Talk:Islam/Archive 27

potential resource
Islamism’s New Clothes DECEMBER 22, 2011 The New York Review of Books Jean Daniel, translated from the French by Antony Shugaar 99.181.147.68 (talk) 03:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV in the lead paragraphs.

 * Muhammad (c. 570 – June 8, 632) was a trader later becoming a religious, political, and military leader. However, Muslims do not view Muhammad as the creator of Islam, but instead regard him as the last messenger of God, through which the Qur'an was revealed. Muslims view Muhammad as the restorer of the original, uncorrupted monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets.

So Islam was invented by Muhammad sometime prior to 632. Why isn't this reflected in the first paragraph, as it is with all other religions articulated with a history notable enough to discern the creator of the religion in question, al la Scientology or Mormonism? I noticed the same thing lacking on the Christianity article, and am about to raise the same question, it's clearly an NPOV breach, and is clearly a feigned attempt to legitimize a religion as being derived from a supernatural entity as opposed to being created by a specific leader of the faith and his other religious folks who penned their holy books respectively.

Could we get this fixed, please? I'd like to at least be able to tell myself this is an encyclopedia and not a place for people to type out their belief systems verbatim and go unchallenged in neutrality. 211.30.150.122 (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It says Muslims view him as such, and just after that it gives further info, so I dont really see any major NPOV breach :
 * For the last 22 years of his life, beginning at age 40 in 610 CE, Muhammad started receiving revelations that he believed to be from God. The content of these revelations, known as the Qur'an, was memorized and recorded by his companions.[86] During this time, Muhammad preached to the people of Mecca, imploring them to abandon polytheism.
 * The wording could be improved here a bit perhaps to reflect that historically this is how Islam developed.. Shaad lko (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've attempted a modification of the above. David Trochos (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is my suggestion on how the wording can be improved: "Muhammad reported receiving revelations from God that was later perserved in the Quran." Xareen (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems either to overlap with an adjacent sentence or to remove material about the compilation of the Qur'an.David Trochos (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Since the adjacent sentence already contains a citation, I am more in favor of keeping it. What you wrote seems the best at the moment. It complements the next sentence. I say we keep it until we get a better idea on how to rephrase the sentence.Xareen (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of ibada
I would suggest the word worship, whereever it appears is replaced with obedience or obedience with submission : "acts of worship (`ibādah) and Islamic law (sharia)" as the term worship is inaccurate - implying ritualistic and devotional type activities, whilst the Arabic term refers to a more comprehensive obedience with full submission to God - classical Arabic dictionaries define it as obedience, for instance Lisaan al-Arab or al-Qamoos al-Muhit. --Missyis21 (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * New suggestions really go at the bottom of the page instead of the middle. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a point worth thinking about though. Hmmm... David Trochos (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've now thought about it, and attempted some changes, bringing the text more in line with reference 2 (Patheos). David Trochos (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ian, am a bit of a newbie - thanks David for the update... my suggestion was worthwhile then - wahay I've contributed something to humanity - do you think the BBC would do an aritcle on me now? :) --Missyis21 (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2012
Sir, The Ahmaddiyya is not even a minor denomination.they are not muslim(not being extreamist it is the truth). Regards,

Aaimabc (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, they branched off from mainstream Islam, they call themselves Muslim, and they accept the Quran and the five pillars. From an academic, scholarly, anthropological, neutral standpoint, they may be classified as Muslim even if some people disagree for sectarian reasons.  Also, reliable sources call them Muslim, you have presented no reliable sources.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Change request
Taliban claim to be islamist but are they recognized as such by muslims scholars? Didn't mainstream muslims regard them as terrorist?

At any rate, it is suggested to improve the ending phrase of the paragraph "Jurispridence > Family Life", as Taliban is not a reference nor an exception to the standards; hence one could say : "Certain countries like Afghanistan, have enforced the veil onto women, while other countries like egypt have left this issue to the private realm".

Excuse me as I don't have in mind a sound reference to counter-argument Esposito's view (but I could search for it if asked) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khonsali (talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Were a reference supplied, we could change it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Terrorist = Extremists of Islamism     Mainstream Muslims =    those promoted as Mainstream  Paulthorne87 (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please present a reliable source for those statements. Plenty of terrorists are not Muslim at all.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Islam is a homograph
The word "Islam" is a homograph and has also the meaning of "peace", look up at Arabian wikipedia, there is written: "The general meaning of the word Islam is peace and submission to God, [2]", translated with Google. --212.144.20.132 (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Other Dieties
I see this article talks extensively about Mahomet, but why no mention of the other Muslim deities Termagant, Apollo, and Baphomet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubrath (talk • contribs) 02:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because they don't have anything to do with Islam. Termagant I've never heard of, Apollo is Greek, Baphomet is a Christian demon, and Muhammad is not considered a 'diety'. Allah is considered a diety in Islam, and, well, there aren't any others. Are you getting your information from 13th century sources? 72.28.82.250 (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * DNFTT. --Τασουλα (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What's Wrong? Why no GA status?
In this article, I found that it is extremely well cited. Anyway, what is wrong in it? Regards. Muhammad Mukhriz (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a record here of the most recent FA assessment, you can also check the links in the box at the top of this page for other Article milestones and assessments. If you feel that it meets the GA criteria in its current state, feel free to nominate it at GAN. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 12:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor Encyclopedic Language Issue
With respect, there seems to be a heavy use of religious phasing style in the article text that does not follow encyclopedic style. For example: "and that Muhammad is His prophet," (the quite symbols are mine.  This is direct text in the article and not a quote in the article). The use of "His" seems non-standard English. Should this not be "God's prophet," even if this may be standard usage in religious text or perhaps a direct quote should be used?

Another minor point is: "compiled in the 3rd century AH (9th century CE)." Seems to violate the use of CE as the standard timeline in the dictionary. There could be mention of the AH calendar elsewhere in the article.

To keep wiki consistent, writing styles should be the same crisp, direct and unambiguous language regardless if it an article on economic cycles, WiFi technology or religion. While the information is very informative, the language could use a good scrubbing by a good editor for wiki consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.157.252.114 (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * New stuff goes at the bottom. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "God's Prophet" seems inappropriate to me. If you read other encyclopedias such as Britannica, World Book and so on, they would not refer Muhammad as "God's prophet." Okay, I will edit the phrase to "...and that Muhammad is the prophet of God". About the calendar, for the Muslims there is nothing wrong to put the Hijra Calendar (AH) beside the Anno Domini (CE) Calendar, but I am not sure what the non-Muslims might think about this. Muhammad Mukhriz (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Official policy on dates (WP:DATE) includes this: "an article on the early history of Islam may give dates in both Islamic and Julian calendars" David Trochos (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks David Trochos, I guess I did not notice the policy (WP:DATE) until now. Now I have to obey the policies officially regulated by Wikipedia.  Muhammad Mukhriz  Wanna talk? 23:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Population
(I have added a reference for 1.6 billion followers and over 23% of earth's population because it has breakdown of every country and region. The reference is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read the edit summaries, or at least mine, you'd see that you can't use our articles as references, see WP:RS which says "Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ok. you can revert it back. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your cooperation is appreciated. If you don't know how to see and add edit summaries, let me know. Dougweller (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference
I have added a link for 1.6 billion population: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/10/09/pew-world-muslim-population-at-16-billion-with-minority-in-middle-east MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction?? or incorrect sentence structure??
About 13% of Muslims live in Indonesia, "the largest Muslim country",25% in South Asia,[10] 20% in the Middle East,[11] 2% in Central Asia, 4% in the remaining South East Asian countries, and 15% in Sub-Saharan Africa.

South Asia "the largest Muslin Country" with 25% or Indonesia? Should be reedited for better clarification. --ER 13:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)

ok, lol,... USER:Fat&Happy, yes the information is sourced. But the sentence doesn't make sense. How can Indonesia with 13% of Muslims be the "largest Muslim country" When in the same sentence it states that the middle east has 20%? This doesn't make sense. Because I am a nice guy I went and pulled an actual source that would support this much better, here it goes:

The largest Muslim country is Indonesia home to 12.7% of the world's Muslims followed by Pakistan (11.0%), India (10.9%), and Bangladesh (9.2%). --ER 04:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 (talk • contribs)


 * Middle East/South Asia is not a country. 146.87.52.53 (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Anon.


 * I've changed "largest" to "most populous" which I guess is more indicative of what we want to portray here. Shaad lko (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Concept of equality and Islam's attitude to Slavery
I have been dealing quite some time with the concept of human equality in Islam. I have been told that there is a very specific social tenet of social and human equality mentioned in this religion, the so-mentioned concept of Universal Brotherhood. I couldn't find any reference to most important tenet of Islam mentioned here. I do not think that any other religion does mention such a thing. Could one of the editors bring in this subject, with some element of how it is practiced in Arabic, and how it cannot be practiced in other languages of Asia, which are feudal.

