Talk:Islam/Archive 18

GA review
This article has been placed on a 7 day hold. I can see a NPOV dispute in one section and substantial portions of the text not referenced with inline references. Please sort out these issues before a GA review can proceed. Beit Or 20:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us what sections you see a NPOV dispute on? Criticism?PelleSmith 20:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok that was stupid ... you mean the dispute tag on that section clearly. I just wanted to be sure there wasn't another possible problem section in terms of NPOV.  Thanks.PelleSmith 21:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. I just want to make it clear that I haven't studied the article in detail, but the issues I mentioned just stand out. Technically, I could fail the article on this basis, but I'd rather see these problems fixed. Beit Or 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * With the issue of references, we're currently the nominated article for the Article Referencing drive, and with all the work everyone has put in over the past few months, there's really only a few paragraphs without references. I think we can deal with this in a week. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
Right, lets sort that out then. Does anyone feel that the text in the section is actually POV, or have we settled that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I noticed the Non-Muslim views section has been changed to a criticism section "because not all non-Muslim views are critical." The original section did seem to place much emphasis on criticism, but why not expand more favorable views so that the heading "Non-Muslim views" would be appropriate? I hope that makes sense. Tidaress 00:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because there is no article "Non-Muslim views of Islam" (and I realise Striver is going to go off and create it immediately now) - there are non-muslim views scattered throughout the article anyway. Additionally, the criticism section has several views by other muslims. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing that the article is long, and that there is no merit to this section at all anyway. A link will suffice. I think the entire section should be shot down. Or at least modified to non-muslim views with accouts criticising and others in favour of the religion. To achieve NPOV both views should be presented. --Djihed 19:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any need for any criticism of any religion before it is described. At wikipedia it feels that people are worried that if they do not caution before one reads about Islam, they would convert. This is paranoia of the editors. In the main Islam page we must tell what Islam is in the eyes of Muslims and can have a separate link for Islam in eyes of modern scholarship of west. Current article is more of a battle ground, not an encyclopedic entry. Farhan 80.78.136.115 09:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not NPOV either. Zazaban 23:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

thought: some how the islam & criticism section seems to be longer than any other religious page on wikipedia. not suprising

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

Objectivity and Quality of Writing
This page is not only written in a 4th grade manner- it also is an unpleasant hodgepodge of apology, attack and proselytization. In short, the whole article needs to be rewritten, and substantially decreased in size. Frequently, when discussing the beliefs of Muslims, the page treats them as simply true. In this fashion, matters of religion are treated as matters of fact. At times, the page defends the historical veracity of Islam's claims. In particular, the statement that 'Western historians' don't doubt Muhammed's sincerity is unacceptable. Any such attempt to persuade the reader of the sincerity of the Prophet are out of place here, and cannot be reconciled with an objective presentation of the facts. I don't know what should be done with this article. It may be that this is a case where the Wiki format is going to fail due to the sensitivity of the topic. A 'pedia entry should be detached and objective; this entry is a swamp of technicalities, pieties, and innuendo. Dcowper 19:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless there has been some drastic changes on thr article since I edited it last, I have eliminated every piece of "piety" I could find. There is nothing substantially wrong with this article besides lack of citation (I admit that Western historians thing has concerned me in the past but I have never got around to deleting it). If you continue to have issues with bits of text, rewrite it yourself. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is far from the actual really. There are still all kinds of unresolved disputes about this article. Trying to hide them under the rug and going happy to nominate will do no good in the long term as the arguments will popup again. "There is nothing substantially wrong", so there are some less than substantial wrongs? --Djihed 06:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

It is incorrect to say, "Islam (Arabic: الإسلام; al-'islām (help·info)) is a monotheistic religion originating with the teachings of Muhammad,..." Muslims believe that Islam began with the creation of Adam.

The Reason behind the Rapid Spread of Islam?
Hello, I'm curious: what would be the most important reason behind the growth of Islam? Was it because the Byzantine/Persian empires were weak and this gave way for Islam to spread? Was the message popular by persuasion or did Islam "spread by the sword"? I mean no offense, but history is what history is, and no offense intended to Muslims and all other institutions that "spread by the sword." Were the early Islamic armies better than their enemies? Were they good politicians? How did they threat new provinces? Thanks. :) --69.210.130.186 23:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You may want to ask this at the Reference Desk. Cheers. &mdash; Seadog 23:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You might like to see article Itmam al-hujjah, especially its last section.  TruthSpreader Talk 13:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would he consult a couple of quotes from the Koran when looking for history? GavinZac 14:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reading Quranic quotes is upto him. What I am really asking him is to read opinion of Karen Armstrong.  TruthSpreader Talk 14:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You can watch Islam: Empire of Faith by PBS which adresses this question in a detailed way.

GA nomination failed
I have waited for longer than 7 days, hoping that the issues raised above would be resolved. They weren't, so here is a detailed review of the article.

1. It is well written. Fail (a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers; 
 * The prose is very mundane and monotonous, for example, one can find passages like the last paragraph of the section "Qur'an": "Muslims regard", "Muslims memorize", "Muslims believe".

(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles); 
 * The lead section is too short and doesn't "sum up" the article, for example, it contains not a single word on the history of Islam.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Fail

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
 * Most of the "Beliefs" sections is unreferenced, the same is true for the "Islamic law" and several other sections. There are several citation requests in the "Contemporary Islam" and other sections.

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required; 
 * See above.

(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
 * Many websites used as sources do not appear to be verifiable or even notable. This is the case for "Encyclopedia of the Orient", "Muslims against Terrorism", doroquez.com, and others.

3. It is broad in its coverage. Fail

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed); 
 * The "history" section is very thin: it contains very little material on medieval Islam and virtually nothing on Islam on the Indian subcontinent and Southeastern Asia, the areas where most Muslims live nowadays. The section on "Islam and other religions" looks odd: it contains lots of musings on the definition of tolerance (a subject completely irrelevant to this article), but very little information on how Islamic law views non-Muslims, for example, what different categories of non-Muslims exist in sharia, or how Islam interacted with non-Muslims throughout history.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fail Not to mention a NPOV dispute in the section on criticism, some things look definitely POV, for example:
 * "Some modern Western historians have concluded that Muhammad was sincere in his claim of receiving revelation." OK, but what about the rest? Aren't we entitled to learn about their opinions, too?
 * The word "prophets" is occasionally capitalized, which is inappropriate under NPOV.
 * "Jihad has a wider meaning in Islamic literature. It can be striving to lead a good Muslim life, praying and fasting regularly, being an attentive spouse and parent or working hard to spread the message of Islam. Jihad is also used in the meaning of struggle for or defence of Islam, the holy war. Despite the fact that Jihad is not supposed to include aggressive warfare, this has occured, as exemplified by early extremists..." A quick look at the article "Djihad" in the Encyclopaedia of Islam suggests otherwise: "Jihad etymologically signifies an effort directed towards a determined objective. (...Certain writers, particularly among those of Shīite persuasion, qualify this djihād as “spiritual djihād” and as “the greater djihād”, in opposition to the djihād which is our present concern and which is called “physical djihād” or “the lesser djihād”. It is, however, very much more usual for the term djihād to denote this latter form of “effort”). In law, according to general doctrine and in historical tradition, the djihād consists of military action with the object of the expansion of Islam and, if need be, of its defence. The notion stems from the fundamental principle of the universality of Islam: this religion, along with the temporal power which it implies, ought to embrace to whole universe, if necessary by force."

5. It is stable. Pass
 * No problem with that.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. Fail


 * Images are few and far between, which is quite surprising for this topic.

To sum up, much work is still needed before the article can reach a GA status. Beit Or 21:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding Jihad, just like referred sources has a POV i.e. Jihad is not supposed to be aggressive, EoI also has a POV and it cannot be considered the final word. Both POVs can be put side by side.  TruthSpreader Talk 07:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you've fundementally failed to udnerstand Beit Or's point, truthspereadr. *sigh* This article needs so much work... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * then why didnt you just tell him what his main point was. don't be pompous.

You can delete this as soon as you want, just an observation
I am currently doing a lot of religious studies, and I have to admit, this article is not informative at all. With the Christianity link at least I get a balanced view. This whole article looks like it was written for simply the promotion of Islam, and not the actual reality of Islam. There is little or no true history on Islam here that is of any academic significance.

Please could we have some balanced information in here. Could we also get a real time-line of Islam and its history. Pref. from an objective view. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W1z4rd (talk • contribs) 09:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Could I asked on how this article is unbalanced? hshiwani 21:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I, too, have noticed this article is rather light on secular views or criticisms. My guess is should any of this crop up, it is instantly challenged or deleted. It is practically impossible to remain level-headed when discussing religion, especially when it's Islam. Most adherents would interpret discussion as an attack.


 * This is true, but there is also another side to the problem. There are other editors who will label you an appologist, or a pro-Islamic propagandist if you don't buy into their idea of criticism and what they consider "NPOV".  This article does need balance, but those who have tried to provide it, like Dev920, quite often get fed up and leave.  Its a shame really because Dev920 was doing really good work here.PelleSmith 18:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ok different guy now. I agree that the article is bias the balanced views of the article are hidden inside. Thankfully it said the true defination of islam. On the news people are saying islam means peace. Ive done research and it means to submit. Not mainly to "GOD" but to the elders in the islam religion.

It also says in the passage that muslims can kill non muslims by the sworred which is why all the terrorist stuffs going around. The christian religion tolerates so much but one bad word for islam means the death of thousands.

Regarding Polygamy
I put a link into the category of Islam and polygamy, which was deleted by a bot. So, I guess this is a controversial topic that should be put in here first. Islam teaches polygamy, so I think it should be linked to Category:Religious_organizations_which_tolerate_polygamy. I am not sure why or if that is controversial, so I submit it here for discussion. Fundamentaldan 22:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Edited to fix this from going into that category! Fundamentaldan 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As this generated no discussion over the last 5 days, I assume it should not be controversial. I added the "Religious Organizations which Tolerate Polygamy" category to the bottom. Fundamentaldan 16:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think it should be controversial. However you should not say that Islam teaches polygamy but instead you can say it allows it. --- ALM 16:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is why I put it in that category. It is religous organizations which tolerate it, not necessarily those which actively promote it.  I understand that there are different thoughts on this topic, depending on the sect or branch of Islam.  Is that correct? Fundamentaldan 18:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How about first looking into Polygamy section!  TruthSpreader Talk 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, TS! I appreciate the link.  I did not think of looking under the general polygamy section. Fundamentaldan 18:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * one problem: i don't think "Islam" qualifies as a religious organisation, unlike the way that the other churches/groups in the cat can be classed as religious organisations. Islam is a religion, and a religious organisation would be an organisation or a group basing its values upon (a) religion. applying the term "religious organisation" to Islam sounds a little awkward.  ITAQALLAH   08:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * may i remove the cat if there are no objections?  ITAQALLAH   17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Islam is an organized religion. It is better to have the category of Islam overall marked than to go through every single Islamic organization in Wikipedia and mark them all as teaching polygamy. --Petercorless 09:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Muslim, and even I agree that there is a certain lack of objectivity in this article. However, I've also noticed that there exists both positive and negative bias throughout this article in regard to Islamic religious ideals. This may also be due to the lack of accurate Islamic canonic material in the West. I would suggest pursuing more "primary source" type documents.

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

Names of Prophets
I must say that I am not Muslim, but it has been my observation that Muslims tend to keep ALL the names of their prophets and important Qur'anic figures in Arabic, or in the Latin phonetic transcription of Arabic. That is why I wonder why whenever Wikipedia addresses the Islamic view on a prophet/figure that is common to Islam, Judaism and/or Christianity, the Judeo-Christian name is still used althrough the article/section (with the exception of the first few lines). Is there an answer to this? Case and point: Most importantly: So my question then becomes, does Wikipedia take the position that in English the Judeo-Christian naming takes precedence over all else? Does that mean that Palestinian Prime-Minister should now be knwn in English as Ishmael Haniyeh, as opposed to Ismail Haniyeh? Or Arab League Secretary General, as Amr Moses, instead of Amr Musa? I am just wondering. Themalau 01:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In the Is'haq article, it says "English: Isaac", and continues using this form. Even though most English-speaking Muslims would say "Is'haq", or "Ishaq", or "Ishaqa" in West Africa.
 * In the Islamic section of the Ishmael article, he is still refered to mostly as Ishmael, as oppsed to "Ismail", "Ismaila", or "Soumaila" in West Africa.
 * In the Islamic view of Jesus article, most of the article refers to Jesus as such, as opposed to what the Muslims, even in the English-speaking world, would refer to him as, namele "Isa", or "'Isa", or "Issa" in West Africa.


 * Just my opinion, but it probably has to do with this being the English Wikipedia version. You want visitors (who may know little or nothing at all about Islam) to be able to understand who it is being spoken about.  However, when it comes to names of living people, it would be a different matter.  Historically, biblical names like Joseph and Mary have been translated or transliterated into other languages, not kept in their original form.  For that reason, we have a page titled Joseph and in Spanish one titled Jose.  It helps people in that language and culture understand who it is we are talking about.  Fundamentaldan 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This seems fair - another thing to remember is that current figures are likely to keep their own names, whereas historical or biblical names are more likely to be anglicised.


