Talk:Din (Arabic)

Problems
First of all, Din is an Arabic term meaning religion. What you're doing here (as Zora said) is just quoting Islamists and trying to claim that Islam itself can only exist as a combination of church and state. Second, you included long quotes that don't belong in an article, so I have shortened many of them. Please read other articles on this encyclopedia to get a feel for when to include quotes. Third, your section on the practicalities of Din is total original research and reads like an essay about your fears of Islam conquering secular societies. Jinnah's quote had nothing to do with Din.Heraclius 22:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "What you're doing here (as Zora said) is just quoting Islamists and trying to claim that Islam itself can only exist as a combination of church and state." Uh. There is no seperation of church and state in Islam. Islam is the state and the church. The word "deen" encompasses both the religion of Islam as well the political ideology of Islam and as well as the governmental apparatus of the Islamic state. It is only in the post-9/11 world that people have even started using the neologism "Islamist" and no equivalent of this word can be found in Islamic terminology. "Islamist" is a controversial word, and while the article on Islamist may explain what it supposedly means, you cannot enforce this erroneous and controversial neologism onto the whole of Wikipedia. --Zeno of Elea 09:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I sincerely hope that Islam can exist with religion and state separated. I am quoting Islamic scholars, and reputable ones who have claimed that it cannot, and I have shown historical precedence of how muslims have implemented that practically.  Quotes are appropriate because look at Striver's and your reactions.  You are unwilling to even accept the words of the Muslim scholar's themselves!!!  Muslims do use "complete code of life".  What does it mean?  What does din mean?  I am merely showing what the muslims have said about it themselves since the early 1900's.  Show how those words affect practical affairs is not original research.  Even there I have cited and quoted actual muslim leaders.  If this makes you uncomfortable as a muslim, then think about what the muslims have been saying and doing and do something about it, instead of trying to suppress actual historical facts and information.  Please bring solid secondary sources that contradict the voices of the muslims that I quoted.  Zora stated two western sufi's and I took the trouble to find the original source, ibn Tamiyah of those statements.  I could have gone into original research and pointed out the key difference between ibn Tamiyah and keller but I did not.  Those who know the concepts can see the difference.  Nickbee 18:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Revert war
Please end the revert war, or the page will have to be protected. Cheers--BaronLarf 03:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for Nickbee to comment on this page.Heraclius 03:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou BaronLarf. Heraclius, the decent thing for you to do would have been to leave the page I wrote as it was, and discussed your objections and we could have arrived at some resolution. Instead you are insisting on your versions and your version only. Now to your points: 1. I have provided all sources. Zora does not dispute with any sources. Do you dispute with any of the sources. I am not quoting Islamists. I have quote the dictionary of terms used in the Quran of 1941. Only Madudi may be stretched into being an Islamicist. MRC of UK, Sir Iqbal Sacranie admires Maududi. This is from the observer of yesterday: "The MCB's Inayat Bunglawala said he had a deep respect for Maududi and defended the MCB's affiliation to Khurshid Ahmad's Islamic Foundation. He said: 'Maududi is a very important Muslim thinker. The book that brought me to practise Islam was Now Let Us Be Muslims by Maududi. As for Jamaat-i-Islami, it is a perfectly legal body in Pakistan. There is no suggestion that the Islamic Foundation has done anything wrong. They have done fantastic work in publishing literature on Islam, including works for children." And I am quoting the book Let Us be Muslims that you consider Islamism. Then I am quoting an Imam at the North Carolina Mosque giving a Khutba and you are taking that out. I put this page and asked for discussion. Why don't you bring good solid second sources and I will incorporate those into the page. The application of din by muslims in history is not NOT original research. How in the heck can it be original research? Jinnah is saying DIN and saying that the hindus cannot understand him. The practice of DIN requires that the muslims want sharia to be applied in Banking, mortgages, family law, etc. I am quoting muslims to show why the concept is important. And you are cutting it up as New Research?

1) Do you disagree with the accuracy of the sources? 2) Why don't you bring in defination of non-islamicists about DIN and lets us put those into the write up as well. And what do you mean "pushing it"? Why is it pushing it?