Also, the issue of Arab Slaver traders, who were Islam, and could practice equality among themselves, but couldn't force themselves to see the enslaved as equal human beings. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Taking pictures of human beings is forbidden in Islam
Narrated 'Aisha (the wife of the Prophet): Um Habiba and Um Salama mentioned about a church they had seen in Ethiopia in which there were pictures. They told the Prophet about it, on which he said, "If any religious man dies amongst those people they would build a place of worship at his grave and make these pictures in it. They will be the worst creature in the sight of Allah on the Day of Resurrection." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majilis (talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Clarification This user recently removed a picture from the article, which was restored by several different users including my self. He justified the removal as above when contacted. I believe his goal with this post is to begin a discussion about removing pictures of human beings, based on my recommendation to him I can only assume. I have restored this section which was deleted by another user as a "Forum." Granted it is, seeing as the editor has already been blocked over this once, I feel that his suggestion should at least see some light. ''I am not a part of this discussion. I am only clarifying what I believe to be the intent of this editors post, based on previous interaction. Even though I am not a part of this discussion, I would appreciate knowing the outcome in case edits similar to those which resulted in this user's block come up again on this article.''  AndrewN talk  09:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but this seems like it's something where his confusion regarding Wikipedia policy should be taken up on his talk page, and the removal of the above was justified. Is there something I'm missing? Peter Deer (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally don't understand why this was deleted. It is a useful reference that can be used in the main article. There is certainly an aversion to making images of humans and animals in many islamic cultures related to prohibitions against idolatry that exist in all the Abrahamic religions, it's there in the Jewish/Christian 10 Commandments for example, and understanding the importance of this rule is something that any reader will find useful in their approach to Islam. Of course this rule is interpreted in many different ways by different scholars, and is practiced in many different ways in different Islamic cultures. Some moslems believe that all images of human beings, including TV images are idolatrous, and point to the way that 'celebrities' become almost deified in cultures that are saturated with film and TV, and that the 'hero-worship' these celebrities receive is in itself a distraction from the duty of applying all your worship to Allah. Other cultures have been much more liberal in their interpretation of this rule, and as I've added to the article, cultures like the Mughal, Turkish and Persian cultures have beautiful examples of artworks that depict human beings. The restriction that seems almost universal across all Islamic cultures is against depictions of the prophet himself, but even here there are historic examples of Islamic cultures making such images: "Muslims in India, Afghanistan, Iran, Central Asia and Turkey did have a rich courtly tradition of depicting the various prophets, including Prophet Muhammad, in miniatures. These miniatures were patronized by pious Muslim rulers, and were often richly illustrated with verses from the Qur'an, and the biography of the Prophet's life. Yet very few Muslims today, and even fewer non-Muslims, are aware of this rich heritage. " http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/05/why_islam_does_not_ban_images_of_the_prophet.html It's going to be difficult to reflect this complexity in a single article. River sider ( talk ) 10:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is one of relevance. Majilis is removing images on the premise that it is forbidden in Islam to make such depictions. As has been discussed exhaustively, Wikipedia is not censored, it is not a forum, and articles are written from a neutral point of view. Ergo, the removal of images on the basis of Islamic doctrine, regardless of the subject matter of the article, is contrary to policy, and the posting of Hadith dictating Islamic doctrine to justify such actions is not appropriate discussion for the talk pages. We're here to make an Encyclopedia: not a Christian encyclopedia, not an Islamic encyclopedia, not a Baha'i encyclopedia...an encyclopedia built on policies that have been constructed laboriously through consensus, and which does not include people cutting articles apart to meet their personal religious doctrines.
 * If the discussion were whether or not to include in the article the subject of the taboo of portraying living things, I would completely agree that's an entirely relevant discussion and the quote Majilis posted and the article Riversider posted are entirely relevant to that discussion. But that's not the case.
 * Now, if Majilis is wanting to change the policy, then that's a whole other windmill to joust with, but for the intents and purposes of this article those policies exist to keep edits like that from constantly wrecking it up, and so that discussion can resolve and move on. Peter Deer (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Peter, in Andrew's recommendation to Majilis, he suggested he should come and debate on the talk page. However when he came to the talk page and posted the relevant Hadith in order to open a discussion on the topic, you deleted it. I think you should have assumed good faith, despite his record of removing pictures from the article and been prepared to discuss this further, otherwise it looks very much like exactly the kind of censorship that you're rightly attempting to oppose. To get a balanced article we'll need to reflect all the various trends and debates within Islam, and Majilis is clearly well versed in one of these trends. Majilis also needs to learn that this is an encyclopedia article that is attempting to reflect everything that is known about Islam based on reliable published sources. It is not an article espousing or opposing Islam, it is not written according to Islamic principles, merely to WP principles, which is all we WP editors are capable of. River sider ( talk ) 13:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Peter didn't remove it, I did. I had not realized that there was actually a context to the original post, it appeared as someone spouting of their POV on an article talk page. And it appears to have been resolved already, but certainly the 'not censored' policy governs in this case. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made all kinds of errors about who said what and did what. Apologies if I've misrepresented anybody River sider ( talk ) 16:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured I was right with reverting his edits per WP:NOTCENSORED, but being a religious subject, I figured it would be best to let him bring it up here to discuss it with other people who have an interest in this page. He did have a valid point, and being a religious page, I didn't want to start a shit storm in case (by some long shot) there was some exception I didn't know about for some odd reason.
 * As for the deletion of the discussion, it's honestly not a big deal. I noticed it was gone when I checked, and reverted it.  Honestly, if I had not known the context of the situation, I would have done the same thing Carl did.  So no worries about that.
 * Bottom line is, the discussion happened, and there is now a consensus to refer back to if needed. Anyway, thanks for your input on the matter and hearing things out.  AndrewN  talk  19:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If it is helpful to you, there is a relevant discussion regarding images of the Prophet Muhammad which covers most of the same policies and ideas. As it has 25 archive pages, it should give you an idea how much we've gone over this. Peter Deer (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Taking pictures of human beings is NOT forbidden in Islam. The Prophet was specifically addressing images of Jesus, Mary, or other holy people inside the church, or other holy people connected to other religions. Camera pictures, videos or artwork of ordinary people are allowed.--182.177.63.22 (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The main idea of which comes from avoiding worship of form. This is exactly true. Pictures etc. of ordinary people are allowed. Worshiping their form through use of pictures as idols, isn't.--Sexy Kick 06:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not forbidden, in similar fashion for it not to be forbidden for Christians to eat shellfish. This is the biggest pile of nonsense I have seen a "fellow Muslim" come out with! --The Sea Of Sands (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Terrorism/Islamism (re-visited)
It was discussed, all not too long ago, as to why this article has virtually nothing on Islamic terrorism in it. It seems no one could/wanted to add anything to the article on this. There should be a short section on terrorism in a similar fashion to the criticism of Islam part, along with a link to the main article. Any thoughts? --Τασουλα (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it should under the criticism of islam section. Muhammad Bin Abdullah (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A criticism section is usually the mark of a badly written article. As for terrorism and other forms of extremism, they seem to be more of a history section thing to me, pertaining largely to Islam in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Other extreme movements within Islam should be mentioned only with due weight and in its relevance to Islam as a whole during their respective places in history. Peter Deer (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's an article on Islamic Terrorism. I added it to the See Also section at the bottom but someone keeps removing it. Canine virtuoso (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions
(Apologise about my spelling and grammar) I have been a great fan of wikipedia but I have seen a couple of problems like the Prophet mohamed images. I have read some of the faq about censorship. Just because (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored) that doesn't mean it to offend it's users. As wikipedia needs new users from a variety of background to keep it a neutral.

My suggestion is it possibe to hide some of this images by using ( (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Summer_Olympics) The sponsors table ). Therefore if you want to see it you will be able to press the show button.
 * I think a better idea would be to include that button but with it defaulted to open, so if you don't want to see it, you can close it. There are more non-muslims than muslims, after all.Canine virtuoso (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.138.230 (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Fastest growing religion
I deleted "one of the fastest-growing religions in the world." because this is dubious according to the linked article and not mentioned in any other Religions' articles.

Christianity

Growth rate: 1.38 percent

Adherents: 2.2 billion

Means in absolute numbers 30 million

Islam

Growth rate*: 1.84 percent

Adherents: 1.3 billion

Means in absolute numbers 24 million

(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2007/05/13/the_list_the_worlds_fastest_growing_religions)

Clickenglish (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The source does not mention that the claim is dubious. I really don't see a problem with it. The article is not stating that it is the fastest growing but one of. Just because it's not mentioned in other articles does not mean that it is wrong to have it here. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * By dubious I mean that there are several ways to measure which one is the fastest growing as explained in claims to be the fastest-growing religion. In absolute numbers it seems to be Christianity. In relative numbers, according to this article, Islam is no 3, after Zoroastrianism and Bahá'í. This claim is not mentioned in any of these articles' introduction. Why mention it here and not in those articles? It will only add to the myth that Islam is the fastest growing religion. Clickenglish (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again the fact that it is not in other articles has nothing to do with this particular one. Now originally the sentence read "Islam is the second-largest and one of the fastest-growing religions in the world.[14[15]]" You seem to be reading this as saying it is the fastest growing which is something the sentence does not claim. You also seem to have missed the fact that there are actually four sources saying that it is one of the fastest growing. There is the one you quoted above which is the link 14 in the sentence. Link 15 contains three other references, Islam Today, No God but God and Understanding Islam that make the same claim. The other link in that reference is for the number of Muslims Now with the addition of the Fastest Growing Religion there are five references that all say Islam is one of the fastest growing. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the same guidelines and rules should apply to all articles. If we reverse the question. Why should it be mentioned in the introduction? That there are several references to this fact is not a sufficient reason. It seems to be an often-repeated myth that Islam is the world's fastest growing religion and I think this is why someone has put it in here but not in the other articles where it could be added too. Clickenglish (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You keep saying it's a myth but you haven't provided any sources. If you want then add the fact that Islam is one of the fastest growing religions to other articles but I'm not sure why the Christianity article would need that information. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Per CambridgeBayWeather. This is solidly sourced. Treatment in other articles not relevant, & this is clearly notable for the lead. Non-issue.DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it was the fastest growing I could agree with you. But it is not, neither in absolute numbers or in percentage. Clickenglish (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Given this comment I can only assume that you didn't understand what was written above. Can you explain which part of what I wrote you are having trouble with. By the way this was supposed to explain that there are a large number of Muslims in what has been not traditionally thought of as Islamic not more Muslim majority countries. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have saved a compromise version of the article. Clickenglish (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep that looks good. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Five Pillars of Islam
As the phrase of Haji Bektash Veli "Whatever you're searching for, search in yourself, It's neither in Jerusalem, Mecca nor in the Hadj", the five pillars of Islam are not for Alevi people in Turkey and Balkans. They don't workship 5 times a day (namaz), they don't go for the Hadj. They also don't fast in Ramadans. Maybe that should be mentioned in "Five Pillars of Islam" section. --Cemyildiz (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sect section changing in ISLAM
There is no sect in ISLAM called ahmaddiyah, so my request is to change sect section in islam with some reliable sources you can watch videos of Islamic scholar on ahmadiyah that they are not muslims and not promoting right religion Practices and they are not in circle of islam because they belive that mirza ghulam qadiyani was last prophet and that is not true. Our beloved Prophet MOHAMMAD pbuh was the last prophet and seal of prophets and messenger. Your attention is highly required on this issue.

Rjab1 (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources used in the article describe Ahmaddiya followers as Muslims, based on their self-description, their acceptance of the majority of doctrines that mainstream Islam embraces, and the lack of disagreement in areas Muslims typically describe as fundamental (such as the five pillars). Dismissing them on a sectarian basis will not change the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Based on the above reply, consensus will be needed before any changes are done.  RudolfRed (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a sect in Islam named the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. One thing that I like to suggest to the author of this article is that Ahmadiyya Muslim Community does beleive that the most respected Prophet, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the last law bearing prophet. The fact that they don't beleive in the Holy Prophet as the last prophet is an accusation that other Muslims put on the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to show that they are no true Muslims which is completely wrong. 12:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Wikiknownow (talk)

Another Suggestion
Dear Author of the article Islam I thank you for adding the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community as one of the sects of Islam. There is a sect in Islam named the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. One thing that I like to suggest for this article is that Ahmadiyya Muslim Community does beleive that the most respected Prophet, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), is the last law bearing prophet. The fact that they don't beleive in the Holy Prophet as the last prophet is an accusation that other Muslims put on the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to show that they are no true Muslims which is completely wrong. I would extremely appreciate it if you could make that change. May God shower His blessings upon you and your loved ones, Amen. Wikiknownow (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on a discussion I recently had with another user, I am inclined to agree here. The article currently seems to be putting an undue amount of stress on the view that the Ahmadiyyas are not Muslims. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Why no section on Islamic extremism?
To many non-Muslims (especially in the west), the propensity to breed extremism and violent fundamentalism is one of the defining characteristics of Islam. This is in fact the only exposure to Islam that most westerners ever see. And it is inarguable that Islamic extremism is the most widespread form of religious extremism in the world today. So why isn't there a paragraph or two in the article dealing with the topic of extremism? It would certainly be expected of a truly neutral article to discuss the most widely-known aspect of a religion. Canine virtuoso (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably for the same reason that Christianity doesn't discuss the attacks by many fundamentalist Christians on science. Don't underestimate how powerful that section of Christianity is. Dougweller (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't looked for it there, but I agree. Is there a reason or are people just afraid to touch that aspect of either religion? Its there, whether we like it or not. May as well try to give a NPOV overview at least. Canine virtuoso (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a section in the article, Islam, which leads to Criticism of Islam and in turn to Islam and violence, Criticism of Islamism, Islamic terrorism and so on. The material would be too much for this article and has been split off into other articles but not in an effort to cover up or being afraid to deal with it but just the standard article is too large. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Criticism of Islam doesn't specifically deal with the subject, so you have to click a minimum of two links from Islam to get to an article that describes violent extremism in Islam. If the topic would take too much space, got it. At least a link on the main Islam page is warranted, I think. Canine virtuoso (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as this happens to Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc etc...I don't see a real problem with this. However, stating anything like "Islam is a violent religion, it breeds extremists" should really be stayed away from. Because historically, Islam hasn't been a 'violent religion' in the sense of what extremism and terrorism means today. Leonnatus (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is in fact the only exposure to Islam that most westerners ever see haha, what? You've never met a peaceful or progressive Muslim out there? Never seen a Mosque there you live? --Τασουλα (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fox news and right wingers are brain washing a lot of people. BTW, this is not an opinion (unfortunately).173.168.140.188 (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All news, right or left, are brain washing people towards their point of view. And yes, I have met peaceful Muslims. After 4 years fighting on the front lines in Afghanistan, I have met many violent Muslims, but some peaceful ones as well. Extremism is evil, regardless if they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddist, Pagan, Scientologist, Satanic or any other religion out there. Blanketing one faith because of the actions of a portion of that faith is prejudist. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army Infantryman (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This should not be hidden under Criticism of Islam. It's not a small and isolated issue. 32.97.110.55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC).
 * What should actually be discussed is the misrepresentation of Islam by western media as a religion that breeds extremism and violence. Any survey of acts of terrorism in the USA for example would show that far more of these acts are committed by fundamentalist Christians than by moslems, particularly if terrorism against abortion clinics was included in the data. Many of the RS's will also point out that movements with strong nationalist and anti-imperialist elements have been branded as 'islamic extremism', in a way that is not applied to such movements in countries which are mainly non-moslem. In a religion of billions, the proportion of true 'terrorists' is no higher than any other religion. River sider ( talk ) 14:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems there's already an extensive article on Wikipedia about Islamic Terrorism. I added a link to the article in the See Also section. Added it once before but it was deleted, so I readded it. Canine virtuoso (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it should under the criticism of islam section. Muhammad Bin Abdullah (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

American hooligans paid to stage protest
America is paying its hooligans to stage protests. America knows very well that the 99.9% of Muslims do not give a damn about ridiculous films and will not react in anyway. The Quran clearly says that if anybody comes to fight, you have to fight but if they insult Islam from far simply ignore them and don't give them the satisfaction of a reaction. America knows that the 99.9% of Muslims will not give them the satisfaction of a reaction. So they are paying the 0.1% to stage protests and use that to try and make the 99.9% Muslims feel bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsUtvOW6SR0

This needs to be put in the article of how the main people who control western countries who are atheist and are concerned only with their interests and their two servants that they use occasionally from time to time the Christian fundamentalists and European Jews are using fake Muslims, people posing as Muslims to cause trouble to the Muslim community. This is in contrast to China that is more interested in equality and rise of Asia and Africa and end of western de facto colonialism. All Muslim scholars are in agreement that these are manufactured protests to demonize Muslims and cause problems for the China-Muslim-Africa alliance. Real Muslims (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Youtube is not a reliable source (you may view the reliable sourcing guidelines here). If people are stupid enough to stage protests, people are stupid enough to protest.  The Antisemitic canard you're suggesting will not be included in the article.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You need a source for your recently added statement that all Muslim scholars believe that the protests are manufactured. Given the youtube vid you cite, it sounds too much like a No True Scotsman fallacy for me to assume that it is anything otherwise.  Plus, it's biased to limit the discussion only to Muslim scholars. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. YouTube is not a good source, and I highly doubt that all Muslim scholars think the protests are staged. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Tawhid definition under Etymology and meaning section needs to be fully defined
The definition of Tawhid currently written under the Etymology and meaning section states "Islām is defined theologically as Tawhid, historically by asserting that Muhammad is messenger of God, and doctrinally by mandating five basic and fundamental pillars of practice".

