Talk:Islam/Archive 29

ISIS
I'm wondering what's with this revert? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam&diff=654438513&oldid=654436576

Why does this article go on and on about stuff that happened hundreds, if not thousands of years ago, that's just trivial with no relevance for today, but does not mention anything about the groups following Islam right now?

If the article can go on and on about the Arab regimes of ancient times, why can't it describe the today's real world???

JoeM (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the edit again. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is just one of numerous entities that call themselves Islamic—including it in the lead this way is WP:Undue weight. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Completely unsuitable for the lead. --Neil N  talk to me 03:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * How is that "undue weight"? Can you think of another Muslim movement controlling a bigger chuck of territory and acting as such a major player in global politics? Other movements such as Al Queda only dreamt of such power. They are not some obscure growth. Not mentioning them would be the same thing as not mentioning the activities of the Pope in an article about Catholicism. JoeM (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As much as you go on about ISIL representing Islam, one has to wonder if you're a PR guy for them. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do your homework. < 250,000 ISIL members, 1.6 billion Muslims. --Neil N  talk to me 03:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 250,000 followers, but how many sympathizers? Or how many who are just indifferent? Their following is huge; and liberal political correctness can't whitewash the REALTY and FACTs. JoeM (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Users such as User:Mr. Granger may be interested to know about this ANI thread I started. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Have to agree with joeM that IS is huge It is the biggest thing to happen in Islam in the last 90 years since the fall of ottomans, to say it's not worthy of being here is ridiculous

Analysis from Frank Gaffney
NeilN, could you explain this revert? . The content was attributed, citing Frank Gaffney, a well-known scholarly source on the Middle East plus a prominent policy maker. Thanks, JoeM (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Frank Gaffney is a right-wing media columnist (not a "scholarly source") writing for Breitbart (not a scholarly source) who sees conspiracies and jihadists everywhere. --Neil N  talk to me 02:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2015
Islam is not a religion of peace.

70.31.162.83 (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done - suggestion fails WP:V and WP:NPOV. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Wife beating
Recent changes have been about wife beating. Please discuss here to reach a consensus. The points to be discussed seem to be neutral text and sourcing, if someone thinks other things should be discussed for example inclusion of section, they can join too. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Get consensus here before removing what already there, when there objection for removing. Just like you can't remove the Ahmadiyya religion from here without consensus even though they are not Muslims.--LalaResne (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * LalaResne. If you delete information that you regard as redundant, you have to remove the citations for that information.  You cannot just leave the citations as if they back up other statements.--  Toddy1 (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with your edit. I left a citation that says the same thing that Quran as well as several hadiths condone wife beating when required, and that many Muslim women acknowledge it and have no problems with it.--LalaResne (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As usual, this page is used to carry out an agenda.


 * Jihad Hashim Brown — the head of research at Tabah Foundation, which specializes in the interpretation of Islamic law ..... But he argued that in Islamic law it is “absolutely unlawful” to abuse a wife, injure her, or insult her dignity.


 * Shaykh Faraz Rabbani issued the following fatwa:


 * “No, there is absolutely no place in Islam for abuse of one’s spouse–whether physical, spoken, or emotional. All abuse is haram.”


 * Muslim-scholars-on-spousal-abuse: in-islamic-law-it-is-absolutely-unlawful-to-abuse-a-wife-injure-her-or-insult-her-dignity


 * Also other scholars like Imam Khalid Latif, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Imam Zaid Shakir, made the same statesment. CallAng222 (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed the statements because, taking into account the sensitivity of the page,
 * we must try to offer a complete and real picture of the situation, not an ideological one. CallAng222 (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You have cited a blog as "evidence" for your claim. A blog is not a reliable source.  See WP:RS.--  Toddy1 (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why did you reinserted the slavery thing? No consensus was ever reached, as evidenced by the discussion. Also the blog contains links to the interventions of scholars - video conferences to be precise. CallAng222 (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Muslim clerics in Canada issued a fatwa on Saturday against honour killings, domestic violence and hatred of women.


 * “These crimes are major sins in Islam, punishable by the court of law and almighty Allah,” said Prof. Imam Syed Soharwardy, representing 34 clerics affiliated with the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada.
 * http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/02/04/shafia_murders_fatwa_issued_against_honour_killings_domestic_violence_hatred_of_women.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by CallAng222 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Blogs are not reliable sources. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources like those cited in the article, not blogs and video links from blogs.


 * The article from The Star is a good source if we are discussing honour killing. Am I right in thinking that you want the section on family life to mention honour killings?  If so, we will of course want to mention how very common honour killings are.


 * I am shocked and astonished that you removed the mention of sex with slaves. The discussion you alluded to resulted in that section being heavily trimmed.--  Toddy1 (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed wife beating as we are still discussing that. LalaResne follows anti Islamic agenda as witnessed by his/her previous statements so I will just ignore his/her opinion. As to Toddy1 (talk) I will respond to you as follows.
 * Wife beating is highly controversial. you cannot just say that it is in Islam and be done with it. Just quoting the Quran and Hadith is Original research. you know it, i know it, everyone knows it. You need to provide interpretation. And as regards interpretation there are many which either support or condone. Then the ones which condone give certain conditions. An example of such controversial and POV agenda pushing edit will be adding "incest" as a basic tenet of Judaism because it is mentioned in the book of Genesis that incest occurred and was considered OK. So either create content which is neutral or let it remain as it is. I will be looking into this in coming weeks as soon as I get some free time. And without meaning any disrespect you say that you do not understand English then how can you take part in this debate about nuances of a holy scripture and meanings? this last statement is just a simple question you do not have to answer it. As regards honour killings. Why do you want to mention that in family life? are they part of scripture? or do you have reliable sources which are neutral, saying that this is Islamic practice.
 * Please reach a consensus here before adding any content as I will be deleting it. Feel free to use dispute resolution if you feel that you are being wronged. Good day. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What "domestic violence" means?:"acts of violence or abuse against a person living in one's household, especially a member of one's immediate family." So the article is perfectly placed in the context of the discussion, as demonstrated by the dictionary.


