Thanks God.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
May Allah be with all those who consider expanding this amazing article! -)-(-Haggawaga (|-|) Oegawagga-)-(- 18:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Concrete proposal to shrink "History" section
Check it out here in my sandbox. First, I merged all the existing text into the Muslim history article, and then shrunk it by about half. I also upgraded the quality of the sourcing. I think after this we'll be good enough for GA (after cleaning up the few remaining fact and clarify tags.) - Merzbow 23:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Seeing no immediate objections, I was bold and inserted the revised section. (We are almost below 90KB now!) Comment/edit as you see fit. - Merzbow 05:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- looks good at first glance.. i haven't looked at it in much detail yet. ITAQALLAH 20:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- the only thing that i think needs mentioning is that the last section virtually skips ~ 1500-1850, mainly because i had neglected to write an overview on this time period, but anything of note within these periods should probably be mentioned. i also think that the discussion re: oil, Israel etc. is just a little tangental, a good cut-off point IMO would be the formation of protectorates post destruction of the Ottomans. anything else like Islamism probably belongs under the modern movements heading. ITAQALLAH 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll add more on the events between 1500-1850. I'll leave out mention of Islamism since modern movements are indeed better covered in the other section. I still think we need to say something about modern history though; the topics of oil and Israel seem to be most notable, but I can keep that to one sentence. - Merzbow 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- the only thing that i think needs mentioning is that the last section virtually skips ~ 1500-1850, mainly because i had neglected to write an overview on this time period, but anything of note within these periods should probably be mentioned. i also think that the discussion re: oil, Israel etc. is just a little tangental, a good cut-off point IMO would be the formation of protectorates post destruction of the Ottomans. anything else like Islamism probably belongs under the modern movements heading. ITAQALLAH 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- looks good at first glance.. i haven't looked at it in much detail yet. ITAQALLAH 20:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Proposal for new top-level section "Practices"
Have an idea for reorganizing some top-level headers that is kind of major, so I'd thought I'd run it by here first. My idea is to create a new top-level section called "Practices". The "Five Pillars" section would become a sub-section of this (with perhaps some compression). The sub-sections of "Community" would also become sub-sections (with perhaps some compression/merging also). "Islamic law" could also become a sub-section. (Any objections to also including "Jihad"? Though Muslims disagree about how it should be practiced, I think it also classifies as a "practice").
This is how some other major religion articles like Christianity and Hinduism are organized. I think this would make the article much clearer, since the common denominator between the sections I've proposed including above is that they represent Islamic practices that are derived from belief, as distinct from belief itself (and as distinct from cultural topics covered elsewhere). - Merzbow 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Among the five pillars, I think strictly speaking Shahadah (a formal profession of faith) is not a practice. But maybe "Practices and ?" makes it work. --Aminz 07:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Here are the subdivisions of Britannica Encyclopedia, Islam article:
Fundamental practices and institutions of Islam
- The five pillars
- The shahadah, or profession of faith
- Prayer
- The zakat
- Fasting
- The hajj
- Sacred places and days
- Shrines of Sufi saints
- The mosque
- Holy days
--Aminz 07:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- how is "practices and institutions"? --Aminz 07:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Sufism
Itqallah, I noticed during the compression you removed the following sentence:"The final goal is to break down the barriers between oneself and God, achieving unity (al-fana` fi’llah, "annihilation in God").[1]" Do you think it deserves mentioning in this summary? --Aminz 07:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's a nice suitable sentence. Please leave it there.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- fana' is a bit too much detail for a bried three-line introduction to be honest, especially as the concept itself is rather intricate, with differences in what exactly it means (as far as i know). ITAQALLAH 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Islam Etymology
Sefringle, I don't understand your definitions of POV. that's etymology. Christian means Christ follower but that's POV in a sense as it assumes Jesus was Christ.
Salam and Islam have the same root. And the authors say it means: "true peace resides in submission to God" --Aminz 04:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- How is saying "Islam means peace" not POV? It is somehow implying that Islam is a peaceful religion. Not to get into that debate, but there are plenty of people who would disagree with that thesis.--Sefringle 04:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please read more carefully: "nd could be applicible to the religion of Islam if it is taken to mean that "true peace resides in submission to God"." --Aminz 04:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- And that further creates the POV problem. Basicly, this is stating that if you follow the religion of Islam and submit to god, only then can you experience true peace. This sounds like propaganda to me.--Sefringle 04:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- We can attribute it to the author. I don't think it is what you think. --Aminz 04:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean? I'm confused.--Sefringle 04:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is a plain fact that the words "Islam" and "Salam" are based on the same roots.
- Now, we have the "religion of Islam". Professor Michael Sells says that it could be applicible to the religion of Islam if peace is taken to mean that "true peace resides in submission to God"
- So, this is my suggestion: We can say that "According to Michael Sells, it could be applicible to the religion of Islam if it is taken to mean that "true peace resides in submission to God"" --Aminz 04:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- That is still a pretty pro-islam bias and doesn't really resolve the POV issue. I think we are just better off not including it. At least then it is neutral.--Sefringle 04:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Islam" and "Salam" share the same root. That's a linguisic fact. We are writing the etymology of Islam. I honestly can't understand your position. --Aminz 04:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- That is still a pretty pro-islam bias and doesn't really resolve the POV issue. I think we are just better off not including it. At least then it is neutral.--Sefringle 04:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean? I'm confused.--Sefringle 04:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- We can attribute it to the author. I don't think it is what you think. --Aminz 04:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- And that further creates the POV problem. Basicly, this is stating that if you follow the religion of Islam and submit to god, only then can you experience true peace. This sounds like propaganda to me.--Sefringle 04:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please read more carefully: "nd could be applicible to the religion of Islam if it is taken to mean that "true peace resides in submission to God"." --Aminz 04:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the exact quote?--Sefringle 04:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have access to full quote. In Amazon, I can read pieces of the text which I am trying to glue together: "these claims can become apologetic. The word Islam is based upon the Arabic word for "peace" (salam), but Islam literally means not peace but "submission"(to God). The statement "Islam means peace" could mean that Muslims are called to he vigilant in rejecting the use of Islam to justify violence and has been used in that sense by important Islamic leaders... But it could also mean that true peace resides in submission to God, that is, in Islam. Any conflicts involving Islamic and non-Islamic parties must, by definition, be the fault of the non-Muslim.."
- We need the full quote I believe. --Aminz 05:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- yep, we need the full quote. This seems to reveal some things, like Islam doesn't really mean peace, but is rather seems to be interprited as such a mening. If we are to include that, we need to make it clear that Islam does not literally mean peace.--Sefringle 05:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- My understanding is that this quote is saying the following:
- 1. "The word Islam is based upon the Arabic word for "peace" (salam)".
- 2. Islam literally means not peace but "submission"(to God)
- 3. To say that "Islam means peace" "could mean that Muslims are called to he vigilant in rejecting the use of Islam to justify violence and has been used in that sense by important Islamic leaders"
- 4. "But it could also mean that true peace resides in submission to God, that is, in Islam." (needs clarification on this). --Aminz 05:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think we need the rest of the quote.--Sefringle 05:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. Maybe Merzbow or others who have full access to Amazon can help us.
- Aminz, it is not the case that "The word Islam is based upon the Arabic word for "peace" (salam)." Instead, both are derived from a common root, SLM (as are a number of other words such as aslam "submit.")Proabivouac 08:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I echoed what the source said. In any case, I think we need to full quote to be able to proceed. --Aminz 09:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think we need the rest of the quote.--Sefringle 05:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- yep, we need the full quote. This seems to reveal some things, like Islam doesn't really mean peace, but is rather seems to be interprited as such a mening. If we are to include that, we need to make it clear that Islam does not literally mean peace.--Sefringle 05:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
<reset> I found another quote from the book "Islamic Society in Practice", University Press of Florida, p.173:"Islam—The peace that comes from submission to the one God" --Aminz 05:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Another quote(Religions of the United States in Practice, Princeton University Press, p.35): "Regardless of the type of prayer, the primary aim of all Muslim devotions is to seek spritual and worldly peace(salam) through surrender and submission (islam) to God's will; hence, the word muslim literally means one who submits or surrenders onself to God." --Aminz 05:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- "Islam literally means not peace but 'submission'." Your own source says it. The rest is irrelevant. Arrow740 05:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- We are writing the etymology section. The word "Islam" is connected to the word "Salam". I think the source is confirming that "true peace resides in submission to God" but we need the full quote. --Aminz 06:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Such sources are far from ideal in explaining the meaning of Arabic terms. There is nothing so complicated in this word, indeed there is no overt reference to God at all, much less an essay on what constitutes "true peace."Proabivouac 08:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- The words Islam and Salam are related. The article should acknowledge that in the etymology section. In the case of religion of Islam, it should be understood as the true peace coming from submission to God rather than completely avioding violence. --Aminz 08:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- They are related in that they both reflect the root SLM. It is not correct to state, as you have, that Islam is based upon salam "peace," anymore than it or salam is based upon aslam "submit." One might similarly state that the word "head" is based upon the word "chef," "for the head stands in the same relationship to the rest of the body as does the chef to his kitchen staff" - a fallacious assumption based upon a sliver of truth, accompanied by an impromptu interpretation.