I think it would be a more thorough definition if one were to rephrase as such, "Islām is defined theologically as Tawhid, historically by asserting that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the messenger of Allah, and doctrinally by mandating five basic and fundamental pillars of practice".

--Anas93 (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There was a mistake in the article. The Prophets tomb is still in Madina and was not demolished. You could see many photos of it on Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Ramadan"
The fast is dawn to sunset not dusk. Minor important point. ThanksLeroyjohn 01/25/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroyjohn (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 January 2013
after Muhammeds names saw which means peace be apon you. Could you edit this in brackets and muslims belieave they are reverts not converts

94.170.73.178 (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:MOSISLAM. We do not add "saw" or similar praise after names, because if we did that it would be unfair to all other religions.  You wouldn't want pagans adding praises to figures in their religion, would you?
 * Also, what Muslims believe about how long Islam has been around is noted, but all of our article are written from a secular perspective. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above, only I would rephrase to say "all of our articles are should be be written from a secular neutral perspective. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of "Qu'ran"
I have noticed that the principle scripture of Islam is listed in the article as the "Qu'ran", "Quran" and even lowercase, "quran". Can somebody determine the proper canonical term and apply it uniformly throughout the article? I would do it but I'm not religious scholar, but I feel at least it should be uniform. Jefferson1957 (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC) ABCDE

There is no official spelling or "proper canonical term" for the Quran with the Latin alphabet because the word is native to Arabic, which uses a different writing system. There are several different methods of translating it, which is probably why there are different spellings throughout the article. Fhqwgads (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The term is sometimes spelt "Koran" and sometimes "Qu'ran" - this would reflect the fact that it is a transliteration of the Arabic alphabet, which, unlike the Latin alphabet, has 28 letters in it. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Heterodox
I removed the heterodox designation for several reasons; the source does not mention it, every denomination has been branded as heretic at some point, it has two sub-groups which are quite different so we would have to be more specific - something which Hamza Yusuf has also pointed out. <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk  12:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Primary source references
There are quite a few instances of referencing the quran as a source in this article. By Wikipedia policy, editors should avoid primary sources so I plan to look into cleaning up and some help would be nice. Sodicadl (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Misinterpretation

 * Jesus told his followers that he is soul of Allah (God). 100s of years later, the people who wrote the Bible or those who interpreted the Bible stated that Jesus is son of God. This is considered misinterpretation. See Son of man.
 * Islam teaches that Jesus is soul of Allah (God). See Jesus in Islam and then Soul.--Chilum aw charrs (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is all about the view of Islam, either a fact or not. It is stating that it is changed and corrupted, the word Tahrif itself doesn't mean "misinterpretation", but total change and corruption of sacred text. You can interpret that, but the definition of tahrif is "deliberately changing text". Not a 'unconscious' misinterpretation.

The list could go on. It is just a vocabulary meaning, you can't alter that. Tahrif just mean the corruption of texts. Runehelmet (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "There are two kinds of tahrif tahrif ma 'nawi (corruption of the meaning), and tahrif lafzi, corruption of the words."-Jesus and the Cross: Reflections of Christians from Islamic Contexts, page VII
 * "The technical expression is " tahrif," a word signifying to change, to turn aside anything from the truth. Then tahrif may be of two kinds : tahrifu'l-ma'nawi a change in the meaning of words; tahrif u'1-lafzi, an actual change of the written words."-The Faith Of Islam, page 237
 * "Early Muslim authorities, he said, recognise in theory two forms of tahrif, corruption: viz., tahrif-i-lafzi, “ verbal corruption,” i.e., corruption of the text; and tahrif-i-ma'nawi, corruption of meaning or interpretation."-The People of the Mosques: The Study of Islam with Special Reference to India, page 263
 * "Classically, tahrif was taken to mean a deletion or addition to the Bible's text, which encouraged the view that the Qur'an criticizes the faith of Christians and Jews."-Muslims and Modernity: Current Debates, page 166


 * But you've altered it. It doesn't mean corruption of texts, which is a pov word, it means two possible things, a change in the actual text, or a change in the meaning of the text. To say that tahrif means total change and corruption of sacred text doesn't match the definitions you give above. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It does match the definitions above? Wich one is contradicting the meaning of 'change and corruption of text'? This dicussion is about if tahrif either mean "change and corruption" or "misinterpretation" by readers. And I haven't altered it. Runehelmet (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't see a question or request anywhere in there.--Jacksoncw (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nail polish in accordance with Islam
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Poland company has released to market nail polish systems O2M, which allows to nail comes steam. Nail polish is not inconsistent with the rules of Islam, but the water during ritual ablutions before prayer has touched every part of the face and hands. Before this invention, a Muslim is required to remove the paint before each prayer or nail polish only during menstruation, because then they don`t˙ go to prayer. Varnish containing polymer that is commonly used in eye leaflets, according to the Croatian daily Glas Slavonia.78.2.89.249 (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no questions or request, please specify how you wish the article to be altered.--Jacksoncw (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues with Johnleeds1
As mentioned in this talk page in the section immediately above and in my brief edit summaries, wikipedia policy is to avoid using primary sources as references, which the user Johnleeds1 has done numerously. Again, see WP:NPS. The user has also used such sources in lengthy quotations numerously. Once again, see WP:QUOTE.

Before this user came along, the article was already long enough (>120,000) when it should be more summarized (see WP:LENGTH and WP:SS) and the point had been repeatedly established about moving the history section away from political history. I removed much but not all of those history sections edits. If johnleeds1 wishes, he/she can move them to their own articles if applicable.

Johnleeds1, you mentioned to me that “If you want people to make changes please just consult with them”. I did send you a message in the brief summary and on your talk page concerning your edits, even though that is not required Wikipedia policy.

Johnleeds1, you also mentioned that “I spent months researching all this and you should have just asked before doing a mass delete.” That you spent that much time is not exactly relevant to if an edit stays or not. Sodicadl (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Answer to Sodicadl
Over the last few months, I have done a lot of work to tie the Islam page to the other pages in Wikipedia about Islam, chronologically. I only put links to the other articles on wikipedia about actual events agreed to by every denomination and the historians. These articles have an important bearing on the development of the different denominations, as most the differences between these denominations are political. They are not about the concept of God, as in many other religions, as the concept of God is well defined in the Quran. So they differ on politics i.e. who has the right to rule. That is why the History section has expanded. If you look at the Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) or the Judaism page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiasm) they are also long with lots of links to other pages. These are old religions, with lots of followers.

I would like to shift the history section more towards the development of the schools of thought and the early books. I also wanted to include a diagram to show the links between the early scholars. I have already done a lot of work in writing the Denominations sections and showing people how Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, Muhammad al-Baqir, Zayd ibn Ali, Jafar al-Sadiq, Abu Hanifa, and Malik ibn Anas worked together in Madina. How Al-Shafi‘i was taught by Malik ibn Anas. Ahmad ibn Hanbal was taught by Al-Shafi‘i. How Muhammad al-Bukhari travelled every where collecting hadith and why he did it. During the early Medina period all these imams studied together and the chains of hadith narration show this.

The academics divide the history of Islam into Mecca Period and the Madina Period for the Quran. Then the Madina period of the scholars, where the views of the scholars are very close and books like Muwatta were written by scholars like Malik ibn Anas. Then the Kufa period where the schools of thought begin to diverge taking into consideration the different ethnic mixes, urban populations, old Roman and Persian laws in those areas, the Greek ideas and the problems the jurists faced. Then to reduce the divergence, ash-Shafi'i proposed giving priority to the Qur'an and the Hadith (the practice of Muhammad) and only then look at the consensus of the Muslim jurists (ijma), and analogical reasoning (qiyas), which resulted in jurists like Muhammad al-Bukhari dedicating their lives to the collection of the correct Hadith, in books like Sahih al-Bukhari.

To shift the history sections to the history of Islam, we need to change the titles as currently they are focused to towards the political history. Shift them towards important early scholars and their early books. These early books are a snapshot in time.

In the History sections we could have titles like

Muhammad and the Quran

Early Scholars of Madina and Muwatta

Kufa and Baghdad - schools of thought and Hadith collections

Safavids and Salafi

Modern times

Then I could fit the history into the development of the denominations. The history has an important bearing on the development of the denominations.