 * Real Men Don't Hit WomenUniversity of Pennsylvania; Khalid Latif, Executive Director and Chaplain for the Islamic Center at NYU and Chaplain for the NYPD.
 * Muslim Men Against Domestic Abuse (MMADA) interview with Imam Zaid Shakir on the problem of domestic abuse.


 * Regarding slavery, it 'a fact that the discussion has not reached any consensus.CallAng222 (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I find it amusing that some people try to change original Islam to make it look good. Either follow Islam as it was given by Mohammad or leave it if you think it's vile. Disciplining wife is in both Quran and hadiths. See http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Wife_Beating_in_Islam#Wife-Beating_in_the_Hadiths for reference. It's open Wiki so just use it as reference (don't cite it in here) and see the reliable citations within it. Just want to make note that there are similar vile things in Christianity and Judaism also. And as shown by source most Muslim women acknowledge and accept it--LalaResne (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with FreeatlastChitchat. Primary sources used this way is original research which can not be accepted on Wikipedia. Do not add any POV statement without citing reliable secondary sources or without reaching a consensus. It will make us avoid the edit-war. Khestwol (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If FreeatlastChitchat and Khestwol had bothered to read the text they deleted, they would have seen that it cited reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, what was said about the rights of a man to discipline his wife and children approximates in my opinion to Christian and Jewish European norms:
 * If a man hits his wife or child, he must not bruise them or cut them.
 * Fathers may beat small children, but not adult children.
 * Whether a husband is allowed to hit his wife's face is disputed.
 * Please do not post links to Youtube and blogs; Wikipedia policy is that they are not reliable sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI: Stoning is not in the Quran, but it's in the Christian Bible! Quran and Hadiths allow light disciplining of wives when needed without cutting or even bruising! This means stoning is prohibited!--Dustylappss (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This is just taking too long, and may lead to an edit war. Let us all take a chill pill and just discuss the sources first then the content. I hereby invite Dustylappss, Toddy1 and LalaResne to present the sources which they think are reliable, neutral and cover the issue. We shall just discuss the sources one by one and when a source is considered good we will take content from that source. This will be better then just saying that this source is good, that source is bad. From the previous comments here I can see that no one bothers to comment on the sources, just gives his/her view about them. So please present the sources and lets see if they are good. I already gave my objections on two main sources if you can counter those please include the counter argument in your comment.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * FreeatlastChitchat, you can't just delete existing relevant information that are supported multiple reliable sources, especially when there's objection by several editors. To do so, you have to first get consensus here. Otherwise, people would delete all of Wikipedia, and would discuss on talkpages over their disagreements!--Dustylappss (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources are not reliable. That is why we are discussing them here. Present the sources and lets get started with the discussion. instead of fighting with mere words and phrases. I have merely moved the content about slavery to anew section, not removed it. you can read it in the article lolFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * All of the sources are either more or equally reliable to the "Star" source that you are using to replace the material with irrelevant information. Yes stoning, honor-killing is prohibited because cutting or even bruising is not allowed as already stated by the reliable sources! With regard to slavery, we kept only whats relevant, in the family section. What you are doing is vandalizing the family section by removing relevant information with regard to family.--Dustylappss (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * which sources are you talking about. Please bring them here. PRESENT the sources and lets see if their reliability can be provedFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read Neutrality of Sources and Neutral point of view, you will see that there is no requirement for reliable sources to be neutral. The requirementis that articles should be written from a neutral POV.  The advice in policy is not to remove reliably sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased.--  Toddy1 (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * who says biased sources cannot be used. But when the ENTIRE content is taken from biased sources it created biased content and therefore the article cannot be written with neutral POV. You and other three have used sources which are biased to create biased content. domestic violence needs to be worked out here before being added. what source and what content would you like to put up? I for one would like to put both "for" and against sources with explanation that the "for" is fringe.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with FreeatlastChitchat. I do not understand why these contributions need to be pushed, despite the complaints made by some users. Taking into account that this is a page-sensitive, and that many topics are only mentioned here (and then be deepened on special pages), at present it seems to me that this behavior wants to impose a single interpretation, rather than enrich the page with valid content - and this behavior is going on from some time now. So, for example, why this disputed argoument must be trated in the main page Islam, whith only a single interpretation, when we have the "Women in Islam" page? CallAng222 (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the hadith cited now in the main page, Aisha also reported that: Imam Ahmad recorded that `A'ishah said, "The Messenger of Allah never struck a servant of his with his hand, nor did he ever hit a woman. He never hit anything with his hand, except for when he was fighting Jihad in the cause of Allah. And he was never given the option between two things except that the most beloved of the two to him was the easiest of them, as long as it did not involve sin. If it did involve sin, then he stayed farther away from sin than any of the people. He would not avenge himself concerning anything that was done to him, except if the limits of Allah were transgressed. Then, in that case he would avenge for the sake of Allah. ''This is confirmed by Jonh Esposito book...the hadith (Prophetic traditions) note Muhammad’s respect for and protection of women. Muhammad said, ‘The best of you is he who is best to his wife.’ Muhammad’s wife Aisha narrated that Muhammad never hit any servant or woman and never physically struck anyone with his own hand. Neither the Quran nor the hadith record Muhammad as ever mistreating or losing temper with any of his wives, even when he was unhappy or dissatisfied. . The original interpretation made by who added the hadith it's misleading, and Tariq Mahmood Hashmi explain here why . CallAng222 (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the verses of the Quran, please read Abdelmumin Aya that refutes that interpretatio in this article http://www.webislam.com/articles/70551-on_the_unlawfulness_of_wife_beating.html. Taking into account the complexity of the topic, it makes no sense - is indeed an act of bad faith - to impose a single vision of the page Islam. I suggest to address the issue in depth in the appropriate page - Women in Islam. CallAng222 (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:CallAng222. Please could you explain which parts of the paragraph you deleted are original research, and why you consider it so. Your edit summary said that it was original research.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, have you read the book you are citing? Pages 115-116 go very well with part of the paragraph you deleted - it says:
 * Quran 4:34 list three methods to be used in resolving marital disputes:... The third and final method is to strike or hit... only a single strike is permissible... this verse was intended as a restriction on existing practice". (p115-116)
 * "In the major hadith collections - Muslim, Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Abu Daul, Nasai, and Ibn Majah - hadith about striking all emphasise that striking should be done in such a way as not to cause pain or harm." (p116)