- For such an important etymological claim, we need the opinion of a respectable etymologist.Proabivouac 10:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- The words Islam and Salam are related. The article should acknowledge that in the etymology section. In the case of religion of Islam, it should be understood as the true peace coming from submission to God rather than completely avioding violence. --Aminz 08:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Such sources are far from ideal in explaining the meaning of Arabic terms. There is nothing so complicated in this word, indeed there is no overt reference to God at all, much less an essay on what constitutes "true peace."Proabivouac 08:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- We are writing the etymology section. The word "Islam" is connected to the word "Salam". I think the source is confirming that "true peace resides in submission to God" but we need the full quote. --Aminz 06:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like we have a more accurate meaning of the word Islam now than before: "The word islām is "the infinitive of the fourth form of the Arabic triconsonantal root s-l-m meaning 'to submit,' 'to surrender'". Yes, this is what it is. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes Matt57 is right. --- ALM 13:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- i was thinking that this version of the Etymology sect, without citation #12 and the sentence attached to it, would be appropriate. it already makes clear the basic meanings of S-L-M, plus what Islam means as derived from aslama. then again, the passage is rather well sourced to a noted academic, and this interpretation is not uncommon. i think Sefringle may be mistaken, Sells is not saying that Islam means peace, and what he is expressing here is not 'pro-Islam'. i also think that quoting en verbatim from EoQ is not as good style-wise. ITAQALLAH 14:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- That version is fine with me if it can be sourced properly - right now it only cites EoI, is that enough? - Merzbow 17:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- In that version, should not the sentence about Islam being based on the word salam not read "related to"? And there is an error in the spelling of "applicable". Other than that, it seems fine. Itsmejudith 20:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- The source says "based upon" but "related" is more correct. Thanks for pointing out the spelling of "applicable"--Aminz 23:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- the first sentence can be verified by Lane's Lexicon. the rest of the para as far as i know is verified by EoI, but i am going to double check. should we retain the Sells passage then? ITAQALLAH 12:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- The source says "based upon" but "related" is more correct. Thanks for pointing out the spelling of "applicable"--Aminz 23:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- In that version, should not the sentence about Islam being based on the word salam not read "related to"? And there is an error in the spelling of "applicable". Other than that, it seems fine. Itsmejudith 20:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Itaq, no, this is the same version as before i.e. what we are trying to avoid: "The word "'islām" derives from the Arabic root, sīn-lām-mīm, which carries the basic meaning of safety and peace." - this is not true. Islam is no more derived from "peace" than it is from "submission". Submission is infact the DIRECT meaning. This should be mentioned in the first sentence. Islam does not mean 'peace', simple.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is not that simple. In Arabic one word has many meanings. Islam is indeed drive from Peace too. But I agree that it meaning most commonly used is submission (to one God). --- ALM 15:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- That version is fine with me if it can be sourced properly - right now it only cites EoI, is that enough? - Merzbow 17:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- i was thinking that this version of the Etymology sect, without citation #12 and the sentence attached to it, would be appropriate. it already makes clear the basic meanings of S-L-M, plus what Islam means as derived from aslama. then again, the passage is rather well sourced to a noted academic, and this interpretation is not uncommon. i think Sefringle may be mistaken, Sells is not saying that Islam means peace, and what he is expressing here is not 'pro-Islam'. i also think that quoting en verbatim from EoQ is not as good style-wise. ITAQALLAH 14:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes Matt57 is right. --- ALM 13:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed the second part of the sentence that references Sells - "and could be applicible to the religion of Islam if it is taken to mean that 'true peace resides in submission to God.'" because that oversimplifies Sells' argument. I think it's wiser just to leave it as "The word islam is also based upon the Arabic word for peace (salam)". Sells' argument on page 30 is complex; he speculates about what he thinks people mean when they say "Islam means peace" and provides multiple possible meanings (not just the one above), and he insists that it does not literally mean that. I think such an analysis is probably beyond the scope of this section. - Merzbow 23:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- "The word islam is also based upon the Arabic word for peace (salam)"
- This is simply false. Mr. Sells presumably has expertise in something, but clearly not in etymology (and titles such as "The New Crusades: Constructing the Muslim Enemy" are not encouraging.) As we are not here to misinform the public, I shall remove this ignorant claim.Proabivouac 00:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't really think about the name of the book, perhaps not the best source to use then. Are there any other sources that back up the claim that islam and salam (peace) are related? - Merzbow 00:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- They are indeed related, but so are a number of other Arabic words which we've no intention of listing - and shouldn't, it's quite unorthodox, and falls under the category of did-you-knowish trivia. Why focus on this one?Proabivouac 00:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- We need reviews of the work to decide whether it is controversial or not. I have changed it to "related". You can use a different source if you would like but this shouldn't be a justification for removal of the whole thing. --Aminz 01:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Further I don't think we should be too judgmental. The review of the books says:"A scholarly work of exceptional clarity, forthrightness and position taking. This brilliant work pulls no punches as it provides answers to and refutes the clichés (conventional wisdom) of today – that there is a clash of civilizations and that militant Islam is on the march threatening Western civilization. The most comprehensive group of essays you will find which rebuts assertions made by establishment and neo-conservative scholars . This book provides answers and arguments many people have been waiting for and many have needed."- ""There is no Muslim enemy. In the 11th century the First Crusaders constructed him to cover spurious conquests and wanton killings. In the 21st century the New Crusaders reconstruct him to cover global asymmetries and moral blunders. Both sets of Crusaders are zealots with feet of clay. Their opposite is Eqbal Ahmad. Ahmad was an educator with a heart of gold. He was also a tireless, fearless agonist for justice. It is in his vision that these essays are cast and to his memory that they are collectively dedicated. This volume holds out true hope. Its message will resonate for all who look beyond Crusades to imagine, then construct a new world order without Muslim enemies." --Aminz 01:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ahh - the book is a polemic - its intention is to "rebut assertions". Even the title says so. Can't we do better? - Merzbow 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rebut assertions of whom? That's important. --Aminz 01:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Anyways, I can live with quoting just the factual short sentence from there; it seems like a trivial (and harmless in the scheme of things) assertion that follows from both words having a common root. Pro, is that OK as long as we don't expand it? (On a side note, I'm not directing this to anyone in particular, but over the next few weeks as we await GA review we have to be very careful not to give the appearance of edit-warring because the article can be immediately failed for that). - Merzbow 02:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is absolutely clear that the only purpose of this material is to push the specious notion that "Islam" somehow means "peace," as is plainly evidenced by the fact that no one seems concerned with any other words derived from SLM. Indeed, that is the intent of the cited source. I don't care who published it; this is not a reliable source for the derivation of Arabic words, and to use it for this alone is the very definition of cherry-picking. Everyone here, including Aminz, knows that it's either false (based on) or irrelevant (related to), yet we still want to include it. To have changed his wording is a virtual admission that he doesn't know what he's talking about, yet we're still going to cite him.Proabivouac 09:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Anyways, I can live with quoting just the factual short sentence from there; it seems like a trivial (and harmless in the scheme of things) assertion that follows from both words having a common root. Pro, is that OK as long as we don't expand it? (On a side note, I'm not directing this to anyone in particular, but over the next few weeks as we await GA review we have to be very careful not to give the appearance of edit-warring because the article can be immediately failed for that). - Merzbow 02:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Rebut assertions of whom? That's important. --Aminz 01:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ahh - the book is a polemic - its intention is to "rebut assertions". Even the title says so. Can't we do better? - Merzbow 01:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- They are indeed related, but so are a number of other Arabic words which we've no intention of listing - and shouldn't, it's quite unorthodox, and falls under the category of did-you-knowish trivia. Why focus on this one?Proabivouac 00:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't really think about the name of the book, perhaps not the best source to use then. Are there any other sources that back up the claim that islam and salam (peace) are related? - Merzbow 00:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Reduce the page
THe artical about islam is simply way to long and should be reduced somehow
== REduce the page)) - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.107.137 (talk • contribs)
- Believe me, we've tried - it's down from 110KB to 86KB now, and absolutely shouldn't get any bigger. But I think it's at an acceptable size now given the complexity of the topic. We will see what kind of feedback we get in Good Article and Featured Article review. - Merzbow 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Copyrighted Image?