Nickbee 04:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee.
 * Nick the Socialist, answer my objections above please.Heraclius 04:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Have you read the answer that I did give? Nickbee 04:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee


 * Ok Nick the Socialist, let me first start by saying that you have already made three reverts and making one more will be a breach of the three revert rule that will get you blocked. Nick, I'm trying to make this simple for you.  This is an encyclopedia.  You're just inserting large quotes in italics and putting your in own interpretations of them.  You need to first start by summarizing each quote into a sentence or two because nothing of what you wrote was readable.  You have every right to quote Maududi and I don't dispute that.  With regards to the Jinnah quote, I looked over it, and not once did he say Din.  You are interpreting his quote and that is original research.


 * My version is more accurate than yours because of several reasons. Din is an Arabic word that means religion.  Regardless of its origins or root meaning, in common parlance it means religion strictly speaking.  That means Arab Christians use it as well, and believe me I am more experienced than you when it comes to the Arabic language.  Furthermore, your version contains long quotes and has too much Maududi in it.  You can start editing my version and summarizing quotes, but please don't add your long, rambling, originally-researched paragraphs back in. Heraclius 04:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And how many reverts have you made? Do you understand that I am not interested in a revert war. I am interested in getting the information out. So I am willing to work with you and anyone else, wether you believe it or not. But I will insist that facts are put out. You see you are now willing to atleast allow the words of Maududi. We will work on every objection of yours with care and patience. I am in no hurry. Please don't get yourself blocked because of the 3rr policy. The reason I quoted the exact words is because of hot heads like you. You cannot even tolerate words of the muslims themselves. First as I pointed out to Zora, if you will care to examine, that I have not given one opinion of mine in the entire page. You have taken information out. We may not like what the idiots said, but it is important to not distort and hide the information. I will add the usage in common parlance and the use of the word by Arab christians. That is perfectly valid.


 * The version as it stands now is good. There is no need for you to add the usage in common parlance to your old version, as that was not the main dispute.  Once again, inserting long quotes in italics and then saying "we can now see" and other statements such as that makes the whole thing read like an essay.Heraclius 05:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No this version is not acceptable. I did not use any "we can now see". All the we are part of the quotations.  Those are the words that the Islamic scholar was using. Nickbee 05:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

As i understand it, somebody wants to qoute someone that says that "deen" sometimes means stuff like "obedience" and "submission", in a effort to imply that slavery = "obedience" & "submission" = Deen = Religion = Islam. And hence Slavery = Islam.

If that is the case: That is nonsense. I dont care who he is quoting: That is nonsens.

Basicly, Deen is used in the same way that "way" is used.
 * "Deen al malik" = "way of the king"
 * "Deen al haqq" = "way of truth"
 * "Deen Allah" = "way of God"
 * "Deen of rain" = "way of the rain"
 * "Deen of shaitan" = "way of satan"

He is quoting someone that says that "deen" can be used in a various ways, and gives examples of it.

Now, the editor is trying (unles im misstaken) to bring in a large section that illustrates this. To illustratet that is legit in it self, but what he is trying to do is to dominate the article whith someone saying it can also meanr "tuff stuff", and hope that since the reader dont know Arabic, they whont get that the part saying that is has way to much space. Anyone that is westerner and reads a article that says in 60% Slavery = Deen = Islam is going to assume Slavery = Islam.

That is week. The part about deen being a flexible word capable of multiple meanings deserves a couple of lines explainging the dephs of the Arabic language, not some random that elaborates on the subject in a academic way.

Why not go to the "Sun" article and have 60% of the article dedicated to some scholar that explains in a elaborate way that "sun" is the egypt and aztek gods and that the aztek sacrifized live people to the "sun"?

--Striver 08:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello. You might want to have a look at the WP:NOR policy. We greatly value contributions from users who are knowledgable in a subject, but unfortunately we cannot accept original research. Please be careful to always cite your sources to maintain verifiability and neutral point of view. Cheers --causa sui talk 19:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

lol, i wrote that without reading the article, and the article it self says its used in the same way as the word "way". Its just laughable to see how they try to distord a innocent word to imply slavery =Islam. Its absurd, no matter what scholar or book he is citing, why dont you go to the "sun" article and dedicate a HUGE chunk of it to explain people sacrifse stuff to it?