Compare this with part of the paragraph you deleted:
 * The Quran (verse 4:34) allows a husband to beat his wives if they are disobedient to him. However, he is not allowed to cut or bruise her. He is allowed to beat young children; but not adult children. Whether a man is allowed to hit his wife's face is disputed. This can cause problems when Muslim wives want to live westernised lifestyles.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Toddy1 The user who made entries took the elements - some questionable, others just wrong - and used them to create a partial description of the topic.For example:The Quran (verse 4:34)[Quran 4:34] allows a husband to beat his wives if they are disobedient to him.[5] However, he is not allowed to cut or bruise her.[6]. This is false, because a)the second point seems to refer to the Koran, but instead is the verdict of a UAE court.b)The traduction used for Quran 4:34 is disputable: ''The Quranic text reads:
 * “Ar-riÿâl qawwâmûn ‘alâ an-nisâa’ bimâ faddal Allah ba’adahum ‘alâ ba’ad wa bimâ anfaqû min amwâlihim fa-s-sâlihât qânitât hâfidzât lilgaib bimâ hafidza Allah wa l-latî tajâfûna nushûçahunna fa’dzûhunna wa ihÿurûhunna fî l-madâÿi’ wa idribûhunna fa-in at’nakum fa-lâ tabgû ‘alaihunna sabîlâ inna Allah kâna ‘aliyyâ kabîra”.
 * As to what concerns us, an acceptable translation would be:
 * "But those wives from whom you fear arrogance, and nasty conduct, admonish them (first), (next) leave them alone in beds (and last), convince them of the need for change".
 * Translations that are unacceptable are:
 * "But those wives from whom you fear arrogance - first advise them; then if they persist, forsake them in bed; and finally, strike them".''
 * This is what Abdelmumin Aya explain CallAng222 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Times of India article says that the UAE Federal Supreme Court "noted that Islamic codes allow for ``discipline if no marks are left. It added that children who have reached ``adulthood -- approximately puberty -- cannot be struck." i.e. Times of India article is a reliable secondary source reporting on commentary on Islamic codes by the UAE Federal Supreme Court.


 * Part of the "comments" you pasted were copied from an article on WebIslam, On the unlawfulness of wife beating, by Abdelmumin Aya (a.k.a. Vicente Haya), translated by Daniel F. Rivera. The author is an expert on Japanese poetry - see his CV.  He claims to have a medium level of competence in Arabic.--  Toddy1 (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, in their interpretation. But the wording of the sentence seems to attribute those considerations to the Koran, which is not true
 * Arabic speakers like Abdullah Saeed made the same statesment.CallAng222 (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Abdullah Saeed, whose book you cited is Professor Abdullah Saeed of the University of Melbourne. He is an advocate of what he calls "reform of Islamic thought". The section you found on Italian Amazon is from page 133 of The Qur'an: An Introduction, pub 2008.  I have just read pages 131 to 133 - they are part of a discussion of how words and phrases in the Quran are interpreted - I would recommend that anyone seriously interested should read these pages carefully themselves (you can find them by a search on Amazon.com).  The conclusion I draw is that to represent the book properly, one needs to read the entire chapter of the book carefully.  Saeed is talking about different modernist/feminist interpretations; they are clearly not mainstream.


 * It seems to me that this issue is covered by Wikipedia policy WP:VALID. The mainstream view appears to be that scripture permits a man to strike his wife - though not hard enough to bruise or cut her.  But there is a minority viewpoint that that interpretation of the Quran is wrong.  It is wrong to create a false equivalence.--  Toddy1 (talk) 19:13, revised 19:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We could write "...although a minority of Islamic scholars contests this translation". CallAng222 (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue is interpretation, not translation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Then how about "...although a minority of scholars offer a different interpretation of the verses"?CallAng222 (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