Is the following image copyrighted? It is a nice pic. --Aminz 03:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Should be OK to use; the image's page says it's from the Wikimedia Commons with a proper license. - Merzbow 04:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, What exactly is this image supposed to show? How does it benefit this encyclopedia article?--Sefringle 05:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is repitative. It shows the distribution of different demoninations of Islam in different countries. Maybe a table containing some statistic would be better.--Aminz 05:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- yeah, probably.--Sefringle 05:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try to find a table. --Aminz 05:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- The other images are good though - thanks for finding them. - Merzbow 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for raising this article to GA status. --Aminz 05:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, and likewise; lots of people have made fantastic improvements to this article over the past 6 months. I think we're also very close to the level of quality that would justify asking for a Wikipedia:Peer review in preparation for FA. - Merzbow 06:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for raising this article to GA status. --Aminz 05:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- The other images are good though - thanks for finding them. - Merzbow 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try to find a table. --Aminz 05:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- yeah, probably.--Sefringle 05:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Rumi's image
I am dubious about this image. It seems that the copyright holder has granted its use in wikipedia. --Aminz 05:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- oh, the source says: [3] " You may use any part presented herein for non-commercial purposes only, on the condition of giving full credit to the author and to this home page, including a hyperlink, if you wish to use these material over the Internet."
- I will add the link to this website in the footnote. --Aminz 05:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Because it's fair use, we probably aren't justified using it in this article because we only mention Rumi in passing. A link to the originating website in a footnote might be OK, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to link to an image in a footnote. - Merzbow 06:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we can remove this image. --Aminz 06:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Because it's fair use, we probably aren't justified using it in this article because we only mention Rumi in passing. A link to the originating website in a footnote might be OK, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to link to an image in a footnote. - Merzbow 06:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Shi'a section
The last sentence is not clear. It should read "They believe that their first Imam, Ali ibn Abi Talib, was explicitly appointed by Muhammad by divine command to be his successor." Also the sentences in that section are really repetitive. Most of them start with "They believe..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.122.89.228 (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
- Good point; that section does need another round of copy-editing. - Merzbow 19:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Please nominate it for GA status now
I do not know that why we are still waiting. It time to apply for GA status. I think this article is even better written as compared to many feature articles. Please nominate it now. --- ALM 19:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Otherwise set a deadline. Let say for seven days and we all spend whole week on it. After a week whatever we have we nominate it. Any comments? --- ALM 19:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Liberal Islam vs Reform movements
Are these two the same?
Anyways, the following points I believe should be mentioned in the article:
- Heinz Halm states that these practices are rooted in patriarchal traditions of Near Eastern societies rather than in Islamic law. <-- This is the point of many modern activists.
- The reform movement uses monotheism (tawhid) "as an organizing principle for human society and the basis of religious knowledge, history, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics, as well as social, economic and world order."[source:The Oxford Dictionary of Islam] <-- For example quoting Al-Hibri: "In his Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Deen, the medieval jurist al-Ghazali discusses this Satanic logic and the shirk[Polytheism] it leads to.11 He notes that every time a rich man believes that he is better than a poor one, or a white man believes that he is better than a black one, then he is being arrogant. He is adopting the same hierarchical principles adopted by Iblis in his jahl, and thus falling into shirk....Today, we are living in a world awash with Satanic logic. It is a world ordered into hierarchies based on every conceivable jahili criterion, i.e. criteria that are similar to those of the pre-Islamic society of Jahilia, the Age of Ignorance. Among these modern criteria are color, wealth, gender, ethnicity, youth, technological knowledge, and so on. Given his historical era, al-Ghazali was able to recognize many of these categories, but not all. Later historical developments helped us uncover many more. What do we do in the face of this new Jahiliyah? Al-Ghazali noted that Muslims who are vain and arrogant, whether for individual, racial, or economic reasons, engage in Satanic logic. I agree, and add to his list, gender-based reasons."
--Aminz 21:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think "reform movement" is used to both refer to Liberal Islam and Islamism. The Halm quote is not really relevant unless he claims he's representing the arguments of Liberal Islam, plus it's from the Enc of Christianity which we should get rid of in this article anyway. The second point is perhaps true but it's restating the obvious - we know Muslims are monotheists, and both liberal Muslims and Islamists believe they are good Muslims. - Merzbow 21:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merzbow, I understand your first point.
- Regarding the second, first of all, here is the full quote from the Oxford Dictionary of Islam:"Tawhid is the defining doctrine of Islam. It declares absolute monotheism - the unity and uniqueness of God as creator and sustainer of the universe. Used by Islamic reformers and activists as an organizing principle for human society and the basis of religious knowledge, history, metaphysics, aesthetics, and ethics, as well as social, economic and world order."
- Secondly, "Tawhid" is more than worshiping one God at the surface. You said:"we know Muslims are monotheists"- Monotheism has degrees; it is not 0 or 1.
- I think the quote from Oxford Dictionary of Islam justifies addition of this quote. --Aminz 21:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's a confusing quote - yes, it may be true that the reformists claim they are following tawhid, but I'm sure all Islamic scholars throughout history would say they are also. In other words, if tawhid is the "defining doctrine of Islam", then all good Muslims must follow it. Whether or not liberal Muslims or Islamists are actually good Muslims is debated by many, but that analysis can probably be left to a subarticle. - Merzbow 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merzbow, Tawhid is not 0 or 1 and we have different types of Shirk: hidden shirk; obvious shirk. To say that:"all Islamic scholars throughout history would say they are also" has a similar meaning of saying something like "all Islamic scholars throughout history would believe that they were sinless". Sometimes there are types of Shirk we commit but of which we are not aware. Hibri, regarding Ghazali says the following: "Given his historical era, al-Ghazali was able to recognize many of these categories, but not all. Later historical developments helped us uncover many more." --Aminz 23:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- A question for you: If someone says that slavery is in contrast with the basic principle of Christianity which is love, can one refute that saying: "I'm sure all Christian scholars throughout history believed they were following love"? No, you would say "Given their historical era, they were able to recognize many of the applications of love, but not all." So with Islam: The basic principle of Islam is monotheism and these reformist are recognizing its applications as previous scholars likes Ghazali did.--Aminz 23:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point, but that quote is not putting it across clearly. Let me see tonight if there is a better quote from Lapidus. - Merzbow 00:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Can you give the "Oxford Dictionary of Islam" definition of "reform movement"? According to Lapidus many liberal Muslims do not believe "public affairs should be subordinated to Islamic norms", so that quote would seem to only apply completely to Islamists. I'm beginning to get the feeling that even scholars are confused what the divisions are among modern Muslim movements and exactly how to categorize them. - Merzbow 02:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see your point, but that quote is not putting it across clearly. Let me see tonight if there is a better quote from Lapidus. - Merzbow 00:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's a confusing quote - yes, it may be true that the reformists claim they are following tawhid, but I'm sure all Islamic scholars throughout history would say they are also. In other words, if tawhid is the "defining doctrine of Islam", then all good Muslims must follow it. Whether or not liberal Muslims or Islamists are actually good Muslims is debated by many, but that analysis can probably be left to a subarticle. - Merzbow 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Islamic Feminism
I think we need to mention that as well. Notable intellectuals of this group include, I guess include Asma Barlas (for works: e.g. see "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur'an", University of Texas Press) --Aminz 21:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, Asma herself disagrees with the term: Islamic Feminism unless it is defined as "a discourse of gender equality and social justice that derives its understanding and mandate from the Qur’an and seeks the practice of rights and justice for all human beings in the totality of their existence across the public-private continuum.". --Aminz 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, this definitely needs a brief mention.Itsmejudith 11:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of Christianity
Merzbow, this is a good source. It is not like Catholic Encyclopedia or Jewish Encyclopedia. Why should we replace it? --Aminz 21:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Its focus is Christianity right? I think there are more reliable sources for information about Islam - I'm sure that everything we cite from there can be cited from EoI or Britannica or Esposito also. - Merzbow 21:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- You can of course change it if you would like. It might not be the most qualified source, but I don't think it is noticably biased towards Christianity either.--Aminz 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, I think we should check who the author of the articles are. But anyways, you are welcome to replace them. One author, Heinz Halm is Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Tübingen--Aminz 22:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- You can of course change it if you would like. It might not be the most qualified source, but I don't think it is noticably biased towards Christianity either.--Aminz 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Malise Ruthven as a source
Ruthven is a genuine scholar and recently published Islam: A Short Introduction. It is what it says, a very short and introductory text, but in line with the other sources that we are typically citing here. What do people think about this as a source? The advantage is that the author has had to summarise and therefore this source might be easier to draw on than longer expositions. He may have some summary statements about Islamism, liberal movements, Islamic feminism etc. Itsmejudith 11:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have no objection as long as she has impeccable credentials; for me, the less "scholarly" a book is the more credentialed the author should be to make up for it (since there are literally 101 "Introduction to Islams" floating around Amazon). - Merzbow 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You might be referring to this edit. Wikipedia isn't a platform for proferring original research, nor for that matter peer-reviewed research marginal at best to the article's topic. / edgarde 16:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)- Well that came out of left field... that is absolutely not what judith is talking about...? - Merzbow 17:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. I was confusing Ruthven with another author. I'm striking my thoughtless, mistaken comment above. / edgarde 18:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Merzbow. Ruthven is a UK scholar whose reputation is growing quickly. I'll see what I can add when I have a moment. Another text I have is Religions Today: An Introduction by Mary Pat Fisher. On the good side it is published by a major academic publisher: Routledge. On the other hand it has to cover all the world's major religions and is therefore a summary written up from secondary sources. The Islam chapter of the book cites Farid Esack, who the author sees as exemplifying one of the political sides of modern Islam (fighting for human rights in apartheid South Africa). Also cites Esposito, Hefner & Horvatitch (eds) Islam in an era of nation-states; three works by Seyyed Hussein Nasr; two by Schimmel; and Frithjof Schuon, Understanding Islam. Itsmejudith 23:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- The short article on Malise Ruthven makes it clear, pace Merzbow, that he is male. What it doesn't say is that the surname Ruthven is, surprisingly, pronounced /ˈrɪvən/ (ie to rhyme with "given"). --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- PS You can check this in the snappily-titled List of names in English with non-intuitive pronunciations. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Small revision
