Talk:Islam/Archive 20

Jihad Section
"and non-Muslims in a Muslim were traditionally allowed to live as dhimmis."

In a Muslim what? Nation, community, state, occupied region? (Nick Kamm 13:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Good catch... Muslim "state". - Merzbow 17:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

FA nominated
Featured article candidates/Islam/archive2

Aminz convinced me not to wait for the Peer Review, which usually takes a month and frequently only garners automated comments (which I can and have generated and reviewed myself). So now it's show time. - Merzbow 02:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I suggest that someone keep looking at the comments and change the article accordingly where possible. Then leave there ✅ sign. That will help in making some people satisfied. --- A. L. M. 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone keep an eye on the To-do list... that's where I'm tracking suggestions made in FAC. - Merzbow 19:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

combining multiple refs in one footnote with bullets and line breaks?
People on FAC are encouraging us to combine adjacent footnotes. Historically, we've done this using semicolons, but the semicolons are hard to see when complex references like cite templates are put in one footnote. However, I've found that the bullet character does the job nicely, along with line breaks. As an experiment I've converted references 108 and 137 to this new format. What do people think? - Merzbow 22:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can help with changing the references if everybody likes it. --Aminz 22:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One question to consider if we do this is in what order to place the multiple references within the footnote. For lack of a better idea, I suggest smaller references (author/year or Quran) first followed by larger references (cite templates), and within types, alphabetically by last name and then year of publication. - Merzbow 00:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * see what i've done with the latter footnote. does it look any better?  ITAQALLAH   12:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks good. I tweaked it to be "see" instead of "refer too", and removed some of the benign extra spacing in the source, and also converted the ref immediately following it. What do you think about the ordering question... do you like my proposed scheme above? - Merzbow 16:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How to modify history section?
Ack. So per FAC we have to decide what to add to the History section to expand its scope beyond the political. I think maybe a paragraph per sub-section would do; it still should remain primarily political history since this is the only place in the article that treats it. The existing material in the first and third sections can be shrunk a bit to make room. I suppose things to hit on are origin of sects, important developments in law and theology, important developments in the arts. Also note that I've just created the new "Modern times" section, which now contains the "Modern movements" material, which I think is a much more logical organization; it still needs a bit of history added to it. So let's throw out some ideas:

Rise of empire (632–750)

 * A sentence on origin of Sunni/Shi'a split. This is easy.
 * A sentence on the origin of Sufism - the appearance of ascetism as a "reaction against the worldliness of the early Umayyad period". (Mention Hasan al-Basri?).
 * Socioeconomic: creation of Islamic empire settled Arabs throughout the Middle East and created cosmopolitan communities, led to "extensive urbanization and economic development".
 * Codification of the hadith collections.

Golden Age (750–1258)

 * Shi'ism splits into twelvers and Isma'ilis and Zaydis (?)
 * Development of Islamic law: al-Shafi as the founder, emergence of the four legal schools in eighth-ninth century, the "closing of the door of ijtihad" in the tenth century.
 * Further Sufi developments: transformation of asceticism into mysticism, (maybe mention Rabi'ah al-'Adawiyah, al-Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj?).
 * A sentence on Ahmad al-Ghazali, of course - legal, philosophical, and theological impact who also made Sufism respectable.
 * Algebra (al-Khwarazmi), medicine (Avicenna)
 * Art and architecture under Abbasids, Persian literature, al-Farabi the philosopher

Ottomans and India (1258–1878)

 * Sufis: Rise of the mystical orders, mention Rumi
 * Architecture - Taj Mahal of course
 * Economic: Ottomans encouraged trade routes throughout empire, established guild system in urban locations, were advanced in technology until 18th century

Modern times (1878-present)

 * History: cover WWI dismemberment of Ottomans, Israel and Palestine, Arab nationalism, oil, Pakistan/India
 * Includes the material about modern Muslim movements that is now in its own section.
 * Anything important in art, literature, etc. happen?

- Merzbow 07:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merzbow, I think two periods are important: 1. The formative period 2. The modern period.
 * For the formative period, we can make use of the intro of Islamic_ethics article, i.e. "Islamic ethics (akhlāq), defined as "good character," historically took shape only gradually and was finally established in the 11th century.[1] It was eventually shaped as a successful amalgamation of pre-Islamic Arabian tradition, the Qur'anic teaching and non-Arabic elements (mainly of Persian and Greek origins) embedded in or integrated with a general-Islamic structure.[1] Although the Islamic prophet Muhammad's preaching produced a "radical change in moral values based on the sanctions of the new religion, and fear of God and of the Last Judgment", the tribal practice of Arabs did not completely die out. Later Muslim scholars expanded the religious ethic of the Qur'an and Hadith in immense detail."
 * Then we can touch the challenges of the modern times. I remember in the Muhammad article we mentioned the shift in Muslim view of Muhammad's miracles. That might be helpful as well. --Aminz 08:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * EoQ has two articles on "Exegesis of the Qurʾān: Early Modern and Contemporary" and "Exegesis of the Qurʾān: Classical and Medieval"- Is this relevant here? --Aminz 08:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * i have added a sentence on the mihna, and i'll add another one about the sunni/shi'a split. i'll also add a sentence about Ghazzali's crucial theological work. i don't think we want to bloat the section too much. the art/civilization should stay in its own section methinks, and same with the developments of Islamic law. i think the FAC comment was directed more towards any theological differences that emerged, so as long as we cater for that then i think it should be sufficient.   ITAQALLAH   13:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Lewis
I think this would be better: "In response, the Muslim organizations of "Islamic Supreme Council of Canada" and Bernard Lewis, a non-Muslim scholars, say that Islamic texts do not sanction these activities."--Aminz 08:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This one also works for me: "In response, Bernard Lewis says that Islamic texts do not sanction these activities." --Aminz 08:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. - Merzbow 08:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sefringle. What's wrong with "Bernard Lewis says" and why does it needed to be changed to "Some scholars". "Bernard Lewis says" is the most accurate. --Aminz 18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We do not need to specify which scholars think islam is a religion of peace and which ones think terrorism is acceptable in islam. Some scholars is most accurate, because there is more than one with that view, but not all have that view. I also think it is advertisement to include Lewis' name. Including the "however" is also a problem, because it implies that the other interpritation is incorrect.--Sefringle 18:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't an advertisement to include Lewis's name. He is a leading scholar in this field, no question, probably the leading scholar. I'm sure that whether Wikipedia endorses him or not is a question of utter indifference to him. This is not a point on which scholarly opinion is evenly divided. Which scholars, if any, think that terrorism is acceptable in Islam? Itsmejudith 20:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't the issue. The issue here is that it is a POV to say Islam is not a religion of terrorism, just like it would be a POV to say it is. It is not necessary to person X believes Islam is a religion of peace and person Y believes Islam is not a religon of peace. It is better just to say Islamic terrorism exists and there are those who think it is not sanctioned by Islamic texts.--Sefringle 23:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sefringle, please answer Judith's question:"Which scholars, if any, think that terrorism is acceptable in Islam?" You claimed "Some scholars is most accurate, because there is more than one with that view, but not all have that view."--Aminz 23:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yousef al-Qaradhawi did argue that suicide bombing is justified against Israel. The only thing is he argued that it shouldn't be called terrorism. But that isn't the point. --Sefringle 23:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So, Yousef al-Qaradhawi too says Islam doesn't support terrorism. His definition of terrorism is different from yours. He doesn't say Islam supports terrorism but it is you who are making that conclusion. Now, do you know why he said it is okay "against Israel". Is there anything specific about the state of Israel in the early sources of Islam? --Aminz 23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