 * e.g., in an article about the Torah or Judaism, it would be fair to talk about the biblical figure Isaac (Yitzchak - excuse my lousy spelling) - but if you were writing about modern history, you wouldn't have "Isaac Rabin". Equally, "Ishmail the prophet" seems to make more sense than "Amir Moses" would. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rowan Williams (talk • contribs) 22:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

rewrote Jihad sect
ok so i looked at the GA comments above and decided that the Jihad section did indeed need a bit of a rewrite (and a slight trim). jihad in islamic jurisprudence almost always refers armed warfare, both offensive and defensive (per above and another authoritative source i have provided). more recently there have been those opining that it is merely defensive, and i have tried to represent that too, though the fact remains that the majority of scholarship has always regarded it as both offensive and defensive. i also took out the reference to itmam al-hujjah, as this doctrine by name i have not seen in any of the scholarly works, and basically the way it has been expressed in its article gives the impression that there is no offensive jihad (and if this is intended, then such a doctrine is not supported by the majority it seems). i also removed the apologetic recentism.  ITAQALLAH  12:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mine views on Jihad are similar to yours. I feel so bad when some Muslims say that Jihad-Akbar is self-struggle and Jihad is always defensive. For example few people from Tablighi Jamaat. --- ALM 16:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ITAQALLAH can you please also correct this Jihad and look at whole article of Jihad. --- ALM 16:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * the whole Jihad article needs a rewrite.. i thought i'd concentrate on the Islam article because it really should be of GA and hopefully at some time FA status. we have so few GA/FA's in WikiProject Islam, so i thought this would be a nice place to start.  ITAQALLAH   18:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Almost always? In that case a small minority of muslims actually commit Jihad. ZeroFive1 03:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * what i mean is that when you open the books of jurisprudence, the chapter of jihad is always about the rules of military engagement, what is permitted and what is foribidden, its preconditions, requirements, and so on. of course, jihad has numerous meanings, and scholars have written about varying kinds of jihad. the jurisprudential meaning refers to military activity.  ITAQALLAH   07:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. Ok. Carry on. ZeroFive1 02:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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

size of the article
The size of the article is getting out of control again. It is now 81 kbs long. Is it enough, or we need to trim or expansion? Any ideas?  TruthSpreader reply 12:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. I was just following the To-Do list. But you are right, it is getting long. But should it? --Aminz 12:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * we shouldn't worry about size for the moment. there are plenty of huge articles (which are FA) which are so simply because it's necessary in order to cover the entire topic. Islam is a massive topic, i wouldn't be suprised if the article went into the 100kb range, and that's only the non-forkable material. currently, there is still more material needed if this article is to be as comprehensive as it should be. once we've achieved a comprehensive coverage, we can focus on making things more concise if necessary.  ITAQALLAH   16:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hadith
The article says: "Shi'a jurisprudence holds that hadith is secondary to the Qur'an, disregarding without further inquiries those hadith that contradict or abrogate Qur'anic verdicts. Also, qiyas and Ijma are not used as tools, while logic is. In contrast to Sunni's, Shi'a only follow the Ahl al-Bayt, or family of Muhammad with regards to fiqh, outright rejecting the views of those Muslims who fought with the Ahl al-Bayt."

Well, I think it is not completely true. I think Shias (at least some of them) believe that the interpretation of Qur'an should be understood through Hadith. One striking example(but not the only one) is the verse on Khums; it is clearly in the context of warfare but they generalize it. No doubt anything that makes people to give more charity is good :P but that verse in its immediate context doesn't support it. So, It seems to me that the Qur'an and Hadith are used in a mixture way. --Aminz 15:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No information on why muslims don't eat pork
Add why they don't to this article. 64.236.245.243 16:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not think that Islam gives any reason that why pork eating is not allowed. Allah say it is forbidden hence it is forbidden. However, we could think of different reason. Like pork is not a clean animal or it has very bad sexual habits etc. However, these are all man made logic. I have not yet found any logic provided by Islamic text. However, I do not need any reason because I believe being a Muslim that if Allah has forbidden something then it will be harmful (not good) for me. --- ALM 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My assumption (as an outsider) has always been that people at some point must have observed that:
 * The same trichinosis parasites infected pork and humans, and
 * People who did not eat pork did not contract trichinosis.
 * Therefore, pork was banned and the reasoning eventually became recorded as religious dogma for both Jews and Muslims.
 * Atlant 16:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As per ALM, nothing is clear. Atlant's comment is a kind of original reaserch though it may be the real reason. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  17:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (Which, of course, is why I'd never edit my comment into the article page without an actual citation ;-). )


 * Atlant 17:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't eat omnivores/carnivores except when they're from the sea. The sea is pure, and you can eat anything from it. (Except for one school says you can't eat shell fish but I don't know why) Pork is said to be the food of satan. Therefore, having pork in your house is like inviting Jinn to stay there. This is also why you bless doors/animals when you kill them. I got this from a book talking about the Jinn. I think this might shed some light. ZeroFive1 03:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems obvious that the islamic bann on pork and the convention that a pig is an unclean animal, is derived from the same regulations and conventions in judaismn. We can then speculate why the ancient jews refrained from eating pork. One reason obviously wrong is the "trichinosis" conjecture. To assume that people living 5k(?) years ago had any understanding of on how infectionous diseases or parasites attacks the human organism is simply unrealistic. They simply did not have the knowledge required. Further more the specific "trichinosis" parasite attacks in a very subtle way, and (assuming that the recipient has not taken a very large dosis) the main symptoms would be a short lenght (intense) fever followed by a gradual weakening of the recipient as he eats more and more of the parasite during his life span.

My personal oppinion is that the jewish bann on pork meat is a "cultural border". A pig is the animal of a farmer, not a nomade/bedouin. The early jewish invasion of "the promised land" was a (jewish) nomade culture's invasion of an agriculture. By not eating the native farmers food, the jews could distinquish themselves from the local population.


 * ALM is right on this one. Eating pork is banned, so Muslims observe that. It's possible to speculate why it's banned, and probably there are some scholarly sources that have discussed this, but it's just too involved for this article. Itsmejudith 19:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pig was never a farm animal in those times rather a wild boar. This is absurd argument and Pig is not allowed in Islam as it is not clean. Now you may write thesis on it. Farming of pig started much late. Please correct your history. Farhan 80.78.136.115 09:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are looking to the Qur’an for an explanation to the forbidding of pork then you are looking in the wrong book. If you didn’t know, Muhammad did quite a bit of “borrowing” of traditions from Judaism and Christianity. Jews traditionally do not eat pork and although not practiced by most Christians it is covered in the bible. Deuteronomy 14:8 “The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses.” And for the Jews you need to crack open the Torah see here- .Cireshoe 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jihad
Why is that section under "community"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.146.173 (talk)
 * as the primary meaning of jihad is military exertion, it generally tends to be a community matter. the heading for that sect is not final, if anyone can think up a heading which will encompass all of the other subsects then feel free to implement it.  ITAQALLAH   18:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you think Jihad al-Akbar is military exertion instead of spiritual exertion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.146.173 (talk)


 * Those who thinks that Jihad al-Akbar is spiritual exertion quote a hadith which is known to be weak-hadith. I do not know any other "primary source" that say Jihad al-Akbar as spiritual thing. The Quran as much as I have read never mention spiritual exertion as Jihad and some Ayahs of Quran about Jihad are even came during military exertions or in that context. --- ALM 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Jihad al-Akbar is spiritual. 128.122.253.229 11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Although a distinction should be made between the greater jihad and lesser jihad, when people (who come to this Wikipedia) look up jihad, they are probably looking for the military exertion meaning. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  19:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This was just added to the Jihad section:
 * But in chapter nine verse twenty-nine and verse five it does not distinguish between non combatants and combatants, and therefore are some of the chief verses of Jihad as warfare.


 * "[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."


 * "[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection"

I am removing it because of a couple reasons:
 * What is the purpose of including these citations? Not stated. It only says that:


 * the verses do "not distinguish between non combatants and combatants". How is that relevant in the context of the preceding paragraphs?


 * It seems like it is just a couple citations thrown in, without academic and reliable sources to explain


 * Who has deemed them "chief"? And how is the fact that they don't distinguish between non combatants and combatants justification for them being "chief"?

I'm removing this for I think it isn't necessary in such a small section. That kind of material may need to be included in the Jihad page, not the Islam page. Open to ideas. Starwarp2k2 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your removing them. It is just an original research. It is important to use secondary sources to understand those verses and the contaxt they are referring to. --- ALM 22:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever said that when people look up Jihad they are looking for the military meaning is slightly mislead. The reason this is true is because people look to "Jihad" as it is presented by the media, and its newly close association with terrorism and suicide bombing. However, Wikipedia's job is NOT to give "people what they are looking for." It is simply to provide an impartial definition of Jihad, both greater and lesser, as recorded in Quranic verses, Hadith, and the interpretation of Islamic scholars.

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

What I believe is biased claims
I have removed "Modern Western historians have concluded that Muhammad was sincere in his claim of receiving revelation", because I don't see any evidence that there is any consensus among western scholars, that this is the case. We have one reference that argue that, but we got no reason to believe that it speak for all western historian or even the of majority of Western historians. The other claim that "The most recent studies of Muhammad indicate his honesty and profoundly religous attitude" is equally biased. I can mention many books that discuss Muhammad, and which doesn't draw that specific pro-Islamic conclusion. -- Karl Meier 19:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * i think this may have been covered above, but i think the wisest thing would be to totally avoid any discussion regarding intentions or anything like that, primarily because the sects should only be a brief overview of Muhammad/the Qur'an. that he was regarded as a religious, honest and upright person amongst his own people is factual and merits mention here, whatever western scholars conclude about Muhammad (whilst the overwhelming majority do indeed agree that he was sincere and of good character) is something that should again probably be left for the respective main article(s).  ITAQALLAH   20:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, so long as the reputation of Muhammad, which many may not accept as "factual," is ascribed to Islamic tradition.Proabivouac 22:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The relevant discussion. --Aminz 13:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now it seems that Aminz has attributed some of the claims, and while that of course positive, that doesn't change that it is, as it stands now, biased one sided commentary. I believe that Aminz is piecing information together in a way that promotes his own pro-Islamic opinion. -- Karl Meier 13:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Karl. I see your concerns but i just don't agree that we have to remove well-sourced and scholarly edits because it is considered a biased one sided commentary as you said above. If there are other sided commentaries on that, just please add them freely according to WP:RS. Refere to related discussion between me and Aminz here. Cheers --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  13:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It can't be my or any other Wikipedian's job to deal with the neutrality and balance issues that Aminz editing create. If his edits is unbalanced and against policy, there should be nothing wrong with simply undoing them, and pointing out the problems to him. If Aminz isn't able to contribute in a responsible, balanced and neutral way, then it is his problem. If he want his edits to be included, then they'll quite simply have to be according to policy. -- Karl Meier 14:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you prove your case? I have presented the sourced I had found. --Aminz 14:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not. I haven't seen any modern scholar who disagrees with this POV. If you have seen any, please show me and I would be thankful. --Aminz 13:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't believe that there is anyone that disagree with the claim that "the Modern historian must accept Muhammad's sincerety in his claim of receiving revelation"? I suggest that you read the books by Ibn Warraq and accept the fact that the vast majority of humanity doesn't believe that Muhammad received any revelations from God or that he was a prophet. -- Karl Meier 13:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what i've just talked above. If Ibn Warraq's views re this issue represents the other side of the story than add it. We must present both views, Karl. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  13:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course all notable views should presented, but it should be done in a way that create a end-product that is fair and balanced. What I believe Aminz is doing, is as mentioned to piece information together to promote his own view and change the articles into a chorus praising Islam and Muhammad. -- Karl Meier 13:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Warraq???!!! Please see the review of one of his books here. The review is published in JSTOR. Can you please find some decent scholar. --Aminz 14:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, before I answer that I have one question for you: What do you think of the "reviews" section in that article? -- Karl Meier 14:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it is published in Journal of the American Oriental Society, a reputable journal, it is a reliable source. --Aminz 14:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah. It's an acceptable source, but that wasn't really what I wanted to know. What I wanted to know was, what do you think of the "reviews" section that we have? Is it a good section? Does this specific section discuss it's subject in an acceptable way? -- Karl Meier 14:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't added that but that's the only review on his work in JSTOR. So, I think it is okay. --Aminz 14:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys. I know that everybody is accusing the other but this should be stopped. I know WP:AGF is there but hard to be implemented in your case guys. Now, as we do AGREE that the article should present both points of views in order to achieve balance and neutrality, you must agree about scholars and academics that you'll be using as your sources. It is all cristal clear at WP:RS. Once that is done, you can both add your edits to the article avoiding weasel words. I BELIEVE this would be the only solution to this issue. Failing to achieve that, the article would be sent to RfC. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  14:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Warraq is hardly a reliable source especially noting that on the other side we have decent scholars such as Watt. --Aminz 14:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Szvest: As I think I have mentioned, I have absolutely no problem with the sources that Aminz is using. What I have a problem with is the way that he is using them. -- Karl Meier 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So what are your concerns about the ways they are used? Do you have suggestions? --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  15:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the Cambridge history of Islam here and let me know how it should be used. --Aminz 14:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

just as a reminder, WP:NPOV should not be misinterpreted as presenting both viewpoints as "equal" or "equally valid". NPOV is where all notable opinions are covered in the appropriate (i.e. unattached) manner, the volume of coverage depending upon the prevelance of that view, else we fall into undue weight concerns. if the majority of scholarly academics endorse a specific view, this must be taken into account and the article should reflect that.  ITAQALLAH  18:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Karl, I am going to add the sources as you said you "have absolutely no problem with the sources" But you have problem with their usage, so please modify it. Please read the Cambridge history of Islam here --Aminz 05:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hallo, I responded in this section yesterday but multiple edit conflicts prevent me from saving it until I was offline and could not log on again. So here is what I wrote yesterday in italics:
 * ''Arrow, if "Watt says that historians must accept that Muhammad was sincere" it is a strong statement of his opinion that the historical evidence requires such a call. It is not to be taken a literal compulsion. Still, we can avoid any misunderstandings on this. Simply state that Watt is convinced of M's sincerity. Or stick with Mrs Schimmel (and maybe say that Watt agrees). The root cause is again this tendency to turn articles into quote farms or "hadithisation".
 * I agree with Aminz that this is not about God's existence - an issue that belongs into an alltogether different category.''
 * Right now I just want to add that there is a difference between Aminz' observation that no historian disagrees about M's sincerity (I can't go into Ibn Warraqa now) and his preferred edit that states that "historians must acept his sincerity". That is a strong statement that would need to be properly based on evidence which Aminz would have to provide (only that there is no such evidence).
 * Str1977 (smile back) 11:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At first glance the excerpts appeared to me to be worse than they are. The specific quote you are referring to is actually Watt saying that historians must accept that Muhammad was sincere in his claim that he could distinguish the "revelations" from his own thought. Please do go into Ibn Warraq when you can, and please start a new section on this page then. Arrow740 11:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ibn Warraq is not a decent academic scholar. Please see. The review is published in "Journal of the American Oriental Society", a reputable journal.