I don't have an exact source for this, but it is kind of a summary of sourced content in the Muhammad article. Basicly, this section on Muhammad is bias, as it completely ignores Muhammad's military expeditions. We should include at least one sentence saying that Muhammad participated in raids and battles.--Sefringle 03:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I made some changes in that record; Muhammad's military exploits were underemphasized. - Merzbow 04:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merzbow, Can you please provide full quote for "While in Medina, he brought many desert tribes under his control either willingly or by force." Thanks. BTW, Muhammad's reforms are also not mentioned. --Aminz 06:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- On p. 27: "Sniffing the wind, Arabian tribes continued to throw in their lot with Muhammad." Those are the "willingly" tribes. On p.28: "Throughout the 8-year struggle, Muhammad had tried to gain control of the tribes in order to subdue Mecca. Missionaries and embassies were sent throughout Arabia, factions loyal to Muhammad were supported, and tribes were raided to compel them to pay allegiance and zakat, the alms tax, to Muhammad." Those are the "by force" tribes. - Merzbow 07:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Those tribes were Pagan I persume. Does the text says that? --Aminz 07:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- An interesting question. Arrow740 07:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I assume from the text they were pagan, because if they were already Muslim they would already have joined Muhammad's community, and thus wouldn't have needed to be brought under his control. Lapidus also mentions Muhammad's societal reforms as very important, so I put that in. - Merzbow 07:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merzbow, thanks for adding that. Can you please add the term "pagan" as Muslims didn't force Jews and Christians to Islam. --Aminz 07:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Are we certain that they must have been either pagan or Muslim? See Himyar. Christians and Jews were expelled during the reign of Umar; by this we can conclude that there was someone to expel.Proabivouac 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am personally certain based on what I know. --Aminz 09:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Are we certain that they must have been either pagan or Muslim? See Himyar. Christians and Jews were expelled during the reign of Umar; by this we can conclude that there was someone to expel.Proabivouac 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Merzbow, thanks for adding that. Can you please add the term "pagan" as Muslims didn't force Jews and Christians to Islam. --Aminz 07:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- i find Sefringle's concern unsupported, and i find little wrong with this version of the section ("During this time, Muhammad preached to the people of Mecca, imploring them to abandon polytheism. Although some people converted to Islam, Muhammad and his followers were subsequently persecuted by the leading Meccan authorities. After 13 years of preaching in Mecca, Muhammad and the Muslims performed the Hijra ("emigration") to the city of Medina. There, with the Medinan converts (Ansar) and the Meccan migrants (Muhajirun), Muhammad soon established his political and religious authority. By 629, he was powerful enough to return to Mecca and assert control in the bloodless Conquest of Mecca. By the time of his death in 632, Muhammad had succeeded in bringing the entire Arabian peninsula under his rule.") - it's not POV for failing to mention expeditions, for it similarly makes no mention of any of the other political avenues pursued. ITAQALLAH 12:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- The current version is better. The previous version is POV for censoring out a major part of muhammad's life. It most certianly does mention his political avenues, as it mentions the Conquest of mecca, and implies that Muhammad never did anything violent to further his goals.--Sefringle 22:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- the conquest of Mecca was a military conquest. it doesn't imply anything, i don't see how you arrived at this conclusion. neither his political nor military actions are mentioned with any specificity, for it would result in the section bloating. also, let's refrain from language like 'censoring' please. ITAQALLAH 11:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Those tribes were Pagan I persume. Does the text says that? --Aminz 07:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- On p. 27: "Sniffing the wind, Arabian tribes continued to throw in their lot with Muhammad." Those are the "willingly" tribes. On p.28: "Throughout the 8-year struggle, Muhammad had tried to gain control of the tribes in order to subdue Mecca. Missionaries and embassies were sent throughout Arabia, factions loyal to Muhammad were supported, and tribes were raided to compel them to pay allegiance and zakat, the alms tax, to Muhammad." Those are the "by force" tribes. - Merzbow 07:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Lewis quote
Sefringle, Lewis's quote is well-referenced. He is certainly not pro-Muslim scholar or an apologetic for Muslims. --Aminz 06:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- The point is it is repetitive to mention this, and makes the section bias. I am not disrespecting him. I am only saying we don't need to repeat the same point twice.--Sefringle 06:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is not the same point. The previous sentence just says that some have said against it but Lewis is saying that there is nothing about Terrorism in classical Islam. I can not see they are giving the same information. --Aminz 06:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- The section currently reads "Islamist terrorism refers to acts of terrorism claimed by their supporters and practitioners to further the goals of Islam. It has heavily increased in prevalence in recent decades, and has become a contentious political issue in many nations.[165] There are Muslims and non-Muslims who have spoken out against this claim." What information does Lewis' quote add? It just makes the paragraph more bias, as it only gives an example without an arguement.--Sefringle 06:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Common. Lewis says that there is nothing in classical Islam on Terrorism. If your only reason is repetition, we can only add Lewis's quote and get rid of "There are Muslims and non-Muslims who have spoken out against this claim." --Aminz 06:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Though I think the current version without the quote is less POV, as it takes no stance either way as to whether or not Islam allows terrorism.--Sefringle 07:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's not the definition of POV. 2+2=4. It is not 5. It is not a POV that 2+2=5. Lewis is one of the most renowned scholars of Islam and he is an scholar, not an apologist for Islam. When he says that Islamic Terrorism is only a modern phenomenon and absent from original texts of Islam, then that's a strong POV. --Aminz 07:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Math is black and white. There is a correct answer in math and there are incorrect answers in math. Religion is different. Religion is not black and white. So that arguement is a False analogy.--Sefringle 07:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your definition of NPOV is that :"as it takes no stance either way as to whether or not Islam allows terrorism". They shouldn't be the same. Suppose say I find a racist Jew who religously thinks he should kill others and go ahead and add that to the Judaism article and then expect others to write it as if Judiasm doesn't make any stance on that matter. That's not wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Aminz 07:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Math is black and white. There is a correct answer in math and there are incorrect answers in math. Religion is different. Religion is not black and white. So that arguement is a False analogy.--Sefringle 07:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's not the definition of POV. 2+2=4. It is not 5. It is not a POV that 2+2=5. Lewis is one of the most renowned scholars of Islam and he is an scholar, not an apologist for Islam. When he says that Islamic Terrorism is only a modern phenomenon and absent from original texts of Islam, then that's a strong POV. --Aminz 07:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Though I think the current version without the quote is less POV, as it takes no stance either way as to whether or not Islam allows terrorism.--Sefringle 07:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Common. Lewis says that there is nothing in classical Islam on Terrorism. If your only reason is repetition, we can only add Lewis's quote and get rid of "There are Muslims and non-Muslims who have spoken out against this claim." --Aminz 06:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- The section currently reads "Islamist terrorism refers to acts of terrorism claimed by their supporters and practitioners to further the goals of Islam. It has heavily increased in prevalence in recent decades, and has become a contentious political issue in many nations.[165] There are Muslims and non-Muslims who have spoken out against this claim." What information does Lewis' quote add? It just makes the paragraph more bias, as it only gives an example without an arguement.--Sefringle 06:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is not the same point. The previous sentence just says that some have said against it but Lewis is saying that there is nothing about Terrorism in classical Islam. I can not see they are giving the same information. --Aminz 06:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be better not to include either perspective. That would also be undue weight. But are you going to try to tell me that Islamic terrorism is not a very notable concept of major intrest to many in today's society? It makes the news almost every day. I don't see that kind of religous violence on the news for other religions. That racist Jew would be undue weight.--Sefringle 07:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Islamic Terrorism has really nothing to with Islam, its roots are in politics. Lewis's quote mentions the position of classical Islam clear. --Aminz 07:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- The point is not whether Islam really is about terrorism, the point is that that is one opinion, and rather than include every opinion and fight over which is correct, it would be easier and less POV to just leave out the opinions. I think the current version did that pretty well, not taking sides.--Sefringle 07:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that "murder" and "terrorism" are subjective. No text would enjoin them, however they might enjoin people to "fight the unbelievers," "crucify them," "cut off limbs from both sides of their bodies" and call it holy war. Arrow740 07:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- We are talking about killing noncombatants, women and children. --Aminz 07:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Muhammad's killing of the pubescent boys of the Banu Qurayza and assassination of Asma bint Marwan are well known. Do you know of any other women he killed? I hadn't thought about that before. Arrow740 08:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not soapbox Arrow. --Aminz 08:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's right, I don't see how it's relevant here. My point is that obviously Muslim scholars would interpret the Qur'an in the light of the actions of Muhammad and see that it could be permissible to kill women and children in certain circumstances. In these circumstances, they would not apply the labels murder or terrorism. My question to you about women killed by Muhammad was in good faith. Bint Marwan might have been the only one, I don't know. Arrow740 08:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not soapbox Arrow. --Aminz 08:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Muhammad's killing of the pubescent boys of the Banu Qurayza and assassination of Asma bint Marwan are well known. Do you know of any other women he killed? I hadn't thought about that before. Arrow740 08:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- So, Sefringle, would you agree with replacing Lewis's quote with "There are Muslims and non-Muslims who have spoken out against this claim." that you think adds repetition? --Aminz 08:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- We are talking about killing noncombatants, women and children. --Aminz 07:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that "murder" and "terrorism" are subjective. No text would enjoin them, however they might enjoin people to "fight the unbelievers," "crucify them," "cut off limbs from both sides of their bodies" and call it holy war. Arrow740 07:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- The point is not whether Islam really is about terrorism, the point is that that is one opinion, and rather than include every opinion and fight over which is correct, it would be easier and less POV to just leave out the opinions. I think the current version did that pretty well, not taking sides.--Sefringle 07:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying he is wrong but I'm not saying he is right either. I'm saying he is expressing his opinion. And it is just his opinion. I may disagree with his opinion, but that doesn't mean it is wrong. As I said earlier, religious ethics are not black and white.--Sefringle 08:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sefringle, I think Lewis is adding new information to the article; it is obvious that many Muslims condemn terrorism unless most Muslims are terrorist which is not the case. So, the new information is in Lewis's quote (which is two short sentences). --Aminz 08:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know why we're even discussing this, but as we are, adding Lewis' quote is unduly defensive, as no one (here) is saying that classical Islam condones terrorism, and this absurd question falls outside the scope of our discussion.Proabivouac 09:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- And Islamist terrorism refers to acts of terrorism claimed by their supporters and practitioners to further the goals of Islam. is duly offensive. --Aminz 09:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's awkward and confusing. I can see how someone might miss the crucial qualifier "claimed by their supporters and practitioners" and see the clear words "to further the goals of Islam."