He is still a terrorist supporter. Supporters of violence against Israel are still terrorist supporters. But I'm getting sick of this debate that apparently is going nowhere.--Sefringle 00:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Qaradhawi doesn't say "I support terrorism." You are viewing it that way and it is your POV. You need to show me a Muslim scholar who says that "Islam supports terrorism". Again, Medieval Islamic law is fixed and doesn't accept "recentism". --Aminz 00:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This debate is clearly going nowhere. But since you asked, there is also Muhammad Qutb, a radical Islamist writer.--Sefringle 00:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sefringle, please show me "Yousef al-Qaradhawi"'s quote and let's see if we can add that as well (if others agree). We say: lewis says X. Yousef al-Qaradhawi says Y. We just need to stick these together in a good manner--Aminz 00:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It should clearly say "most scholars", not "some scholars"; in addition to Lewis and Esposito who are cited now, I can pull up ten more cites by scholars who argue against the terrorists' claims. And so far only Qaradhawi has been claimed as being on the side of the terrorists' (proof of which I haven't seen yet). - Merzbow 01:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How about we go back to the origional wording,(There are Muslims and non-Muslims who have spoken out against this claim.) which didn't imply any numbers. I think that version was less POV.--Sefringle 23:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. - Merzbow 00:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A section on Family
Here is what the Oxford Dictionary of Islam has to say:

"Family: The basic unit of Islamic society. In Arabic, ahl or aila is a comperhensive term that may include grandparents, uncles, aunts, and cousins on both sides of the family. The Qur'an enjoins mutual respect and responsibility between spouses and among family members. Spouses and children have duties and rights protected by law. Men and women remain members of their natal families even after their marriage. In modern times, the family has been subject to economic and social pressures that have disrupted the traditional family-extended patterns, including changing responsibilities for women. Nevertheless, it remains a flexible unit of social organization in Muslim societies."

"Family law A marriage contract requires an offer and acceptance before witnesses. The groom is required to give his wife a dowery (mahr), which is her property alone, to dispose of as she wishes. The groom may pay a portion of the dowery at the time of contract and the rest at a specific time in the marriage contract. Men may marry up to four wives, but women may marry only one men at a time. In most Muslim countries, divorce by the husband is effected by a unilateral pronouncement known as the talaq, which severs the legal relationship, although this is in violation of Quranic teaching and one of the subjects of modern reform efforts. After the talaq, the couple must refain from sexual intercourse for three months. At the end of this time, the marriage is terminated. During the marriage, the wife is entitled to maintenance and support, which includes food, clothing, and accommodation; with divorce, this entitlement terminates. Legal adoption is not permissible under traditional Islamic law. The specifics of Islamic law differ widely on place and time as well as school of law. The past two centuries have seen major reforms in Islamic family law: Tunisia rendered polygony illegal on Islamic grounds and established equal rights for men and women in divorce; Turkey also forbade polygony, but as a result of a wholesale adoption of the Western legal code."

The Women and Islam entry is long. I just quote the first paragraph and some other parts:

"'In Islam, men and women are moral equals in God's sight and are expected to fulfil the same duties of worship, prayer, almsgiving, fasting, and plgrimage to Mecca. Islam generally improved the status of women compared to earlier Arab cultures, prohibiting female infanticide and recognizing women's full personhood. Islamic law emphasizes the contractual nature of marriage, requiring a dowery be paid to the women rather than to her family, and guaranteeing women's rights of inheritence and to own and manage property. Women were also granted the right to live in the matrimonial home and recieve financial maintainance during marriage and a waiting period following death and divorce. The historical records shows that Muhammad consulted women and weighted their opinions seriously. At least one women was appointed imam over her household by Muhammad. Women contributed significantly to the canonization of the Qur'an. A women is known to have corrected the authorative ruling of Caliph Umar on dowery....Nevertheless, the status of women in premodern Islam in general conformed not to Quranic ideals but to prevailing patriachal cultural norms. As a result improvement of the status of women became a major issue in modern, reformist Islam....'"

--Aminz 01:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Esposito has lots on this also. We also need to mention some of the modern-day controversies over womens' rights. - Merzbow 01:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

... Hmmm. Let me see. This part was relevant from the above quote:"The past two centuries have seen major reforms in Islamic family law: Tunisia rendered polygony illegal on Islamic grounds and established equal rights for men and women in divorce; Turkey also forbade polygony, but as a result of a wholesale adoption of the Western legal code."

I'll quote part of the Women and Islam entry which is more relevant to your concern:

"Nevertheless, the status of women in premodern Islam in general conformed not to Quranic ideals but to prevailing patriachal cultural norms. As a result improvement of the status of women became a major issue in modern, reformist Islam. Since the mid-nineteenth century, men and women have questioned the legal and social restrictions on wpmen especially regarding education, seclusion, strict veiling, polygony, slavery, and concubinage. Women have published works advocating reforms, established schools for girls, opposed veiling and polygony, and engaged in student and nationalist movements. Nationalist movements and new states that emerged in post-World War II period percieved women and gender issues as crucial to social development. State policies enabled groups of women to enter the male-dominated political spheres and professions previously closed to them, although these policies often caused popular and religous backlash. Debate continue over the appropriate level of female participation in the public sphere. Women are typically viewed as key to either reforming or conserving tradition because of their roles in maintaining family, social continuity, and culture. Women's status has also been used as a means of defining national identity. Although governments of twentieth-century Muslim nation-states have promote education for both boys and girls as a means of achieving economic growth, the percentage of girls enrolled in schools in developing countries with large and rapidly growing population remains low.[Editorial comment from User:Aminz :) In recent years in Iran, the number of girls entering universities exceeds that of boys.] Concern for men's job has given added incentive to the conservative call for women to adhere to traditional role as housewives and mothers, although economic necessity has led women to undertake whatever work they can find, usually low-paid, unskilled labor. War and labor migration have increased the number of female-headed households. Women today are active participants in grassroots organizations; development projects; economic, education, health, and political projects; relief efforts; charitable associations; and social services. Modern reforms have made polygynous marriages difficult or illegal; permited wives to sue for divorce in religous courts, particularly in cases of cruelty, desertion, or dangerous contagious diseases; provided women with the right to contract themselves in marriage; required husbands to find housing for a divorced wife while she has custody over the children; increased minimum age for spouses.... THIS LIST GOES ON AND ON...[Editorial comment from User:Aminz Again :) I have not seen even one polygony marriage in Iran. ]"

EoI says(article Nikah):

"4. The laws regarding the rights and duties of husband and wife cannot be modified by the parties at the drawing-up of the contract. This can, however, be effected by the man pronouncing a conditional ṭalāḳ immediately after the conclusion of the marriage contract; this shift to secure the position of the woman is particularly common among Indian Muslims. For the rest, the couple are left to private agreements which need not be mentioned in the marriage contract. The actual position of the woman in marriage is in all Muslim countries entirely dependent on local conditions and on many special circumstances. It is not a contradiction of this to say that the legal prescriptions regarding marriage are most carefully observed as a rule. In spite of certain ascetic tendencies, Islam as a whole has been decidedly in favour of marriage.—In modern Islam, the problem of the woman's position in marriage and polygamy is especially discussed between conservatives and adherents of modern social ideas."