I have put a diagram on the Fiqh page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh) of the relationship between the different early scholars but it may be a bit complex for the Islam page. But it shows that all these early scholars worked together and the chains of hadith naration also follow these lines.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC) --Johnleeds1 (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * At first glance, your proposals for the history section as well as that diagram look quite impressive in my opinion. I do wish there would be more editors on the talk page to share their opinion on this. Let us keep in mind that according to the link I sent, WP:LENGTH, articles with a length over 100 kb almost certainly need to be divided and this article has grown to 161 KB. My opinion on how to divide the history section is that I agree with how it is at the moment. The current sections are associated time periods like “Abbasid era (750-1258)” while having “Safavids and salafi”, for example, would restrict the topic where it would be difficult to include information like deobandis and barelvis. However, this is certainly worth discussing and I wish the other editors would give their input as well. However, what you just replied is not exactly relevant to what I posted. You did not “only” put links to other articles. What I did remove was for the reasons I mentioned three times already. Again, see WP:QUOTE, WP:NPS. Also, fyi, the protocol is to use indent (this button --> :) when replying on a talk page and to sign your comment (hit this button four times --> ~). Sodicadl (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll make a few comments:
 * On the History section in general, I find it too long and out of scope for this article (even prior to Johnleeds1's recent additions). It's more of a history (i.e. a political history) of the Muslim world than a history of Islam. So, to a point, I a agree with Johnleeds1's comment that "I would like to shift the history section more towards the development of the schools of thought and the early books." I think it should focus much more on the doctrinal development of the various strands of Islam.
 * But I don't think Johnleeds1's execution of that intent is satisfactory. The political history is being added to, not reduced. Also, I find a lot of the detail added is inappropriate e.g. "Umar improved the administration and built cities like Basra and canal and irrigation networks. To be close to the poor, Umar lived in a simple mud hut without doors and walked the streets every evening."
 * Johnleeds1 does have a tendency to use primary sources (Quran and hadith) too much to support interpretative points. Mostly, their use doesn't conform to WP:PRIMARY.
 * In general, I think the history section needs to be be completely re-written. DeCausa (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Images take up a lot of memory, we could reduce the number of images. We could remove some of the images like the picture of the Tajik family
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Celebrating_Eid_in_Tajikistan_10-13-2007.jpg/170px-Celebrating_Eid_in_Tajikistan_10-13-2007.jpg
 * There are 4 pictures of mosques in the Modern times section
 * May be remove some of the photos of mosques like:
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/RoxburyMosque2.JPG/180px-RoxburyMosque2.JPG
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/National_Mosque_KL_2007_pano.jpg/180px-National_Mosque_KL_2007_pano.jpg
 * I tried to develop the Denominations section and added the links between the different scholars to shift the page away from political history to the scholarly works of these early scholars. The page needs to be shifted towards the books of these early scholars so that people could find out the views of these scholars and do more reasearch. On the diagram I only put the books actually written by these scholars.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's images that are the problem, it's the use of templates (i.e. stuff that's between curly braces like ). Also, while I haven't personally reviewed your changes, I don't think the focus should be on early books and scholars, though I agree with the statement that it should focus on religious history over political. I'd rather have it talk about theology and ideas and events in terms I can understand than tell me about early scholars and books they wrote. (I'm sure I am missing something and misrepresenting Johnleed's position, so please correct me where I went wrong.) I agree with what DeCausa said above about Primary vs. Secondary sources. The article should use secondary sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/National_Mosque_KL_2007_pano.jpg/180px-National_Mosque_KL_2007_pano.jpg
 * I tried to develop the Denominations section and added the links between the different scholars to shift the page away from political history to the scholarly works of these early scholars. The page needs to be shifted towards the books of these early scholars so that people could find out the views of these scholars and do more reasearch. On the diagram I only put the books actually written by these scholars.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's images that are the problem, it's the use of templates (i.e. stuff that's between curly braces like ). Also, while I haven't personally reviewed your changes, I don't think the focus should be on early books and scholars, though I agree with the statement that it should focus on religious history over political. I'd rather have it talk about theology and ideas and events in terms I can understand than tell me about early scholars and books they wrote. (I'm sure I am missing something and misrepresenting Johnleed's position, so please correct me where I went wrong.) I agree with what DeCausa said above about Primary vs. Secondary sources. The article should use secondary sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's images that are the problem, it's the use of templates (i.e. stuff that's between curly braces like ). Also, while I haven't personally reviewed your changes, I don't think the focus should be on early books and scholars, though I agree with the statement that it should focus on religious history over political. I'd rather have it talk about theology and ideas and events in terms I can understand than tell me about early scholars and books they wrote. (I'm sure I am missing something and misrepresenting Johnleed's position, so please correct me where I went wrong.) I agree with what DeCausa said above about Primary vs. Secondary sources. The article should use secondary sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Triming
I just found that there is a huge number of templates on this article that are not been displaced properly because they have exceed the number of templates recommended to be used by an article.I have tried to remove the chart that uses Template:Familytree and recommend that it should be made as a separate template or moved to another relevant article. The article also need a major trim off and the heading "Rightly Guided Caliphs, Umayyad, Abbasid era (632–1258)" should either moved to the relevant section or it should be shortened. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

References blanked?
The references in the article were not showing up, or is it just me? Checking the history of the article, this happened after the Allah template was added. I tried removing that and previewing and the references showed up again. I am not sure it has to do with the number of templates as I tried deleting the other templates and previewing and the problem still remained. Sodicadl (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I had an experience of this. And in my understanding this happens when the templates on a page exceed to a greater number and usually one gets a message * Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included. as there are alot of templates on this articles and the length of the article is also huge so this is by far the reason for the references to not show up and one might note that it happens only at the bottom of the article making the templates at the end of the page not to be included. So if the templates on the page are reduced i believe the problem can be solved. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Minor Sects / Varients?
Initial section - 'islam is one of the world's fastest growing relations': every religion claims the same thing. The fact this sentence says 'one of the' suggests it could be one of many or one of few. I think this sentence should be removed as it is propaganda and not fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.201.64 (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

After years of studying the religions of the world, Islam included, I have noticed something odd. In Afghanistan, the Pashtun people seem to follow a different sect. While I see no mention or Spirits, Magic or Spellcasters in Islam, the Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan cling very much to these beliefs, on top of their Islamic ideals. A good example would be the dotted tattoos seen on Pashtun warriors' hands, believed to confer luck and skill in battle (Tattooed on by a "wise woman"). Or the ornamentation of trucks, believed to ward off evil spirits. I haven't seen these anywhere else I have traveled in the Islamic world (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia). I could be my ignorance, but are these "trends" common across Islam, or is this unique to the Pashtun tribe? The Tajik and Hazara tribes do not seem to hold these beliefs.SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army Infantryman (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It happens in many parts of the world. Islam in parts of Africa sometimes maintain similar traditional beliefs. It's also true for all the major missionary religions including Christianity, not just Islam. The orthodox beliefs of the "new" religion are mapped on to the older local beliefs. There's an article on it: Syncretism. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Makes sense now, sort of like a culturization of specified religions. I just found it odd that is was almost minor, and tribal specific. Though I do not agree with some of the Article's points, but thats a conversation for another Talk forum. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army Infantryman (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you probably didn't spend enough time with the Tajiks, Hazaras and the so many other ethnic groups in Afghanistan. They all believe in these superstitions. It relates to palm reading, fortune telling, or even witchcraft and Islam prohibits this. However, some ideas are allowed. Those trucks usually have the names Allah, Muhammad, and religious text, as well as eyes and other nonsense. Religious text do ward off evil Jinns because these Jinns are invisible spirits who walk around everywhere on earth, including in people's houses. We can't see them but they are there. According to Islam, they also live inside each human. But my point is that this has nothing to do with Islam or any other religion.--Chilum aw charrs (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Al Qaeda
How is Al qaeda, a significant militant force and political player who's sole purpose is to advance the cause of Islam, mentioned nowhere on the page? --Jacksoncw (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "advance the cause of Islam" - that's a questionable statement... And Al Qaeda are obviously not as potent as they once were, btw. --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there a specific reason why all information regarding Al Qaeda was excluded from the article? If not, would anyone be opposed to putting it being included?--Jacksoncw (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * When was it excluded? Please provide diffs. There's a difference to it being "excluded" and no one thinking it's particulaly relevant. It's a little like asking why the Christianity article hasn't got material from Anti-abortion violence or Christian terrorism in it. DeCausa (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, there's is a stark contrast between not only the number of Christian terrorist acts but also the prevalence from that of Islam. They are certainly few and far between as opposed to Islamic terrorism. However, I'v changed my mind and don't want to put it in the article.--Jacksoncw (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sunni Barelvi
There is no mentioning of Sunni Barelvi Movement in the Article.which is significant movement in the world with in Islam.The picture showing various movements in the article does not show Sunni Barelvi as movement.<span style="font-weight:bold; color:green; text-shadow:grey 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em; letter-spacing: 2px; padding: 1px 3px;"> Shabiha (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a number of significant movements which weren't mentioned here. My guess is that this is because it's a general article on Islam, so only the most visible differences (Sunni-Shi'a-Ibadhi, fiqh madhahib, etc.) are included, whereas specific articles (Sunni Islam, Shi'a Islam, etc.) will break down the various sub-groupings. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pork
I came to this article to find out why Muslims don't eat pork. I couldn't find anything at all in the article! When I was about to give up, I noticed the Islam and animals link in 'See also', but that too only seems to devote one line to the subject. Am I missing something? The avoidance of pork seems to be a well-known fact about Islam and has been covered recently in the UK news because of the adulteration of supermarket meat products. Should there at least be a paragraph covering the issue? Sionk (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's covered (briefly) in the Etiquette and Diet sub-section of the Law and Jurisprudence section. The Etiquette and Diet sub-section has a "see also" to the main article: Islamic dietary laws which gives the Qu'ranic origin of the prohibition on pork. DeCausa (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, spotted it, thanks :) Sionk (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Karaite-Karaism or Karaimism"
Under "Denominations/Other Denominations" there is currently an entry reading: "Karaite-Karaism or Karaimism a transitional religion between Mosaism and proto-Shiism, was brought from Khorezm to the Sabians of the Bosporan Kingdom (Southern Russia) after the Umayyad attack of 712AD. [sourced here: ]" I am doubtful of the accuracy of this assertion, of the designation of any form of Karaism as a denomination of Islam, and of the accuracy of the obviously strongly POV-problematic source cited; I note that nonetheless neither that source nor the Wikipedia page to which "Karaite-Karaism or Karaimism" is linked mention it as a denomination of Islam. Is there a reason to keep such an assertion on this page? Lyrelyre (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will delete it. It is nonsense.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The edit history shows the text you mentioned was added by User:Budo, on 8 Nov 2012. Earlier versions were by User:Kaz, for example 16 Aug 2012.  They are the same person.  They are really talking about the Crimean Karaites - a group of Jews who for economic reasons claimed not to be Jews.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2013
Some Muslim authorities, especially among the Shi'a and Sufis, distinguish between the "greater jihad", which pertains to spiritual self-perfection, and the "lesser jihad", defined as warfare

Sunni claim this aswell, as much as the shia and sunni, check your own sources :) thanks in advance

Abouantar (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. <font color="#00008B">Pol430 <font color="#9966CC">talk to me  14:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2013
Hi, this is regarding the main Islam article. I just wanted to bring to your attention the fact that the Arabic translation of 'prophets' (as given in the Prophets section of the article) is wrong, as it gives the Arabic word's singular form. The pluralised form of 'نبي' is in fact 'أنبياء'. You can check this in the Hans Wehr dictionary (p.1105), the Aratools website (http://aratools.com/) as well as google translate. So please change the Arabic text in the aforementioned section to 'أنبياء'. Thank you.

Kafir Madrus (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you also provide the English pronunciation of أنبياء, because it's certainly not pronounced nabī (as the article would say if I made the edit). ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, so I would say the correct romanisation would be anbīa or anbīa', with the apostrophe to indication the 'ء', which is pronounced as a glottal stop. Personal I would include the apostrophe, otherwise the word could be أنبيا, but I am not sure if wikipedia has some sort of standardised way in which romanisation of Arabic is done. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kafir Madrus (talk • contribs) 21:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done: assuming good-faith as I am not familiar with the Arabic language. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Rigorous?
There's nothing rigorous in religion, certainly not the Abrahamic ones. Suggest text in the "God" &sect; be redacted to "rigid monotheism". Rigour is a property of modern intellectual sectors such as mathematical rigour Still think this is wrong/misleading but per edit I just made to rigor this would be valid in the sense of "hard" which is not what "rigor" in works of the mind means in a modern context. It would be inconsistent not to support the usage that doesn't fit there here where it does. "Exacting" or the like would obviate the equivocation. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's you who is mistaken, in particular assertion is not refutation. Suggest as you do not appear to be a native speaker of English that you defer to those who are on matters of English usage. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I read you post on Talk:Rigour. This made it clear that you had no idea about religion in the real-life world.  You could only understand it in the context of the film Star Wars.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th edition, pub Oxford University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-19-860572-2 page 1233:
 * Rigourous (1) extremely thorough, exhaustive, or accurate. (2) (of a rule, system, etc.) strictly applied or adhered to > adhering strictly to a belief, opinion, or system (3) (of weather) harsh.
 * Rigorism extreme strictness in interpreting a law or principle > The Roman Catholic Church doctrine that in doubtful cases of conscience the strict course is always to be followed.
 * --Toddy1 (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Islam template
Is there a reason why the Islam Template is not collapsed by default? Otr500 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of the "An overview of the major schools and branches of Islam" diagram
An editor has removed the "An overview of the major schools and branches of Islam" diagram today. Please can we have a discussion of whether it should be deleted or whether it should stay. This diagram replaced an earlier one "Some of the major movements in Islam".

The diagram is very imperfect in that it does not mention two of the Islamic sects commonly mentioned in the press: the Salafists and the Wahhabis. In that respect the older one is better. However the older one does not mention the Twelvers, who are so often promoted on Wikipedia, almost as if they were the only Shias.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Citation dump

 * }
 * }

Heading image change (suggestion)
I suggest that the article main image at the top is changed to this image, the featured image of this topic.



Perhaps it would be better to change it to this image, which is much more suitable to the article scope as it is a much better visual renedition of what the caption says the purpose of the picture is.



I would suggest this be done quickly as the current image is useless as a visualisation of the article subject and is clearly VERY low-quality. This would definitely lower the aesthetic of the actual article.