Also, for the follow up, please see the section created below on sincerety of Muhamamd. --Aminz 02:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OTT referencing
I'm trying to put the referencing into a more consistent style. Doing this throws into relief the fact that some points in the article are now seriously over-referenced. This is probably a left-over from edit-warring, when we editors have been trying to convince each other by bringing in authorities, but it is not helpful for casual readers of the article. I can't see that any point really needs more than two references, or three at the most, so if people could help reduce these it would be much appreciated. Thanks.Itsmejudith 16:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. The references do need a technical cleanup like I did to Muhammad; I'll do that first, then over time we'll examine them again from a content-oriented viewpoint. - Merzbow 03:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks. If you have any problem with the technical changes I've been making, please do raise it here. Itaqallah is another editor interested in improving this aspect. Thanks, Arabist, too. Itsmejudith 11:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Two things to note for now... I'm trying to get the cite:encyclopedia template changed to make the title field optional because I think it's better to put the article name in the notes while having just the encyclopedia name in the References (to reduce duplication of information like publisher, ISBN, etc.). If people prefer this the other way let me know. Also, do people prefer the usage of "last=Smith | first=Joe | authorlink=Joe Smith" or "author= Smith, Joe "? I like the former now because it works "automagically".- Merzbow 18:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

- Merzbow 18:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll follow any emerging consensus on how encyclopedia references should look, so long as it's consistent within this article and avoids unnecessary duplication. How about in the notes (example) "Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam" and in the references "Encyclopedia of Islam, x, y, z (editors), date, publisher". Like the authorlink magic too.Itsmejudith 12:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, so you would prefer the article name to go first in the note? - Merzbow 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is normal for article names to come first, followed by the volume in which they appeared. In these cases, it is the article which is being cited; a volume is, like a journal, merely a vehicle for publication.Proabivouac 20:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Itsmejudith, I agree with you that there is some overreferencing and differing styles, but I generlly believe that seveal references are better than none. I suggest the best method is to look at those occasions where thee are several references for one point, and to select the necessary ones while removing unnecessary ones. Preference should be given to academically valuable sources, i.e. primary and secondary sources from known authors or organisations/internet magazines. Good luck! --Arabist 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Whew. Technical cleanup on the references on Islam and Muhammad is done. There's still lots of unreferenced statements and poor-quality references that should be replaced with higher-quality references. Lots of work to do there. - Merzbow 08:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

God exists and Muhammad was his prophet. Watt says it, you cannot deny it!
Watt's claim that historians must accept that Muhammad was sincere in claiming that he received revelations is clearly false, so there is no reason to include it. Similarly, there is no reason for him to conclude that we must all conclude that Muhammad did not create the Quran with his conscious mind. This is rendered even more ludicrous by the fact that Watt himself did not believe the sahih hadith had any value to historians. If he had been present at the time and was a trained psychologist, maybe then it would be worth listening to this. Watt is widely known, but it is clear from these quotes of him alone that his writings should be taken with a grain of salt. Schimmel's statement is more reasonable. Arrow740 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, Watt doesn't say God exists. Only that Muhammad sincerely thought he was God's messenger. --Aminz 07:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What about other sources? --Aminz 07:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Schimmel's statement that studies indicate that he was sincere is more reasonable than saying all historians must accept that Muhammad was sincere. There is no need to have both and Watt is clearly wrong, so let's keep the Schimmel one. Arrow740 07:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Itaqallah is correct: none of this belongs in this article, which is about Islam, not Muhammad. Islam is (at least) the belief that Muhammad was sincere, and the beliefs that grew around this core assumption. Whether it is true or not is, if not irrelevant, best left to the reader to decide without adding prejudicial and speculative asides from selected scholars (from any direction).Proabivouac 08:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I put in a reworded version of Watt's first statement, but left out the convoluted statement where he psychoanalyzes Muhammad because this is history we're writing, not psychology. I also took out Reeves' statement since Minou Reeves is apparently a linguist, not a historian, so she is not qualified to make grandious statements like "European experts on Islam have concluded...". Lewis or Esposito could get away with a statement like that, but not Reeves. - Merzbow 08:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite her fellowship, Reeves isn't a linguist, but a career diplomat and a translator. This entire thread is irrelevant, and I've removed it. Where there is a debate about Muhammad's sincerity, then there is, but let's not introduce one where none is warranted. There is hardly any discussion of the historical founding of Islam, where it might be considered topical, and even here it would be better to restrain ourselves to the disinterested presentation of facts.Proabivouac 08:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, how is it irrelevant to the Qur'an section? According to Proabivouac, we can not say "Islam is a religion" because nobody has said it is not. --Aminz 08:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, Watt doesn't say "I think" Muhammad was sincere. He says: Modern Historians must accept that he was sincere. Why should we change it? We are only quoting Watt and he is a reliable source on this topic. It can be wrong but it should be removed even if so. --Aminz 08:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


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


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

Also, Merzbow, I can send you reviews of Minou Reeves's book in JSTOR. It is furthermore published by New York University Press. --Aminz 08:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What did the diplomat write about? Arrow740 08:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


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

Poll regarding the 'Jesus' article
In the 'Jesus' discussion page there has been some discussion regarding whether that page should be more neutral rather than being slanted primarily toward Christianity. I just set up a poll to gauge opinion as to how the topic should be introduced in that article. If anybody monitoring this discussion wishes to register a vote in that poll please do so. --Mcorazao 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't you know that | Voting Is EVIL?? Just kidding. But this is the wrong article for that.  For what it is worth, I think all articles should be NPOV. Fundamentaldan 15:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Various sources on sincerety of Muhammad
Rudi Paret :

"The accusation of dishonesty which has been laid down against the Prophet time and again over the centuries up to the most recent times with varying degrees of vehemence is relatively easy to refute. Muhammad was not a deceptor."

William Montgomery Watt in The Cambridge History of Islam writes:

"Sometimes he may have heard the words being spoken to him, but for most part he seems simply to have 'found them in his heart'. Whatever the precise 'manner of revelation'-and several different 'manners' were listed by Muslim scholars- the important point is that the message was not the product of Muhammad's conscious mind. He believed that he could easily distinguish between his own thinking and these revelations. His sincerety in this belief must be accepted by the modern historian, for this alone makes credible the development of a great religion. The further question, however, whether the messages came from Muhammad's uncounsious, or the collective uncounscious functioning in him, or from some divine source, is beyond the competence of the historian."

And in a previous work Watt writes:

"One of the common allegations against Muhammad is tha he was an impostor, who to satisfy his ambition and his lust propagated religious teachings which he himself knew to be false. Such insincerity makes the development of the Islamic religion incomprehensible. This point was first vigorously made over a hundred years ago by Thomas Carlyle in his lectures On Heroes, and it has since been increasingly accepted by scholars. Only a profound belief in himself and his mission explains Muhammad's readiness to endure hardship and persecution during the Meccan period when from a secular point of view there was no prospect of success. Without sincerity how could he have won the allegiance and even devotion of men of strong and upright character like Abu-Bakr and 'Umar ? For the theist there is the further question how God could have allowed a great religion like Islam to develop on a basis of lies and deceit. There is thus a strong case for holding that Muhammad was sincere. If in some respects he was mistaken, his mistakes were not due to deliberate Iying or imposture."

Encyclopedia of Islam, Muhammad article:

"He could now have consoled himself with the thought that he had done his duty as a “warner” and could regard [VII: 366a] it as the will of God that his people were not to be saved (cf. X, 99; XLIII, 89). But the consciousness of being a chosen instrument of God had gradually become so powerful within him that he was no longer able to sink back into an inglorious existence with his objective unachieved."

"The really powerful factor in Muhammad’s life and the essential clue to his extraordinary success was his unshakable belief from beginning to end that he had been called by God. A conviction such as this, which, once firmly established, does not admit of the slightest doubt, exercises an incalculable influence on others. The certainty with which he came forward as the executor of God’s will gave his words and ordinances an authority that proved finally compelling. His real personality was revealed quite openly with its limitations: his human strength and his knowledge were limited; the ability to perform miracles was denied him; and the Kur`an speaks quite frankly of his faults (XXXIV, 50; XL, 55; XLVII, 19; XLVIII, 1 f.; LXXX, 1 if.; IX, 43)."

Bernard Lewis commenting on the Medieval conception of Muhammad as a self-seeking imposter writes:

"'The modern historian will not readily believe that so great and significant a movement was started by a self-seeking imposter. Nor will he be satisfied with a purely supernatural explanation, whether it postulates aid of divine of diabolical origin; rather, like Gibbon, will he seek 'with becoming submission, to ask not indeed what were the first, but what were the secondary causes of the rapid growth' of the new faith'"

Annemarie Schimmel states that (Annemarie Schimmel, Mystische Dimensionen des Islam, Muchen, 1995, pp.51-2. Translation by N.B.R. Reeves):

"Even the most recent studies of the Prophet, betray nothing of the mystical love that his followers feel for him. A prophet who was so certain of being God's instrument must indeed have been a great man of prayer; for precisely through prayer he could sense over and over again the presence of the God who had sent him."

Minou Reeves says: "There has been a genuine attempt since 1950s by European experts on Islam and their popularizers to review Muhammad and his religion afresh... These writers, translating Qur'an into their own European languages, concluded from their analysis that, contrary to prevailing views, Muhammad had been devout and sincere."

--Aminz 10:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

He was sincerely deluded. The point is that if any of this belongs anywhere it's in the Muhammad article. Arrow740 10:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Aminz has neglected to highlight the most relevant portion of Watt's quote, where this belief refers to the previous sentence; thus, according to Watt, Muhammad sincerely "believed that he could easily distinguish between his own thinking and these revelations." Compare Aminz', "William Montgomery Watt says that the modern historian must accept Muhammad's sincerity in his claim of receiving revelation."
 * As for Lewis, is it anywhere alleged here that Muhammad was a "self-seeking imposter?" Again, why include a rebuttal to a charge that's never made?Proabivouac 21:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Lewis quote is refuting a particular view of Muhammad taken after reformation in Medieval Europe. This is the closest quote from him and it does not contradict other views. Other quotes are more explicit.
 * Watt's point is that Muhammad claimed recieving revelation in a particular way. He claimed he is able to distinughish between his words and what he believed were revealed to him. Watt says:"Whatever the precise "manner of revelation"-and several different 'manners' were listed by Muslim scholars- the important point is that the message was not the product of Muhammad's conscious mind." The remaining ambiguity is "The further question, however, whether the messages came from Muhammad's uncounsious, or the collective uncounscious functioning in him, or from some divine source, is beyond the competence of the historian."
 * Yes, Muhammad claimed he is recieving revelation and he was sincere when he declared that and that sincerety, Watt says, must be accepted by modern historians.
 * We can always rewrite it as long as we mention that Watt agrees that the messages didn't come from his conscious mind. --Aminz 00:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To add another historian's view, Hourani says:

"He left more than one legacy. First was the view of his personality as seen through the eyes of his close companions. Their testimony, handed down mainly by oral transmission, did not assume its definite shape until much later, and by that time it was certainly swollen by accretions, but it seems plausible to suggest that from an early time those who had known and followed Muhammad would have tried to model their behaviour upon his. In the course of time there evolved a type of human personality which may well be to some extent a reflection of his. Mirrored in theyes of his followers, he appears as a man searching for truth in early life, then bemused by the sense of some power falling upon him from on high, eager to communicate what had been revealed to him, acquiring confidence in his mission and a sense of authority as followers gathered around him, an arbiter concerned to make peace and reconcile disputes in the light of principles of justice believed to be of divie origin, a skilful manipulator of political forces, a man not turning his back on habitual modes of human action but trying to confine them within limits which he believed to have been ordained by the Will of God."

I like Hourani's account because he takes scholarly care not to assume that we know more about past events than we actually do. I agree that this point should be covered in more detail in the Muhammad article but given the number of scholarly authors who discuss it, it should also be mentioned briefly here.