On reforms regarding polygomy, same article says:

"Reforms aimed at consolidating monogamy restrict polygamy to the extent of complete abolition. Polygamy has been totally abolished as yet only in Turkey. In ʿIrāḳ it was first abolished (1959), only to be reduced to prohibition (1963). Complementary measures taken concerning polygamy are: (1) Stipulation in the marriage contract (see above, vii). Ottoman family law allows a woman to stipulate in her marriage contract that her husband shall not marry another wife and that should he do so, either she or the polygamous wife will be divorced. Jordan followed suit, though the first wife may dissolve only her own marriage, not that of the co-wife. (2) Prohibition. Polygamy has been prohibited (in Iran this presumably applies to both permanent and temporary marriage) unless permitted by court (district court in South Yemen) on the basis of “good defences”: The court must be satisfied that the husband is financially able to properly maintain multiple wives (Syria; Iran, 1967); that the co-wives will be treated with equal justice (ʿIrāḳ, Iran, 1967); and that the first wife consents to the marriage, is unable or unwilling to co-habit, has been sentenced to imprisonment, is addicted to drink, drugs or gambling, has deserted the family or disappeared, or has become barren, insane or afflicted with incurable disease (Iran, 1967, 1975). In South Yemen a medical certificate to this effect is required. In ʿIrāḳ these defences are presumably implied by the phrase “some lawful benefit in the polygamous marriage”. In Israel (1951) the defence available to Muslims qua Muslims against a charge of polygamy (prohibited by the Mandatary authorities) was abolished and replaced by two defences against such a charge: prolonged absence or mental illness of the spouse. Prohibition of polygamy, unlike abolition, does not in itself invalidate polygamous marriage, though those failing to obtain the court's permission are liable to penal sanctions."

--Aminz 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, i'm gonna do a good copyedit of the family section in a few, with a focus on keeping things simple. parts of the section i'm thinking are a little tangental and i might trim it a little bit.  ITAQALLAH   17:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is some good info in there but it could serve to be trimmed to about half the size; I also want to mention the modern-day controversy about women's rights to satisfy one of the FA request. We should probably also mention inheritance laws. I'll hold off for now while you copyedit. - Merzbow 17:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ok i did a bit of a trim, and included mention of inheritance. i left the discussion re: modern controversy for you to deal with. a sentence or two seems ideal. you might want to consult Waines (2003) p93+, he discusses quite a bit about polygyny.  ITAQALLAH   18:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll get to it a bit later... with luck tonight we will have addressed all remaining FAC concerns (at least until/if new ones are posted). - Merzbow 19:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And thanks for fixing Wahhab's name... it's still a mystery for me how best to represent Arabic names. Sounds like something we could add to the Islam articles guideline. - Merzbow 20:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * the family section might need a bit of tweaking, because it currently declares that practices like hijab have no clear basis in Islamic texts. of course, this is one opinion shared by academics (and not necessarily fact), but traditional Islamic jurisprudence (as well as Islamists) assigns it as a religious obligation. please refer to "Women in Islam: The Western Experience". Roald, A.S (2001), Routledge p. 260 - which discusses feminism quite extensively.   ITAQALLAH   08:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Esposito says just that... he appears to be claiming that Islamic scholars have interpreted ambiguous passages in the Qur'an to justify pre-Islamic practices. But he once again may be trying to be too apologetic, so I've softened the wording in the sentence. As with jihad, I suppose it pays to double-check everything he says (grumble)...- Merzbow 08:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For criticism section
To be added to the last section for the purpose of achieving more comprehensive issues coverage there:

"Islam is criticised for affronting human dignity and failing standards of civilised behaviour to the extent that it permits circumstances for the birth of children into slavery as well as promulgating a permission for muslims to buy and sell enslaved persons - including for the sole purpose of concubinage."


 * Probably too much detail for this article, it's covered well in the subarticles though. - Merzbow 17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Some comments
Overall, this is an excellent & informative article. I'm simply going to list a few comments on relatively minor points I noticed:


 * Five pillars There seems to be an al- missing in the Arabic script (arkān dīn)


 * Diacritics There's some inconsistency here. I appreciate that internal links have to use the spelling in the main articles referred to; but unlinked phrases such as masjid jami, ridwan & al-qadaa should have macrons where necessary.


 * Etymology  IMO the sentence


 * The word islām is derived from the Arabic root, sīn-lām-mīm, and is formed from the verb aslama ...

should be abbreviated to


 * The word islām is derived from the Arabic verb aslama ...


 * Calendar  Why not tell readers the Hijri equivalent of 2007 (ie 1428)? And while you're at it, you could give them a handy rule of thumb instead of the cryptic & discouraging:


 * Islamic dates cannot be converted to CE/AD dates simply by adding 622 years.

For example, you could point out that Hijri centuries are 3 years shorter than Christian centuries. A back-of-the-envelope calculation then gives 2007 - 622 = 1385 Christian years since the Hijra: nearly 14 centuries; x 3 = 42 Hijri years to be added; 1385 + 42 = 1427, which is only one year out.

The reverse conversion is better. 1428 is roughly 14⅓ centuries. So 1428 - 43 = 1385 Christian years since the Hijra; + 622 = 2007.

--NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Demographics Turkey is indeed a Muslim-majority state; but it is constitutionally secular.


 * Some interesting points. For 1, 2, and 3, probably Itaqallah can take a look since he knows Arabic. For 4, that sounds reasonable, I'll look into it. For 5, we're adding a subsection to "Law" on Islam/state relations, we can certainly mention there that modern Muslim states come in a variety of forms, like Turkey. - Merzbow 17:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, i've addressed the first three points. the suggested change in the etymology section seemed reasonable. if i find any other words needing fixing as i go through the article i'll be sure to do that.  ITAQALLAH   18:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I've done a bit more copyediting—mainly minor stuff.  See my remarks above on Malise Ruthven.  Good luck with the FAC! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. - Merzbow 21:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

religion and state
(Copied and continued from FAC review).