, please explain your removal of cited information, and cite secondary sources to support your claim. A primary source like hadith can be interpreted in incorrect ways. The studying-islam.org source you cited states that it was a hit. The relevant hadith has different translations, and thi website translates it "...He gave me a nudge on the chest which I felt...". So, for that claim, we need a more solid source. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail  07:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not cite http://www.studying-islam.org/ as it's not reliable, someone else put it to mention that the hadith in question is disputed. I kept it anyways because I think it should be noted that the hadith is disputed. A link to original hadith is there, but if you actually looked, everything is supported by secondary sources. Wife-beating is mentioned in Quran at least twice, and in several hadiths, Muhammad approved wife-beating in several hadiths (see this http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Wife_Beating_in_Islam#Wife-Beating_in_the_Hadiths for reference but don't cite it as it's another Wiki). If you have information with reliable sources that is to the contrary, then cite that also, and state both sides. Just don't only cite one side or take sides. That way you will also not annoy Allah!--Slooppouts34 (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , This is probably the last time I am going to tell you not to cite wikiislam.net. It is a POV pushing website wth zero reliabilty. I have cited Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles, by Jamal Badawi pp61-63, to support the statement that the prophet ﷺ never beat anyone. Plesae come with reliable secondary sources which state the incident mentioned in Sahih Muslim 4:2127 involved some kind of beating, otherwise that thing does not belong in the Family life section at all. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail  04:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you ever pay any attention, every time it's me who is telling you not to cite wikiislam.net here because it's an open Wiki just like this one. I told you to only look that up as you are either clearly quite novice with regard to Islam or you have an agenda to make Islam look more westernized. Wikiislam.net has some references just like this one to back up what it says and you can do some research there. There are many, in fact most reliable secondary sources which state the incident mentioned in Sahih Muslim 4:2127 involved some kind of beating. Jamal Badawi is a POV pusher, but as I said I am open to having both views, so that Wikipedia readers know both sides, and then draw their own conclusion. As such, I kept Jamal Badawi's claim that Aisha said Muhammad didn't beat anyone, also.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "every time it's me who is telling you not to cite wikiislam.net", nope, wikiislam will be the last site I would go to. "clearly quite novice with regard to Islam", I have been editing Islam related articles for 3 years now. "you have an agenda to make Islam look more westernized", I am here to make sure Islam is portrayed correctly as in reliable sources and POV pushing fringe views are not included. "most reliable secondary sources which state the incident mentioned in Sahih Muslim 4:2127 involved some kind of beating", please provide some. "Jamal Badawi is a POV pusher", his views reciprocate in many sources: [1][2][3][4]. The bottom line is, provide secondary sources that support your viewpoint, wikiislam cites primary sources, so that's of no use here. -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail  05:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This [3] source you cited above, is the same source you previously claimed to be unreliable in the slavery debate, and I therefore removed it. You cited this source above, and this source clearly states that beating is allowed, just like all the other sources you cited above. The sources you provide don't back your view.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That source does not mention slavery at all, are you missing something? -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail  07:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Break
Inappropriate Sources Citations to these two sources should be deleted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dr.Zakir Naik, Voilence against Women in Islam. This page is page for user comments. It is not a reliable source because the content is user-generated. (I should add that from the point of view of personal study, this is an excellent web-page. But it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.)
 * WebIslam On the unlawfulness of wife beating, by Abdelmumin Aya (a.k.a. Vicente Haya), translated by Daniel F. Rivera. The author is an expert on Japanese poetry, who claims to have a medium level of competence in Arabic.(see his CV).  Senor Haya's writings are not a reliable source for the correct interpretation of Arabic sentences.

Appropriate Sources
 * The Qur'an: An Introduction, by Abdullah Saeed, pub 2008, p131-3 is a good source. However the link to Italian Amazon does not allow the reader to see the context of the remarks.  The URL link should be removed.
 * Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles, by Jamal Badawi, pub 1995, p61 is a good source.

Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles page 61 includes both the point that he is not allowed to cut or bruise her when he beats her, and that it is disputed whether he can strike her face. These two points are also made in the newspaper citations that certain users have tried to delete. I suggest that a citation to Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles could be added to the article as follows:
 * The Quran allows a husband to beat his wife (lightly) if she is disobedient to him,   though he is not allowed to cut or bruise her,  He is allowed to beat young children; but not adult children; and it is disputed whether he is allowed to hit his wife's face.  A minority of Islamic scholars contest this interpretation.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding Abdelmumin Aya, he teached also compared religions, history of islamic thinking, islamology and Methodology of the Religious Sciences. Not all western academics in the islamic field speaks arabic, nor all arabs are coranic exegetes; i think that his allegations must be considered, as are considered those of the western academics in general - or we have some reliable sources stating his inadequacy?


 * The Qur'an: An Introduction actually is linked to https://books.google.it, but i don't know why you cant see the book. Sometimes happens when too peolple watch the same page. Horewer the book is also in every google - com, uk, etc.


 * Regarding your suggestion, i have some questions:
 * why you have removed all the contextualization? A saudi judge rule in his contry, and the same goes for the UAE court. Other clerics made different allegations regarding domestic abuse, like the President of the Australian National Imams Council 1.
 * The Saaed books refers explicity to Q4:34, so why not write it?CallAng222 (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is that you are searching for sources that "prove" your beliefs on Google, but not reading the whole of the source - just cherry picking the bits you like.


 * Jamal A Badawi's book makes similar statements as the newspaper articles. But it is good to have the newspaper articles too, because they help show that what Badawi says is a mainstream view.  If you had understood the newspaper articles correctly, you would have understood that.  Putting in negating "contextualizations" was unhelpful.  The UAE court was talking about Islamic codes - these apply to all Muslims.  The statement by Sohaila Zenelabideen Hammad disputing that a man has a right to hit his wife's face also applies to all Islam, not just Saudi Arabia.