--Speeditor (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Reason
There are 3 reasons why i reverted Adjwilley. Firstly the MOS was wrong, at 530 px the image took up the entire screen. Secondly, i removed original research from the first paragraph. Thirdly the second part i removed i moved to the Zaydi article, so i see no reason to have duplicate information accross two articles. <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk  20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Responding to your concerns: The reason the images are large (they take up less than half a screen on my laptop) is so that the text in the images is readable. Make them too small and the major branches/schools image becomes useless. There are other more elegant ways to adjust image size than forcing a certain number of pixels, so we can work on that. On your concern about the original research, could you please specify what precisely is original research? If you're talking about the paragraphs that have the Quaran quote, you'll notice that the quote is to illustrate a point, but the bulk of the material (eg. Sunnis accepting the first four caliphs after Muhammad) is supported by the Oxford Islamic Studies Online source. Lastly, on having duplicate information across several articles, I would point you to WP:Wikipedia is not paper. We don't have to worry about saving paper, and it's ok to have some of the same information in multiple articles, especially if it's a brief and relevant overview of some of the larger branches of Islam like the paragraphs you blanked. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the part about the four caliphs. Its still there. As for adding content about all the sub-groups, that would be a counterproductive thing to do, because if we devote time to Shia subgroups, we're gonna have hanafis demanding their subgroups covered, then Ahle Quran to have theirs covered, then all the Sufis have theirs covered and it would simply be a mess. <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk  21:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, that sounds like something I would say :-) In this case, however, we're talking about the two largest subgroups of Shi'a (the second largest branch of Islam). Comparing that to Sufis (many of whom identify as either Shi'a or Sunni) isn't really fair. Anyway, here's what I'd like to do. My main concerns here are preserving the cited and relevant information and making sure the picture is readable (which it is currently not on my screen). For the picture, I suggest we experiment and make use of the Upright=1.x option, which should make it bigger, but not make it take up all of your screen. On the Sunni paragraph I'd like to add back the bit about the caliphs being elected, which was cited to a secondary source, but leave out the Quaran quote. On the Shi'a section, I'd like to add back some of the information in the paragraphs on Twelver and Zaydis, condensing the Twelver information to one paragraph instead of two. How does this sound to you? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine with the pic, i'm cool. I dont mind adding back the Sunni bit wthout the original research. Regarding the Shia, i dont mind it condensed, but i hope you remember that there are other Shia groups which have more historical significance than Twelvers such as Ismailis who had the Fatimids. Also there are some diacletical groups with much historical significance such as the Mu'tazilites. Lets work it out as we go along. <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk  07:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But please remember that size is not necessarily a determining factor. WP:WEIGHT says that viewpoints are featured "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method  <font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk  09:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, i dont see why you feel the need to be so repetitive. The sentence you want to re-add is also in the Shia section. <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk  09:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I enlarged the images to where the captions are readable on my screen. I used the Upright command. The 3.0 can be changed (eg. 2.5, 1.5, etc) to make the images larger or smaller. If you wanna check and make sure that they're not taking up your whole screen again that would be great. I'm no expert on images. I'll get to the other stuff in a bit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Military
The following section states women, children and civilians but the reference only says women and children. "In Islam there is also no compulsion in religion, as stated in surah Al-Baqara 256 in the Quran[110][111] and there are clear limits imposed, for example, in war Muhammed prohibited the killing of women, children and civilians.[112]" Please add additional references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.242.232 (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree - many of banu qurayza jews he had executed were clearly civilians, and he may of ordered the beheading of a woman who lost her sanity when she saw her husband being killed. Does need another ref, doubt you will find one as it comes across as untrue.--85.210.99.191 (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the following paragraph - it is original research from religious primary sources - the Koran and Hadith. In addition the linking of the first statement about compulsion and the second statement about limits in war is clearly synthesis:
 * In Islam there is also no compulsion in religion, as stated in surah Al-Baqara 256 in the Quran and there are clear limits imposed, for example, in war Muhammed prohibited the killing of women, children and civilians.

--Toddy1 (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Terrorism?
Why is there no mention of modern times Islamic terrorism? Half of all terrorist attacks are attributed to Islamic persons. And the other "unknown/unspecified" terrorism fatalities happened in Islamic regions such as Iraq and Afghanistan, or in regions where Islam is otherwise involved in conflicts such as the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, southern Thailand and Kashmir.

Also, isn't Islam the only religion where its denominations have continued to kill each other? Yet, there is no mention of this.

From http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AboutSite.htm [Copyvio redacted]

I know encyclopedia articles are intended to give a historical, neutral and worldwide perspective, but this article gives no mention of any of the above. Islam has some very unique negative characteristics.--Loomspicker (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For the same reason that bombing of abortion clinics, hatred and mistreatment of the poor, the oppressed, and the downtrodden; and white supremacism aren't mentioned in the Christianity article: a few crazy people, or hell, even a good chunk of one of the most powerful nations on the planet do not accurately represent the religion in itself.
 * Also, Thereligionofpeace.com does not meet our reliable sourcing guidelines, as it is a bigoted site and nothing else. Don't believe me?  Replace "Islam" with "Judaism," and you'd immediately go "gee, that's anti-Semitic, and ignores the vast majority of Jews who are just normal people by overrepresenting select crazies, and combining out-of-context clips with xenophobia."  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Those other articles are small fry of one-off incidents, whilst these are persistent ongoing incidents.--Loomspicker (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "hatred and mistreatment of the poor, oppressed, and the downtrodden" bit is about 40% to 50% of US voters in any given election; and the other parts have comparable numbers and activities to Islamic terrorists (i.e. things the FBI and CIA are constantly worrying about); while the "persistent ongoing incidents" is more a result of you having a skewed view of reality because you've brainwashed yourself with lies created by xenophobic bigots. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhh, what? I am talking about a religion here, not a political party. So FBI statistics are created by "xenophobic bigots"?--Loomspicker (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Republican Party gets a good chunk of its momentum from the religious right, which is mostly nominally Christian; and they all but advertises themselves as the Christian party. And actually, most acts of "Islamic" terrorism are merely political as well, either angry about Palestine or Afghanistan (which is why Malaysia, a majority Muslim nation, doesn't really bother the West much).  You've cited no FBI statistics, you've cited a bigoted site that would lie or misrepresent said statistics.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See end of first sentence....--Loomspicker (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And most of the people who bomb abortion clinics are Christian. Obviously, all Christians are murderers! See the fallacy you're presenting? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No I did not present that, I presented that in terms of numbers of terrorist incidents driven by religion, half are attributed to Islam, despite only 22% of persons being Muslim. Very few followers of Islam are terrorists, however most terrorists are Muslim. Why are other religions/groups nowhere near in terms of numbers? In 2008, 8,284 Islamic attacks, the next biggest group is Christian at 932. Not even close. This is an ongoing trend as shown by FBI stats.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That half of terrorists are Muslims says nothing about Islam, that's what I'm pointing out. If you want to add that, go to the Christianity article and add a section about how almost all abortion clinic bombers are Christian.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you focusing on one particular act of Christianity? I am talking about terrorist incidents as a whole, not all the beheadings/suicide bombings they do etc.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are you focusing on one particular act of some Muslims? This isn't the article about terrorism.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because half of all terrorist incidents of the modern day are by Islamists, according to the FBI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomspicker (talk • contribs)
 * Since the majority of terrorist attacks in the 1960's-1980's seem to be from Catholic/Protestant conflicts, why don't you head on over to Christianity and add a section about "Christian Terrorism" there? Then we may be able to use your additions to pattern the follow up here. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  19:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They were responsible for half of all terrorist incidents? I somehow doubt that.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Look, we get it, you're scared of Muslims. However, Wikipedia is not built around your fear, or your attempts to justify your fear by hypocritically misrepresenting facts about a minority as if it says anything about the majority. You're not gonna accomplish anything with this line of discussion except wasting space on the servers and annoying a few people. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Peace Be upon you all, for those who think that Islam is a terrorism religion, I'll answer you in two verses from the holy Quran : so according to the these verses, Qaeda's Improper conduct is not Islamic at all.. , My talking is certified with the sourced of the Holy Quran, the Essential reference for the Muslims. so? factually, I still in 14, but I wanted to answer your questions about Islam.. I hope that my answers were clear for you. if you have more questions please visit these sites:
 * 1)  (Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly) 
 * 2)  (Allah only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion - [forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers) 
 * 3)  (Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment) 
 * 4)  (Say, [O Muhammad], "O people, if you are in doubt as to my religion - then I do not worship those which you worship besides Allah; but I worship Allah, who causes your death, And I have been commanded to be of the believers) 
 * 1) to answer your question about islam, click here
 * 2) to chat about islam, chat here
 * 3) to read the Holy Quran, click here
 * 4) to watch videos about this, click here
 * 5) More websites

My references
--蛙莫格倫 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Last Caliph of Islam?
According to many Muslims the last caliph is Ali ibn Abi Talib (the forth Rashidun caliph) not Abdulmecid II... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.76.109 (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Muslim majorities
Please mention Muslims majorities in the balkans, Albania, Kosovo and parts of Eastern Europe you are missing then out these are Muslim majority countries that have not been mentioned at all. Islam is not just restricted to Asia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.12.251 (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

First Picture Description
who wrote that? we gather everywhere to pray in unity! Maybe it should write Muslims gather there for spiritual cleansing for Hajj or something rather than "pray in unity". I think it's not a good description.--In Allah We Trust (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Muslims gather there to pray in unity?


 * Probably should say something like "Muslims worldwide gather there to pray in unity".--85.211.117.11 (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be "Muslims from the whole world gather there to pray" Fai  zan  16:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting the Prophet of Islam instead of His Name
Most of you know that most of we Muslims take it as a grave deed calling Our Beloved Prophet his forename without adding some phrase to praise him. In our belief Allah warns us so: "Do not make [your] calling of the Messenger among yourselves as the call of one of you to another. Already Allah knows those of you who slip away, concealed by others. So let those beware who dissent from the Prophet's order, lest fitnah strike them or a painful punishment.(Quran 24:63)" Therefore I suggest calling him in all English Wikipedia as the Prophet of Islam replacing all "Muhammad"s (sallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam) with the Prophet of Islam including occurrences in the article about him except its title. We are obliged to follow Article 18 of UDHR: "'Everyone has the right ... to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.'" Concerning worship: Observance of commandments of Quran is essential in worshipping Allah in Islam. Most of Muslims cannot add information which includes his name to Wikipedia because we cannot write his forename solely without any praising phrase. Other than that, hundreds of thousands of Muslims cannot read such occurrences of his name without feeling uneasy, because of the commandment I quoted. So we all have to figure out a neutral phrase where most of us can read without feeling discontentment. Also this way, some actions which are seen as vandalism by non-Muslims will come to an end in the future, I guess. I added this opinion in the talk page about Him. I think it is necessary to add it here, too.

So, this problem must be handled. I assume the phrase "the Prophet of Islam" is the phrase that we can end this conflict with. Using bots this can be handled in time. What will be the decision?--SeyitC<font color="Maroon">mesaj 21:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seyitserdarcihan (talk • contribs)
 * See Talk:Muhammad. Please don't open multiple discussions. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  21:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Main Infobox
Can we apply Infobox religion to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninniuz (talk • contribs) 10:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Reason For Muhammad Prophet To Leave 'MECCA' And Go To 'MEDINA'.
Reason For Muhammad Prophet To Leave 'MECCA' And Go To 'MEDINA'.