I highly disagree with that edit. EoQ is quite clear that according to some "the qurʾānic message is not political but moral". This section further fails to mention Shia Islam that traditionally separated politics from religion holding that only Muhammad and his descendents can be the head of government. We are not supposed to write what people *like* to hear.--Aminz 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody is claiming the Qur'an is a political document, so why rebut a claim not being made? And I don't think that representation of Shi'a tradition is correct; according to Britannica, the Imam is explicitly both a spiritual as well as a political leader, so if anything church and state are more intertwined in Shi'a tradition. - Merzbow 00:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To say Islamic law doesn't separate state and religion already makes it biased towards saying: the Qur'an is political cause it is the main source. So, the qualification needs to be made.
 * Secondly, yes, in Shia Islam, Imam is a political leader but whenever he is present. Aside from 10+5 years, during 1400-(10+5) years Imams were not in control of the state. Therefore in reality state and religion can be separated until end times. --Aminz 00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the exact quote from the source regarding the Qur'an? Also do you have a source for the Shi'a claim? - Merzbow 01:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Some preliminaries: As an institution governing a territory, administering its peoples and resources and legislating a socio-political order, the state as organ of rule came into being in early Islam not from qurʾānic directive but from the experience and consensus of the first Muslims. Strong emphasis is given in the Qurʾān to obedience (q.v.) to God and the messenger (q.v.) of God, a heavily exploited phrase which early exegetes understood as those with knowledge and intelligence, not political authority, e.g. Mujāhid, Tafsīr, i, 163; see knowledge and learning; scholar; intellect). The Qurʾān makes enough mention of struggle between the followers of Muḥammad and his opponents to suggest that politics was at play in the first attempts to announce its message. Moreover, the Prophet was awarded authority (q.v.) in the form of an oath of allegiance, in which his followers promised to fight for the cause of God and early writers of history, such as Ibn Saʿd (d. 230/845; Ṭabaqāt), do depict the Prophet as a regional hegemon, receiving delegations and tribute in exchange for protection.

"There is no agreement that the Qurʾān even has a political message. For Qamaruddin Khan the qurʾānic message is not political but moral, a summons to submit to the one God and a life of faith. He claims that the Qurʾān in no way sanctions one political form (i.e. monarchy, theocracy, democracy, etc.) and that those who derive a political message from the Qurʾān exploit its verses out of context for their own goals. In contrast, for Muhammad ʿIzzat Darwaza the Qurʾān speaks to all aspects of human life, including the state and its financial, judicial, military and missionary tasks — a specifically qurʾānic political program implied, as he sees it, in the reference of q 57:25 to the book (q.v.) and iron, i.e. divine justice and the coercive force needed to ensure public order. To that end, he adduces a number of verses (q.v.) purported to have called for political leadership after the death of the Prophet and marshals forth in the body of the work an array of verses on the basis of which he constructs a qurʾānic vision of political organization. Despite the range of opinion about its political content, the Qurʾān is clear about the connection between socio-political prosperity and obedience to the message of God as conveyed by his messengers."