--Striver 08:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, throughout the ages the Message has never changed, only the times, cultures, languages and the like have. The religion, Way or "Spiritual Path" (Deen) of the Prophets has always been the same, echoing throughout the ages. This message was ultimately one of Peace, Shalom (שלום), Salaam (سلام), and their teachings were a guide to how to arrive at true and lasting Peace, both internal to ourselves, and externally, throughout our surrounding societies. 

Sha'ul (Paulus) got it all wrong again, when he emphasized only Faith. Yaqov (Jackob, Brother of Jesus) rebuked Sha'ul, showing the balance of Faith with actual works manifested from one's Spiritual Practice, or "Deen." This is the literal meaning of "Religion" in both Hebrew and `Arabic. Both Judaism and Islaam - from Adam, to Abraham, to Moses, to Jesus, to Muhammad - has always maintained that both "Faith" ("Emunah" in Hebrew and Emaan in `Arabic), as well as "Works" or "Spiritual Practice" ("Deen" in both Hebrew and `Arabic alike), are necessary. 

--Striver 10:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Who are these nobody's that I quoted: Allama Ghulam Ahemed Parwez: He wrote about Islam and was one of the earliest Quran only Muslim in India. He has books and books on Islam. Please do a google on his name or go to his institutes web site. He is dead himself. Mualana Maududi: A leading Muslim thinker who influenced Qutyb and who is accredited with the revival of Islam in the 20th centtury. He just, this weekend, got accolades from the top two guys at the prime leading organisation of Muslims (MRC) in UK. A Syrian Imam at a mosque in North Carolina in US. Please go to the web site and see how many accolades the imam has won from people around the country. Saddrudin Eslahi: A leading author on Islam for over 40 years. Muslim Youth League in UK. Muhammad Ali Jinnah: Founder of Pakistan. Mumtaz Ali: The intellectual force behind the Sharia tribunals in Canada. I am quoting their words. And those are trying to lie and distort? I have been saying again and again, please bring secondary sources that show that these Scholars are liars and we should include that information on the page. Instead what we have is personal bias and a total refusal to allow any view inconsistent with the view of a few muslims at wikipedia to be honestly put forth. That is whay I did not even summarise, but wrote the words of the Islamic Scholars themselves, and now that is unacceptable? Nickbee 17:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Please State your objections
Please tell me what sources do you not believe? Those are the words of reputable muslims. You may not like them or their words but that is what they said. So instead of engaging in another revert war, why do you not answer and tell what are your objections? Quoting is appropriate here, and your attitude shows why it is appropriate. Where in Wiki policy does it say that appropriate quoting is verboten? Why do you not cite your secondary sources and those can then be incorporated in the page? Nickbee 03:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The sources which are cited by Nickbee are notable, albeit quite orthodox. May be those sources can be counterbalanced by sources which have a more secular meaning of deen, if those sources exist. It seems Heraclius and Zora know about those sources, so the recommended way of action for them would be to cite those sources I think. I know only about the Qur'an only interpretation, but they are not considered Muslims by Sunni and Shi'a. --Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 09:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have tried finding sources that would provide an alternative view of din and have not found any. There is more or less consensus among he muslim scholars that "complete code of life" means covering all aspects of life (political as well as secular).  I will appreciate if anyone can provide sources to alternatives. Nickbee 18:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nickbee, the dispute wasn't about your sources. It was about your long, rambling paragraphs and the fact that it read like an essay.  When this gets unlocked, let's start editing little by little and by summarizing quotes.Heraclius 02:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, I did not use "we" construct that you thought made it read like an essay. Then a lot of quotes are necessary and one cannot edit away a lot of the original words without introducing distortions. I am willing to work with you and straighten out to make the page better. We should revert it to the way it was and then start the "editing" part paragraph by paragraph. I do not see why we cannot begin it right away. So why don't you pick the paragraph that you want and tell me what is it that you don't like, and why you want to remove the quotes. Proper quoting is not against Wiki policy. For a controversial topic such as this one, it is better to quote the original more than usual, in my judgement. That way the charge that anyone may be operating out of bias is unsustainable. Again any good solid sources on "din" stating any meaning are welcome and should be included. Personal opinions and personal feelings must be kept out. Nickbee 15:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, we shouldn't revert it to the way it was. We should start from this version.Heraclius 15:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is that? I worked to put it together and you want to come in and impose your will and you think that is fair? If you are serious in cooperating then be serious, and we can start co-operating. Why don't you start with the page I had and start telling what is it that you object to. All your objections come down to is about style of quotes. So show where is the policy of no quotes at wiki. Nickbee 16:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Your practicalities of Din section is total original research, as none of the quotes even mention Din.Heraclius 16:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you even bother reading? Parwez is talking nothing but din. Maududi's paper is titled Deen and Sharia, and he is talking explicitly about din. The only quote you quibble about is by Jinnah where he does not use the word din but he uses practically the words of Eslahi uses to describe din. So which quotes are you explicitly talking about. How can it be original research when you are belly aching that I am quoting so much. How can quotes be original research? Nickbee 16:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I tire of having to explain this to you, Nick. Look at this The notion of inseparability of religon and state, or Din, is often expressed in practical terms in the desire for an Islamic state or to the introduction of Sharia in countries where muslims are as yet a minority because Ad-Deen covers all aspects of a believers life and not only the "private inner life" that other religions do.