 * The Saaed book is being cited - but great care is required with it. Neither of us have read pages before page 131, which also discuss different interpretations of the verse from the Quran.


 * If you read the comment about Vicente Haya (a.k.a. Abdelmumin Aya) above you will understand why he is unreliable for a statement that mainstream translations of the Quran have got it wrong. His CV admits that his Arabic is limited.  In any case, there is better citation from someone whose book discusses people who really do know what they are doing that backs the statement you want to see backed up.--  Toddy1 (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The existence of different interpretation of the Q4:34 verses is a matter widely discussed inside and outside muslim world; the sentences we added seems perfect to me: we are not saying that the different interpretation is correct - just that exist; we saying also that is minoritary. Neither we are saying in what this interpretation differs. We could add more ref if you want, but (i don't mean to be rude) to me this seems a not so important matter.


 * No, it's a matter of interpretation. In Saudi and UAE court and judge make theirs; outside others clerics made others interpretation. For example:
 * Sunni Islam's highest authority has approved a woman's right to fight back if her husband uses violence against her1
 * "A woman can respond to physical violence inflicted on her by a man with counter- violence as a self-defense measure," Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.2


 * Do you have some reliable sources backing your affermation regardind this academic unreliability, both in general or regarding the specific article? He teached compared religions, history of islamic thinking, islamology and Methodology of the Religious Sciences; studied in Algeria... maybe he knows what hes doing better than us... just saying :DCallAng222 (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I propose the following wording, expanding on with more information from Jamal's book and relevant sources in between. Regarding Sahih Muslim 4:2127, the translation differs in sources, "caused me pain" has been replaced by "which I felt", so I think that it is best omitted. Also I think sources from experts could replace the existing news reports, if found. The paragraph should be kept short. We might as well do away with the part about hitting the face, as it adds unnecessary detail.
 * On a side note,, physical violence (IMO), is altogether different than wife beating as it is defined in Islam, what the source you have cited pertain to the case when the man has transgressed the limits. It should be clearly mentioned in some way or the other. That's my 2¢ on it:
 * The distinction between hitting with a miswak and full scale physical violence needs to be clear. Best, -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail  17:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The distinction between hitting with a miswak and full scale physical violence needs to be clear. Best, -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail  17:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The distinction between hitting with a miswak and full scale physical violence needs to be clear. Best, -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail  17:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Fauzan, while of course i am awaiting for other users contribution, to me the words of both shiite and sunni authotiry seems pretty clear.
 * "Everyone has the right to defend themselves, whether they are a man or a woman ... because all human beings are equal before God"; while the shia ayatollah said that
 * "A statement from Fadlallah's office said he opposed a man using any sort of violence against a woman, even in the form of insults and harsh words." I dont see in these statesment a permit to beating of any tipe. Also the Shayck and the Grand Ayatollah are far more important that the saudi judge and the uae court.CallAng222 (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The advantage of having citations from both books by professors and newspaper reports is that the newspaper reports help show what is mainstream. (Just because someone is a professor does not mean that they tell the truth, or that their books reflect mainstream thought.)  Wikipedia policy on verifiability is relevant here.


 * Regarding whether Muhammad ever hit his wife, the best we can say is that sources differ on this. So I agree that it should either be omitted or put in a footnote explaining both sides.--  Toddy1 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding whether Muhammad ﷺ ever hit his wife, I can't find sources other than blogs and fringe websites that claim he actually hit A'isha, this source presents a different translation that he "nudged", as I pointed out earlier. This does make a difference of sources, but another hadeeth, reported by the same A'isha goes "...Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) never beat anyone with his hand, neither a woman nor a servant...", so this should make the issue clear, and this has been reflected in Jamal's book. -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail  15:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Muhammad executed people by beheading, approved wife-beating in several hadiths and wife-beating is mentioned in Quran at least twice (verse 4:34 and verse 38:44 among others).--Slooppouts34 (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WikiIslam is notorious for skewed, biased, and uncited propaganda. I have not found a single scholar on Islam who has endorsed that site. As far as I'm concerned, that site is about as accurate regarding Islam as is Conservapedia in accurately representing, well, anything. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Fauzan, i approve your decision to edit the page (it was a mess), but i have some questions:
 * 1)Why we are using a UAE court decision as a rule for the entire muslim world (The man of the house is allowed...) but we're not even mentioning this and this ]?
 * 2)I think that we can add the Saaed book to the references, either in a new ref or in the same.
 * 3) While it's true that a minority of the muslim world contests the Q4:34 interpretation, we can't say that both sunni an shia top religius leader constituites a minority in the muslim scholars field; so beacuse of this i think that the two issue must be separated. (I say this just to talk... my impression, taking into account this fatwas, is that in the future the different interpretation of Q4:34 verses will be preminent... do you agree?)CallAng222 (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