Itsmejudith 13:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Modification to Crusades discussion section
I made some slight alterations to the Crusades section for clarity and POV. As written, the section tends to describe things from the older, traditional Western viewpoint which is not the viewpoint of most modern historians. Specifically, the section emphasizes the Christianity of Western Europe and loosely implies that the Pope spoke for all of Christianity. It also implies that the cause of the Crusades was essentially entirely a religious motivation (it mentions Manzikert but does not really clarify how that is relevant). The reality, of course, was that Western Europe only represented a portion of the Christian world (and at that time was only just becoming the majority). The Pope certainly was not universally regarded as speaking for Christendom. And he was not the one who originated the notion of the Crusades. It was a political plea from the Eastern Emperor that was the source of the idea (although certainly the Crusades were "marketed" as being entirely religious in nature). --Mcorazao 17:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I modified the references to the "Byzantine Empire" to give some preference to the (arguably more proper term) "Eastern Roman Empire." Three reasons: --Mcorazao 20:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In the Crusades discussion using the "Eastern Roman" terminology kind of highlights the "Christian Roman brotherhood" angle that the Emperor used to get the pope to help.
 * The Turks (and other Muslims) have always referred to the Eastern Romans and their lands as Romans (Rum in Turkish). So given the subject matter it seems worthwhile to attempt to describe things a little more from their perspective.
 * Many historians regard this as more correct anyway, the term "Byzantine" being a recent invention created to slight the medieval Romans.


 * Useful work. Thanks.Itsmejudith 20:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * i think the term Byzantine seems more appropriate here: see Byzantine Empire. that the Arabs and Turks called it Rūm doesn't mean much, Arabs of today still term Ethiopians as ahbāsh, meaning Abyssinian. as far as i can recall, the encyclopedia of Islam and other resources use the term byzantine. you need to substantiate your last bullet point.  ITAQALLAH   23:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ? Actually I don't see anything in the Byzantine Empire article that would imply this usage is inappropriate (and I can find articles all over the Web that have similar usage). There are lots of opinions both ways (This article actually says the term "Romaion Empire" was what Westerners called it in the Middle Ages, based on the Greek term for "Roman Empire"). I can try to find authoritative opinions on both sides but I'm not sure what you want to resolve. Historians do agree that "Byzantine Empire" was the Roman Empire (the Byzantine Empire article does not contradict that if that's what you are implying). The term "Byzantine" was invented pretty recently effectively as an insult to the Eastern Romans to bolster the legitimacy of the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church. Regarding what the Turks and Arabs call the region and the empire in their languages, the point I was making in that point was not how legitimate their naming is but simply that this is the way it is. That the Encyclopiedia of Islam in English chooses to use the more common English term Byzantine is beside the point. In terms of how common "Eastern Roman" is you can, as an example, look at about.com which arguably should tend to stick to conventional terms. It uses the name "Eastern Roman" in many of the history discussions (in addition to Byzantine).
 * So I guess you need to clarify what needs to be substantiated and why (i.e. we can create a list of articles or historians that prefer one term or another but what does that accomplish?).
 * --Mcorazao 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I don't think it is a huge deal either way but, for the average reader who knows little about Roman history, I think in this context this nomenclature makes things clearer without a lot of extra explanation.--Mcorazao 18:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * oh okay... i was referring to the second lead paragraph starting "There is no consensus on the exact point when the Eastern Roman Empire became the Byzantine Empire..."; my knowledge in this regard isn't too deep, it just seems that from the works i've been reading (like EoI, Cambridge History of Islam, and others), Byzantine is used, yet not as a pejorative. the substantiation i was requesting was basically some academic resources mentioning and assessing this dispute in terminology. maybe we could include mention of it also being referred to as the "Eastern Roman Empire" in parenthesis along with a cite?  ITAQALLAH   19:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In most history I've read, Byzantine/Byzantium is the term used (see John Julius Norwich's fantastic three-volume history, for example). This issue has sprung up on other articles, and I've always said that Wikipedia shouldn't be the place to press forward new and controversial terms that may or may not be more technically accurate. Stick with common usage. - Merzbow 20:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm certainly not a history buff but I'm honestly perplexed by the "controversial" label. As a simple example, if I go on Google and do a search for "Byzantine Empire," most articles list "Eastern Roman Empire" as one of the recognized names (and some essentially say the proper name is "Eastern Roman" even though, admittedly, "Byzantine" is the one they all prefer to use). Mind you, one of those articles is the Wikipedia article on the Byzantine Empire. It is certainly true that "Byzantine" has been more common in the past two centuries but it seems a stretch to say that "Eastern Roman" is uncommon or controversial (well, at least no more controversial than "Byzantine"). And certainly "Byzantine" is by far the newer term (by more than a millenium). I'll defer to any of you who is more well read tham I am but I honestly don't understand the argument. --Mcorazao 03:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "It is certainly true that "Byzantine" has been more common in the past two centuries" - this is the argument. - Merzbow 03:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not logical. E.g. it is more common to refer to the "United States" as "America" but, in general, that would not be appropriate in most encyclopedia articles. There's nothing that says the articles are popularity contests. In general it is a bad idea to use uncommon terms but it is not necessarily true that the term that is statistically most common has to be used.
 * Anyway, I don't think we're going to convince each other. If you really feel strongly about this then change it. It's not so big a deal that I will care. --Mcorazao 05:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It really isn't a big deal and the arguments by both sides above are right. Byzantine was the usual term used by Western historians but recently there has been a shift away from it for the reasons that Mcorazao has given. We could perhaps on the first use in this article give both terms, e.g. "Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire)".Itsmejudith 10:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ok guys, i made some significant changes to the presentation for the relevant history section. the problem i found was that the crusades sect was topical, not chronological, and thus it covered events from 700's to the late 1500's. whilst a lot of the changes were good, it is pretty essential that we stick to a chronological overview. i also cut down the mention of the crusades (i think it's discussed in too much detail for an article like this where it should be briefly summarized as with all other events covered), because at this time the rise of the mamluks and mongol invasions were equally as important as the crusades. a lot of the information about the latter episodes of the crusades in the 15th century (i.e. conquest of constantinople) will hopefully be covered in a later sect covering that relative period. thank you.  ITAQALLAH   20:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being a jerk I'll raise an objection. I don't object to the chronological perspective. There are valid arguments both ways. I was just trying to follow how the sections were titled and organized. I also don't object to attempting to summarize a bit. But IMHO the Crusades section as it was written before really did not emphasize the most important points and outcomes of the Crusades. The loss and recapture of Jerusalem really was not the most important thing that happened. The most important thing about the Crusades is that, whereas they were intended by the Christian world to restore Christianity in the east they instead largely resulted in the destruction of eastern Christianity and the rise of the Ottomans to world prominance. You have simply reverted to what was there before explaining this as being more terse. That doesn't feel entirely honest. --Mcorazao 22:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * well, if you feel that key information had been omitted about the crusades, please feel free to insert it where you think it fits best. the point i am trying to make is: the article isn't about the crusades; the relevant sect isn't even about the crusades: i interpret it as how the crusades relate to the general history and turbulence of islamic empires. i tried to mention all the important stuff (that i'm aware of) which occured in the 12th century, only because it occured in that time period, thus meriting mention at that specific point in the narrative.
 * the topic of the history of islam is huge: we're essentially overviewing, and compressing 1400 years into one large section, that is clearly difficult task. thus, it is almost impossible to present the nuances in analyses of certain events, simply because there's so much to cover. as it stands, the history section is only half written, there is still a lot more content that requires inclusion (years 1200-1800). so what i have tried to do is to mention the crusades, as well as other ongoing events and their politics, periodically when its events are at its most significant (of course, there is still much to be written). i don't intend for that paragraph to be the only mention of the events of the crusades, i intend for other events to be mentioned as they come up in their general chronology. i'm sorry that my edits came across wrongly, that's not what i intended.  ITAQALLAH   22:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I understand that the article is long and needs to be summarized more. I'll omit further edits at this time in favor of those of you doing the major rewrites. I would still say, though, that although in both Western Christian writing and Islamic writing the fall of the Byzantine Empire and the resulting ascendency of the Ottoman Empire is often skipped over it was in fact a very pivotal historical event for both religions and the political entities that represented them (or at least claimed to). In particular for Islam it can be argued that had the Ottomans been driven back they might never have politically unified the western/Middle-Eastern Islamic world and which might have made the future of the whole region very different (and when I say "unified" I am not implying a positive or negative connotation. Just stating the reality). --Mcorazao 18:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive Request
This page has become very long. Can someone please archive it. Thanks.

For Request for Comment
Dispute over this edit. For evidences and discussion please have a look at. --Aminz 09:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's too much detail and speculation about Muhammad's psychology. I like my version, which simply notes that several scholars believe him to have been sincere about his revelations. With about three more cites from professors supporting that view we'd be justified in making a consensus claim. - Merzbow 18:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Muir and possibly Margoliouth believed that he was sincere, but only because he had convinced himself that he was receiving revelations as a result of a gradual process. Watt said he thought God was talking to him, but perhaps the other historians hold the same view; that he was sincere, but deluded. I'm going to try to find some sources for this beyond Muir. Arrow740 22:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

To Merzbow: I found most of the above mentioned quotes from the book "Muhammd in Europe"(by Reeve). The book claims consensus(that historians have concluded that...). I can search for more quotes outside that book but is it really necessary? --Aminz 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus is an extraordinary claim, and can only be establish by extraordinary evidence. Reeves isn't even a historian; her claims and analyses should be treated as the works of a skilled amateur, but an amateur nonetheless. I'd really like to see more quotes from historians to establish a consensus. - Merzbow 22:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But Watt puts his statement most forcefully as possible (Modern historians MUST ACCEPT ...). It is different from saying Watt says "I accept his sincerety". The quotes I found in Reeves work are quotes from other scholars. I emailed a review of Reeves's book for you(did you get it BTW). The Review is made by a historian. Furthermore, the book is published through a university press. --Aminz 22:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The review is a lukewarm review. Besides, plenty of historians review books written by non-historians. Reeves was a former diplomat, she now works at some sort of linguist institute, and has written one book on Muhammad. When we have Lewis, Esposito, and many other historians as sources, it's not right to cherry-pick quotes from essentially a nobody like Reeves to make a very strong claim. - Merzbow 00:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By "cherry-pick quotes from essentially a nobody", do you mean that the quotes from Rudi Paret, Watt, Annemarie Schimmel are forged by Reeves? --Aminz 07:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Itaqallah also found Encyclopedia of Islam. It is also a strong source. --Aminz 22:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, My understanding of Reeve was that one reason that the view of scholars have changed is what Watt writes in Cambridge history of Islam about difficulties of westerns in studying Islam. He states that one should not distinguish Muhammad the prophet from Muhammad the statesman or Muhammad the judge(please see ). There is a clear distinction between secularity and religiousity in Christianity however such a conception shouldn't be used in the case of Islam. Because of this generalization, if I am not mistaken, 19th century scholars were believing that Muhammad was sincere in Meccan period but became in-sincere in Medina once he got power. Watt writes: "The persecuted preacher of Mecca was no less a man of his time than the ruler of Medina. If nothing is recorded of the preacher to show us how different his attitude was from that of nineteenth-century Europe, it does not follow that his ideals were any loftier (by our standards) than those of the reforming ruler. The opposite is more likely to be the case since the preacher was nearer to the pagan background. In both Meccan and Medinan periods Muhammad's contemporaries looked on him as a good and upright man, and in the eyes of history he is a moral and social reformer." --Aminz 23:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

To Arrow740: Muir and Margoliouth are 19th century scholars. Reeve claims that starting from around 1950 onward scholars started a new and more unbiased approach to study Muhammad and Islam. So, those sources are outdated (please see WP:RS explaining usage of old sources). If you can find a decent contemporary scholar (1970+), that would be great. --Aminz 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Watt's perspective on Muhmmad's psychology and source of revelation should be included, since it frees the user from "was Muhammad the prophet of God, or did he make the Quran up?" debate. Including this quote is even a bit neccessary for the NPOV ("all significant published points of view are to be presented"). However, this quote can be re-worded. AS for relevency know that there is no Islam/Quran without Muhammad.Bless sins 22:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * just a small note in substantiation of what Aminz said above: see Historiography of early Islam.  ITAQALLAH   00:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing anywhere about suppressing the POV of the older scholars. Arrow740 00:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:RS says:"Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world. Items that fit this criterion can always be considered reliable. However they may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense there are alternative scholarly explanations."
 * Also, it shouldn't be proper to use outdated sources, since then one can use 18th century, 17th century, 16th century sources. --Aminz 01:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing anywhere about suppressing the POV of the older scholars. You have no problem including Watt's groundless speculation in many articles, this amounts to including his POV and nothing more. We can include a balancing POV from an older scholar. If we are using the scholar as a source of his POV, there is no problem. No one is doing any "research" on the topic of what Muhammad was thinking, there's only speculation available. Arrow740 02:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Masturbation
Are muslims allowed to masturbate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SCB '92 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

"Allowed" is a strong word. I think it is, like it many religions, up for debate. Zazaban 16:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See Religious_views_on_masturbation for detail. --- ALM 16:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

ethics sect
i was thinking we could put this under the community sect so that it's with "customs and behavioural laws." i was also thinking we could trim it down a little bit and be as concise as possible, so we don't leave ourselves with too much compressing to do when we've had all the content issues sorted out. as soon as i finish the history sect i'll focus on removing as much generally extraneous material as possible.  ITAQALLAH  09:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Prao.. doesn't let me complete it. I have not summerized the article yet. Muhammad's 5 significant reforms are yet to be mentioned. --Aminz 10:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, here is the summary of the "Foundational Motifs" section of the "Islamic ethic" article in Encyclopedia of Ethics. . You have the Akhlaq article on EoI, so we can use that for the history (I have not copied those sections from the Encyclopedia of Ethics's article but I think EoI article covers that comperhensively.) Cheers,