- "It has heavily increased in prevalence in recent decades, and has become a contentious political issue in many nations.[165] There are Muslims and non-Muslims who have spoken out against this claim."
- Which claim?Proabivouac 18:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- The point is the connection made between Terrorism and Islam here which needs to be appropriately commented on. Sefringle thinks it is NPOV as long as "as it takes no stance either way as to whether or not Islam allows terrorism". I think that's an imprecise understanding of NPOV ness. --Aminz 23:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know why we're even discussing this, but as we are, adding Lewis' quote is unduly defensive, as no one (here) is saying that classical Islam condones terrorism, and this absurd question falls outside the scope of our discussion.Proabivouac 09:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The article must be crystal clear about the fact that the terrorism currently discussed (with 911 as the classic example) is Islamist terrorism and not Islamic terrorism. Please also bear in mind that few historians would care to use the term "terrorism" in relation to any events of the Middle Ages. There are good arguments for restricting the term to the 20th and 21st centuries, possibly the 19th century, when the existence of the mass media makes it possible for tiny groups of people to make a major political impact by committing acts of violence that spread fear among a large population. Events during the early of Islam are not relevant to this discussion, even if the sources were adequate for us to know exactly what happened in those far-off days, which they are not. 23:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC) The article must be crystal clear about the fact that the terrorism currently discussed (with 911 as the classic example) is Islamist terrorism and not Islamic terrorism. Please also bear in mind that few historians would care to use the term "terrorism" in relation to any events of the Middle Ages. There are good arguments for restricting the term to the 20th and 21st centuries, possibly the 19th century, when the existence of the mass media makes it possible for tiny groups of people to make a major political impact by committing acts of violence that spread fear among a large population. Events during the early of Islam are not relevant to this discussion, even if the sources were adequate for us to know exactly what happened in those far-off days, which they are not. 23:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call them tiny groups of people when there is such a high percentage of muslims supporting terrorism. [4][5]--Sefringle 23:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sefringle, what?? "a high percentage of muslims supporting terrorism." Please quote a reliable source to that effect or I will interpret it as incivility. --Aminz 00:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Lewis says "Usama Bin Ladan and his followers may not represent Islam, and many of their statements and actions directly contradict the Islamic principles and teachings, but they do arise from within Muslim civilization, just as Hitler and the Nazis arose from within Christendom, and they too must be seen in their own cultural, religous, and historical context."
- Do we see a discussion on the article on the religion of Christianity about Hitler and what Nazis did? Is there anybody asking it to be written "as it takes no stance either way as to whether or not [Christianity] allows [Nazism]"?--Aminz 00:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Did you see the links I posted after my comment? They verify what I said. Secondly, the comparision of Nazism and Christianity is another false analogy (See Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs).--Sefringle 00:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Who has made those reports? Why are they reliable? Do they say they support Bin Ladan for his supposedly "Islamic" actions or because they see him as someone who stands up against US? Please clarify and I am very serious about this issue. And "comparision of Nazism and Christianity is another false analogy"; Nazism is related to Christianity as much Terrorism is related to Islam. --Aminz 00:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Did you see the links I posted after my comment? They verify what I said. Secondly, the comparision of Nazism and Christianity is another false analogy (See Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs).--Sefringle 00:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Judith, are you sure that the term is not used. Please take a look at Hashshashin. I think this is one of the first terrorist groups. --Aminz 23:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Aminz, thanks, I will look at it and the question is interesting, but to go back to the original issue, there is no reputable historian, AFAIK, that makes any direct connection between the Prophet of Islam and the likes of Al-Qaeda today. If it does happen that some good author has made that connection, then it should go in, but should be balanced by the views of another top scholar, say Esposito, who discusses why the terrorist groups are not part of mainstream Islam. Itsmejudith 17:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- That is correct. The quote from Lewis that Sefringle removed was also explicit[6]. On one hand, I don't want to revert because Merzbow has nominated this article for GA status and on the other hand, I can not follow Sefringle's view that the article would be NPOV as long "as it takes no stance either way as to whether or not Islam allows terrorism". --Aminz 05:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- And I can't call this article NPOV if it takes the stance that Islam denounces terrorism.--Sefringle 05:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the Lewis quote being there, but I don't have a problem with it not being there since the page is clearly referenced and people who want to read more about those who counter the terrorists' claims can follow it. Definitely the full quote should be in one of the subarticles where there's plenty of room to outline all notable opinions on the subject. - Merzbow 06:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sefringle, my feelings are hurt when I hear statements about my religion and culture that are both contradictory with my understanding of my religion & what academic scholars of Islam that I respect say. --Aminz 06:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the Lewis quote being there, but I don't have a problem with it not being there since the page is clearly referenced and people who want to read more about those who counter the terrorists' claims can follow it. Definitely the full quote should be in one of the subarticles where there's plenty of room to outline all notable opinions on the subject. - Merzbow 06:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- And I can't call this article NPOV if it takes the stance that Islam denounces terrorism.--Sefringle 05:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- That is correct. The quote from Lewis that Sefringle removed was also explicit[6]. On one hand, I don't want to revert because Merzbow has nominated this article for GA status and on the other hand, I can not follow Sefringle's view that the article would be NPOV as long "as it takes no stance either way as to whether or not Islam allows terrorism". --Aminz 05:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Aminz, thanks, I will look at it and the question is interesting, but to go back to the original issue, there is no reputable historian, AFAIK, that makes any direct connection between the Prophet of Islam and the likes of Al-Qaeda today. If it does happen that some good author has made that connection, then it should go in, but should be balanced by the views of another top scholar, say Esposito, who discusses why the terrorist groups are not part of mainstream Islam. Itsmejudith 17:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Our work matters
Grading Wikipedia (Denver Post):
If any world subject is ripe for tampering or acrimony, it would seem to be the Wikipedia on Islam. Yet retired CU religious studies professor Frederick Denny, a 40-year specialist in Islam, was "quite impressed" with Wikipedia's 28-page entry.
"It looks like something that might have been done by a young graduate student, or assistant professor, or two or three," Denny said. He described the writing as clinical and straightforward, but not boring. Where important translations of Arabic language or fine religious distinctions are required, Wikipedia acquits itself well.
"I have a feeling there are very responsible people out there who are making sure this doesn't become" a free-for-all, Denny said.