Muhammad prophet left Mecca and settled to Medina because his enemies were troubling him. -divyesh.N.V.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divyesh nandlal (talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Other denominations

 * Yazdânism, which is composed of Yâresânism and Êzidîsm and much closer to Zoroastrianism than Islam, is seen as a blend of local Kurdish beliefs and Islamic Sufi doctrine introduced to Kurdistan by Sheikh Adi ibn Musafir in the 12th century.88.246.161.238 (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Instances of female circumcision and aposthia in Islamic tradition
I have heard that the topic of female circumcision is barely mentioned in the Quran if at all, and the ancient Egyptians were historically the first to practice it. However I have some religious questions concerning it's origins and occurrence. Could an Imam Marja or Shaikh please tell Wikipedia when the first female circumcision is said to occur and why, was it to create a covenant like Abraham; was eve circumcised Eve? Also are there any cases of female aposthia that are mentioned in Islamic literature outside of the Quran, is it considered a sign of some kind of great ability when it occurs in women? Lastly, what do the traditions say about Karina the first female Djin, was she circumcised or born with Aposthia? Thank you for answering questions of this nature, I know this is one of the most overly emphasized aspects of Islam in Media, however much education is still needed on the topic.CensoredScribe (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Major 3 Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or Major 4?
We have a talk about considering another important Abrahamic religion or not? Please come and participate in our talk in this page  Abrahamic-Religions --Wiki hamze (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Misspelling
Under the History section, subsection "muhammed" the city name is misspelled in one instance as "Madina" instead of "Medina." I would have changed it but the page is locked. Someone with editing privileges should fix this. -Dave K.
 * Done--Toddy1 (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

upgraded summary for the two branches of Ahmadiyya
Can someone please verify if this is a good upgrade? No text nor sources were removed, this is intended to be a straight addition, with some alterations to give more specifics. The sources were provided by User:Saleemthebody, but my *own* understanding of this particular split-denomination is entirely from *wikipedia* articles, which we all know may not be 100% trustworthy in all cases. :-)

Ahmadiyya is an Islamic reform movement (with Sunni roots) founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that began in India in 1889 and is practiced by over ten million people around the world. Ahmadiyyas are divided into two subgroups, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (5th Khalifa of Ahmad the subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (6th Emirate of Ahmad the  second coming).

If this suggested version passes muster, please stick it into the article for me, since the page is locked down, and Saleem has not gotten back to me. If any troubles crop up, please ping my talkpage, I'm unable to create a watchlist-entry for this talkpage. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

p.s. See analysis of WP:UNDUE over here. User_talk:Sp33dyphil TLDR, I don't think two sentences is overblown, even if they are pretty dense with links and sources. 10M people is a good-sized chunk. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

ISLAM
Respested Sir, I am a Muslim I read this topic(ISLAM) on Wikipedia but in this topic our Prophrt MUHAMMAD(Peace be upon Him) name come without Peace be upon Him or(PBUH) I request you kindly edit this or give me authority to edit this topic. I am very grateful to you.

Best Regards, MUHAMMAD IRFAN

Irfan447 (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please see Manual of Style/Islam-related articles. --Stfg (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Redirect Needed
Please add {{Other uses|Bomb (disambiguation)} to the page to help redirect all of us infidels. Thank you 76.200.118.133 (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Text regarding Usury needs to be edited.
Please change 'Usury allows the rich to get richer without sharing in the risk' TO 'Usury which allows the rich to get richer without sharing in the risk is prohibited in Islam'

183.83.203.146 (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Thank you. --Stfg (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

but how do they know when it's islamic new year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.230.199 (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

No moon symbol?
Many Islam buildings have a moon symbol on them, so how come the symbol isn't in the article? GMRE (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See Crescent for the present significance of the crescent moon in Islam. Apart from this, I think material can be included here, too. —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:Roman;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 16:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Some modern buildings have it but the old mosques did not have a moon symbol. If you visit old cities like Cairo and many other old cities in Muslim majority countries and look at old mosques, they do not have a moon symbol. If you read old book you find that the original mosques in Madina like Masjid Al Nabawi and Masjid Quba in Madina during the time of Muhammad just had four walls and a reed roof along one of the walls. They were very simple and were used as places for education and most of the money was spent on education and feeding the poor in their community, not on the buildings. It says nothing about a moon symbol anywhere in the old Muslim books and there is nothing about a moon symbol in the Quran --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Demographics
It should be mentioned that Islam had 1.9 billion followers in 2000, now they have 1.57. One reason is because the Muslim birthrate are now normalising in the West. The second could be that the Muslim birthrate is stagnating in most parts of Asia. Why is there no mention of the millions of Muslims converting out of Islam? And the increased persecution in the Middle East and Asia in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookieballer (talk • contribs) 23:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What is the source for the 1.9 bln muslims (yr 2000) number ? The article (cites the) claims, that Islam is fast growing - not decreasing ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Distinction: Islam vs. Muslims
I wish to reopen the discussion waged previously (at least once, for example as “Muslims believe this, Muslims believe that”, from 19:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)) about making the distinction between Islam, the religion, and muslims, its followers – because there are significant differences between the official teachings of this religion, and what its followers make of it – just like there are significant differences between the Pope and the Vatican vs. Catholics.

The notion that ‘Islam’ is not preferable to use as the subject of many sentences or verbs, I think is not tenable. First of all: Islam happens to be the subject of the article, so there is good reason why the article’s statements should be about it. For statements about muslims, there’s a separate article about them.

Second: the argument that ‘Islam’ is ill suited as the subject of many verbs because it is an abstraction doesn’t hold up – Islam isn’t just some abstract idea (like the word ‘idea’), but a full-fledged religion with all the trappings (see the article!). Key source materials; normative statements and example by its authority figures etc..

Thirdly: the argument that one can’t make categorical, broad-sweeping statements about Islam, and that it would therefore be better to make equally categorical, broad-sweeping statements about its followers, makes no sense.

Fourthly: when such categorical, broad-sweeping statements about muslims go into what they believe, there is the additional scientific challenge of backing that up with suitable research / sources.

I therefore argue to let statements about Islam be phrased as such, as much as possible, and to be channeled through statements about something distinguishable from it, as little as possible ! --GeeTeeBee (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion you are referring to is at Talk:Islam/Archive 16.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC) (The user who raised this issue in that discussion has a very impressive block list.)--Toddy1 (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, but how is that users block-list relevant to the arguments ? What is your argument ? --GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have as yet not made an argument on the talk page. I have merely provided links relevant to the discussion you referred to so that people can think about the issues.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Islam & Sharia law vs. the To-do list for this article
The To-do list for this article states that it: ".. should cover the fact [?!] that sharia law is only a personal law b/t someone and God (not a political or non-Muslim law), ..".

This is not a fact at all ! This seems to be an opinion of the editor, and far from neutral !

The fact is that, according to the article "Application of sharia law by country", about ten countries have applied sharia law in full, or for the most part, including application of sharia (elements) in criminal law.

Another thirty (or more) countries apply sharia law at least to matters like ".. marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody ..". Even though this is termed (personal) Status law, it regulates an individuals position ".. in regards to the rest of the community ..", in other words: between a person and other persons, not just ".. b/t someone and God.. ".

As for how sharia is intended to be used, a neutral article should be very careful to reach a conclusion, and should certainly look at various sources. One aspect worth mentioning is the sharia concept of Jizya, ".. a per capita tax, levied on [...] an Islamic state's non-Muslim citizens ..", which is clearly a law pertaining to non-muslims ! --GeeTeeBee (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Moreover: the lead section of this very article states, that sharia law: ".. touches on virtually every aspect of life and society, providing guidance on multifarious topics from banking and welfare, to warfare and the environment ..". --GeeTeeBee (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2014
Tighten up prose, and fix accidentally-mangled parens, of the first entry in the Islam subsection. Please change:


 * Ahmadiyya is... ((no changes)) ...two subgroups: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (5th Khalifa of Ahmad, who believe Ahmad to be the second coming) and subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (6th Emirate of Ahmad, who believe him to be the second coming), but not a prophet.

To:
 * Ahmadiyya is... ((no changes)) ...two subgroups: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (5th Khalifa of Ahmad the second coming plus subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (6th Emirate of Ahmad the second coming only).

Thanks to for fixing up the accuracy of my original suggestion made at Talk:Islam. This change-request is not intended to adjust the meaning of the words currently in mainspace, but merely to fix parens and omit needless words.

74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I tried to keep the original wording. It now looks like this:


 * ...two subgroups: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (5th Khalifa of Ahmad, who believe Ahmad to be the second coming and subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (6th Emirate of Ahmad, who believe him to be the second coming, but not a prophet).


 * I wasn't sure if "but not a prophet" was unnecessary, so I left it in.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2014
Asking that the date of this religion be stated as A.D. .. It does not state this fact anywhere and while many other "religions" broke away from both Judaism and Christianity (Orthodoxy) to become Catholic and on and on .. At least the others say A.D..

It is only fair that this page show the true date of this formation of Muslim religion .. That is all we are asking ..

74.4.114.94 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2014
Farida baby (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You haven't said what edit you want to be made. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden and slogan of Islam
I would have liked to see Osama bin Laden being mentioned here because he is a notable figure. If muslims condemn what he did, even that should be mentioned. The slogan of Islam is, 'La Ilahi il Allah, Muhammadur Rasool Allah', which means Allah is the only God and Muhhammad (peace be upon him) is his prophet and that also needs a mention - it is just as important. I am new here and would prefer someone more experienced to do this.—Khabboos (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason it does not mention the millionaire terrorist-organiser is explained in Handling trivia.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2014
please remove the picture of angel Gabriel giving a message to Muhammad (peace be upon him) as it is very offensive to Islam and all Muslims.

ParadiseCars (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 18:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove image of pig..
Please remove an image of pig from this page.

27.106.4.70 (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is some vandalism at Quran, but it should be fixed now. RudolfRed (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