--Aminz 10:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Aminz, I hate to say it, but the more you "complete" it, the more contentious it gets. We can't be doing this sort of thing in mainspace. We just can't.Proabivouac 10:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, thanks to a revert and some unseemly bullying from User:FayssalF on your behalf, you can do that. Shame about the encyclopedia.Proabivouac 11:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please save accusations and refer to Requests for comment/Proabivouac. You only can discuss reasons of removing sourced content here. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  16:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
Proabivouac, please explain why the content is not neutral. Which claims mentioned in this section might be disputed? --Aminz 12:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A non-sequitur, Aminz, as there is no requirement that a biased POV sermon be unsourced.Proabivouac 12:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Being POV means that there is a sentence in the article say "T"+there is an scholar say "X" so that X disagrees with T. I don't expect that you know scholar X at the moment but please show me sentence T--Aminz 12:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. POV is much broader than is allowed by your boutique definition du jour.
 * Per Dev920: why is this article not a good article? Why will it likely never be a good article? In large part thanks to these relentless POV edits. A good article would likely prove unacceptable to many editors to this page, not in theory but in practice.Proabivouac 12:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the section is fundamentally sound - it should be shortened and summarized to perhaps half its length (since it currently duplicates the full text in Islamic ethics), but it's not POV, unless one considers just the presentation of Islamic beliefs POV. Criticism of this ethical system should go in Criticism of Islam. Aminz, keep in mind that shorter is sweeter in the top-level articles, we can always go into as much detail as we want in the linked articles. :) - Merzbow 19:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See the defintion of ethics here. The section does not describe Islamic ethics. Arrow740 21:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think morals can be a good alternative .  TruthSpreader reply 23:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think ethics is fine... the dictionary definition is that ethics is "the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation" or "a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values". - Merzbow 23:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The articles in Encyclopedia of Ethics is named: Islamic Ethics.-Aminz 23:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, Thanks for your comment. Both the section and the article were created just yesterday.--Aminz 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The word is usually used in the manner of definition 2 there. If there is to be such a section, the development of the disciple of Islamic ethics should not be its topic, it should be ethics in Islam. I think that when the average person reads "Islamic ethics" that's what he's expecting to read. In either case, what was there was as I said, laudatory selective treatement of specific improvements made by Islam. Even if it is sourced it is still inappopriate and destroys NPOV. Arrow740 00:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

in the last five minutes i have found on this article and the disambiguation article three diferent numbers for the total number of muslims. CONSISTANCY GUYS!!!(and girls)

Muslim responses to criticism
This section does not belong here as it is. We don't need a summary of rebuddles to criticism here. If anywhere, it belongs at the end of the Criticism of Islam article. This "response" doesn't even fit in with the surrounding content. It has no relevance here.--Sefringle 08:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We can have some rebuttal, but that section wasn't appropriate; only the first part of that section is even verifiable, as far as I can tell. - Merzbow 09:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with merzbow)An article has to present balanced views. so the response to criticism should not be deleted. But i think it's better to be made a subsection to criticism section rather than section. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 09:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A rebuddle is one thing, however in this article, the criticism section is a history and introduction to criticism, and doesn't really bring up any of the actual critical arguements. However arguements are mentioned in the rebuddle. That does not fit well with this criticism section. If a rebuddle is included, it should be a history of the orgins of the responses, and a list of people involved, without actually mentioning the arguement. Either that, or arguements need to be mentioned in the Criticism section.--Sefringle 10:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks, Rebuttal please. Str1977 (smile back) 11:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Article reads nothing
Currently all the page says is "Islam isn't for real, see Christianity". I'm doubting the neutrality of the statement. Can we have the article changed back please! 89.240.227.58 22:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Somewhere, something is giving you an old version of the article; it was fixed quite a while before you posted here (and I blocked the vandal).


 * Atlant 00:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

green in Islam
Why is green the traditional color of Islam? My buddy here is a Muslim and he doesn't know either. Chris 22:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

-I'm not quite sure either but I heard a rumor that some Historians think that Prophet Muhammeds favorite color was green. I have absolutely no idea how they would have come up with that conclusion. llama ruler


 * I looked it up at Flags of the World, where it says "...plain green banner (similar to Libya's) as a broad representation of Islam (said to have been borne by the Prophet Muhammad PBUH), there is not an Islamic flag.

Fatimids ruled most of the North Africa and for some time parts of West Asia. Fatimids belonged to Ismaili sect of Shiites (Shias). They claimed to be descendant of Ali, which has never been accepted by authentic sources. They used a green colored flag as being part house of Ali." Chris 20:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Qur'an...
...is doing a lot of things these days. It was respecting and now it's claiming. Pretty impressive for a book. But, after I saw this edit I realized that no matter how you people want to portray the issue in terms of POV that you've got a bigger problem on your hands: an anthropomorphic book. We should be talking about how people interpret the Qur'an except in very literal cases where we are citing actual content without interpretation from the book. gren グレン 06:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean?--Sefringle 07:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The word "respect" cannot be used with a straight face in light of, , , etc. More here: for those interested. Arrow740 07:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My point, both of you, is that the Qur'an is a meaningless book--that is--until humans humans give it meaning. Some editor had added "The Qur'an respects" and Sefringle changed it to "The Qur'an claims".  Arrow just posted a link to "What the Qur'an Really Says About Violence".  The Qur'an is a collection of Arabic words.  We can use 'says' as an idiom while quoting exactly from the Qur'an.  However, when it comes to the meaning of the Qur'an "Muslims interpret the text".  We are all non-Muslims.  We have no stake in the "true meaning" of the Qur'an.  When we get involved in saying "the Qur'an says" we are involved in saying that certain interpretations of the Qur'an are True.  This is not encyclopedic in the least.  Muslims over the centuries have taken different verses to mean different things.  Sometimes a verse may be important for juristic understanding--sometimes it may not be.  Many of the jurists had lists of a few hundred or so verses that were meant to be made into law.  Not every verse made it into that list and that list is not a stable one.  When Arrow implies that the Qur'an says to be violent against the Jews and Christians he is trying to delegitimize the Muslims who feel that they are meant to be tolerant.  When a Muslim apologist says "The Qur'an says respect Jews and Christians" he is trying to delegitimize the Muslims who want to do otherwise to the two groups.  We are not in the business of telling people the Truth of the Qur'an.  We are here to tell them what Muslims over time believe to be the Truth of the Qur'an.  It is clear that Muslims have used Qur'an verses to justify violence against Christians and Jews.  They are not wrong--they are not right.  And Muslims have used called the Qur'an a guide to pluralism to help link the faiths.  They also are not right or wrong.  We are meant to report what Muslims believe and to portray the predominate beliefs in our article.  Therefore, if there are any polytheist Muslims out there--they are not wrong, they are just unimportant.  So Arrow, when you scoff at respect for Jews in the Qur'an it is meaningless to this article.  Now, if you wish to portray Muslim belief as interpreting the Qur'an as a condemnation of Jews then that is another debate.  We can try to explore how Muslims interpret the Qur'an on the subject of Jews.  But we are not here to debate its meaning--unless you want to cook me up a nice meal and arrange a halaqa. gren グレン 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gren, you could not be more correct. Proabivouac 07:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A note
I'd like to point out that the statement that Muslim's kill Americans is a verifiable fact and therefore worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Jboyler 02:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To JBoyler, I seriously don't think that you have the right to say anything against Muslim's killing Americans. Everyday thousands of Muslims die, but no one cares. One American dies, and the next day they have an annual one-minute silence for that one person. Why?
 * Thank you for your opinions, but we are trying to minimize the number of opinions stated as facts in this article. Do you have a scholarly source for that, and maybe we can find a place for it if you do?--Sefringle 03:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Americans kill muslims everyday, people kill people every day, what's your point? Zazaban 04:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate that this should need to be stated, but it is not a component of any interpretation of Islam to kill Americans per se.Proabivouac 04:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if so, it's not NPOV to put it in a userbox at the top of the page. Zazaban 04:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh my. this userpage is beyond inappropriate. Let's see what can be done about this.Proabivouac 04:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me Jboyler, this type of contribution you are trying to sell off will  NOT  by any chance be allowed to be posted in this article. It is an effect of Islamophobia, or the Muslim version of anti-Semitic. Moreover, we have a religion and reputation to save. For that item you wish to sell off, pleace visit Criticisms of Islam... or most recommended: Genocide or Homicide - Qasamaan 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could make a differentiation between "true" Islam and "fake" Islam. People are confused about this. 69.6.162.160 21:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Fake islam is not true islam, and does not belong in this article. But anyway, including such a topic would almost inheriently be POV.--Sefringle 21:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the info of the accademic journal on this topic included?...such as...
http://jis.oxfordjournals.org/

http://en.fgulen.com/

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cicm

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0027-4909

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/calm

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cjmm

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/15564908.asp

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/ils

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.52.66.10 (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC).


 * No. Please make an account an help improving the article. --Aminz 10:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the anon meant or whether it is an issue. Academic journals are normally published by one of the big houses: Brill, Taylor & Francis (=Routledge), Oxford etc. I shall do a quick check that all the of the journals cited here are published by an academic house. If any one of them is not, its standing as an academic journal may be in doubt.Itsmejudith 11:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. We have only a few references to articles; most are to books. All the academic journals are from the major journal publishers:


 * Accad in Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations. Taylor & Francis.
 * Madden in Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Blackwell.
 * Mason and Tonna in Muqarnas. Brill. (annual rather than journal)
 * Peters in the International Journal of Middle East Studies. Cambridge.
 * Then there is just Bernard Lewis in The American Scholar published by Phi Beta Kappa. Not an academic journal, but a leading cultural magazine, so I wouldn't think any conceivable problem as to reliable status.

Perhaps the contributor meant that the publishers of journals should be included in the bibliographic details - I don't think that's necessary. ISSNs could go in, but I'm not sure if WP can link to ISSNs as to ISBNs. Itsmejudith 11:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the contributor wanted to provide some useful links for us. I personally liked the links. --Aminz 01:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Islamic rituals
Husain Kassim in Encyclopedia of religious rites, rituals, and festivals writes:

"The nature of Islamic rituals is different from that of other religions. The rituals in Islam fall under the category of ibada (submissive obedience to God) and form a necessary part of religous worship and practice, as opposed to muamalat(mutual relations amongest humans). Therefore unlike other religions, the main object of religous rituals in Islam is not only to bring the believers spritually closer to God, but also to carry out religious practices as laid down in theory by the Muslim jurists..."

Statements like "The nature of Islamic rituals is different from that of other religions." and "Therefore unlike other religions," seems odd to me. For example, is it different from the Jewish Law in these senses? --Aminz 01:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is an incoherent way of saying Islam is the best religion. Arrow740 03:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To do list