--Aminz 05:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But this section is about Islamic law, not just the Qur'an. The hadith of course are intensely political, being a record of Muhammad's life. And on top of that you have centuries of precedent of Islamic jurists saying that church and state are basically the same thing (as Lewis, Esposito and Lapidus make clear). The best solution is to simply take out the sentence about revelation being the fundamental source; therefore the text no longer implies that the Qur'an addresses politics. - Merzbow 06:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merzbow, I don't understand why you insist so much that we should not mention the view of Qur'an(the most important source) with respect to politics. --Aminz 07:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because we would confuse the reader. We would then need to proceed into a long discussion about politics in all sources of Islamic law and how they relate (Qur'an, hadith, ijma, qiyas). Anyways, now that the revelation sentence is gone, there is much less implication that the Qur'an addresses politics. - Merzbow 07:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The current edit seems to fool the readers into thinking that Islam is a monoloithic identity. There are various views. We should not compromise POV with simplicity. And of course there is a lot of implication that the Qur'an addresses politics. To say Islamic law does means yes the Qur'an does. --Aminz 07:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no POV issue because all sources agree that "Islamic law makes no distinction between matters of church and matters of state" - even Esposito. Saying the Qur'an is unclear on politics simply provides more detail about the differences between the sources of Islamic law, detail that we don't have enough room to go into here, because if we talk about how one of the sources addresses politics, we then have to talk about how the other three sources do so also. And then we're getting into pages of information. I think we need other editors to give their opinions on this issue. - Merzbow 07:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By "Islamic law", you are probably refering to the view of five particular early scholars. Fine, those 5 people should have agreed to it.
 * We are writing an article on "Islam" and "Politics". I am not convinced that we should not say what the Qur'an says about this because it "confuses" people. The view of the Qur'an is even more important than that of Muslim scholars because no Muslim "worships" them. Muslims do care about the Quran and nothing has authority over it. --Aminz 07:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither Lewis or Esposito nor Lapidus think the issue of politics on the Qur'an is important enough to even mention, but they all make the statement above, that Islamic law does not distinguish between church and state. How about this: we can add a sentence to the Qur'an section that gives a short overview of what's in the Qur'an, and it will also say that it's not clear if the Qur'an addresses politics. - Merzbow 07:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As Merzbow observes, Islam does not necessarily equal the Qur'an; even if the Qur'an has (according to some) no political message, that does mean that Islam is apolitical. The existence and scope of Islamic law, including as it does not only civil and criminal law but also taxation and foreign policiy, is proof that there was not meant to be any distinction between church and state, as is Sunnah, in which Muhammad's legitimacy as political ruler is based upon his normative status as the prophet of God: see Theocracy. Whether Islam mandates theocracy or overtly forbids a separation of church and state (per Qutb and many othes) is another question.Proabivouac 07:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added the promised sentence to the Qur'an section (which was needed anyway). This is really the correct place to mention the issue. - Merzbow 07:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I quit for now. It is really painful to see that in a section on the relation of Islam and politics, we are forbiden to mention the relation of the Qur'an and politics. --Aminz 08:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Veiling
I have a quibble about the "family" section, even after Merzbow's very useful edits. I wish we could have just a little more detail about the controversies relating to women's dress. And the present text reads "traditional Islamic practices such as veiling (hijab, burqa, chador) and seclusion (purdah)." Well, as I understand it, "hijab" has two meanings, a general one meaning modest dress and a more specific one meaning a type of headscarf, which is not a veil as it does not cover the face. The chador is an overall garment that again does not have to include a veil. The burqa does include a veil. There is also the niqab. As it reads at the moment the article could further confuse readers who are not familiar with all these types of dress and the attitudes to them. Itsmejudith 07:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if we have room to expand this section, but I'll take out the parenthetical cause, you make a good case that it's confusing. We can link veiling to Veil. - Merzbow 07:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * with regard to this edit - firstly, it shouldn't have been fact-tagged in the first place, for the material in the passage is all verified by the cites at the end. secondly, the sentence is quite important to clarifying and understanding the issue of qadr in Islam.  ITAQALLAH   20:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The apparent contradiction comes from us saying that God pre-ordains everything, but in the next sentence we say that man has free will and is responsible for his actions. I know that theologians try to explain this with certain arguments. If we want to add this information back in we should also say something about these arguments to unconfuse the reader. - Merzbow 20:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * i don't have the time atm to write out what Farah relates about this, but please do consult p. 122 onwards of his 2003 work which discusses it in reasonable detail. i thought the sentence clarified that man has free choice as opposed to free will, in that things cannot occur just by his 'willing' of it, but he does have the faculty to choose between what is presented to him, and this is what Farah attributes to Muslim theologians' explanation of this doctrine.  ITAQALLAH   20:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Michael Cook takes the view that the Qur'an is against free will, saying that those Muslims who have tried to argue for it "have fought a losing battle." He notes some verses. I can quote that if it'd be useful. The issue is that God creates the universe with full knowledge of the consequence of his actions, including what his creatures will choose, and he knows it even before he creates the universe. So he creates it knowing exactly what will happen, so it makes little sense to say that man has free will. Arrow740 20:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * one can argue that just because God knows what a man is to do does not necessarily suggest that the man did not connote to perform that particular action. i'd like to see what Cook has to say if you can provide a reference, but i am sure there are plenty of other academic perspectives on this (you may wish to refer to the Patton ref, p. 140 onwards, which basically says as i did above). but such debate aside, the purpose of this and the other sections is to explain what Muslims believe.  ITAQALLAH   21:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If God has total freedom in how he creates the universe and full knowledge of all the consequences of his actions then man has no free will. I think the section is fine without the Cook material, maybe I'll add it to the Qadr article. Arrow740 21:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * you have offered a premise and a conclusion, but i don't see how they are connected. in any case, i'll try rephrasing the passage that was removed (or see what Merzbow can do with it) as i think it's an important distinction in traditional Muslim belief that merits mention.  ITAQALLAH   21:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For this article, the traditional Muslim belief is certainly more important than its validity. I'd be interested to see what you come up with. Arrow740 21:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever we do, the important thing is that we don't let the reader think that we, as editors, are giving incorrect information because the text appears contradictory. If Muslim belief looks contradictory, we have to indicate that the apparent contradiction is not really thought of as a contradiction by Muslims because of X, Y, and Z. I'll look at some of the references in more detail. - Merzbow 22:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sufism
I know that Merzbow is rigorously cutting stuff out and this helps the article towards FA. But have we got room for another sentence about Sufi music and dance? These artistic traditions are gaining in worldwide influence. For example, note the popularity of the late great musician Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. There are also the Sufi saints .... ? Itsmejudith 22:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan a sufi? Really? I think it will be disputed to add such a material hence we should avoid it at this stage if possible. --- A. L. M. 23:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's only relevant if it's had a specifically religious influence. - Merzbow 00:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Al-Kindi
I've removed the philosophers from the Arts section, because the generic definition of Islamic philosophy wasn't very useful, and because three of the four listed are treated more informatively in Golden Age section. It strikes me that Al-Kindi may warrant mention here as well.Proabivouac 05:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The section is too small now, we may as well deep-six it. The calligraphy/architecture mentions can easily be placed in the mosque section. - Merzbow 06:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And the bit about Rumi should go into the History section. - Merzbow 06:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad Miltary activities
It is not that he kill Jews simply becasue they resist in converting to Islam. It shows that all non-Muslim should be killed, deported. Which is obviously wrong. Could we make the wording better ? --- A. L. M. 07:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll try. - Merzbow 07:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mecca
Merzbow, Can you please quote what the source has to say about this sentence: "Muhammad also increased the pressure on Mecca by bringing surrounding desert tribes under his control, by force or by alliance."--Aminz 07:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "The victory over Mecca was also the culmination of Muhammad's tribal policy. Throughout the eight-year struggle, Muhammad has tried to gain control of the tribes in order to subdue Mecca. Missionaries and embassies were sent throughout Arabia, factions loyal to Muhammad were supported, and tribes were raided...". - Merzbow 07:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "increasing the pressure on Mecca" seems somewhat vague and I am not so sure if that would be the only reading of this sentence and if so how important it was. --Aminz 07:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True... Lapidus says a few sentences later that Muhammad did this specifically to cut off Mecca's trade routes; I put this in the article. - Merzbow 07:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, please check if that was a significant part of Muhammad's mission? I mean how important it was overally to be included in this section. --Aminz 08:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that most of the wars (if not all) were started by Meccas. Saying "Muhammad also increased the pressure on Mecca by bringing surrounding desert tribes under his control, by force or by alliance" might not be true. How can someone with 313 soilders put pressure with 1000 men army (Badr). They were weak all most of the time. Can we also tweak it a bit. May be something on similar lines. "Furthermore Muhammad men and his enemies of Mecca also came into conflict..." --- A. L. M. 08:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * People on FA feedback seem to think so, and I agree; Islam wouldn't exist if Muhammad hadn't been as good a general and politician as he was and defeated Mecca. Also that statement is exactly what Lapidus is saying; I can quote more from that page if necessary - Muhammad kept increasing his power base by bringing the desert tribes under his control, until he had Mecca checkmated. - Merzbow 08:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest look at other sources too. It is not wise to just use one source POV on this sensitive topic. I have read some other story in Urdu source that refers to old arabic sources. --- A. L. M. 08:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see. Now I realize what is going on in this section and the underlying motive. The section is missing the entire point. Welch says" The really powerful factor in Muḥammad'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." --Aminz 08:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the motive is somebody made a suggestion that pointed out an omission, and I agree. Muhammad did not succeed by getting everyone in Arabia to convert and join him peacefully; as all histories make clear, thousands converted willingly and joined him, and he also had to fight thousands. - Merzbow 08:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "…underlying motive…"? I really doubt it.Proabivouac 08:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would like to tell the reader why Muhammad succeeded, it was "his unshakable belief from beginning to end that he had been called by God". Watt lists several important characteristics of Muhammad which caused his success among which political wiseness is only among many many others. --Aminz 08:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * People can speculate all they want about why Muhammad did what he did, but all we know for sure is what he did. And what he did was convert many and fight many; many joined willingly, and many were fought; simple history that we need to relate. - Merzbow 08:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Muhammad did a lot of other things besides warfare. This is a very simplistic way to describe how and why Islam was successful. I will summerize what Watt has to say about the "reasons for Muhammad's success" and add it in one paragraph. This is a major point. --Aminz 08:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * i will comment on the FAC page in a moment concerning this, but as with a number of Beit Or's concerns, i find the one concerning this section to be unreasonable. why we deem it necessary to single out Muhammad's military action against the three Jewish tribes, when none of the other (and frankly far more important cf. Battle of Badr, Battle of Uhud) military events are even discussed, when nothing of Muhammad's political life (Constitution of Medina- the very centre of the dispute with the Jewish tribes; the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, and so on) are similarly not discussed, is totally beyond me. the sentence ending with '.. establishing political and religious authority' covers all of the events of Medina, whether they were military or otherwise.  ITAQALLAH   16:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Prior to what I added, the article did not even mention the very important fact that Muhammad engaged in violence and warfare. Beit Or's commment that this gave the impression that he achieved his goals bloodlessly is very cogent. Since Muslims believe his actions as a general were justified by persecution or the perfidy of his opponents, I don't understand the objection to mentioning this. We can continue to discuss how to word this, and if we should mention other things also, but I think two sentences on his military activities are justified. I agree those two important battles should be mentioned, and perhaps less space spent on the Jewish clans. - Merzbow 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * i see no problem in a general statement mentioning the presence of both military and political activity. the second sentence of the two is on the right lines. selecting one series of incidences, such as the exiling of the Jewish tribes, over the multitude of other incidences, doesn't appear to be appropriate.  ITAQALLAH   21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added mention of Badr and Uhud, and greatly reduced the mention of the Jewish conflict (which I still think is notable enough for a mention). - Merzbow 21:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Medina
For historical accuracy, shouldn't reference be made to the former name of the city, Yathrib? Presumably that was still its name at the time of the Hijra. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to be universally referred to as Medina in all of the history books I've read... we'd just be confusing the reader. - Merzbow 02:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine. But see Medina and Muhammad. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 09:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * could we include a parenthesis like "(formerly known as Yathrib)" or something like that?  ITAQALLAH   11:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly what I meant. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, i've incorporated that.  ITAQALLAH   20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Challenge on the eternity of Qur'an
I agree with ITAQALLAH that this is too detailed for a basic introduction, especially as the readers will have no idea as to who the kullabiyya, ash`ariyyah, karramiyyah etc so I support his edition .-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Move "divine decree" to subarticle?
Any objections to moving the "divine decree" section down to the subarticle Aqidah in its entirety? Originally we had listed divine decree as an essential aspect of Islamic belief along with five other things (belief in God; his revelations; his angels; his messengers; and the "Day of Judgment"). However, I couldn't find references that support the claim that it's as important as these other five, and it very likely isn't because Qur'an 4:136 only does mention these five. So I think it's misleading to list it next to them. - Merzbow 17:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * well i think interpreting 4:136 in this way would be OR. there are one or two narrations (i.e. ) which quite clearly list what the essential beliefs are, wherein these six are mentioned. for secondary sources, see: Islam: Beliefs and Observances (2003, Caesar Farah). Chapter: The fundamentals of Islam: Beliefs p. 109): "The principal elements of worship in Islam entail belief in God, His angels, scriptures revealed to the believers in Him, the messengers, destiny (qadar), and the Day of Judgement." also see Classical Islam: A Sourcebook of Religious Literature (N. Calder, A. Rippin) p.144.  ITAQALLAH   19:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking this up. - Merzbow 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Divine decree is a controversial issue
This issue is extremely controversial among different sects. Not only have Muslim theologians different ideas in this case but also Sufis have their own interpretation. I propose removing this section or writing all of the interpretations.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Source for that section is Farah, but only Itaqallah has the full book (I can only see one page on Google Books). I've found a bunch of sources that list all sources of things claimed to be fundamental to Islam, Sunni only, Shi'a only, etc. I honestly don't think there is a consensus of scholars on this. I think it's best to not say the beliefs we list in the beliefs section are essential, only very important. - Merzbow 05:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are some beliefs which have been emphasized explicitly in Qur'an comprising belief in God; his revelations; his angels; his messengers; and the "Day of Judgment and some others which have been mentioned implicitly. In the later case each sect has its own interpretation such as Divine decree, Divine justice and Imamat.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