We kick ass. - Merzbow 05:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Clinical and straightforward…"
- That is what I like to hear, and what we should be aiming for everywhere. By "responsible people out there," I suppose he meant you, Merzbow.Proabivouac 05:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Since an expert has positively reviewed this article, maybe one of us can now promote this to GA status. I'll ask this on the talk page for the GA article nomination. --Aminz 07:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt there is any shortcut through GA/FA, Wikipedia sure likes its process... - Merzbow 07:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Since an expert has positively reviewed this article, maybe one of us can now promote this to GA status. I'll ask this on the talk page for the GA article nomination. --Aminz 07:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not necessary to kick anyone's (even metaphorical) ass, it's sufficient that we tell the truth and make this the best encylopedia that we can. ;-)
Atlant 12:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- If this is getting a nod from Dr.Denny, you should know that things are on the correct path. Very good news, indeed.--Jonashart 13:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
online encyclopedia refs need access dates
So all cites to web content should have an access date. I went through all the Britannica Online refs, verified the articles cited supported the text, and slapped on access dates. I also put access dates on all the Encyclopaedia of Islam refs but since I don't have access to EoI I can't re-verify that the cites still support the text. Can somebody with access (Aminz?) quickly go through every EoI cite and verify that the articles cited still support the text (and change the associated access dates if necessary?) Thanks. - Merzbow 02:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- "I went through all the Britannica Online refs, verified the articles cited supported the text" - really? You are very hardworking Merzbow.
- Sure, I will double check EoI quotations :) Cheers, --Aminz 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done. I almost checked everything (except cites for obvious things). One sentence needs to be sourced. --Aminz 06:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
need help with Amazon cite
Can somebody with an Amazon account that's made a purchase go to this book here ("Islam: The Straight Path" 1998):
And give us the surrounding sentences on page 54 for this fragment: "previous prophets and revealed Scripture , angels, and the Day of judgment (4:136). Acceptance of these beliefs renders one a believer (mumin);". I think Esposito is laying out the six fundamental beliefs of Islam, which we need another cite for. (Amazon has banned me from this book because I searched inside it too often). - Merzbow 03:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think based on this information, we can quote verse 4:136 saying this verse specifies the requirements for being a believer. The verse reads: "YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray." --Aminz 06:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good point, I agree. - Merzbow 06:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- This verse of the Qur'an does not mention belief in divine decree. I am not sure if it is as essential as other beliefs? I would say, "Islamic belief has six important components". --Aminz 06:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm you have sharp eyes, I completely missed that the verse only mentioned five things. (I really want to see that page in Esposito, I should have it tomorrow or the day after.) Judging by that verse these five do appear absolutely essential to Muslim belief. For Qadr, maybe we can just say that it's "also an important doctrine". - Merzbow 08:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. I prefer to say that Qadr is important. --Aminz
- Hmm you have sharp eyes, I completely missed that the verse only mentioned five things. (I really want to see that page in Esposito, I should have it tomorrow or the day after.) Judging by that verse these five do appear absolutely essential to Muslim belief. For Qadr, maybe we can just say that it's "also an important doctrine". - Merzbow 08:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- This verse of the Qur'an does not mention belief in divine decree. I am not sure if it is as essential as other beliefs? I would say, "Islamic belief has six important components". --Aminz 06:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good point, I agree. - Merzbow 06:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Good Article: Passed (congrats!)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dates.jpeg){kind=link}
I wish to congratulate the contributors to this article. I have reviewed it for GA (my very first review, and I hope I'm doing it right) and it passed with flying colors. You all really worked hard on it and you deserve congratulations. It is very well cited, very engaging, very extensive, well written, and as NPOV as one can get for an article on relgion. I know little about Islam but I learned a lot from this article. In addition to reading the article I've been looking at the recent edit summaries and the to-do list and I am very impressed in the diligence of the collaborative effort this has been. Alright, now make this article into a featured article. --Valley2city₪‽ 07:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks! I think now we'll list the article at Peer Review as preparation for FA. - Merzbow 08:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've created a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Islam. Eventually we'll get comments there, so all interested editors should watchlist the page. - Merzbow 08:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for Itaqallah, Aminz, Merzbow, Itsmejudith, Zora and all of you for your hardwork on this article. :) and congratulations.... --- A. L. M. 09:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- With no offense intended to any of the others you've named, Merzbow's was the persistent and level-headed voice that made this happen.Proabivouac 09:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- i concur. Merzbow's participation was a significant factor. ITAQALLAH 11:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely, thanks very much Merzbow. A special mention also to Itaqallah for attention to detail. Itsmejudith 11:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yup. I bet you all. I thanked him in advance :P --Aminz 11:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely, thanks very much Merzbow. A special mention also to Itaqallah for attention to detail. Itsmejudith 11:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- i concur. Merzbow's participation was a significant factor. ITAQALLAH 11:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- With no offense intended to any of the others you've named, Merzbow's was the persistent and level-headed voice that made this happen.Proabivouac 09:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for Itaqallah, Aminz, Merzbow, Itsmejudith, Zora and all of you for your hardwork on this article. :) and congratulations.... --- A. L. M. 09:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Great, now should we nominate it for FA?--Sefringle 21:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not yet... the next step is peer review, which I've nominated it for (Wikipedia:Peer_review/Islam). - Merzbow 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
external review of article
I thought the authors of this article would like to hear of this review of the article. In an attempt to judge the reliability of Wikipedia, The Denver post [7] asked 5 experts to review wikipedia articles, including this one.
The review has the following to say about this article:
- If any world subject is ripe for tampering or acrimony, it would seem to be the Wikipedia on Islam. Yet retired CU religious studies professor Frederick Denny, a 40-year specialist in Islam, was "quite impressed" with Wikipedia's 28-page entry. It looks like something that might have been done by a young graduate student, or assistant professor, or two or three," Denny said. He described the writing as clinical and straightforward, but not boring. Where important translations of Arabic language or fine religious distinctions are required, Wikipedia acquits itself well. "I have a feeling there are very responsible people out there who are making sure this doesn't become" a free-for-all, Denny said.
Jens Nielsen 15:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, we have a thread about it above. It's good to know that people are paying attention outside Wikipedia. :) - Merzbow 17:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Islam in the contemporary Media
A small section on that. I have some quotes at the moment. Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of the New Republic, took part in a debate between Edward Said and Bernard Lewis. Some parts of Edward Said's points were on how Media distorts Islam. His remarks were more of theoretical nature. Then, Leon Wieseltier started his comments by saying:"I begin my remarks by saying that it is beyond any doubt that there is a disgraceful and almost systematically distorting image of Islam presented in the American media. More often the distortions are about Islamic culture and religion and society than of Islamic politics, and such distinctions must be made." Lewis as the other side of debate with Said said that: "First, a brief word on the remarks made by our two representatives of the media. Yes, of course, it is very easy to find examples of prejudice directed against all parties in the Middle East, and this does not prove that the media as a whole are biased one way or the other, merely that the media’s idea of impartiality is to balance opposing prejudices. And this, of course, is understandable, on television in particular. It makes a much better television than presenting a balanced and reasoned point of view. And we have just seen in the elections which have taken place in this country—where the discussion is not of remote places and foreign people, but of immediate domestic issues—how difficult it is (and most would say impossible) to arrive at any serious or balanced discussion in the circumstances of television and to a lesser extent in the other media." --Aminz 02:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- My personal opinion on such a section is that it has a high potential for bias, and may be a pandora's box to include. Either it will become too anti-islam, or to sympathetic toward Islam, either way would create problems.--Sefringle 03:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like criticism/response, and thus would belong in the criticism section. - Merzbow 03:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like something that would be more relevant to the Islamophobia article.--Sefringle 03:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- No. Islam in western media is a perfect topic and doesn't need to be a sub-article of "Criticism of Islam". It is a general topic. If media happens to criticize, then that doesn't mean we should put it under criticisms. --Aminz 05:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's notable, but probably not notable enough for this main article. It would belong in one of the three "Criticism" sub-articles along with a discussion of the "Submission" movie. - Merzbow 05:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it that the "depiction" section for Muhammad article is notable but "depiction of Islam in Media" doesn't deserve a section in this article? --Aminz 06:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is too controversial. Either it will be anti-Islam propaganda or Islam propaganda, not much in between. If we're going to get this article to FA status, the last thing we need is a major NPOV dispute.--Sefringle 06:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because everything else already in the article is more notable than it. We have to pick and choose. What would you have us delete to make room for it? - Merzbow 06:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sefringle, if it too controversial, then it means it is too notable, thus deserves addition. To Merzbow: Do you really think we don't have space to add one small section on this? Really we don't? --Aminz 06:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would wholeheartedly support a section on this in a subarticle. - Merzbow 07:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sefringle, if it too controversial, then it means it is too notable, thus deserves addition. To Merzbow: Do you really think we don't have space to add one small section on this? Really we don't? --Aminz 06:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why is it that the "depiction" section for Muhammad article is notable but "depiction of Islam in Media" doesn't deserve a section in this article? --Aminz 06:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's notable, but probably not notable enough for this main article. It would belong in one of the three "Criticism" sub-articles along with a discussion of the "Submission" movie. - Merzbow 05:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- No. Islam in western media is a perfect topic and doesn't need to be a sub-article of "Criticism of Islam". It is a general topic. If media happens to criticize, then that doesn't mean we should put it under criticisms. --Aminz 05:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like something that would be more relevant to the Islamophobia article.--Sefringle 03:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I would rather not judge something I haven't seen yet, so can you tell us exactly what you are planning to add first before we decide?--Sefringle 18:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Terrorism
Sefringle, I want to almost cry. Why do you remove the response to the unjust accusations made against Islam? [8]--Aminz 05:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- because this is not a "criticism/response" section/article. The section is only there to say that there is Islamic terrorism. The section doesn't say Islam is a religion of terrorism, and likewise, it shouldn't say it isn't, because either would be POV. I mean no offense to you personally. I only want this to be a NPOV article that is neither anti-Islamic or Islamic propaganda.--Sefringle 05:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Terrorism can not be Islamic. So, the term "Islamic terrorism" is meaningless. --Aminz 06:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thats one theory. There is an opposing viewpoint to that though. It is ultimately an interpritation of the qur'an, meaning that is very subjective.--Sefringle 06:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- In a 2006 interview with Ahmadinejad, when he was questioned about the Holocaust, he said that there were "two opinions" on it. When asked if the Holocaust was a myth, he responded "I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it" --Aminz 06:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- The Holocaust is not as subjective as religion. The Holocaust is a historical event. Religous ethics, on the other hand, is an interpritation.--Sefringle 06:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Whether the premodern(i.e. classical) interpretation of Islam admits terrorism or not is a checkable fact (through reading sources left for us of classical writers). It is as checkable as the holocaust(and lewis has done that for us). Please note that Lewis's quote is refering to the classical interpretations of Islam, not that of al-qaeda. --Aminz 06:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Define what you mean by classical. Terrorism is also a simi-subjective word. What you may call "self defense," I may call terrorism. In the past it was simply called religous violence just not called "terrorism," and there is plenty of that throughout Islamic history.--Sefringle 06:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have seen the term classical Islam, or classical centuries of Islam used by many scholars and I have usually understood it to be the formative centuries of Islam (maybe around 9-12 century) when various Islamic doctrines were gradually shaped and developed. For example, According to EoI :"Islamic ethics historically took shape only gradually and was finally established in the 11th century."- So maybe 11 century could be a good end point.