There's no source for this claim. It was written entirely by you, and thus it is original research. The next two quotes in the section don't mention Din at all. The one about Western Muslims trying to impose Sharia doesn't mention Din either. What is it you don't understand?Heraclius 16:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean there is no source for this claim? Read the words of jinnah and read the words of eslahi. Are they the same? If you like we can add "Echoing the words of Eslahi, Jinna states in Patna ...". What is Syed Mumtaz Ali saying in his request for implementing Laws in the "temporal" domain? Who is talking about imposing Sharia? It is because "it is a complete code of life" that there arise a need for Islamic banking and Islamic mortgages. Why do the muslims want Islamic banking and Islamic mortgages in the west? You tell me what does that fall under?

The exact words I use, I can work on those so they reflect the opinions of the people who are asking for these services in the west. I can dig up the quotes of those gentlemen, and they will say what I summarised and which you do not like. Nickbee 17:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You're the one who has decided what it falls under. That is original research.Heraclius 17:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC) No that is not original research! You are stretching it and you know it. Let me do a little research and I will be back on this point of banking and commerce with quotes that narrow the words down so even you cannot bellyache about the obvious. Then we can decide on that. Do you have a problem with Mumtaz Ali quotes or Jinnah quotes? Nickbee 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Nick, I'm sorry to say, but your practicalities of Din section is total original research. I've said this many times before, but here it is again:Din isn't mentioned in any of those quotes.Heraclius 17:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If you cannot see the obvious then we will have to seek arbitration. Do you want to proceed with that request? Nickbee 17:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you mean "mediation".Heraclius 17:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I have not gone through the dispute resolution steps before at wiki. If it is mediation, then that is what it must be. Nickbee 17:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a quote from Deen and Sharia: "In all these verses, the word deen  has been used to mean the law, rules or regulations, shari'ah, or code of conduct, or that system of thought and action which a person subscribes to and lives by. If the ultimate authority for the law or code, etc., which is followed, is God Himself, then the person concerned in observing Allah's deen; if it owes us itself to the commandments of a monarch, then he is in the monarch's Deen; if it is prescribed by some priests or pundits or other religious leaders then he is observing their deen; and if it has been laid down by the family, the clan or the tribe, or the national body-politic, then he is following their deen. In other words, the basic, critical factor as to the  deen a person follows is the ultimate authority responsible for it." Do you want to include that to show that the need for sharia in banking, family law etc., derives from the need to follow their deen? Nickbee 17:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is a quote from another Islamic site: Dana is the root from which we derive the term deen. It means, ‘to submit, to position in a humble place, put to account, determine a reward or punishment, obey, cause a person to do what he dislikes, etc.’ In its Islamic usage, the word has all these connotations: submission to God, humility before Him, accountability, obedience even when it means doing what we dislike, etc. Its basic sense, however, is ‘submission to God and accepting the message He has sent to mankind through the final Prophet, Muhammad, peace be upon him.’ This means that the word deen has a wider meaning than the word Shariah. While the latter denotes basically the law that Islam lays down, the former, deen, goes further than that in order to include accepting the basic concepts of faith and bringing one's life in line with those concepts, implementing the Shariah as an act of submission to God. '''Can the two be separated? The short answer is that they cannot exist separately. It is inconceivable that a community which does not believe in Islam as a message vouchsafed by God to His last messenger would ever adopt Islamic law and try to implement it through the regular law enforcing procedures and authorities. For one thing, Islamic law relies heavily on the fact that individuals and communities have a deep-rooted incentive which motivates them to implement it so that they would earn God's pleasure and be rewarded by heaven.''' When that incentive is absent, Islamic law would not function properly. There would be as much law evasion as we see in other communities which enforce man-made laws. On the other hand, it just cannot happen that a community which truly believes in Islam should decide to shelve Islamic law and adopt instead some other type of law. How can such a community give credence to what it professes of believing in Islam? How could a person say that he believes in God, but when it comes to law, he prefers some sort of man-made law to that made by God? Such an attitude means that he finds the other law better or more suitable or superior to God's law. Or it may be that he thinks God's law too restrictive and he wants to be free. Does that prove his submission, which is the central issue in faith and religion? Certainly not. Then how can the two be separated? Nor is it possible to change God's law. Let us consider what happens in any country when a law is changed. You look first at the authority which enacted the original law. The new law, or even the amendment to the existing law, needs to be adopted by the same authority. In a democratic country where the parliament is the only authority to enact laws, you need a new act of parliament to repeal, amend or substitute the existing laws. In a country where laws come into effect on the basis of royal or presidential decrees, you need the same sort of decree for that purpose. Islamic law is devised by God, so only God may change or amend it. If you want some parts of these included to show the drive behind wanting Sharia implemented, I can certainly go for that. Nickbee 18:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a great quote and all, but you still haven't proven to me how your "Practicalities of Deen" section isn't original research. You're trying to argue something here, you're writing an essay. This kind of rhetoric is more useful on a blog or message-board, not an encyclopedia. Until you can show sources in the Practicalities of Deen section that actually MENTION deen, then it is still original research.Heraclius 18:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Giving Examples of something is not original research, Heraclius. The quote above clearly state that 1. Din is subsumes Sharia and the two cannot be separated in Islam, and 2.There is deep rooted incentive to implement it so that they may earn God's pleasure and earn rewards in heave. I am giving examples of this. I will take my sentence out and replace it with the quote in bold and then give example of it. Nickbee 18:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No, Jinnah's and the other quotes were about Sharia. They did not once mention Din. Why do I have to keep repeating this? It is original research to interpret quotes as being about Din.Heraclius 18:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is what the section will read after the changes: Practicalities of Din

Despite the efforts of the Muslim Scholars to be explicit and careful, many non-muslims have a difficulty in bridging the difference between religion and din.where is the source for this nick The catholic encyclopedia translates Din into "Practical Religion" and reduces din to consist of five observances: recital of the formula of belief, prayer with ablution, fasting, almsgiving, and the pilgrimage to Mecca. As the religious column editor of the "Arab News" answering whether din and sharia can be separated states: " Can the two be separated? The short answer is that they cannot exist separately. It is inconceivable that a community which does not believe in Islam as a message vouchsafed by God to His last messenger would ever adopt Islamic law and try to implement it through the regular law enforcing procedures and authorities. For one thing, Islamic law relies heavily on the fact that individuals and communities have a deep-rooted incentive which motivates them to implement it so that they would earn God's pleasure and be rewarded by heaven." The inseparability of din and Sharia are echoed in few of the example given below:

he doesn't mention din at all(inserted by Heraclius). (Read the comments of Eslahi and Jinnah is using the words of Eslahi and if that is not din, then what the hell is it? ; by Nickbee) no mention of din whatsoever "The sovereignty of God in Islam is not just a supernatural phenomenon. It covers all aspects of political and legal sovereignty also and in these too no one other than God has any share. In God alone vests the rightful authority to exercise power on this earth, and over those whom God has created in it. No monarch, no royal family, no elite class, no leader of any religious group, no democracy established on the basis of the sovereignty of the people, can participate in God's sovereignty. Whoever claims such a position is a rebel, as are those who leave God and turn to other people in obedience. Similarly, any institution or individual attempting to assume political and legal sovereignty and restrict the jurisdiction of God to spheres of personal law or religious duties, is really a usurper and a rebel. The truth is that no one can claim to be law-giver on God's earth, and no one can challenge the supreme authority of God Almighty in any sphere." once again no mention of din (comment inserted by Heraclius) [What they are giving is the example of Din. Read the words of Eslahi, the Muslim Youth League, etc.; One can relate to concepts or is this an insistence that the word "din" without any content whatsoever appear?; Nickbee) originally researched claim or the introduction of Islamic Banking by many Banks to satisfy the constraints of their muslim customer's din [9]
 * A historical example is provided by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, who in his speech at Patna on 10 January 1939 pointed out: “many people misunderstand us when we talk of Islam, particularly our Hindu friends. When we say this Flag is the Flag of Islam they think we are introducing religion into politics — a fact of which we are proud. Islam gives us a complete code. It is not only religion but it contains laws, philosophy and politics. It contains everything that matters to a man from morning to night. When we talk of Islam we take it as an all embracing word” (reported in the Star of India, 11th January 1939).
 * The Charter of the "political party" Jamaate Islami Hind [6] in a democratic and secular India states:
 * There is a desire by Muslim leaders in many Western Countries (Canada, U.S. Australia, EU countries, etc.) for the adoption of Sharia rules in the sphere of Civil Law and economics similar to the parallel and separate Civil legal code for Muslims in India so they can excercise their din fully. Recent examples in this connection applying shari’a to certain civil disputes in the Ontario province of Canada. Ontario’s Arbitration Act, passed in 1991, paved the way for this campaign by granting religious authorities the power to arbitrate in family and property matters so long as the parties involved gave their consent. The intellectual force behind this effort is Syed Mumtaz Ali, the president of the Canadian Society of Muslims and a leading member of Islamic Institute of Civil Justice who declared in defending the Shari'a tribunal “freedom of religion as guaranteed under Canada’s constitution means not only freedom to practice and propagate religion but also to be able to be governed by one’s religious laws in all aspects of one’s life—spiritual as well as temporal.” and who also wants to extend Sharia to punishing apostates of Islam in some form [7]. Examples in the sphere of Finance and economics is the launching of the first child trust fund (CTF) which complies with Sharia in Britain [8],

Heraclius, you are now playing games and trying to deny the obvious. Any disinterested pary will be able to see that 1) there is no original research and 2) that the demands for sharia implementation come from the need for muslims to practice their din. Nickbee 18:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

Nick, I grow tired of explaining to you the obvious. You just won't take no for an answer. Any disinterested party will see that that entire section is originally researched and lacks many sources.Heraclius 19:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, why don't we ask a disinterested third party then? And what sources does it lack? Nickbee 19:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a desire by Muslim leaders in many Western Countries (Canada, U.S. Australia, EU countries, etc.) for the adoption of Sharia rules in the sphere of Civil Law and economics similar to the parallel and separate Civil legal code for Muslims in India so they can excercise their din fully.