History section
I was about to revert again. Why do you remove the facts Merzbow? --Aminz 05:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My version says exactly the same thing in 1/4 of the words (except for the bit about China and India, which I don't think is relevant). - Merzbow 06:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, i don't think it says. 1. It doesn't say that Islamic civilization was most advanced in the whole world for all "medieval" the centuries; it rather compares it with Europe. In fact, comparison with Europe is out of place because it didn't even ranked third. Further, what are those many aspects? Isn't it already compressed by Lewis in: "richest, most powerful, most creative and most enlightened region" Summerizing it further is removing real information. --Aminz 06:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll grant you that the text supports saying "most advanced in the world" (I'll change it), but brevity is a virtue, and although "richest" and "most powerful" are factual statements, "most creative" and "most enlightened" are essentially value judgments, and for a balanced view we'd have to go into much more detail, which we don't have room for. (Creative in what ways? Enlightened in what ways? Certainly not in slavery). So better just to say "most advanced" and bypass all this debate. - Merzbow 06:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merzbow, I didn't get what you mean by slavery. I haven't seen any scholar saying Muslim practice of slavery was not more humane than European practice of slavery in Medieval times. --Aminz 07:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Slavery disappeared from Europe after 1066 (see History of Slavery); it was Europe that eventually forced the Islamic world to give it up. - Merzbow 07:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1066! you are not being serious. Please read the first two paragraphs here . Yes, the abolishion movement started in Europe in 19th century for various reasons. --Aminz 07:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this sentence is POV:Islamic civilization was the most advanced in the world during the Middle Ages, but was surpassed by Europe with the economic and military growth of the West. We can't prove it as a fact. I prefer to write the quotation of the scholar who believe in it e.g. "x" has quoted that "Islamic civilization was the most advanced in the world during the Middle Ages"-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which part do you think is POV. If it was a POV, lewis wouldn't have said it is "undoubtely" true. The main problem is with Karl Meier who writes his own view in front of "According to Lewis,X" as it "X" is really Lewis's view. --Aminz 09:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently I couldn't write what I mean correctly. I meant that we should write it as a quotation.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Perfect Man
. I disagree. Infact some Muslim believe that he could potentially do sins. mistakes --- A. L. M. 01:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what Britannica says:


 * "Muslims believe that Muhammad was the most perfect of God's creatures, and, although not divine, he was, according to a famous Arabic poem, not just a man among men but like a ruby among ordinary stones."


 * Can you provide another source that contradicts this? - Merzbow 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I've seen nothing on Wikipedia which would contradict this.Proabivouac 05:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Britannica. He is most perfect, best person. However, a person could never be 100% perfect and could do mistakes. If he is 100% perfect then he is not a person anymore. I will try to find source. --- A. L. M. 05:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I change it to "most perfect"? --- A. L. M. 06:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think "The best creature"(Khayr Al-baria)is better. I guess Perfect man is an expression which has introduced by Ibn Arabi. His emphasis, as with any mystic, lay rather on the true potential of the human being and the path to realising that potential, which reaches its completion in the Perfect or Complete Man (al-insan al-kamil).-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Creature" sounds kind of odd. "Most perfect man" sounds best. - Merzbow 07:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thx for the change. --- A. L. M. 17:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Perfect" is a superlative and thus there can be no degrees of it, ie. "most" perfect. Either decide whether "perefct" is applicable or not, but don't try to make all parties happy by simply committing a blatant (albeit common...) grammatical error... No such thing as "most" perfect... Perfection is, or is not. "Most perfect" only exists in obscure honorifics but technically it is incorrect. John 06:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. Reworded to "closest to perfection". - Merzbow 06:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds "perfect" LOL good wording John 08:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Prophecy and divine Revelation
There should be some information about the meaning of prophecy and divine revelation in Islam and I added it.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * re your comment on my talk page: sorry, i believed the change would be uncontroversial. i moved the discussion about prophets to the intro of the beliefs section, because the issue of prophets/messengers were touched upon there already so i thought we could compress the section into a few sentences and relocate it there.  ITAQALLAH   20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

collection and standardization of Qur'an
I added a paragraph about this issue but ALM removed it to reduce the size of the articleit. I disagree with him and believe this part is necessary. Please tell us your idea.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have to agree with ALM; the issue can be covered in the subarticle. - Merzbow 06:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can move some part of history if you concerned about the size.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the limited amount of space we have in this survey article on each topic, I think the details of its compilation are less important than what's there now. At most I would support adding a single sentence on the subject. Free free to add the whole thing to the subarticle, though. - Merzbow 08:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are some less important issues which have mentioned in the history section.