 * The sources of the section Islam#Political_and_religious_extremism need a clean up. Please note that the Encyclopedia of the Orient is not a very scholarly encyclopedia. It is written by Tore Kjeilen who does not have any PhD degree. The other sources are also better to be replaced with better ones. --Aminz 01:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Islamic law section needs to be sourced. --Aminz 03:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless you're aiming for discussion you should probably add it to Talk:Islam/to do. gren グレン 11:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved. Thanks --Aminz 09:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Islam sentiment
Why dont we have a section on anti-islam sentiment or Islamophobia. These things are very much predominant in the western world, much more than anti-semitism. We have criticism section, so I guess the article needs to be balanced a bit. F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 10:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Beacuse "Islamophobia" has nothing to do with Islam--it has to do with Muslims. If you look at Judaism then you have a very short section on persecution... and, regardless of your opinions about who is discriminated against more now, I think it's clear that by virtue of being a minority group for much of its existence that for Judaism (as a religion) it is more important.  I also find the criticism section be be rather worthless, poorly defined, and generally abysmally written. Crone is not a critic of Islam.  She studies the early history and her conclusions differ from orthodoxy.  And a discussion of people who criticize Islam on religious basis would never end.  So, things are bad enough... let's not make them worse.  gren グレン 11:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Article is too long
Isn't this article kind of long? ΞΞΞ 03:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it is because to represent the subject comprehensively it is not possible to write a short article. --- ALM 09:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, the article is getting rather long. as soon as one or two more sects are sorted out, i think there won't be as much article expansion. we can then focus on trimming away as much as is necessary and making things as concise as possible (also doing a few rewrites). as ALM said, the subject is huge, a lot must be covered for the article to be comprehensive.  ITAQALLAH   20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to just have sub-articles.--Sefringle 23:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have moved the Islam to Muslim World. It makes more sense there. This section needs a brief summary. This should help shorten the article a little bit.--Sefringle 00:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose with outright removal. I am not saying we shouldn't trim it. But let's source everything and write things down first and then we can decide how to trim it. --Aminz 00:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved it, not removed it. It really isn't that relevant to Islam. But a short summary would be appropiate.--Sefringle 00:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is your view that it is not relevant. Please take a look at other encyclopedic articles on Islam, such as Britannica Encyclopedia. And please don't unilaterally removal material from this article. Thanks --Aminz 00:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me what art, architecture, and acheivements in math and science have to do with religion?--Sefringle 00:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For a featured article, we should be comperhensive. History of Islam, Islamic arts, Islamic architecture, Muslim culture, are all relevant. Were they not relevant, other encyclopedias didn't have that subsection in Islam article. e.g. see the article in Britannica Encyclopedia--Aminz 00:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The sections are relevant to "the connection of religion and society in the Islamic world." --Aminz 00:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The relevance is, however, minimul. It certianly does not diserve as much attention as we are giving to it. At most maybe a paragraph or two would be relevant. It is far more relevant to Muslim world or Muslim society. Religion alone does not necessarily make a culture.--Sefringle 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We can trim it later. At the moment, it is not completely sourced. And I don't agree its relevance is minimal. --Aminz 01:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It does need to be trimmed, and can you tell me how it is relevant to Islam? Why shouldn't we move it, as Summary style suggests we should do?--Sefringle 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * it already does conform to summary style, the main articles as given in the section headings cover the topics in much greater detail. Islamic civilisation (i.e. Islamic contributions to art, architecture, etc.) is relevant to Islam, its history, its development, its influence, and the societies that lived under it.  ITAQALLAH   19:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This section could be further summarized to shorten this already way too long article.--Sefringle 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * it's already written in comprehensive summary style. why is the article "way too long"? there are plenty of good and featured articles which are larger.  ITAQALLAH   00:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For example...?--Sefringle 03:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sefringle just can't stand looking at Islamic related achievements in the areas of science and math: most likely a personal issue.206.126.81.88 00:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And as far as consistency is concerned, I think it is improtant to note that there is no section similar to this on Christianity, Judaism, or Buddhism, Sikhism or the Bahá'í Faith. Hinduism is the only other religous article with a section like this.--Sefringle 00:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For "featured" articles, we should have this sub-section. --Aminz 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? It still needs to be shortened. If the article is too long, it won't get featured either (see Featured article criteria- 4th criteria and Summary style).--Sefringle 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above, we will summerize the sections. But outright removal is not the way to go. --Aminz 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK than write a short summary for the entire section. I agree. A short summary would be relevant, but as much attention as we are giving it right now is too much, especially since this article is so big.--Sefringle 01:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * the topic of Islamic civilization is massive, and the section has indeed been written in brief, summary style. i am also rather astounded that you are contesting that Islamic civilisation has little to do with Islam. as we've stated numerous times: we're not too worried about length right now until we get content issues sorted out. furthermore, there are plenty of articles which are huge yet are featured. length becomes a main issue when you're covering things in too much depth. this is the case currently with the Muhammad section and the hadith/sunnah subsections. Islam itself is a massive topic, there should be no surprise if it ends up at around 90kb-100kb when it's done.  ITAQALLAH   19:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that is the problem; maybe we should be worried about length. And I contest that it is irrelevant because scientific or cultural discoveries and traditions have very little to do with Islam. That is probably why the Christianity article doesn't talk about the art and culture of the middle ages or early christian discoveries. Most of the other religous articles have no section even remotely like this one either, or give this as much attention as Islam gives to this. --Sefringle 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * i don't see any reasonable basis for your contention, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. we don't sacrifice comprehensiveness for length. furthermore, there are plenty of articles which are way over 100kb which are featured or good articles (AIDS, Sound film, Che Guevara, Schizophrenia, The X-Files, The Holocaust, Lyme disease, etc.). so i believe this concern about length is unfounded. as for islamic civilisation, of course it's relevant. maybe you could explain why the major reference-points, such as the Encyclopedia of Islam, Britannica, Cambridge History of Islam etc. discuss Islamic civilisation at good length when discussing the impact/history of Islam in general. in fact, the Cambridge History of Islam has one whole volume dedicated to this topic. we don't need to copy what's in Christianity. you're looking at the topic of Islam far too narrowly as simply a set of beliefs, which is not a comprehensive outlook, nor a one shared by academics.  ITAQALLAH   00:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not belong here. And consistency is important. Islam is a religion, and only a religion. Architecture, art and math are not written in the quran or hadith or any other muslim religous book. It simply is not relevant. That is probably why the Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikism, and Judiasm articles don't have such sections. I am sure those religions had "worshippers" who made similar acheivements. Why should Islam have this section when other religions don't? It belongs on the Muslim world article. At least there, it is relevant.--Sefringle 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * you should explain why the academic references do not conform to your narrowing down of the topic of Islam. they call it "Islamic civilisation" for a reason. with that kind of fragile reasoning, the "History" section doesn't belong in here, yet, the consensus is that it is essential. the article should reflect what the academic have written about the different facets of Islam, and Islamic civilisation is a significant part of that. you should read the introduction of the Cambridge History of Islam, 2B, for an answer as to how and why Islamic civilisation is directly related to Islam as a religion, as a territory, and as a culture.  ITAQALLAH   03:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * this section is not history, it is culture. There is a difference. But overall, it is still irrelevant. Culture and religion are often unrelated. This is no exception. I don't know why other sources have this section; my guess is because they have to put it somewhere. And why don't you check if they treat Christinity, Judiasm, and Hinduism in a similar format; it might be they write articles in a different style than wikipedia does. but still, you still haven't explained the relevance of that section, and this article is too long as it is anyway.--Sefringle 03:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Islamic history and Islamic civilisation are two closely related subjects. as Holt says "... Another question which the reader of this work may ask is, 'What are the sources on which knowledge of the history of Islam is based?' The Islamic civilisation of the first three centuries (in this as in other respects the seminal period) evolved two characteristic types of historical writing...", as well as "...Islam, then, as it will be examined in the following chapters, is a complex cultural synthesis, centred in a distinctive religious faith, and necessarily set in the framework of a continuing political life. ...". i don't want to quote further, there are chapters written on this stuff in the same work. as i have explained, the topic of Islamic civilisation is directly relevant to Islam and Islamic history, and the Islamic impact on history - as academics note. i feel that you're providing a stream of interchangable excuses as to why you don't want the section there. furthermore, the article is not "too long", as i have shown.  ITAQALLAH   04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * About those articles, the only one that is about this size is the Holocaust article. And while this section may be relevant to islamic or muslim history, it is not relevant to Islam itself.--Sefringle 04:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * no.. they are all around 100kb and in most cases well over. Islamic civilisation is related to Islam, as per the reasons expained above, and per the fact that it is discussed simultaneously with other aspects of Islam, and per the fact that academics consider it as such.  ITAQALLAH   04:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And you still didn't answer my question. Do they treat other religions similarly? We need to be consistent.--Sefringle 04:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * whatever they do for other religions is irrelevant. i doubt they say much on other religions anyway, academics qualified in Islamic studies don't speak authoritatively on other religions. the apparent appeal to 'consistency' isn't persuasive. oh.. here's another ref too (Introduction to Islamic Civilisation, Cambridge University Press), "So we have come to the rise of Islam, the faith and culture that has given this vast, disparate, shapeless, often divided area its one common overriding interest...", there's more establishing the same thing, cf the chapter on "The historical background of Islamic civilisation", as well as the rest of the book. as i have stated numerous times, the academic view of Islam is more than a religious dogma, it is "a complex cultural synthesis, centred in a distinctive religious faith, and necessarily set in the framework of a continuing political life". no comprehensive article on Islam can neglect this.  ITAQALLAH   04:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * and another: "Yet, culturally, another great paradox revealed itself: Islam, with certain clearly defined limits, set its own (as we might say) 'Arab' mark on the western half [of the Middle East]..."  ITAQALLAH   05:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I checked. It turns out they treat Christianity, Hinduism, and Judiasm the exact same way in Encyclopedia Britainica. (See Christianity P. 262, Hinduism P. 554, and Judiasm P. 429) So we can safely conclude that we are giving special treatment to Islam by having this section.--Sefringle 20:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am refering to the Encyclopedia Britainica and Oxford encyclopedia. And consistency is important, so yes it is relevant. The article can be complete without this, and secondly, it seems like it is just taking up space. Other religous articles don't discuss history of culture. We need to be consistent. But now we are starting to repeat ourselves.--Sefringle 05:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * there is no policy or guideline dictating that we regulate what's in one article because of what's in another. you're ignoring the fact that academics include discussion of Islamic civilisation in any comprehensive overview on Islam. it's not "just taking up space", that's a nonsensical objection Sefringle. it has been shown that Islam is directly related to Islamic civilisation.  ITAQALLAH   05:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They do the exact same thing for Christianity, Judiasm, and Hinduism, yet we don't. For consistency this section is irrelevant. Either that, or somebody needs to add a similar section to those articles.--Sefringle 20:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * i've already stated and substantiated that academics believe that Islamic civilisation is closely relevant to Islam. "Either that, or somebody needs to add a similar section to those articles" if numerous academics and academic publications mention it when talking about the religion, then go for it. as far as i know, Islam is analysed differently by academics, because Islam is assessed as a doctrine, a territorial entity, a culture, and so on. this is exactly what i substantiated above.  ITAQALLAH   01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They "believe" that because they believe that for every religion. Yet relevance of such a topic in other religions has not been presented in those articles. That is inconsistent. For some consistency, this section needs to go. But as we are getting nowhere, does anyone else have an opinion on this topic?--Sefringle 02:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * actually, i have provided conclusive evidence to the contrary, which you are not addressing. this appeal to consistency is becoming stale: we don't need to imitate other articles, and you refuse to provide any policy or guideline sttaing otherwise. i have provided the quotes establishing its relevance above, and that is sufficient. "They "believe" that because they believe that for every religion."- needless to say, merely reviewing Britannica is inadequate.  ITAQALLAH   02:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea we do need to be consistent. We are not going to give Islam special treatment.--Sefringle 02:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * the only consistency we apply to all articles is based upon policy and guidelines, your concerns are based on neither. to suggest that covering a key feature of Islam (as proven above) constitutes giving Islam "special treatment" is extremely distasteful.  ITAQALLAH   02:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a key feature of Islam. And by mentioning it is giving Islam special treatment. I stand by my statement.--Sefringle 04:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * you're not actually responding to my points: your concerns about consistency and 'special treatment' have no basis in policy. the scholarly extracts above verify that it is a key feature of, and relevant to, Islam. until you bring policy substantiating your point, we have little more to discuss.  ITAQALLAH   05:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that some mention should be made of Islamic Art, because Muhammad chose to restrict this form of human expression quite severely. Also, the history of the Islamic states should be covered because Islam is a system of government - I guess "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" is the result of tahrif? Otherwise, this section is just poor advertising. Arrow740 05:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * history of the Islamic states is given here: Islam.  ITAQALLAH   05:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Why no picture of Muhammad?
We have pictures of the founders of all the other major religions. TharkunColl 23:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * TharkunColl, shall we first sort this out properly on Muhammad? All of the argumentation that is occurring there is essentially going to be equally applicable here and what is the point of spreading it all out? I question your good faith in editing in this regard in view of the fact that you make commentary like this wherein your mention Muhammad's name followed by "(sbuh)". User:Grenavitar warned you that if make such commentary again you'll be blocked. I posit the thought that your editing here and on Muhammad corresponds to such incivility. 00:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So freedom of speech is doomed, then? What do you think "sbuh" stands for? How can a meaningless string of letters be regarded as uncivil? TharkunColl 00:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF requires that we "assume good faith" but not to the point of stupidity. You know perfectly well what the hell that means. Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. 00:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do people who slag off Hitler, L. Ron Hubbard, St. Paul, or any other cult founder get threatened with banning? Are we still treating Muhammad differently? TharkunColl 00:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I won't be particpating anymore in this line of discussion as it does not correspond to talk page guidelines as it is not about improving this article. Never-the-less it is important for other editors to know about such things so that they can view your edits on Islam related topics with a healthy measure of skepticism. 00:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find that the word is spelt scepticism. TharkunColl 00:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] Get back on topic. Discuss the pictures or stop this, please or use talk pages. It does seem premature before anything has been settled on the other page but, that's how things go. gren グレン 00:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I added more in the section about aniconism, also mentioning iconoclasm, and citing an external site with more information. I hope that helps innocent and honest questioners as well as deflects ingenuous inquiries. --Petercorless 01:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I had wondered whether the section on aniconism and iconoclasm in Islam needed to be broken out into its own section. I raise the question for genuine reflection by those interested. There has been a fair amount of controversy recently about provocations against this proscription, as well as many genuinely curious inquiries. Thoughts? --Petercorless 01:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For now, I have put this into a section under Art and Architecture called "Aniconism, Iconoclasm and Arabesques". --Petercorless 01:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * i think the topic of aniconism and the reasons for it was covered briefly in the arts section anyway really. i think the general summary that no depictions of God exist in Islamic tradition (unlike some other cultures/religions) probably merits mention briefly in the God section. per the GA assessment above, Encyclopedia of the Orient isn't the best source to be using anyway. what do you think?  ITAQALLAH   01:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please use those beautiful images in Islamic article. I will be happy to see them used. --- ALM 11:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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


 * This is the official webpage of Harvard University . BTW, please source the claim you stated. --Aminz 07:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Its in the reference at the end of the sentence.--CltFn 07:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What are these sentences, self approval??
Self serving sentences and wrong attitude for the whole article.

In the heading below, there are sentences that seem to self approve what people should regard and what not as Islamic Philosophy,

eg in "One of the common definitions for "Islamic philosophy" is "the style of philosophy produced within the framework of Islamic culture."

First the sentence itself doesn't make any sense and secondly it is self serving in nature. Can we rectify it saying that Islamic philosophy doesn't begin till Islam is born and that anybody rejecting Islam, can in no way be called a Islamic scholar (Otherwise it is cheating that person and his life& work).

/////I have copied the paragraph below//////// Philosophy and literature Main article: Islamic philosophy One of the common definitions for "Islamic philosophy" is "the style of philosophy produced within the framework of Islamic culture." [123] Islamic philosophy, in this definition is neither necessarily concerned with religious issues, nor is exclusively produced by Muslims.[123] The Persian scholar Ibn Sina (Avicenna) (980-1037) had more than 450 books attributed to him. His writings were concerned with many subjects, most notably philosophy and medicine. His medical textbook was used as the standard text in European universities for centuries. His work on Aristotle was a key step in the transmission of learning from ancient Greeks to the Islamic world and the West. He often corrected the philosopher, encouraging a lively debate in the spirit of ijtihad. His thinking and that of his follower ibn Rushd (Averroes) was incorporated into Christian philosophy during the Middle Ages, notably by Thomas Aquinas. ---

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

I think it could be added somewhere. (Ssd175)

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

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

Islamic Fundamentalism
The Oxford Dictionary Of Islam defines it as: "In its Islamic context, the term typically refers to revivalist movements. Modern Islamic fundamentalism movements reject copying of Western methods, affirming instead the comperhensive and effective nature of the Islamic message. Some scholars believe that Islamic fundamentalism is a distinctively modern phenomenon, while others argue that activist movements advocating a return to pristine fundamentals of faith are evident throughout Islamic history."