Take this as a main example. Where is the source for this? Why are you interpreting it as them trying to "exercise their din fully"? This is beyond question original research.Heraclius 19:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Then you complain about quotations and this is precisely why I have to quote so much. Here it is: They obtained an Islamic mortgage that was in Sharia -- or compliance with Islamic law. In Islamic mortgages, an intermediary such as a bank buys the property, and the homeowner eventually obtains the home through a lease-to-own arrangement. Solaiman and Metzger were thrilled to find that University Bank in Ann Arbor had begun offering Islamic mortgages locally and they cost only a little more than a regular loan. It's a step toward helping the Detroit area's large and growing Muslim community obtain the American dream of home ownership without sacrificing their beliefs. "We wanted to eliminate any question or doubt," said Solaiman, human resources director for Ann Arbor-based Borders Books Inc. "We thought we would have to pay more with Islamic mortgage, but it's really small difference," she said. "Years ago, you paid a significant amount more." Although Islamic mortgages have been around for years, they have only been offered by a couple of out-of-state banks and were considerably more expensive than traditional loans. And there are many many examples like these. If you do not want me to summarise, I can bring in many examples and words of muslims who are grateful that Islamic banking and mortgages are now availbale so they don't have to pay ribba. Would you prefer that? Nickbee 19:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Here are a couple more: "There are an estimated 6 million Muslims -- 1.8 million households -- in the United States. About one-third, or 600,000, households strongly desire Islamic financing, according to survey data, with home acquisition being the leading area of interest." or "Metzger said there isn't any reason he wouldn't go through the same kind of financing the next time the couple needs a mortgage. "Almost everything is identical. It all comes down to the process it went though that makes it halal, or truly Islamic," he said." I am merely summarising thousands of examples that exist in USA, UK, Australia, etc. . Nickbee 20:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"The launch of these Islamic finance products by HSBC is welcome news for many thousands of Muslims who regularly battle with their consciences when it comes to making financial decisions," the BBC News Onlilne quoted Iqbal Asaria, the spokesman of the Muslim Council of Britain, as saying. "Some (Muslims) are wracked with guilt because they have broken Islamic law. While others' values are beyond question, they are more pragmatic in order to keep a roof over their family's head. "HSBC's initiative frees them from this dilemma and is the first step to delivering a level playing field for Muslims seeking financial solutions in the U.K.," he added You tell me if all this is not captured by "excercising their din fully" then how would your characterise it? Nickbee 20:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If you do not like my summary about the desire for Sharia, I am willing to take that out and we can decide to put in about five or six examples that show the 'relief' of the muslims to be able to have Sharia available for finance, mortages and family law available to them so their actions are not against their beliefs. Is that acceptable to you? Nickbee 20:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

No, put that in the Sharia article. Your summary about the desire for Sharia is, I repeat, original research. You're making connections and inferences for the reader.Heraclius 21:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You can put it where ever you like it. The central thesis here is that din requires Sharia and I have shown you examples where that is true. You are on a mantra of original research and that does not hold. You are now intentionally obstructing. How is showing examples of showing wanting sharia so they can practice their beliefs (din) orignal research. I have asked for third party opinions. And if need be, we will proceed up the chain of dispute resolution. This is not orignal research. Where is the definition of original research in wiki policy? I suggest that you read it. I have. Nickbee 21:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Wiki policy says: " However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." I have cited solid secondary sources that state: 1) din includes Sharia. 2) din and Sharia are inseprable. 3) Words from scholars what they mean by din and "complete code of life. 4) quotes and sources showing that inseparability is reflected in the examples where people are expressing relief that they have Sharia options so they can practice their din." On what basis do you claim that this is original research? Please specify. Nickbee 21:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is what Heraclius posted on the Talk:Apostasy_in_Islam:
 * I have no more to say to you on the Din page. You just won't take no for an answer even when presented with Wiki policies that contradict your paragraphs.  I have called for third opinions as well.  You can place the article on RfC if you want and see if anyone responds, though I doubt many people will be interested.Heraclius 17:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, I have quoted the wiki policy above, and have asked you to show me where does that policy contradict wiki policy. Karl has pointed out to you that it is important to also show the "why" someone makes certain declarations. Look at the elimination of Saddradudin Eslahi quotes or the Maududi quotes and you tell me if you are not actually deleting valid information? Nickbee 17:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius blatant attempt at cutting information
Nickbee wrote the page. He cites solid sources. No one disputes the sources. Heraclius edits are cutting out real information about what the muslims say about their "complete code of life". And the gall to accuse Nickbee of POV pushing! Exmuslim 19:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Exmuslim
 * Exmuslim, you ARE nickbee. Looking at your contribs, all you have done is add the FFI link and follow Nickbee around on his articles.Heraclius 19:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not nickbee. Why do you not talk what is your problem with what Nickbee has posted?  Exmuslim 19:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Exmuslim
 * Nickbee, you truly dissapoint me. Your edits will be reverted soon as other editors have been notified of this page.  I was hoping we could build up to a version we both agree on, but that doesn't seem to be the case.Heraclius 19:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You do not hear well. I am not nickbee. I have been watching wikipedia for some time to learn. Why don't you talk about the changes you want and why? See the posts by nickbee trying to talk to you, but you waltz in to take over the page and push your lame POV. Why? Exmuslim 20:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Nick, please get on your main account and let us discuss this.Heraclius 21:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected
No ongoing discussion so I've unprotected. --Tony Sidaway Talk 10:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Article published about this page
Just pointing to an article published today about this page. It looks unfairly harsh to me (appears to claim that Wikipedia's definition of Din is 13 words long), but it also seems to contain some useful information. Cormaggio @ 01:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears that the disambiguation page was mistaken for the main article. Oh dear. I've added a link here to Deen. --Kizor 09:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is wrong. 'Din' does not mean 'religion, faith' in Hebrew. It means 'Law'.
Totally inaccurate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * this article is indeed crap. As any article containing sections entitled "according to scholars" is bound to be. I'll try to clean it up and put it on its feet some time. --dab (𒁳) 19:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for a Non-Controversial Tidy-Up
Having read the very entertaining, but somewhat long as well as frustrating, history of the controversy surrounding this article, I think I may be able to clean the article a little to clarify the main point of disagreement. In doing so, I'll also present the references systematically, and remove a few of the less formally reliable references, the contents of which are are adequately represented by the more reliable references anyway. I'll have a look at it now, and post my edit over the next day or so. Please feel free to edit, revert, comment, applaud, all you like, but remember that I'm only trying to help, and I really don't have an axe to grind - honestly folks, at least not on this occasion ;-) Danny Dayus, 11.32pm (UTC), 1st August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannydayus (talk • contribs)