First, I don't think we need that paragraph, it is appropriately covered in Women in Islam and Islam and domestic violence. The paragraph should be kept a bare minimum. The UAE source states "Islamic codes" so it is applicabe. I have no access to Saeed's book so can't say any thing about it. Regarding the third point, it is obvious that self defense is allowed, so it need not be mentioned. -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail  07:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2015
आज आप सभी को एक सच से अवगत करता हु । आप सभी रामायण की सभी घटनाओं को जानते हैं । रामायण में सभी राक्षसों का वध हुआ था लेकिन💥 सूर्पनखा का वध नहीं हुआ था उसका नाक और कान काट कर छोड़ दिया गया था । वह कपडे से अपने चेहरे को छुपा कर रहती थी । रावन के मर जाने के बाद वह अपने पति के साथ शुक्राचार्य के पास गयी और जंगल में उनके आश्रम में रहने लगी । राक्षसों का वंस ख़त्म न हो इसलिए शुक्राचार्य ने शिव जी की आराधना की ।शिव जी ने अपना स्वरुप शुक्राचार्य को दे कर कहा की जिस दिन कोई वैष्णव इस पर गंगा जल चढ़ा देगा उस दिन राक्षसों का नाश हो जायेगा ।उस आत्म लिंग को शुक्राचार्य ने वैष्णव मतलब हिन्दुओं से दूर रेगिस्तान में स्थापित किया जो आज अरब में मक्का मदीना में है । सूर्पनखा जो उस समय चेहरा ढक कर रहती थी वो परंपरा को उसके बच्चो ने पूरा निभाया आज भी मुस्लिम औरतें चेहरा ढकी रहती हैं । सूर्पनखा के वंसज आज मुसलमान कहलाते हैं । क्युकी शुक्राचार्य ने इनको जीवन दान दिया इस लिए ये शुक्रवार को विशेष महत्त्व देते हैं । पूरी जानकारी तथ्यों पर आधारित सच है ।

101.62.175.219 (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Translation' Today you've been made aware of a truth. You know all the events of the Ramayana. In Ramayana, it is written that the fallen  demons had not killed but Surpnkha was left with his nose and ears cut off. He used a cloth to hide his face. After he died Ravana shukraachaary went to live in his ashram in the forest with her husband. This was done to prevent demons who worshiped Shiva. blah blah blah,,,,,............... . Today, Muslims are being called back to their Surpnkha descendant. more blah blah blah. This information is true and based on facts.


 * NOT DONE, i guessFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * X mark.svg Not done – Off-topic and fails to provide a valid proposal. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight concerns over describing Muhammad as the "last prophet unto mankind"
CallAng222, you reverted my edit in order to state that Muhammad is the "last prophet unto mankind". I changed this to simply "prophet" because some Muslims, including Ahmadi Muslims, believe that Muhammad is not the Khatam an-Nabiyyin, or "seal of the prophets", a reference to Muhammad as being the last and final prophet unto mankind. This is not adding undue weight to the claim, since Ahmadiyya is the third largest branch of Islam, and thus represents a significant portion of Islam. Moreover, if you read the entire sentence in question, you'll see that this is the current stance of the article:The need for cleanup in the lead aside (which I may do if necessary), it's obvious that this article already recognizes that Muhammad is not universally considered to be the final prophet by all Muslims.

I should also like to point out that the mention of Muhammad in this particular text was introducted by Edith Smitters in her recent edit. Previously, the mention of Muhammad was not even included in the introductory paragraph of the lead, so my change isn't in any way problematic. Rather than reverting your change, however, I'll bring the issue up here for us to discuss. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, NeilN has reverted all these edits back to the original one by Malik Shabazz. I consider the "unto mankind" edit to be a slight improvement, but ultimately unnecessary. If you could explain why you reverted these edits, then perhaps that could settle this. Apologies for the above post; I hadn't seen your reversion until just after I posted it. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are three editors changing the wording (plus an undiscussed image removal). Is there consensus on the wording? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I suppose I'll just wait for input from the other users. For now, we could just keep the edit to which you reverted it. Do you have any preference here? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not particularly. The preceding "and for the vast majority of adherents" is a good qualifier. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So be it. On a somewhat related not, NeilN, do you think it would be wise to reword the lead to be clearer? I propose the following to replace the current lead paragraph: Do you think this is an improvement? I think so, and the rewording may invalidate this discussion. If so, I'm glad to edit it in. If not, do you have any complaints in particular which I could address, or do you just prefer the lead's current state? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * One issue I have with the current lead and your revised lead are the terms "articulated" and "normative example". I get what they mean but look at Christianity. More understandable to every level of reader. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That was a concern I had as well, but I decided to retain the original wording for lack of a better alternative. Perhaps this would be better?Is this better? If not, do you have an alternative proposal for the leading paragraph? ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's better. I would create a new section here called something like "Proposed new introductory paragraph" and see if there's any other feedback. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I've created the new section. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If 10 or 20 milions of ahmady believe in another prophet, well, good for them but nearly 2 billion Muslims believe this: Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah, of all things, Knowing. As far as i know, the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to report any bizarre sectarian beliefs within a religion - here in wikipedia ahmady beliefs are well represented in other, more specific pages. This is due to the fact that Ahamdy and other islamic sects are heterodoxy... ahamdy believe that Buddha was an islamic prophet, Krishna was an islamic prophet... clearly ahamady position are quite bizarre.CallAng222 (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Ahmadiyya is a "bizzare sectarian belief", nor would it be undue weight to respect the position of this influential branch of Islam. The rest of the article on Islam, including the text which immediately proceeds the area of the lead in question, adheres to the neutral and uncontroversial position that Muhammad is a Prophet, but not the final Prophet. In other words, the article does not specify anywhere in WikiVoice that Muhammad as the last and final Prophet. Why should we go against this norm and define Islam as a religion which accepts Muhammad as the last and final Prophet? One could interpret that single inclusion as effectively implying that the Ahmadiyya faith is not Islamic, which contradicts just about everything else we have in the Islam series.