- The term Terrorism has specific meaning: One dictionary says: "Terrorism is a political tactic that uses threat or violence, usually against civilians, to frighten a target group into conceding to certain political demands.", another says: "terrorism, the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends, to intimidate opponents, or to publicize grievances." --Aminz 06:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Aminz that terrorism isn't just unjustified or gratuitous violence (nor is it by definition unjustified or gratuitous.) There is no historical basis in Sunna, or in Islam generall,y for terrorism per se, which I am not aware existed in medieval times. Some controversial things terrorrists do, such as making war against non-Muslims, beheading captives, etc., inarguably have at least a superficial basis in Sunna and scripture, but the mass murder of random civilians is nowhere to be found.
- I agree with Sefringle that argument against the Islamist terrorists' claims is unnecessary. That they claim their actions to be rooted in and justified and motivated by Islam is a fact, and I see no reason to doubt their sincerity. Howewer, their ideology is generally described as "Islamist;" that is, totalitarian political Islam. We are not - neither of you, or me - here to decide what is or isn't "Islamic," so let's try to avoid these determinations wherever we can.Proabivouac 07:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Define what you mean by classical. Terrorism is also a simi-subjective word. What you may call "self defense," I may call terrorism. In the past it was simply called religous violence just not called "terrorism," and there is plenty of that throughout Islamic history.--Sefringle 06:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Whether the premodern(i.e. classical) interpretation of Islam admits terrorism or not is a checkable fact (through reading sources left for us of classical writers). It is as checkable as the holocaust(and lewis has done that for us). Please note that Lewis's quote is refering to the classical interpretations of Islam, not that of al-qaeda. --Aminz 06:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- The Holocaust is not as subjective as religion. The Holocaust is a historical event. Religous ethics, on the other hand, is an interpritation.--Sefringle 06:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- In a 2006 interview with Ahmadinejad, when he was questioned about the Holocaust, he said that there were "two opinions" on it. When asked if the Holocaust was a myth, he responded "I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it" --Aminz 06:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thats one theory. There is an opposing viewpoint to that though. It is ultimately an interpritation of the qur'an, meaning that is very subjective.--Sefringle 06:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Terrorism can not be Islamic. So, the term "Islamic terrorism" is meaningless. --Aminz 06:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, as you'ver requested that discussions be confined to the talk pages of the relevant articles, I have moved this discussion from User talk:Merzbow to here:
- I thought the terrorism bit was resolved. But it seems not :( What do you think we can do? It is the only thing left. --Aminz 06:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am trying to resolve this underground on user talk pages. Cheers, --Aminz 06:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Aminz, I don't see how we can say "Islam is not just a faith, but a civilization," and then proceed to deny Islamist terrorism on the grounds that while it indisputably arises from the purported civilization, it contradicts our opinions about the faith. If Islam is a civilization, then pretty much anything which occurs in it or proceeds from it is topical. We are even discussing (though thanks to Itaqallah this is much trimmed) advances in sciences which have nothing at all to do with Islamic beliefs. Muslims adopt papermaking from China and that's "Islamic" and topical, but an extremist speaks of almost nothing but his interpretation of Islam, dedicates his life to and finally gives his life for that interpretation, and this is "un-Islamic" and off-topic?
- It's not that I insist upon discussion of terrorism here; a link should be enough. However, the same is even more true for the scientific advances and several other points which have basically nothing to do with the religion, first and foremost the hideously misguided sentence "Islam is not just a faith, but a civilization." If so, this article is seriously unduly weighted towards discussion of the Islamic religion, which is only one part of the "Islamic civilization," and much more space needs to be given to social, political and economic issues, from ethnic tensions in Nigeria to the price of beans in Indonesia. That this has not been done or even suggested bears witness to what I'd said on [this] talk page about the likely motivations behind the creation of this section. It would seem that our judgment of what is topical is a trivial function of our POV.
- Islam is of course a religion, not a "civilization," which is precisely why not everything that happens in the lands where Islam is practiced is worth mentioning here.Proabivouac 06:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- My understanding is different. What is Islam? Every Muslim has his own understanding of the it. For Bin Ladan, it includes terrorism. For some Sufis, it may include dancing and rejoicing as part of their worship. There are practicing Muslims. There are non-practicing Muslims. There is no "one" Islam. Islam of a people "collectively" manifest itself in a culture: in history, in art(yes, even in science- e.g. I did some research about the debate between theologeans and Muslim philosophers (subscribing to Greek philosohpy) over the nature).
- Since a possible definition of Islam in a certain environment includes terrorism for some people; it would be part of Islam with certain weight. If I think Islam asks me to kill myself, it would become part of Islam (in that sense).
- Now, my Islam says Terrorism is not part of "my" Islam. Apparently, many Muslims agree with me and we have a reliable source saying that. That's all we need for editing wikipedia.
- Regarding the civilization part, I don't think it is comparable with Terrorism. Much more Muslims were involved in that and it influenced them. There is of course connections but how much they are strong is debatable.--Aminz 07:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Given that we already have one Lewis quote in a footnote to the paragraph (in which he says that "their actions directly contradict basic Islamic principles and teachings"), we're probably fine. - Merzbow 07:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your argument, "There is no "one" Islam. Islam of a people "collectively" manifest itself in a culture: in history, in art(yes, even in science)" is not very convincing. Of course there is not jsut one "Islam," but that doesn't mean that anything Muslims do is as relevant to Islam as any other thing. How Muslims pray is relevant to Islam in a way that how Muslims in various countries grow crops is not.
- Scientific advances don't contradict Islam and aren't forbidden to Muslims, but have basically nothing to do with the religion anymore than advances of China of Japan can be attributed to the syncretism of local religions with Buddhism.
- Terrorism isn't that important in the scheme of things (per recentism), but deserves mention (one brief sentence with a link) in the section Jihad, as it is a debate about when and how this obligation should be carried out.Proabivouac 07:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Proabivouac, please let's not discuss philoshopy of science. I don't consider science as an objective truth waiting for us to be discovered. I think in part, we are making science through our choice of experiments, our worldview etc etc. Art, Science and Philoshopy are now alltogether comprising one section of the article in the civilization section. Do you object to this?
- If you want to add a line, what would that one line be? --Aminz 07:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- First, I'd like to eliminate the section header, "Civilization and Community" along with the associated text, "Islam is not just a faith, but a civilization." As I've pointed out, if one accepts this, then this article is unduly and hopelessly weighted towards discussion of religion, while correspondingly most any discussion about historically significant trends in this civilization. The most populous Muslim country is mentioned here a grand total of once, while the "Islamic civilization" spoken of here is accurately rephrased as "Post-Islamic Arabic and Persian civilizations": the others are used and useful only to support our 1+ billion number.