This definition doesn't seem to be extreme or anything by itself. I wonder why the article mentions it as "Political and religious extremism"? Some fundamentalist movements might have been so, but it is not clear from its definition. --Aminz 04:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Muslim is a peaceful religion and I want everybody to remember that. Violence is unnaceptable in Islam. Allah is one and Muhammed, peace be upon him was his last messenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.190.4 (talk • contribs)
 * See WP:NOT and WP:NOT--Sefringle 02:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, "Muslim" isn't a religion at all.... Homestarmy 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * be bold please. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  22:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Be bold and make "Muslim" a religion? I'm no L. Ron Hubbard. Homestarmy 22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! I was referring to aminz. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I found the information I needed (i.e. the difference between traditional and fundamentalism Islam), and added that to the article together with predictions on how long the fundamentalism approach to Islam would survive. --Aminz 21:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Bernard Lewis has a good description in this case:
 * "'Even an appropriate vocabulary seemed to be lacking in western languages and writers on the subjects had recourse to such words as 'revivalism', ' fundamentalism' and 'integrism'. But most of these words have specifically Christian connotations, and their use to denote Islamic religious phenomena depends at best on a very loose analogy...In western usage these words[Revivalism and Fundamentalism] have a rather specific connotation; they suggest a certain type of religiosity- emotional indeed sentimental; not intellectual, perhaps even anti intellectual; and in general apolitical and even anti-political. Fundamentalists are against liberal theology and biblical criticism and in favor of a return to fundamentals-i.e. to the divine inerrant text of the scriptures. For the so call fundamentalists of Islam these are not and never have been the issues. Liberal theology have not hitherto made much headway in Islam, and the divinity and inerrancy of the Quran are still central dogmas of the faith ... Unlike their Christian namesakes, the Islamic fundamentalists do not set aside but on the contrary embrace much of the post-scriptural scholastic tradition of their faith, in both its theological and its legal aspects '"
 * Lewis, Bernard(1993)Islam in history:ideas, people and events in the middle east:402 Sa.vakilian(t-c) --09:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice quote. We should add this to the artile (whenever any of us got free) --Aminz 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The section on 'Fundimentalism' is highly opinionated and is at odds even with the rest of the article. The whole section on Islamic history talks about how Islam has always existed in the form of a ruling system as well as a belief system, yet goes on to quote that political islam will soon die out "largely because as a modern, concocted political dogma, it goes against the history and tradition of Islam." This statement clearly goes against the obvious facts of history, as stated in this article? Such wild and unsubstantiated staments should not be here, and I request that this whole section is removed or revised considerably.

194.176.105.39 13:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Political and religious relationship:POV
This part is completely biased. I changed the title of this section and removed link to Islamic terrorism as the main article. But we should add all political aspects of contemporary Islam not some of them. Sa.vakilian(t-c) --10:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Islamic terrorism is a very notable concept related to Islam. We need to have some reference to it in this article.--Sefringle 02:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Islamism is more moderate article which represents more groups and its NPOV article. We can refer to it as the mane article and readers can find a link to Islamist terrorism in the text.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One could say Christian terrorism is a very notable concept related to Christianity, its just a silly remark to make. Mikebloke 21:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Islamic terrorism comes up far more in the news though. There is more of a connection betweeen Islamic terrorism and Islam than there is between Christian terrorism and Christianity. At least in terms of notability.--Sefringle 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My dear friend, I remind you that it's an encyclopedia and we don't want to follow news articles. I chose Islamism instead of Islamic terrorism because it's more NPOV and includes more movements. Also the text is more relevant to this title than that one.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sefringle, please avoid recentism. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  04:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias present facts. The news is often the source for facts. It is also POV to turn a blind eye to violence in the name of Islam. --Sefringle 17:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said turn a blind eye? Encyclopedias are supposed to be timeless. If someone in 2000 years picks it up and starts reading it (assuming he/she still knows English), then he/she would want everything, not just day-to-day occurrences. In 1400 years of Islam, in the last 50 years there has been an association as such. 1400/50 is 28. That means if we don't want to give undue weight, modern criticisms of Islam should only cover 1/28 (0.78125%) of the subject. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  17:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Islamism is a very relevant issue for the article and should be dealt with carefully using good authors. Of course it is a very complex movement with lots of wings and we should try to explain the relative importance of all of them. The terrorist extremes of Islamism are the most prominent in Western public awareness but in the Islamic world quite different wings of Islamism are more prominent, so we have to be sure to reflect a global viewpoint. I believe that Indonesia - rather than anywhere in the Arabian peninsula - is the most populous Islamic country and we could usefully bear that in mind throughout. Itsmejudith 18:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

size, ToC clutter
It's been a while since I looked at this article. It's not shaping up too bad, but its size is absolutely out of control. Above, I see a complaint that it is a 81k. It is now weighing 116k! Please please remember WP:SS and main article fixation and cut it down to below 80k. Also, the ToC looks messy, it should be possible to have a clean ToC for a concise summary article (and a summary is all this whole thing should aspire to be). dab (𒁳) 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that we have few things in the article which are not referenced (not very important too). We have two goals reduce size and reference everything. Right? I can delete some less important and non-reference stuff. What you guys think? ---  S And T Lets Talk  18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the size could be reduced. Rather than delete text, could we in the first instance move it to the relevant sub-articles? Or if it doesn't fit straight into those articles, to the talk pages of those articles? An enormous amount of good collaborative work has gone into the article and we need to ensure it doesn't go to waste. Itsmejudith 18:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * size is a problem, though it can be rectified through trimming and copyediting somewhat as long as the article is comprehensive. glancing at the tags on the article right now, i don't think that the history/civilization sects should be necessarily forked out of the article. the previous GA nom revealed that some areas, such as the history section, were simply not comprehensive enough in summarising 1400 years, and so i've tried to keep that particular sect as close to a brief overview as possible without compromising comprehensiveness. some areas could probably do with trimming, such as the criticism, mosque, islam and other religions, arts sections and others.  ITAQALLAH   01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think history of Islam section is very good written but it should be half of its current size. It is really long. Islam and other religions should not have subheading and I can cut it to half without removing important points. Art and architecture could also be cut to half. I suggest we save current version URL somewhere and then reduce its size in one-two days. What you think? ---  S And T Lets Talk  13:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * i've been going by this GA assessment and the current state of the history section at that time. i agreed with Beit Or that the history sect was a little thin and not comprehensive, so i attempted a summary style coverage of Islamic history while aiming for it to be comprehensive enough to meet the relevant FAC. i'll try some trimming of the art/architecture section.  ITAQALLAH   14:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * i'd also propose ~90kb would be an acceptable size for this subject, especially in consideration of its breadth.  ITAQALLAH   14:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * our maximal article size guidlines are not dependent on a topic's "breadth" (or what would you suggest as a suitable size for Earth or Universe?) History of Islam is one click away, and the interested reader can go there for an extremely detailed treatment. This article should give a global overview, yes, but in extreme brevity, just gesturing at the main developments. There is really no reason to duplicate 10k of material already treated in the sub-article. dab (𒁳) 14:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * that's a reasonable point.  ITAQALLAH   15:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg
I had added Islam (Bookshelf) at Project Gutenberg to our external links because I feel that it is a great source for books on Islam. It is full books which means they contain lots of information, I suppose. It has a decent variety from old scholars to Christian missionaries and I just added a work done by a Muslim to it. Since links are trimmed rather tight on this page I figured I'd mention it and field objections. gren グレン 09:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Popular section, eh? I have re-added since it was removed by someone with only a few edits who didn't leave any reasoning.  As stated, feel free to discuss, it, but I'd like a reason of full books online are being removed. gren グレン 18:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Gren, I think it is best to use late 20th century sources on Islam on wikipedia. as a directory in the external links, it is of course fine. --Aminz 23:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i concur, it is a good link to use.  ITAQALLAH   00:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Islam as a culture
Proa, could you please explain your edit here: --Aminz 20:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Islam is generally seen a religion, not a culture. It's a part of culture, just as is any religion a part of the culture where it is prominent. This highly interpretive statement, sourced to "The Encyclopedia of Future [sic.]", does not belong in the lead.
 * We can also observe the non-trivial political content of asserting Islam to be a culture. This is something which is debatable, and hotly debated. The lead to this main article is not the place to tell Muslims that they must see themselves as part of a global Islamic culture, rather than as Muslims with British culture, Dutch culture, etc.Proabivouac 20:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how much I would agree with "Islam is generally seen a religion, not a culture." In western media, probably. I know a lot of people who consider themselves only culturally Muslim. Is that true for all religions? The case of Islam has some differences. Arabs before Islam didn't have any culture as Persians, or Greeks or others had. Islam in a sense defined an identity for them. Some early Arabs considered Islam as an Arabic religion. The Arabic literature was hugely influenced by the Qur'an. Its grammer was written based on the Qur'an. Islam, for Arabs, is more than a religion. It is their history; their culture and somewhat their historical identity. The case is different for persians. In a sense persians are more like Christians in the west influenced by already existing greek culture and Christianity. --Aminz 21:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is an Arab-centered perspective; one which is shared by political Islamists but would be emphatically denied by nationalists. Most anthropologists would agree that Indonesian culture (the most populous Muslim country), for example, is basically nothing like Arab culture. This is not the place to engage or prejudice this issue.Proabivouac 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you mean. As I said, I know many people (non-Arabs) who consider themselves culturally Muslims but not religously Muslims. We don't have to closely follow what western media thinks of Islam. Should you produce sources quoting the nationalists, we can go ahead and writes it as according to "x", Islam is more than a faith; and according to "y" it is not. --Aminz 21:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I might consider myself "culturally Christian," but that doesn't make Christianity a culture. We cannot make the article shorter if we aren't willing to delete things which aren't helpful or necessary (such as the Freedom House's criticism of Saudi gender policy.)Proabivouac 04:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * here are some extracts replicated from a section re: Islamic civilisation above:


 * from Holt (i think in Camridge History of Islam, i'll have to check): Another question which the reader of this work may ask is, 'What are the sources on which knowledge of the history of Islam is based?' The Islamic civilisation of the first three centuries (in this as in other respects the seminal period) evolved two characteristic types of historical writing...", as well as "...Islam, then, as it will be examined in the following chapters, is a complex cultural synthesis, centred in a distinctive religious faith, and necessarily set in the framework of a continuing political life.
 * also refer to "Introduction to Islamic Civilisation", Cambridge University Press, "So we have come to the rise of Islam, the faith and culture that has given this vast, disparate, shapeless, often divided area its one common overriding interest..." ... "Yet, culturally, another great paradox revealed itself: Islam, with certain clearly defined limits, set its own (as we might say) 'Arab' mark on the western half [of the Middle East]..." also refer to the chapter: "The historical background of Islamic civilisation"
 * --  ITAQALLAH  15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Culture" is used with varying degrees of specificity. For example, we use terms such as "internet culture" without at all meaning to assert "The internet is a culture." We also say "Western culture" meaning "Western cultures which share certain elements between them;" it does not follow that "the West is a culture." To justify a sentence in the lead stating that To support a statement that Islam is not just a religion, but a culture or a civilization, as opposed to merely using the term "Islamic culture" or "Islamic civilization," I would like to see someone asserting this head-on.Proabivouac 22:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Science and technology
I am not certain that anything in this section has anything to do with Islam at all, other than that the scientists were Muslims or lived in Muslim nations. We might just as easily speak of "Islamic cricket." The sub-article associated with the subjects discussed here is not Islamic science, but History of science in the Islamic World. The most obvious way to reduce the length of this article is to eliminate this irrelevant section.Proabivouac 20:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will remove it shortly.Proabivouac 04:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between an Islamic scientist and a Muslim scientist. Former is a subset of the latter. Muslim scientist is just a scientist that happens to be Muslim. Islamic scientist is a Muslim scientist who studies science in the light of Islam.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  04:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. This section doesn't mention Islam at all, only things various Muslims did.Proabivouac 05:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * i'll get some quotes which establish the relevance of this subject to Islamic civilisation. for now: from the introduction pages of "The Enterprise of Science in Islam: New Perspectives" (2003) Jan Pieter Hogendijk, Abdelhamid I. Sabra, MIT Press, ISBN 0262194821


 * Between AD 800 and 1450, the most important centers for the study of what we now call "the exact sciences" were located in the vast multinational Islamic world. The sciences denoted by this name included the mathematical sciences of arithmetic, geometry, trigonometry, and their applications in various fields such as astronomy, astrology, geography, cartography, and optics, to mention some of the more prominent examples. During the eighth and ninth centuries, the bulk of Greek science, medicine and philosophy, and much of Indian and pre-Islamic Persian science, were appropriated by Islamic civilization through a complex process of translations from Pahlavi, Sanskrit...


 * ...These translations were crucial for the rise of the "renaissance of the twelfth century" in Europe and they later played an important part in the development of the exact sciences during the Renaissance of the sixteenth century. However, only a small part of the total Islamic accomplishments in science were transmitted to medieval Europe. The scientific endeavors of the Islamic world of course remain as important a subject to be investigated in its own right as a distinctive aspect of Islamic culture.