 * Maintaining this position of nonspecific neutrality would respect the variation in Islam held by the branches and schools of Islam, neither excluding nor favoring any of them. By stating that Muhammad is the last Prophet, we're excluding a significant number of Muslims, even if that "significant number" is small in comparison to total number of Islamic adherents. Anyway, I'd consider this addition to the lead to be unnecessary and disrupts the flow. It doesn't improve the lead at all, and the link to sunnah more than suffices to imply that the teachings of the Quran are from Muhammad. The article about sunnah does not imply that Muhammad is the final prophet either, so why should the main article on Islam?


 * As for your quotation from the Surat Al-'Aĥzāb, scriptural canon is not what we rely upon when determining article content. We rely on secondary sources, statistics, and facts; scriptural canon is arguably none of them (with the exception of "facts", and usually only for its adherents). Virtually all Christian branches deviate from Biblical teachings significantly, and many branches from other religions do so as well. The fact that some branches of Islam also do so is neither surprising nor important for determining article content (in this context). ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I went here some time ago but was reverted. anyway here goes. why don't we change last to "the last law bearing" prophet. All branches agree on the statement "last law bearing prophet", and i do mean all 100% muslims including ahmadiyyah and all others. there is no contention about this statement. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat fine with that, though I'm still concerned that the addition would still be superfluous and unnecessary. Do we really need to specify Muhammad in that context at all? See the diffs I linked above for what I mean, if you haven't seen them already. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 06:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I said what I thought was best to prevent any edit warring. Perhaps someone else will have a better solution, these are just my two centsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Jurisprudence section
The jurisprudence section keeps getting messier. Last November, a ‘science’ subsection was added and recently a slavery subsection was added which is now actually the biggest subsection in the law section. The template, which I have added, contains many topics, and each does not need its own section. Instead of it being a tad undue weight that this section gets skewed for the particular interests of every new user, there should be a few broad subsections and if others want to keep new info it should be incorporated within these sections. Additionally this haphazard lede of the jurisprudence section needs a clean up, but that’s for another time. Sodicadl (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Fastest growing religion is too contentious for lead
A lead on such a big topic should just include hard facts. That Islam is the primary religion in the Middle East and the second largest overall is just that. However, growth of religion is the subject of a lot of different studies, and is undue for the lead. Baylor University admit here that claims are incredibly difficult to verify, and while Islam is growing as a percentage, actual numbers are growing in Christianity. http://www.baylorisr.org/2012/11/14/the-worlds-fastest-growing-religion-by-philip-jenkins/

The sources are not suitable for an article of this quality.


 * 1) This source is a Futurology prediction by Pew. According to our article on Growth of religion: "Projections of future religious adherence are based on assumptions that trends, total fertility rates, life expectancy, political climate, conversion rates, secularization, etc will continue. Such forecasts cannot be validated empirically and are contentious, but are useful for comparison" In addition, it's about the FUTURE, so it can't justify saying "Islam IS the fastest growing religion"


 * 1) This source does not directly call Islam the fastest-growing religion. It gives 1.3 billion Muslims growing at 1.84% and  2.2 billion Christians growing at 1.34%


 * These sources http://www.pbs.org/empires/islam/faithtoday.html http://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/2008/04/07/no-god-but-god provide precisely no statistics at all for their claims

This claim of fastest-growing is not even reciprocated in the Demographics section. In addition, the term "fastest-growing" does not specify whether in percentage of absolute numbers, or across what timescale, all of which are different in different studies. A lead section should give the indisputable facts on a religion. I guarantee somebody could find four sources from such varying places as the sources given here to "prove" contentious negative opinions about Islam as well. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This does not negate the fact that Islam is fastest growing, it 'explains' why Islam is fastest growing. The article actually supports the claim, and does not negate it. All other sources agree that Islam is the fastest growing religion. Pewforum is a reliable source and has been used before. This source gives the rate of growth of both Islam and christianity and shows that Islam is growing more rapidly. last time I checked 1.84 was greater than 1.34. And as wikipedia allows content to be taken from reliable sources the statement that Islam is fastest growing has been taken from one source and then the statistics have been taken from another, reliable, source. I don't see what the problem is here. Sources are reliable, stats are reliable. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you are WP:SYNTH because Foreign Policy never says Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Its percentage rate is higher, but not in actual numbers. Did you know that if one man started his own one-man religion it would have grown by over a million percent? The whole concept of growth is too nuanced to be presented as a concrete fact at the end of a sentence, there are varying investigations with varying parameters. Pew Forum is making predictions for the future in that piece, but your sentence is setting it in the present. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you do the maths, Foreign Policy have Christianity growing at 29 million per year and Islam at 24 million. The other sources are for the future or have no statistics at all. So the only source there is showing Christianity growing faster in actual numbers. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is wikipedia, we do not do any maths here. We just say what the source says. I will just put an inline citation for these sources. If you have any sources which prove the opposite do share them. At the present this is your personal opinion. show us where it is written that Islam is not the fastest growing religion, then we can debate. Personal opinions count for nothing here on wiki.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "We just say what the source says". That source says nothing about Islam being the fastest growing religion in the world, only in Europe. The other sources are either completely without foundation or a PROJECTION OF THE FUTURE. Fine, have it. Make this article look like something written by a third grader for homework. Report something as a fact without any foundation. Reject that the sources you have say the complete opposite or are irrelevant. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Last I checked we were in 2015 therefore the PERIOD 'BEFORE' 2010 has passed and crystal ball does not hold and Pew has become a reliable source since we passed 2010. Foreign policy states that Islam is the fastest growing faith so we should write what they have 'published'. If someone has an issue with what they have stated he should argue with the publishers, not the editors of wiki, we just write what has been published, and it has been published that Islam is the fastest growing religion. Please do not remove these sources without giving any rationale.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * the CNN website says 'Islam, the world's fastest-growing faith, will leap from 1.6 billion (in 2010) to 2.76 billion by 2050'. What more is needed?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the problem there is that the source conflicts with WP:CRYSTAL, since it makes projections about future statistics based on current analyses. The information may be accurate to a single order of magnitude, but since it is unverifiable, it is not suitable for Wikipedia. At least, that's my understanding of it. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I hold no opinion on any of this, but perhaps a resolution could be made in the form of a sentence clarifying the type of growth and specifying this controversy in a note? For example, the current sentence reads as follows:Perhaps this sentence could be changed to state something like:A note could then follow, specifying that the current sources (and here you can cite those which are relevant) indicate that Islam is the fastest-growing religion by percentage, but not by total number of adherents. A succinct explanation of how this is possible could be provided (I'd like to know because I'm confused about this as well), specifying that Christianity is growing faster by number of adherents.