Masnavi had a profound influence on the development of Sufi religious thought; to many Sufis it is second in importance only to the Qur'an.''
 * During this time, the decadence of the Umayyads inspired the formation of a movement of ascetics led by a devout Muslim named Hasan al-Basri. This movement would evolve into Sufism
 * It was under the Abbasid caliph al-Ma'mun that the events of the mihna ("trial") occurred, in which theological dispute over the Qur'an resulted in the beating and temporary imprisonment of jurists, such as the traditionist Ahmad bin Hanbal.
 * ''Also of importance to Sufism was the creation of the Masnavi, a collection of mystical poetry by the 13th century Persian poet Rumi. The
 * , Humayun, and Akbar (later known as "Akbar the Great"). Although stable under Jahangir and Shah Jahan, decline set in after the death of Aurangzeb,

In brief I believe that whatever has been mentioned in the history section of this article has less importance than collection and standardization of the Qur'an. -- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * dear brother I agree with you, however still it will be good to "reduce" the size even more. Hence we could mention just one line about collection of Quran and reduce size from other places like history section too. We are very much out of desired size. -- A. L. M. 11:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Shi'a and Shahadah
Regarding this edit:. Momen's book doesn't list the Shahadah as one of the eight "ritual practices" of the Shi'a. The Practices_of_the_Religion article, which is completely unsourced, also doesn't list it as one of its ten practices. So I think we should make it clear that the Shi'a don't see it as a "pillar" in the same way the Sunni do. (If anyone can point to any reliable sources which give more information on what the core practices of the Shi'a are - whether there are 8 of then, 10 or them, or something else - please do). - Merzbow 06:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I'm a Shia and I know what you mean, but I think it may cause readers misunderstand the issue. They may think there is disagreement on this issue between Shia and Sunni while there's only different in importance. -- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Shia doesn't mention it among pillars because logically it relates to beliefs. However it's a confusing issue and I oppose to revert whatever I removed. -- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there is some way we can word it to make it clear that it is not considered a pillar by the Shi'a, although it is still important; otherwise we would be communicating incorrect information to the reader. - Merzbow 21:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried another way of wording this; by using the word "technically" the text now does not imply that the Shi'a consider the shahadah to be less important, just that they classify it differently. - Merzbow 18:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Sufism
It's doubtful that Hasan Basri is the origin of Sufism. All of the Sufi orders introduce Ali or Abu Bakr as their origin. In addition classic sources like Tazkerat al-aulia of Attar has mentioned some earlier figures like Uways al-Qarni as the first Sufis.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lapidus supports Basri as the creator of the first widespread Muslim ascestic movement (which eventually evolved into Sufism). I've seen no history book that supports Ali or Abu Bakr; that sounds like wishful thinking on the part of Sufis. - Merzbow 18:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Although classic literature haven't historic authenticity but we can't neglect them. It's important to represent what Sufis think about themselves.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * True; I haven't easily been able to find a source regarding this however. - Merzbow 03:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can find numerous sources in Persian but I don't know whether they have been translated or not. -- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * most Sufi orders claim their chain (sanad) goes back to Ali (only one or two trace it back to Abu Bakr); but again, where the origin of Sufism lies, and where it split from general ascetism, is a different matter.  ITAQALLAH   14:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The first book which has written and try to describe the orders of Sufis is طبقات الصوفیه in Arabic which has been written in the 10th CE by Mohammad Salami. I guess this book has been published in Netherland in 1960. Then Khwaja Abdullah Ansari and Attar used this book as their source.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 16:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there are several mistake in this sentence  the decadence of the Umayyads inspired the formation of a movement of ascetics led by a devout Muslim named Hasan al-Basri.

First, Sufism wasn't the result of the decadence of the Umayyads. Second, although Hasan al-Basri is notable but Sufism was not a political movement which had just one leader or founder. I will added the names of the most notable founders of Sufism En Sha Allah.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I am not sure if Sufism was a result of decadence; Ummayad's decadence I think has contributed to its development though. That early Sufism's idea of renunciation and detachment from worldly concerns for the pursuit of God was a reaction to Ummayad's pursuit of wealth and conquest does not mean the idea was completely new. There were earlier Muslims (such as Abu Dhahr) who were critical of the luxury lives of their contemporary who had recently become rich. We may want to point out that this was only early Sufism (Sufism was much developed later). --Aminz 09:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's made clear by the following sentence "This movement would evolve into Sufism.[67]". - Merzbow 16:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

re:
i think the previous expressions in both instances are more concise. with the Muhammad section - we have one paragraph summarising his life very briefly - there are a lot of events of importance not mentioned at all (Isra and Mi'raj, Constitution of Medina, Treaty of Hudaybiyya, etc.) it is thus appropriate that we retain this level of unspecificity rather than detailing one particular event.  ITAQALLAH  09:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with Arrow's change, which seems to me appropriately brief and factual, excepting that I do not much like the phrase "at the hands of," which is almost never used in positive contexts.Proabivouac 09:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Aminz, i think the recent edit (concerning the brackets) is too evaluative as opposed to a brief narrative of Muhammad's life. what do you think?  ITAQALLAH   09:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1.4 billion vs 1.3 billion
None of the sources in the Demographics section support a figure larger than 1.3 billion. If 1.4 billion is desired another source must be provided. - Merzbow 17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What about this? Islam by Country 216.99.51.128 03:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That won't do. See WP:V, WP:CITE, and other related articles wikilinked from those two.  Note, from WP:CITE: "Note: Other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources.".  Looking at Islam by country, I see that not all the figures presented there are supported by cited sources. -- Boracay Bill 03:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We're FA now!
Thanks to everybody for their hard work. This is proof that a controversial, high-profile article can indeed reach FA status. We are now perpetually obligated to keep it at FA quality; in other words, don't take it off your watchlist. - Merzbow 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * then shouldn't someone archive the FA discussion?--Sefringle 02:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations to all contributors. It is really a great article.
 * It is already archived Sefringle. Just click on "show" and you'll find it. It is done automatically. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  03:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We should appreciate whoever have worked hard on this article. There's a list of them . According to this list Zora and BhaiSaab have more than 200 edits. Then Aminz, FayssalF and Itaqallah who have more than 100 edits. In addition Merzbow has helped a lot to make GA and then FA article. I'll give branster to them and thank others especially who have done more than 50 edits in this articles.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Special thanks to User:Dev920 and User:Merzbow for their efforts and initiative. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  03:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations all round. BTW The contribution counter mentioned above has a delay of 34 days apparently, so excludes all recent contributions!  A 34-day delay must be a record for electronic data transfer. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