 * The Islamic tradition in the exact sciences continued well into the nineteenth century, and abundant source material is available in the form of unpublished manuscripts in Arabic, Persian, and other languages in libraries from all over the world. In the last decades, many researchers have worked on the Islamic scientific tradition, and our views of this tradition are rapidly changing as a result of recent discoveries


 * the rest of the introduction follows in the same manner.  ITAQALLAH   15:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What does any of this have to do with Islam?Proabivouac 17:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That Islam is a civilization under which all of the above scientific achievements were made. Thus, it has strong relevance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.99.48.133 (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Comparison to Christianity
Aminz, regarding this edit: Can we let facts stand on their own without being accompanied by insecure criticisms of Christianity to put things "in context"? The failings (in modern eyes) of ancient and medieval societies are amply documented on the relevant articles. It's also not necessary to make general (and inaccurate) pronouncements such as "Muslims (or Christians) didn't value tolerance."Proabivouac 04:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Please remember that our policy says that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true."
 * 2. It is not my intend to criticize Christianity whatsoever but to faithfully reflect the scholarly literature on the topic.
 * 3. I would be happy to see your sources regarding your claim that Lewis and Cohen and others are wrong. Tolerance as we understand today recognizes rights for "citizens" (another modern concept) rather than those of the same faith. Did they value such concept of tolerance? I don't think so. I don't buy the statement that Muslims and Christians had a modern conception of tolerance back then and utterly failed to implement it out of wrechedness and corruption.If it were so, it would have been reflected in the manner and writings of some saints and ulema. --Aminz 05:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aminz, the main points are:
 * 1) Practices in Christian lands are off-topic to this article.
 * 2) Even if the asides about Christianity were removed, the statement is too general to be useful. There is already more specific information on Dhimma for the reader to draw his or her own conclusion about whether this constitutes tolerance, intolerance or something in between.
 * 3) For what seems like the ninety-ninth time, the fact that something is sourced doesn't mean it should or must be included.Proabivouac 06:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly disagree that "the statement is too general to be useful". I think I do have a point and it is sourced to texts writing about practices in Muslim lands. Many sources apply comparative approach to get a balanced understanding of the matter. --Aminz 06:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pro here. That quote belongs in the Criticism section as a response against a hypothetical accusation against Islam of intolerance, not in a neutrally-worded section about the state of non-Muslims in Muslim lands. - Merzbow 06:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What about this Mezbow: The usual definition of tolerance in pre-modern times as Bernard Lewis puts it was that: "I am in charge. I will allow you some though not all of the rights and privileges that I enjoy, provided that you behave yourself according to rules that I will lay down and enforce."
 * At least, this is not in the context of Christianity. --Aminz 07:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I thinkwe can have a sentence to the effect that modern concept of citizenship etc etc did not exist in pre-modern times and before John Locke. The best term to describe nonbelievers living in Muslim lands is thus subject rather than citizens. --Aminz 07:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That a shift happened in our fair definition of tolerance deserves mentioning (i.e. the pre-modern tolerant behavior became an intolerant modern behavior) --Aminz 07:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, but we have to be careful how we word it and how much space we give such a discussion. - Merzbow 21:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I really disagree with this kind of "defensive writing." Merzbow is correct that it only merits mention if and where someone is declaring Islam intolerant.
 * If, on the other hand, we wish to say that views within Islam itself have changed, that would be topical. A self-referential discussion of the meaning of tolerance is not. We should definitely not go further out on a limb and declare that modern concepts of citizenship did not exist before John Locke. I don't see this kind of tortured excuse-making on many other articles, such as those about antisemitism in Europe, and indeed in this space you are the only one who feels it necessary to engage this particular line of argument. Provided that we have presented the facts in a neutral manner, it is perfectly normal and acceptable that readers then draw conclusions according to their own cultural prejudices; it is not our job to correct them. In fact, to do so is argumentative, untopical and unencyclopedic.Proabivouac 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is Lewis a "defensive writer"? He opens his discussion with the very same point. I disagree that it is "defensive writing". --Aminz 22:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So your response to all this is to expand it into a mini-essay on tolerance, complete with convoluted gems such as: "This fair definition of tolerance in pre-modern times is an intolerant idea according to the modern understanding of tolerance.".Proabivouac 22:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Lewis says what was understood as a fair definition of tolerance is an intolerant idea; it is sourced. I am explaining that the concepts of citizenship didn't exist back then which is important.
 * Lewis makes this comment on the tolerance at the very beginning of his book, and Cohen discusses it in the intro of his work while they are writing not about tolerance specifically. --Aminz 22:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For what now seems like the hundredth time, the fact that something is sourced doesn't mean it should or must be included. This article is entitled Islam, not Islam and tolerance, and we shall stick to the facts if that is alright with you.
 * I would honestly like to trim the "criticism" section more, but to do so in this environment risks unbalancing the article, for you shall surely restore and expand off-topic material which favors your POV without restoring the others.23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not proper to remove explanations about the world in which those incidents happened. Wikipedia is not supposed to be emotionally charged. --Aminz 23:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Proabivouac, we can try to summerize the stuff (as Merzbow suggested) but its outright removal is improper. --Aminz 23:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Which Muslim countries make it a crime to renounce Islam? And which Christian countries make it a crime to renounce Christianity? Complicated philosophical questions really can be solved quite easily, by asking simple questions. TharkunColl 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The scriptures could be read in many different ways. Negative points could be found in both traditions; therefore it is best to avoid such comparisons (one negative interpretation in Christianity for example is that of Thomas Aquinas, who held that heretics "deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death")--Aminz 23:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am no apologist for Christianity. My question remains very simple. In the modern world, which Muslim countries make a crime of apostacy, and which Christian countries do? TharkunColl 23:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are already dissent voices among Muslim scholars as well. Why should we look at "the modern world" alone? --Aminz 23:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's all very well to have dissenting voices or whatever, but that happened in Europe 500 years ago. TharkunColl 23:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Halal meat
Should we mention the view of minority of jurists on the verse in the article?

EoQ (Slaughter article) says: "The majority of jurists suggest that animals slaughtered by Christians are lawful for Muslims only if they have been slain according to Islamic procedures (cf. Ṭabarī, Tahdhīb al-āthār. Musnad ʿAlī, 230, on the basis of the Christian tribe of Taghlib; cf. Gilliot, Réalité et fiction, 192). On the other hand, a number of jurists admit that what the Christians consider religiously lawful to eat is allowed for Muslims, regardless of the manner in which the animal's life was taken. A step forward in this direction was made by a famous fatwā delivered by Muḥammad ʿAbduh, who was Egypt's Grand Muftī from 1899 until his death in 1905. From that pulpit he authorized the Muslims of the Transvaal to eat animals slaughtered by Christians, even though their way of killing animals might differ from the Muslims'. The chief point to be considered is that what is slaughtered by Christians should be regarded as food for the whole body of them (cf. Adams, Muḥammad ʿAbduh and the Transvaal fatwā). In the light of this ruling, meat originating from the People of the Book is lawful for Muslims, even though the animals may have been killed by means of electric shock or similar methods." --Aminz 21:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally speaking, I find Halal meat to be quite tasteless and bland - presumably because it's had all the blood drained out of it. I certainly wouldn't recommend it. TharkunColl 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep your personal experiences to yourself in the future. Wikipedia is not a blog.

Tahrif
Proabivouac, would you please explain this edit: --Aminz 08:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't change the meaning, just makes it easier to read. - Merzbow 17:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

criticism rewrite
this sect appears to tagged for POV issues for a little while now, so i thought i'd do a rewrite. i tried to trim the first paragraph.. the discussion concerning Maimonides didn't seem to be much of a criticism of Islam per se. also did a bit of copyediting. i also veered away from detailing select critiques for brevity and because i don't know about the appropriateness of dhimmitude.org as a source or the relevance of honor killings to Islam. i added a paragraph concerning typical assessments of these critiques, including a source which was a review of Norman Daniel's work (Islam and the West, Oneworld publishers, Oxford). the review is not particularly analytical, just descriptive. finally included a brief mention of a typical Muslim response, and a few apologetic personalities. i have retained the tag for now.  ITAQALLAH  03:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is better, thanks. I think we could add a paragraph that does touch briefly on specific areas of criticism, similar to what's in the lead of Criticism of Islam, and then we'd be done. - Merzbow 06:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * sure.. could you propose something to that effect? i included one line about Ibn Warraq, i didn't want to add more lest it unbalanced the sect, especially as i intended to keep the responses paragraph equally as brief and 'general'.  ITAQALLAH   00:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK I made an attempt, I modeled it after part of the lead of Criticism of Islam. I worded it as neutrally as possible. - Merzbow 18:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, i did a little copyediting and incorporated the paragraph into the first one where modern criticism is first highlighted (i removed the human rights in Muslim countries critique as it is not directly pertinent to criticism of Islam itself). i removed Orianna because she doesn't seem as prominent as Spencer or Pipers, and to balance out with how many apologists we mention.  ITAQALLAH   21:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Should all the references be moved after the period like the comment at the start of this talk page indicates? - Merzbow 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * yep.. as far as i know, it is also acceptable to have refs after punctuation such as commas also (like "hello, hello"). see Citing sources.  ITAQALLAH   21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, so the To-Do list at the top of this talk page is clearly wrong. I'll change it. - Merzbow 22:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we need to "name" famous modern critics and apologetics? It seems to me it is giving undue weight to say spencer as compared to critics of previous centuries. --Aminz 22:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we do need to name them, since they are the most heavily quoted critics, so I've restored the names. But it makes sense to provide neutral sources that describe them as critics, so I've fact-tagged it. - Merzbow 00:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you could prove that "they are the most heavily quoted critics" of the whole history of Islam, I would agree with their inclusion; otherwise it seems to be giving undue weight to certain critics of Islam. --Aminz 02:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They are notable modern critics of Islam, I've done the research and the cites show that conclusively. If you want to claim that there are non-modern critics that are as notable, then you should add a sentence mentioning them as well, with cites. - Merzbow 02:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "They are notable modern critics of Islam"; I think they are notable contemporary critics of Islam or I might be wrong. Modern times includes post Medieval times (after french revolution)? --Aminz 02:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Contemporary is probably a more accurate term. I'll try to rework the section to run chronologically, and add mention of some of the older critics. - 03:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merzbow, if someone is notable as a historical critic of Islam, I would agree with its addition. Otherwise we have to add notable critics for each century. In any case, the arguments of these critics are important not that who they are. --Aminz 03:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I added some more medieval critics, I think the early period is now covered well. William Muir is another obvious addition, he's from the 1800s, so I'll add him. Not sure who, if anyone, from the late medieval period to the 1700s is notable. - Merzbow 03:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merzbow, I am not sure if Muir classifies himself as a critic of Islam, maybe he does. My idea was that we should focus on the main criticisms of Islam rather than critics of Islam. However if you would like to mention the critics of Islam by name, I suggest we create a subsection for the "criticism of Islam" section titled "critics of Islam" and list people there (same with the apologetics).--Aminz 06:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Whether Muir classified himself as such, he definitely is, as the quote from him in the Atlantic article makes clear. And I don't see any reason to separate the criticism from the critics completely... the natural way of presenting this material is by saying something like "critic X from the X century said X". Disconnecting the two into "critics from the X century say X" and then, two paragraphs later, "critic X is notable", is artificial. - Merzbow 06:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand why we should name anybody anyway. This section is supposed to be a short summary of the criticisms and some responses. Why do we need to mention names of critics or others like Watt here? We can say the main topics of criticism and the general responses to that. Suppose that this article was written 100 years ago. None of these names were there then but probably criticisms were the same. Had any of these critics a patent on particular criticisms I would have agreed with you. --Aminz 07:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's encyclopedic to tell people the names of notable critics, especially for the early critics, some of which are universally famous, like Maimonides. Criticisms don't come out of a vacuum; specific people with specific agendas and specific qualifications make them. Not giving people their names robs the reader of information very important in determining both the quality of the criticism and where to go to find more of it. And the same goes for the responses. - Merzbow 07:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Maimonides is actually famous for being a Jew (not a critic of Islam). But anyways. I am not still convinced that the information you mentioned should be given to the readers in this summary(as compared to the main article). Anyways, if you feel confident about this, we can let it go as you think is the best. --Aminz 11:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * the Maimonides ref can be found here. i scanned through it briefly, i didn't locate where Maimonides expressed criticism of Islam, as opposed to criticising Muslim society and politics, and believing Jewish ethics to be superior. need some verification for the Muir ref also, because i think one needs to be a subscriber to view the whole article..  ITAQALLAH   20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the Atlantic quote. The context is an article about people questioning the historicity of the Qur'an, so the intention is clearly to portray him as a critic (if Muir's own words don't make that clear enough):


 * "The Koran has seemed, for Christian and Jewish scholars particularly, to possess an aura of heresy; the nineteenth-century Orientalist William Muir, for example, contended that the Koran was one of 'the most stubborn enemies of Civilisation, Liberty, and the Truth which the world has yet known.'"


 * With Maimonides, I think the relevant quote is this: "He considered Islamic ethics and politics to be inferior to their Jewish counterparts." "Islamic ethics" is the key phrase. - Merzbow 02:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm coming back to the article from a long break, so excuse me if I'm going over an issue that's already settled. I'm not that happy with a key sentence in the criticism section, the one that brings together the Muslim, medieval Christian and Maimonides criticisms. I'd say that linking these in one sentence is an original synthesis unless there is a good secondary source that does just that. It seems to me, without knowing the specifics, that the Muslim "critic" mentioned is unlikely to be precisely a "critic of Islam" but more a practitioner of itjihad. Maimonides may have been elaborating his own, Jewish, philosophical approach by the means of contrasting it with Islamic thought rather than "criticising Islam". While the medieval Christian viewpoint is hardly on the same level as these, and not a criticism either, but an attempt to justify a thoroughgoing religious persecution. Itsmejudith 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Structuring
Some rather radical structuring suggestions for discussion at this point, in the lead-up to FA reapplication:

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