English versus Arabic
I undid a revision that changed the heading from "God" to "Allah". We do not translate everything into Arabic; Angels would be "malaika", revelations would be "wahy", fasting would be "sawm", government might be "hukumah". Where to draw the line? Even for those who do not know Arabic or the Arabic word for God, the English title is more accessible, while its contents explain the etymology in detail. I would judge having all titles in English, instead of some, is something we can get most editors to agree to. Sodicadl (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Has there been previous discussion about this? This strikes me as somewhat odd. Yes, as one of the Abrahamic religions, one would generally say that Allah is equivalent to the English word God, and moreover the deity being described is the same. However, in terms of usage, Allah is not just the arabic word for God by non-english speakers. It's the specific nomenclature for the deity used by muslims in English as well as arabic. I'm not sure one can make the argument we should be using God because this is an english language wiki..the use of Allah is not just an untrasnlated version, it has a specific connotation. It delineates the generic word in English for the Abrahamic deity ("God") from the specific word for that deity in Islam, Allah. There is nuance beyond the rough approximation of both words...they are not just the same word in two languages. And looking about, this is generally the approach we have taken in many other articles....Al-Aqsa is "the farthest", but we call it Al-Aqsa. There are pretty yawning doctoral differences betyween the way the Abrahamic traditions specifically conceptualize the general deity. I think it's hard to make the argument that Allah, as commonly used, is indistinguishable from using "God". I also think we'd be hard pressed to find the preponderence of sources to support this decision. What are the arguments for using God instead of Allah here, in the context of the specific name for the deity? I don't really have skin in the game so to speak, but I'm trying to figure out what, beyond the general approximation of the deity in the two traditions, makes "God" a better use than "Allah" in an article about Islam. The wiki article for the specific conceptualization of the Abrahamic deity is entitled "Allah" not God (Islamic). I don't think "Allah" is any less accessible than "God" to anyone who's read a newspaper in the last 30 years. "Allah" IS in English...just because it's not an English word to begin with doesn't mean that in the specific context of naming the Islamic personification of the Abrahamic deity is failing to translate. They are not specifically equivalent enough to make that argument. I am suggesting we change this to Allah, to match the existing Wiki article on Allah.204.65.34.128 (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Allah" is extremely well known in English, much more so than the other Arabic words mentioned. In fact, if you consult recent dictionaries you will see that many consider it to be an English word adopted from Arabic.  There is nothing wrong with using "God", but the argument given for not using "Allah" is incorrect. Zerotalk 03:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, English-vs-Arabic is not the right description methinks, because "God" is the anglicized English-language-word for the Islamic deity, whereas "Allah" is a romanized/transliterated English-language-word for the Islamic deity, which is quite distinct from the right-to-left arabic glyphs used to refer to the Islamic deity. In any case, support changeover from God to Allah when speaking specifically of the deity of Islam, per extremely common use (I would say dominant use but will let folks with more experience have their say) in the sources.  By contrast, it is extremely common to say "God" in the articles on Judaism most of the time, once again per dominance in the English-language sources, which do not say YHWH, nor the Hebrew-language-glyphs thereof.  Speaking theologically, there is still a huge gulf, but speaking in terms of the linguistic prevalence in WP:RS, Allah is typical for describing Islam, and YHWH is only used in very specialized circumstances when describing Judaism.  As an aside, nowadays the christian sources almost invariably say God, whereas in previous centuries The Lord methinks was more common. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I support the change from God to Allah. Alternatively, I'd strongly encourage using "their god" or other neutral terms to indicate clearly the article is discussing a mythological being, as using just captial-G 'God' suggests that the Judeo-Christian deity factually exists. The use of "God" is also ambiguous enough that it could lead to confusion for non-native English readers or people with limited knowledge of the Judeo-Christian deity.  Finally, if I recall correctly, 'Allah' in English is supposed to be the name of that deity, much like Odin is; 'God' is a capitalized synonym for 'deity,' and as names only exist in order to distinguish between entities, using it asserts subtly that it's the only one of its type.  —xyzzy 11:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia of Islam, third edition (so far) uses "God" almost exclusively. Second edition uses "God" or transliteration "Allāh", e.g., main article is titled "Allāh", but generally uses "God" within the body.  Blackwell Companion to the Qur'ān generally uses "God".  Cambridge Companion to the Qur'ān generally uses "God". Qur'ān translations: Ali, Pickthall, and Khan use "Allah"; Arberry, Bell, and Jones use "God". -- Atethnekos <font face="georgia" size="1">(Discussion, Contributions) 23:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What about general-readership sources, like World Book / Britannica / Encarta / and friends? When we talk about the ancient Greek gods, we usually say gods, or The Gods maybe... as do most sources, if memory serves.  We don't say "God" when we refer to Zeus as the chief deity, although we might say "the god Zeus did this" or maybe "the god Hermes did that" colloquially in some section describing a narrative about one of the Olympians.  The situation with Islam it trickier, since it is monotheistic and Abrahamic, just like Christianity.  But I'd like to know what the various old-school printed and CDROM encyclopedias did, and specifically, whether or not they had an article Allah/Allāh, and if so what they used in the body-text thereof... and secondly, whether in their articles on Islam/Muslim/etc whether those old-school tertiary sources spoke of Allah/Allāh in the body, or of God, or of god, or of deity, or of some other phraseology.  Does anybody with access to some printed general-purpose sources feel like helping out?  Thanks much to  for the specialist-sources.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Personal viewpoint unrelated to above discussion
The Shahadah (testimony) of Islam is, "I testify that there are no deities other than Allah alone and I testify that Muhammad is his Messenger", which is a fanatic one (because it means Jehovah, Yāhweh, Jesus, the Buddha, Ahura Mazda, Amun Re, the Pagan and Hindu Gods and Godesses etc. are not deities) and so, I had put it in the criticism section as well. Please tell me why it was removed, despite having the right references/citations (I'm planning to restore it in the criticism section). —Khabboos (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What you did was simply to repeat what the Shahada is in the criticism section. That's not criticism. To make a reference to the shahada you would have to say "the shahada has been criticized because of X, Y and Z" and, importantly, you would need to cite a reliable source supporting that. It can't simply be your opinion. DeCausa (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What's in the testimony section has the citations, so I'm planning to use the same and also mention that this is considered fanatic because it means that other deities aren't God/s.—Khabboos (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you would need a reliable source that says it is considered "fanatical" and you would need to cite that source. Your personal opnion that it is fanatical is insufficient. The citations you refer to don't say that. They just say what the shahada is. Secondly, I don't think you'll find that reliable source. Almost all religions, and certainly the major monotheistic religions, say that "their" God is the one true god and must be worshipped exclusively eg the first of the Ten Commandments and the Apostles' Creed. While you could argue that all religions are inherently "fanatical" (I personally would agree with that) you couldn't single out Islam for that just because of the shahada. DeCausa (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not all religions are fanatical. However, I'm a novice here; why don't you insert that sentence in the criticism section appropriately yourself?—Khabboos (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Because I don't think it should be there. Didn't you read what I've written? DeCausa (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN is another reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Does this pique anyone else's interest?
We have two editors who have tried to remove the image of the angel and Muhammad, each using terms giving the reason that Islam rejects images by mistakenly stating that Islam rejects the doctrine of rejecting images (i.e. aniconism or iconoclasm):

1 and 2.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I noticed that one of the editors also did this edit.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything comparable in Walid562's edits yet. Is there a third editor who was making similar edits?  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was one of the editors who reverted Walid562's removal. I participated in the long debate on the removal of images in the Muhammad article and I favoured removing them from that article (nothing to do with offending Muslim belief, however). I reverted Walid for two reasons: he didn't give a coherent reason for it and the picture does seem to be valid in the context of its place in this article. DeCausa (talk)○
 * I'm not as concerned with who was removing it, but that "two" editors both misused synonyms to mean the exact opposite thing. Both editors said "Islam rejects aniconism/iconoclasm," to try to justify removing the image.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it of interest? Maybe they're socks or meats. If it is, it's pretty minor compared to what goes on at Muhammad. DeCausa (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I felt that your justification for keeping the image is even more ridiculous,, given that those images were not part of an established religious tradition (after all, this is an article on Islam). Also, the interpretation (usually sectarian) of a tiny minority of Muslims shouldn't be given more weight then the beliefs of most Muslims. <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 23:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that was a mistake on my part, I tried to use a big word "aniconism" However I did give you a legitimate reason to remove it " the reliable source part", I think that it's quite clear that this website "http://www.zombietime.com" is not a reliable source, it can claim many thingsWalid562 (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So, are you saying that this picture does not exist, is not in the Topkapi Library and was created by that website? DeCausa (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe it's from the Mi'rajnama, Tabriz, mid to late 14th century. I'll improve the description at commons. <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 01:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

, I remind you that the belief of any religion or lack thereof does not drive any site policy or guidelines. My statement (which was not part of the article) was countering the claim that Islam, as a whole, without exception, is aniconistic; when it is in fact only portions of Islam. WP:Undue applied to this situation would be stopping someone from flooding the angels section with every bloody Islamic picture of angels and/or all the info we have on Islamic angelology, so that it was more than one paragraph was on angels with a single picture. A single picture for the whole section, especially when that section is more than a couple of lines, is well within the boundaries for due weight.

, how is it that you and Septate made the exact same total vocabulary blunder for the exact same edit? (And at any rate, zombietime is not the origin of the image, but merely copied it from it's original and true source, which would be reliable if primary source for an example of Islamic art and of Islamic depictions of angels).

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, you're using this section not to teach about Angels in Islam (its topic), but to counter an irrelevant claim about aniconism. Most readers would not expect that. Moreover, these images were created to promote certain theological views. Given how general this section is, I'm not sure how the use of imagery that promotes one theological POV over others meets WP:NPOV. <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 01:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How is it not teaching while still promoting a certain theological view? You've got it backwards.  The section says "Islam believes in angels," and there's a picture of an angel just to get the point across.  It's not a picture of an angel by a Christian or Jewish artist, it's one by a Muslim artist.
 * Are you implying that *I* put the picture there to specifically push a certain theological view? At any point, did ever once I imply that you were arguing against it because your religious beliefs (whatever they are) or anything like that?  No?  Oh, right, because I assumed good faith from you even though I disagree with your position.  Try reading that link sometime, it's actually kind of important around here.
 * Also, drop the argument that having or not having the picture is a matter of one theology versus another theology, with NPOV judging between the two. NPOV is completely unconcerned with either theology, it's merely concerned with "does the picture connect with or represent the accompanied text in any way?"  And that it does.  Assuming that it is one theology versus another does say that your position is ultimately based on theology, which means your are editing from a biased position, regardless of your religion.  That you are completely ignoring the sockpuppetry going on just because they're on your side only makes you look more biased.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant historically they were created to promote certain theological views. In other words, to quote an RS, these are "not simply generic images arising out of Ilkhanid Iran's Buddhist context, but rather they serve a particular purpose." Also, the "by a Muslim artist" claim is not entirely true. There was a strong Buddhist influence on these images -- an angel in this book is even "modeled after the Buddhist deity Avalokiteśvara". Thus, as a side effect of your anti-aniconism agenda, you have actually introduced sectarian and Buddhist biases to this section. <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 03:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Assume good faith. Read it, or leave.  If you cannot assume good faith from other editors (and statements such as "your anti-aniconism agenda" are bad faith and nothing else), then you should not be here.
 * And by insisting that my edits are "anti-aniconism," does that not amount to an admission that your express purpose is aniconism? I have not stated any personal opposition to the doctrine of aniconism, but have pointed out that Wikipedia is not censored.  Again, this is not a matter of aniconism against anti-aniconism, quit trying to make this a theological issue.
 * As for your citations, two pages later (p. 169, thanks for properly your source, by the way) it says that art "it was precisely this Buddhist technique that competing Shi'a and Sunni groups not only came into contact with in Il-khanid Iran, but also emulated." The source you cite supports the idea that the image was by Muslims, originally for Muslims.  Two pages before the page you cited (p. 165), it says "Muslim tradition had already moved in the direction of representational art," and that "evidence of direct Buddhist artistic influence is extremely limited, "indicating that Buddhist influence did not start the trend.
 * As for the second book, to connect it with the first would be original research. By itself, it merely indicates that a completely different painting (featuring a multi-headed angel, which is not the one in the article) had some visual influence from Buddhist art.  That is not unusual: Roman era Jewish and Christian artwork feature many Jewish and Christian figures and ideas depicted in a Hellenistic style: Elijah as Helios, Jesus as Dionysus, Cupid recast as Putto angels, the gods of the zodiac repurposed as the angels of the zodiac...  When a world religion moves into a new area and gets involved in the local art it does so by borrowing from the local art (otherwise it's not really getting into the local art, it's erasing it).
 * And you still remain silent about illicit sockpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant image. The image which is coming from this website: http://www.zombietime.com/ has no significance for inclusion. Please, provide here reasons for inclusion. Thanks,--Edmondhills (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its an Islamic depiction of an angel and is used in a section on Islamic belief in angels; just as a picture of a page from the Quran is used in the section on Revelations, a picture of Muslims on the Hajj is used in the section on the Hajj section, and a picture of Muslims praying is used in the prayer section. The Apple article almost starts with a picture of an apple, even if it's not a universal depiction of an apple that applies to all apples. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. The points which Wiqi55 put forward were done to death at Muhammad. The case here is stronger: it's one picture by a muslim artist depicting the topic specifically covered in the section. That's perfectly good for WP:PERTINENCE. DeCausa (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You're comparing real pictures with a fantasy drawing made by some unknown individual. Can you provide proof to check the authenticity of that drawing, I still haven't seen a single reliable source. I really don't understand why you keep arguing about this, this image has no significance for inclusion. I got this from wikipedia "Contentious material about persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Walid562 (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What you're quoting is from Biographies of living persons. This isn't a biography, and the picture doesn't depict anyone living.
 * Your bad attempt at wikilawyering to game the system and your repetition of the same dismissed arguments over and over are getting tendentious. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not "simply" an Islamic depiction, but a mixture of Islamic, sectarian, and Buddhist influences. Why would anyone use syncratic and polemical imagery in a general section about Islamic beliefs? Also, the identity of the artist and the accompanying text are disputed or unknown. So many of your justifications are not true. By contrast, the current Hajj and Prayer images exhibit widely-held Muslim beliefs. They were not created to promote a certain theological view, nor do they contain tiny minority views, such as Buddhist influences. <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 16:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And the apple in the Apple article isn't representative of every species of apple, or is the Labrador retriever in Dog representative of all dogs. And as I replied above last night (did you read it?), the sources you brought in did not demonstrate any Buddhist influence in that picture, unless you want to engage in a lot of original research. The first source admitted that there was Islamic depictionist art before Buddhist influence, and held that the Buddhist influence was a matter of technique, not theology or ideology.  The second source discussed a completely different picture, as was plainly obvious to anyone who read the word "multi-headed" and looked at the picture in question.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your quotes were selective. For instance, you ignored his major point that the images were created for promoting certain theological views. And I'm not sure what does the apple example have to do with anything; no source suggests that it promotes a pov (unlike this image). <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 19:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And your distorting the source you're relying on. Clearly the refence to Budhist influences is artistic not theological. And if the images were created to promote a certain theological point within Islam, so what? We've heard all this stuff before at Muhammad and it got nowhere because ultimately these are relevant images, created by muslims (and btw represent a significant artistic strain within Islam). DeCausa (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The Buddhist influence is both artistic and theological, as p.144 explains: "Rather we need to recognize that the bringing together of Buddhists and Muslims within the Ilkhanid domains for a period of almost a half-century resulted not only in a new intellectual engagement between the two traditions, but also in the creation of a whole new visual culture -- one that even allowed the representation of Muhammad". This influence is more clear in other works, though. The artist/commissioner of these specific 10 paintings is open for speculation (so your "created by Muslims" is just a guess). I also checked the written tradition concerning the event depicted and found no mention of an angel. So for now this is just some gratuitous misinformation (yes, probably not so different than some of the depictions at Muhammad). <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 21:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and which is a view that was rejected by the Wikipedia community at Muhammad. The quote you give is nowhere near your distortion of the source to claim an attribution for the theology of the image to "Buddhist influences". That's just about artistic style not underlying doctine. Pure fiction. DeCausa (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said anything close to a "theology of the image". I used theology to refer to the sectarian/promotional purpose of these images, which is the same word used in p.167. And I only attributed "Buddhist influences" to motifs/styles/elements and "context", which is directly quoted above. <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 00:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You said the "Buddhist influence is both artistic and theological". If you are now back-tracking because you've been caught out, then your point is just irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I was introducing a quote explaining how Buddhist influences triggered the doctrinal shift to depict Muhammad, a main thesis of the chapter (p. 144, 174, etc). Moreover, the Buddhist artistic influences shouldn't be underestimated in this context, becuase "the similarity between the representation of Muslim angels and Buddhist apsaras" (p. 165) "clearly confirms the presence of Buddhist influence on Islamic art" (p. 165). Hence in a short section about Islamic views, I don't see the point of using a Buddhist-influenced representation of an angel. Seems misleading and needs an explanation (especially given the denial and selective quoting shown by Ian Thomson on this same point). <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 09:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You were introducing the quote in a misleading way. Artistic influences are neither here nor there, are not misleading and need no "explanation". If this were an article about art, that may be the case, but it is not. You will see in the Christianity article a Japanese woodcut of the Madonna and child in the Kakure Kirishitan style. The article on the latter says that their "figures of the saints and the Virgin Mary were transformed into figurines that looked like the traditional statues of the Buddha and bodhisattvas." There's no issue with artistic borrowing - it has no bearing on WP:PERTINENCE. DeCausa (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Christianity is a long article, not a small section on religious beliefs. Even on Christianity an explanation is given by linking to the Kakure Kirishitan style. For you to argue that it "needs no explanation" is inconsistent and just reflects how irrelevant your example is. Also, when dealing with a small section there's an issue in presenting minority views in proportion to widely-held views. How many Muslims currently believe in these Buddhist-influenced representation of angels? And how many of them believe that the event depicted involves an angel? <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 11:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What's this "small section"/"long article" comment supposed to mean? The two articles are directly comparable; what's sections got to do with it? But, your post contains the silliest point I've seen you make. Are you really saying that the article leads readers to believe muslims think this is what angels look like? So, the Christianity article implies that Christians believe that angels look like chubby babies per Francesco Albani's The Baptism of Christ. Please tell me that's not your point: it brings you down to the "prove the Prophet looked like your cartoon" mob.DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read our due weight policy. It should explain how much weight and space should be given to minority/majority views. Obviously, how much space given to each view would be different in a long article vs a small section in a general article. As for your other point, I think readers will react differently to our careless disregard of neutrality and weight. I'm mainly concerned with readers that would get the impression that insignificant or fringe views are more widespread. What would they end up believing is up to them. But I've seen rather bright editors make false assumptions about events of Muhammad's life based on looking at depictions. As a result of that experience, I no longer consider that point silly. <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 23:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No you got it wrong, I am quoting this "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources" It clearly states living & deceased!Walid562 (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That part of the page is quoting the WP:Biographies of Living Persons page. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Ian.thomson" Could you stop spamming my talk page with your bullshit, accusing me of using multiple accounts? get a mod to check the Ip addresses, I keep using the same argument because it's a valid one, none of you have been able to provide a source you keep beating around the bush...Walid562 (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's easy to get one computer to register different accounts on two different IP addresses. Your behavior and writing voice does indicate that you probably have multiple accounts.  That's how this whole thread got started, that was the original point of it, despite getting sidetracked by arguments over the pic, which, as far as anyone is reasonably concerned, is from a late medieval work found in the Topkapi Library.  Even Wiqi55, who is in favor of removing it, doesn't pretend that the picture was originally from zombietime. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You claim that the image is from "a late medieval work found in the Topkapi Library", am I to take your word for it? show me some proof/source that backs up your claim. I don't have 2 accounts this is the only account I have ever used on Wikipedia, still waiting for your sourceWalid562 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa there won't be a general agreement, we're clearly not on the same page. If General agreement is the only way to get that image removed then there should be a general agreement for it to stay!Walid562 (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what does the word aniconism and iconoclasm means and where someone named as walid got this. But I have stated the reason behind my use of this word "iconoclasm" on sock puppet investigation case. Read it there. When it comes to image about angle, it seems that it is an attempt to cartoonify Islamic prophet Muhammed. Unlike Jesus there is no precise image or depiction of Islamic prophet Mohammed. So I doubt which person was in the mind of the artist while he was drawing the picture.Septate (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Walid562, this book (www.academia.edu/456889/_The_Ilkhanid_Mirajnama_as_an_Illustrated_Sunni_Prayer_Manual_) (I am unable to link it for some reason) states that it can be found in Topkapi Library as does the images first location. AcidSnow (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This link should work. And it also says that the painting was part of a book of Sunni propaganda, and therefore representative of the largest sect of Islam, right?  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I read most of this book. She was referring to a text-only anonymous manuscript about the Mi'raj. <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 14:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, and it's common to take time to painstakingly paint pictures that have absolutely nothing to do with the main text and have no ideological connection whatsoever despite depicting portions of the work involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The paintings were not part of any text. The accompanying text was lost, and the 10 plates only found in a Safavid manuscript. You need a source that directly links Buddhist apsaras to Sunni beliefs. <b style="color:#4682B4;">Wiqi</b>( 55 ) 14:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Definition of Islam is simply inaccurate
In the Wikipedia article entitled, "Islam," Islam is defined as a religion, which completely misses the essence of what it actually is. Islam is primarily a geo-politcal system of governance created to be spread by any means, worldwide. Islam includes a set of religious beliefs, but it is not a religion independent of government. Is simply is not, and any Islamic scholar knows this, as do the following skeptics about the peaceful nature of Islam: Abdullah Al-Araby, Director, The Pen vs. The Sword Publications, Serge Trifkov, Author, The Sword of the Prophet, Robert Spencer, Director of JhadWatch.org