excellent work, congratulations. The mind boggles at the high FA standard exepected these days, but that's actually a good thing. It appears that it is now significantly harder to get "GA" than it was to get "FA" two years ago. dab (𒁳) 18:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The process is brutal, but I think it has to be; the average Britannica article seems to be better-written than most FA's have been until recently. It was massively helpful just reading through other FA nominations to see what typical objections would be; this is what turned me on to Tony's criteria, for example, which led to several more copyedit rounds. I secretly hope that the reason he didn't comment on the FA was because he skimmed the article and was happy with the prose, as opposed to just not having enough time. :) - Merzbow 18:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope it won't be regarded as POV if, as a non-Muslim, I add this sentiment to the congratulations: wa mā tawfīq illā billāh. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 20:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations. I didn't go through it close enough to support--only made a few comments.  Thanks to all of you who did the recent work bringing it to FA quality and, of course, to Zora for all of her work in the past.  Now, the real challenge is keeping it FA quality. :) --gren グレン 02:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The comments you did make were very useful; I think I fixed the last of them just a few days ago. - Merzbow 02:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Shia - Sunni split
The article implies that the split happened after the war between Ali and Muawiyyah after 661 "This dispute over leadership would give rise to schism in the Muslim community. The majority accepted the legitimacy of the three rulers prior to Ali, and became known as Sunnis. A minority disagreed, and believed that Ali was the only rightful successor; they became known as the Shi'a."

EoI says(Shia article): "'In the lifetime of Muḥammad, his close kin enjoyed a raised religious status of purity recognised by the Ḳurʾān. As his kin, there were counted the descendants of his great-grandfather Hās̲h̲im and, to some extent, the descendants of Hās̲h̲im's brother al-Muṭṭalib. They were, like the Prophet himself, not allowed to receive or to handle alms (zakāt) as these were considered unclean. In compensation for this exclusion they were entitled to receive a portion of the k̲h̲ums, the fifth of war booty reserved to the Prophet, and of the fayʾ [q.v.], property which fell to the Muslims without war effort. After Muḥammad's death, the establishment of the caliphate by Abū Bakr on the basis of a privileged position for the tribe of Ḳurays̲h̲ as a whole, and the confiscation of Muḥammad's property, deprived the Prophet's Family of the special status, as they were disinherited and lost their title to their Ḳurʾānic share of the k̲h̲ums and fayʾ. The Banū Hās̲h̲im vainly protested against these developments by refusing to pledge allegiance to Abū Bakr for six months. The disestablishment of the Family of the Prophet after his death was the ultimate motive for the rise of the Shia.'"

--Aminz 02:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Other problems:

"Tensions escalated into what became the first civil war (the "First Fitna"), in which numerous companions of Muhammad sought to avenge the slaying of Uthman."

This may imply that Ali was responsible for slaying of Uthman. We should explain this in more details. --Aminz 02:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I reworked the Ali passage per your second point. Have to think about your first point. - Merzbow 03:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's clear the historical split occurred after Ali's death. It may have had its ultimate roots in events before then, like those mentioned above, but there was no schism. Therefore I don't see anything inaccurate about the way it's currently worded; this additional detail should be added to a subarticle. - Merzbow 03:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Aminz 03:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We should mention that although the split happened after the war between Ali and Muawiyyah but there were disagreement about choosing Abu Bakr as the caliph from the beginning. I added this While a few of companions didn't accept him because they believed Ali ibn Abi Talib,the causin and son-in-low of Muhammad, was appointed by Muhammad.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the pages of Shi'ite Islam on the basis of an online version which may be different with the offline version.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
In relation to this edit of mine, please see where I've asked Itaqallah to clarify the point. I just thought it would be good to add a reference here on the talk page. --Aminz 03:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

the wrong concept about Islam which many are having
Assalam alaikum actually Islam was not found by Prophet Muhammed (P.B.U.H). many of the non-Muslims think Islam is found by Prophet Muhammed (P.B.U.H),as it is given in many of the websites also. Islam was started by first man on earth who was sent by God (Prophet Adam). Prophet Mohammed was the last Prophet sent by the God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hishad (talk • contribs)
 * In theory, yes; in reality, probably not. There was no Islam before Muhammad; likewise tehre were no muslims before muhammad.--Sefringle 02:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article makes the distinction between the secular and Muslim viewpoints on the matter, without taking a side. - Merzbow 02:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello I was looking through featured articles....
Do featured articles get shown on the main page? When will this article be shown? Thanks.--0rrAvenger 10:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A request has been filed, but it will probably take a while. - Merzbow 16:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pictures appear in the main page in the order they were featured. Articles no. The articles appearing on the main page are scheduled by User:Raul654, the ratified featured article director. Raul654 maintains a very small, unofficial list of featured articles that he does not intend to appear on the main page. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  06:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I propose to nominate it for especial day like Aid Fitr.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FayssalF, Do you know where this list is?--Sefringle 06:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really Sefringle. Maybe somewhere off-wiki? I've had a look at this but found nothing. You can ask him. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  03:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Denominational subtopic articles
I just attempted to use the Sunni and Shi'a summary-style subtopic articles to get information about internal organizational differences between these two branches of Islam and about possible differences between them regarding views on advocacy of Separation of Church and State (and, if interested, please see changes I have made to that other article). I wasn't too successful in finding the information I was after in the mentioned subtopic articles.

I had the thought that it would have been useful to me as an information-seeker if the subtopic articles on the various branches of Islam were structured similarly to one another -- with similar section/subsection headings and section/subsection ordering, and thought that I would pass that thought along here. -- Boracay Bill 23:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  06:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Tone
Hello, I'm not overly keen on the whole tone of this article. references like the following text

Belief in the "Day of Resurrection", yawm al-Qiyāmah (also known as yawm ad-dīn, "Day of Judgment" and as-sā`a, "the Last Hour") is also crucial for Muslims. They believe that the time of Qiyāmah is preordained by God but unknown to man.

Seem to me to be obviously written in the third person and feel condescending, as if stating that the believe system is not true. Would it not be better to change "They believe" to a more neutral "It is believed"? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.15.4 (talk • contribs)


 * No, because the passive tense is usually quite vague. It is almost always better to say who is believing, saying, or doing something than leave it up in the air. - Merzbow 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

POV
This artile is bound to have a bias and what caught my eye was teh so called Golden age between 750 and 1250. This is in fact at a time when the Arab conquests were stopped in the mid 8th century, the Byzantines launched successful counterattacks and when the Fatimid and Corduba caliphates emerged. The Crusades are mentioned only to mention Saladin's triumph in Hattin. A biref mention of these points regarding this age in my opinion would provide a more rounded version of the history of Islam and her respective kingdoms (which of course were far from united).Tourskin 22:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This name doesn't represent military advancement or political stability but it expresses cultural, social and economical development. Most of the Muslim scholars live in these years and almost all of the innovations and explorations have been done ion that time.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Inter-Religion task force
Please see WikiProject Religion/Inter-religious content task force. Do people who edit religion articles want such a task force? If so or if not, speak out. --Shirahadasha 17:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)