You'll notice that the article appears shorter than before. This is because some of the previously used quotations have been placed in the overall prose of the article, and because the references are now placed in a reference list at the end. Also, some of the quotations have been deleted, not because I have a problem with them, but partly because they're less traceable (indeed some of the original sources no longer exist on the internet), and hence less reliable, and partly because the content of the quotations are at least implicit in those still used.

Also, I've removed the section on deen in Sufism, because there's nothing particularly about the section's content that sets it apart from that referring to deen as used in mainstream Islam.

I also deleted the link to Deenport, a private website which has nothing about it to mark it out as having any particular relevance to the subject ... but whose general nature might be considered as evidence for deen being bigger than religion :-)

I left the reference to Muzdhab in because I'm pretty sure I've seen it before in this regard, but I can't find a reliable internet source for it, so I've placed a "citation needed" so that someone can do the reference in the future, should one be found.

Finally, I've removed the template asking for expert help. Considering that it's no more difficult than any other subject concerning a foreign word, so I'm assuming that this was connected with the revert war incidents (now over?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannydayus (talk • contribs) 22:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Din (Arabic). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090317074105/http://www.learndeen.com/jm/deen-islam/aqueeda-a-tawheed/36/172-deen-ul-islam.html to http://www.learndeen.com/jm/deen-islam/aqueeda-a-tawheed/36/172-deen-ul-islam.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes
Hello,. It looks like we are mostly in agreement, except for a couple of points:

1) The unsourced speculation about etymology of Madina seems to be OR, since all the sources I've seen derive Madina from the root m-d-n. What was your rationale for reinstating this part?

2) Don't you think that discussing the etymologies of the three senses in separate paragraphs and the order in which we -- and the source we cite -- list them is a clearer way to organize this section?

3) The expression "Arab Christian religion" seems generally problematic, since we are referring to Arabic speakers of various Christian denominations and not "a religion". Substantively, the word din is one of the standard words for religion in Modern Standard Arabic, so it would be used by Arab speakers of all religions and no religion. When we say that it's used "in" a religion, we're implying something more about its religious usage, which would need to be sourced. An uncontroversial statement would be something like "used by Muslims and Arabic speakers generally". Eperoton (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hey, I agree. Is it better now? Musicfan122 (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks fine, thanks. Eperoton (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Please, IMAN is arabic for religion, native. Den is Iranian, is even a parthian title din-dabireh, and it dosent matter how broken you try to bend den away.IMAN, is correct arabic bendable. Please stop say its not iranian,since it was used in Avesta, to way before koran. Please, lets see how you gonna lie this away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.54.195 (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)