The word Islam does not mean "peace" in the sense of no conflict, but peace that comes from having all of mankind obedient to god's perfect words as dictated to Mohammed by ArchAngel Gabriel, words that have been replaced by later Q'ran entries over time by Mohammed himself, that deprecate earlier verses. "Jihad" means struggle, both personal and at war against infidels, to become martyrs in the name of Allah.

Sure, let's be objective as possible in Wikipedia, but let's not get PC, okay? Islam is a single world governance system with a government called a "Califate," a legal system called "Sharia," and a religion that justifies in the name of Allah, the two fates for all non-believers: Conversion to Islam or subservient second-class status. This is crystal clear. Ask any scholar.

Fundamentalist Islamists follow the teachings of Islam. So called "Peaceful Muslims" are actually not practicing Islam, just a minor piece of it. And btw, Christians are Mesionic Jews either, so let's not be afraid to call a spade a space. I'll say again, Islam is not primarily a religion, but a system of world goverance.

I give donations annual donations to Wikipedia, and expect objectivity and truth, not PC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.94.3 (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have some reliable sources for this? Please see WP:RS.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Conversion to Islam or subservient second-class status. This is crystal clear. Ask any scholar." - Half-truth: various Muslim leaders througout history showed varying degrees of tolerance towards non-Muslim subjects. To try and suggest this was solely based on Islamic-related texts is an erroneous argument. "Robert Spencer, Director of JhadWatch.org" - Robert Spencer is not a reliable source on anything Islam-related. "Fundamentalist Islamists follow the teachings of Islam" - No, they follow their interpretation of Islam. "So called "Peaceful Muslims" are actually not practicing Islam" - Thanks for exposing your bigotry. "So-called" my ass, their are peaceful Muslims, plenty of them - and no matter how many times you spout "Taqqiya taqqiya!" it doesn't change the fact there are. Also, the fundamental tenants of Islam AKA the five pillars (funny how you guys always miss this out) are the most major part of Islam, so they are hardly following a "little bit".
 * And I suppose Christians who don't support their Gods genocidal ambitions are only "following a little bit" then? It's a perfectly valid comparison: Direct orders Vs stories and pseudo-historical events. "And btw, Christians are Mesionic Jews either" - irrelevant to this page & discussion entirely. "I give donations annual donations to Wikipedia, and expect objectivity and truth, not PC." - Congrats on that, but again entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Nice try. --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW,, I think you meant "... the fundamental tenets of Islam AKA the five pillars...". —<span title="Wamiq" style="font-family:serif;color:#006600;border-radius:5px;border-top:2px solid #006600; border-bottom:2px solid #006600">ШαмıQ ✍ @ 20:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Yes I did. Thank you. But oddly enough "tenants" Sort of works as well. Sort of. Just a bit. A little tiny bit. OK, I'm leaving now. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

many people in world believe Islam is religion of violence because of how some muslims act. on the other hand, there are mistranslating or errors of how Qura'n translated to other languages and how extremist muslim define Qura'n. If we look in history ottoman empire had huge influence on how some muslims act today which not part of Islam. for example, inheriting leadership of country from the father, this in not in islamic act. changing the name of islamic empire to ottoman empire not islamic act. ottoman declared war and high merchant tax on european causing them to suffer hunger also not islamic act. the ottoman resulted in many other changes on islam that made islamic world very violence today. therefore, i will list words mistranslated in other languages. and whats tradition and culture thats not is islam. on the table below the words, tradition or culture that ottoman empire resulted in changing from peaceful to violence.

(before ottoman empire)                                               							(after ottoman empire) the word muslim or islam meaning: submitting to one god or any person fellowed islam, christian, jewish. muslim or islam meaning: a person who fellow islam only. the word "Kafer": any person who act barbaric or savage. "Kafer" meaning: any person who do not practice radical islam. do not argue with anyone about religion. argue with everyone about religion because muslim religion is perfect. the word "Jihad" meaning: achievements in life. the word "Jihad" meaning: killing anyone that not muslim. religion is not meant be extermist or radical, but successful. religion is to be stubborn and its like sword. woman are our nurses, mothers and the key of happiness. woman are something a man need only. and force is the best way to treat them.

ottoman empire ruled from Morroco to pakistan nearly 500 years caused muslims to suffer uncivilized ideology. the ottoman empire resulted heavily radical muslims today that they believe there are no history before islam and denying any history before islam, while in Qura'n has rich history before islam. also they believe islam is sword and radical muslim very stubborn. on other hand, Qura'n rich of how to treat people with respect. for example, "Do not argue with the People of the Book except only by the best manner, except the unjust among them. Tell them, "We believe in what is revealed to us and to you. Our Lord and your Lord is one. We have submitted ourselves to His will". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiaqel (talk • contribs) 09:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

OTTOMAN???
There is too much Ottoman pictures in this article, Topkapi palace, the last so-called Caliph, Nicopolis and finally the Anti-Hijab picture is going to flare up Islamophobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.8.220 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How was the picture of women just wearing head coverings anti-hijab? And how us all that intended to incite fear of Islam? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Caliph???
Most Muslims will completely agree that the last Caliph of Islam was Ali ibn Abi Talib not the Ottoman Sultan..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.22.101 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Most historians will agree that the last figure to be recognized as a Caliph, whether or not he was religiously legitimate, was the Ottoman Sultan. Wikipedia is not here for you to push your personal religious views on. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

ISLAMIC THEOLOGY
This article needs more information on Islamic Theology and Sufism..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.8.220 (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article covers theology held by almost all sects of Islam, and a rather balanced introduction of each major sects' differences, with links to full articles on them and their theology. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2014
Please Remove the image depicting the angel and MOHAMMED(Peace be upon him) in Articles of faith -God section.

Drawing pictures of MOHAMMED(Peace be upon him) is unacceptable by all the Muslim world and we strictly condemn it.

Khadeer4u786 (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Not done: see WP:NOTCENSORED. Cannolis (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Septate's removal of image again, with a dishonest edit summary
User:Septate attempted to remove the Muahammad/angel image yet again with this edit. Aside from the edit warring and clearly having no consensus to do this (per earlier talk page thread), please note that this was done with the dishonest edit summary that he "moved image to the right section". I have reinstated the image, but Septate's edit summaries need to be treated with caution. DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)