- There is, of course something which these peoples do hold in common: not a civilization, but the religion Islam.
- As for one sentence about terrorism, I don't have too much of an opinion about it, other than that it should be under "Jihad" section, not "Civilization and Community." Something like, "In recent years, some Muslims have held that Muslims are individually obliged to engage in Jihad using tactics ranging from guerilla warfare to Islamist terrorism."In other words, keep the discussion focussed on the religious elements of their claims, rather than their geopolitical impact. Otherwise, this would merit an entire section, as it would were Islam to be treated as a single trans-national civilization rather than as a religion. I do not believe any "criticism" of terrorism or of Islam or the Qur'an deserves to be here: we can state how Islam has historically been interpreted and practiced without judgment. In this light, we can counter the claims of the terrorists via due weight, rather than by arguing against it (which only gives it more weight.) Some now say that Jihad means this, the end.Proabivouac 08:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reply to number 1. Removing the whole "Civilization and Community" section and the text Strongly NO for several reasons Itaqallah and myself produced. This issue was brought up by Sefringle first and was discussed in detail. I'd rather to take that section out of archive and continue discussion there.
- I think that "Civilization and Community" is the best place for it because Terrorism is mainly a modern movement best placed under "Civilization and Community". Terrorism is a contemporary political term. Everything happening today is drived by politics. The shariah of the traditional Islam was fixed way back. I disagree with your suggestion. --Aminz 08:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless of this "terrorism" thread, I strongly believe that this article should not be promoted to featured status until these irrelevant observations about advances in anatomy, papermaking, etc., are removed. This is the only article about any religion which even touches upon such topics, and no one has advanced any convincing reason why it is uniquely topical here.
- Terrorism is itself a blip in the history of Islam. The most significant upshot from a religious perspective - and I am hardly the only one to have observed this, it is easily sourced and I've seen it sourced - is the terrorists' insistence on an individual rather than communal obligation to jihad, such that one must do it in the absence of the direction of a Caliph (or prophet) - here terrorists play the role of agent provocateur, ceaselessly drawing the Umma or portions thereof into counterproductive conflict that wiser centralized leadership might have avoided, and correspondingly, the adoption of terrorism as a tactic, where a government responsible for the general welfare would naturally be concerned about the modes of retaliation this might invite and their impact upon the mostly sedentary population. It is ironic that, while Islamist terrorists advocate the revival of the Caliphate, the very first thing such a Caliphate would probably do (supposing it was strong enough to do so) is crush the terrorists. Real Caliphates field effective armies which confront and defeat other armies, not irregulars randomly killing civilians.
- Regardless of one's opinion about allthis, it is at least somewhat notable as the revival of Kharajite attitudes under the banner of Salafism. But, only insofar as our aim is here to discuss contemporary trends in Islam.Proabivouac 09:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I disagree on the section and suggest you activate the relevant section again.
- Regarding the terrorism, Contrary to your view, I think Bin Ladan wants to play the role of Caliph, issuing communal obligation to jihad. That's only Sunni Islam. In Shia Islam, only Muhammad and the Imams can call for the primitive jihad. --Aminz 09:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- More work can be done for the modern movement section. The divisions are too rough. Fundamentalism is a broad term containing Wahabism etc etc. We may want to get more specific. --Aminz 09:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Modern Movements" belongs under "Denominations," actually.Proabivouac 09:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
In response to Proabivouac's comment that the scientific advances of Chinese civilization are not usually attributed to Buddhism. No, they are attributed to Taoism. See Joseph Needham's definitive work on the subject. In relation to this article: if we do not point out that there was in medieval times a Pax Islamica that allowed philosophy, art, science and technology to flourish, then we have not fully explained the development of this great world religion. Itsmejudith 13:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Islam and Science
I have perused articles for several other major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shinto, Christianity and Judaism) and not one bothers to mention the scientific advances of places in which the religion is widely practiced. Some are far more obviously associated with a single civilization than is Islam, others can boast an even more impressive series of advances, yet evidently no one has thought these remotely relevant except here.Proabivouac 07:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The 3 ways God communicates with people
I was told by a muslim friend once, there are 3 ways God communicates with non-prophets;
1) Vivid or recurring dreams (usually both). 2) Feeling compelled to do something for absolutely no logical reason and, number 3 is....
He forgot.
Does anyone know what the 3rd way is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.63.78.97 (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
- I don't know about number 2; but finding something in the heart maybe one way. In a broad sense everybody (including animals) is recieving revelation in their daily life. --Aminz 07:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- What about listening to the advice of your loved ones? Itsmejudith 13:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
22 Years or 23 Years
I think Muhammad's total preaching took 23 years (40 - 63). Merzbow? --Aminz 07:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Esposito (2004) p.17 says 22 years. But he doesn't use the word "preaching", he says "revealed to Muhammad over a period of 22 years". Perhaps he preached one addition year? - Merzbow 08:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Something we can cut
"Islamic philosophy, which greatly influenced medieval and Renaissance Europe, can be defined as "the style of philosophy produced within the framework of Islamic culture".[133] It was developed based on the assumption that the truths obtained with human reasoning and the truths obtained from Islam, when properly understood, cannot contradict each other. Notable philosophers include Al-Kindi, Yahya Ibn Adi (a Christian) and his pupil al-Farabi, Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd.[76][133] Also, Islamic culture has produced many notable literary works over a vast geographic and linguistic area. Persian writers, especially poets, had a large impact on literary style across the Islamic world.[134] Notable Persian poets include: Rumi (one of the greatest mystic poets of Islam), Sheikh Sa‘di and Hafiz.[135]"
I am sorry but or we should just contract it in one line. In fact this whole section "Arts and sciences" should be reduce. This article is long and we should not write about such small things in an important article. Just a suggestion. --- A. L. M. 09:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I am afraid I disagree. I think Islamic Philosophy is important. --Aminz 09:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think this paragraph is probably good as it is. - Merzbow 16:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with ALM. In the scheme of this article, this material, though interesting, is hardly relevant.Proabivouac 10:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Proabivouac have removed the whole section of "Art and science". I think it is good to keep a paragraph of it. The article should deal with history briefly. I have never asked for deleting the whole section. --- A. L. M. 13:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- i see no reason why the whole section on art/science has been removed, especially as there was a previous agreement to trim it to one or two paragraphs.. ITAQALLAH 14:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Proabivouac have removed the whole section of "Art and science". I think it is good to keep a paragraph of it. The article should deal with history briefly. I have never asked for deleting the whole section. --- A. L. M. 13:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think Aminz, me, Itaqallah, and Merzbow are at least agree that this section should be kept. I think it should have been smaller. I have readded it but make it much smaller. If someone wish to restore longer version then its okay (but I think smaller is better -:)). --- A. L. M. 14:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I still have not heard one good reason why the following sentences are even remotely topical here:
- "The mathematician Al-Khwarizmi (from whose name the word algorithm derives) helped develop the field of algebra. In the field of technology, the Muslim world adopted papermaking and gunpowder from China many centuries before it was known in the West. Furthermore, Muslim physicians contributed much to the field of medicine, and specifically to the subjects of anatomy, physiology, and surgery."
- No other article about a religion mentions such achievements of peoples who happen to practice it.
- ALM, Islamic philosophy, though as you say a minor point, is far more relevant than these random advances which have nothing at all to do with religion. I am curious as to why you think that the philosophy section had to go, but this should stay.Proabivouac 17:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that it was added after GA comment. However, I am neutral on this issue. If everybody support deleting then we can delete this section. Can you start a small vote below? --- A. L. M. 17:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Another sentence of rather dubious value is, "Islamic architecture demonstrates a great number of techniques, like the use of domes in famous structures like the Dome of the Rock and the Taj Mahal."
- There is nothing at all "Islamic" about the use of domes. Like most "Islamic architecture" it is only Roman architecture and is distinguished by details, not structure. At least with calligraphy and tilework we can at least state that the advances were made by Muslims.Proabivouac 18:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a modern movement
I suggest to move following in critisum section. It is not a modern movement as such, at least for majority of Muslims.
"Islamic terrorism refers to acts of terrorism claimed by their supporters and practitioners to further the goals of Islam. It has heavily increased in prevalence in recent decades, and has become a contentious political issue in many nations. There are Muslims and non-Muslims who have spoken out against this claim.[138][139] While these extremist groups sanctify their actions through the Islamic texts, according to Bernard Lewis: "At no point do the basic texts of Islam enjoin terrorism and murder. At no point — as far as I am aware — do they even consider the random slaughter of uninvolved bystanders."[140]" ---A. L. M. 09:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- They are a reactionary byproduct of the current politics. I agree that it is not a modern movement as such. --Aminz 09:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think this should probably stay in that section because of its importance; people will claim we aren't being broad enough in our treatment of Islam if we don't mention the problem of terrorism in a modern Islam section. - Merzbow 16:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- ^ Trimingham (1998), p.1