 * If it's not possible that one religion could be growing faster by percentage while another is growing faster by number of adherents, then apologies for the ignorance. I just assumed that this could imply significant conversion rates between religions, or the "growth" of irreligion and atheism in particular religions which are detracting from its overall growth. I'm not sure if those are actual factors being considered in growth statistics, however, so maybe I'm just clueless all-around. As for the sources currently listed above, I suggest finding more, or at least better, sources to verify the claims. At this time, the sources appear to be weak in supporting any claim about Islam's growth as a religion because the information is usually insufficient or limited in some aspect.


 * Just a thought. If you all don't like this idea, feel free to ignore this and continue with your discussion. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Apparently, this issue keeps coming up.  The most objective statement is that it is “one of the fastest growing religions in the world” or “the fastest growing MAJOR religion in the world” for reasons largely mentioned here. If there is a passage in those sources that says ‘fastest growing religion’ without the qualifier ‘major’ it is because they write with a approachable, relaxed tone, as you can see in CNN’s article that starts with “futuristic robots”, that does not have to uphold every technicality as is expected in Wikipedia. But obviously, all the sources cited treat this issue as being about ‘major’ religions. Sodicadl (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2015
As an addition to the "External Resource" section I would like to request that the five pillars of Islam should be included. The site islam.org.uk has been chosen for its simplicity. It has all five pillars and four are in a virtual book format. it also has resources to help users learn/read Quran. It is a non commercial site.


 * Five Pillars of Islam

Mslatif1 (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This is considered spam, even if the site is non-commercial. If this link is to be inserted, there must be a consensus from other users first. Gparyani (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss Template talk:Caliphate
Please discuss Template talk:Caliphate --Peace world  10:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Rewording the first paragraph in the lead
At NeilN's suggestion, I've started a new section concerning the lead and rewording its first paragraph. Thus far, the current proposal is:Thoughts and opinions? Do you think this is an improvement over the current text? Do you have any suggestions to improve it? Consensus would be ideal. Naturally, all the Islam pronunciation and note markup will be retained. (I'll be out for a while, so I may not respond until tomorrow.) ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, your proposal is to strike out that whole paragraph? And...you call that "an improvement"? --AVM (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You got it wrong, teachings of the Quran is not sunnah, sunnah is the normative example of the prophet ﷺ. Here's my suggestion. Improvement can be made on the word flow.-- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail  18:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I'm just trying to clean up the wording, but I don't know a whole lot about Islam's beliefs. I definitely agree that your wording it better. I support yours over mine, and I consider it to be a definite improvement over both my proposal and the current lead. Thanks for the correction! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that the option proposed by Fauzan is better. However we are really pursuing the beliefs of a very very small part of the muslim world, because this indo pakistani sect is also divided in two branch. The Lahori branch of Ahmadiyya NOT believe that Ahmad was a prophet. CallAng222 (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed “Islamic holy book” to religious text because it is a bit of a problem to have the word ‘islamic’ in a sentence that is trying to describe ‘islam’. I have been out of Wikipedia for awhile, but it is worth mentioning that the previous lead sentence took a lot of consensus building to work out and now looks so unwieldy. I did not change the whole sentence, but thought it would flow better this way. Sodicadl (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Pre-Modern era (1258–20th century)
"By the 19th century the British Empire had formally ended the last Mughal dynasty in India" - this statement shows an incorrect/half-correct picture, since it was the Maratha Empire, which had significantly weakened the Mughal dynasty in the early 18th century itself. I would recommend it to be modified slightly. Allow me to edit. Credible evidence provided hereby

Amit20081980 (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Classical era (750–1258)
"During this time, the Delhi Sultanate took over the Indian subcontinent." - partially correct. The Delhi Sultanate was never able to conquer southern and north-eastern India. I am editing this. Further, there isn't even a mention of Vijayanagar Empire, which vehemently opposed Delhi Sultanate and Vijayanagar acted as a bulwark against Islamic influence in southern India. Credible evidence provided hereby

Amit20081980 (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Note:Move discussion
If anyone is interested for input, please participate in a relevant move discussion at James the Just's talk page, to help reach a consensus for the title of that article. Khestwol (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2015
Islam means "peace through submission to will of god"

Awesomenessauce (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

URGENT CLEANUP
make the article NEUTRAL. NUKE THE PEACOCKS AND WEASELS FOR GREAT JUSTICE.

compare with neutrality level of christianity and judaism page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:3010:BFFA:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What are you referring to exactly? --109.149.123.10 (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Etymology
The last sentence of the first paragraph under the heading "Etymology and Meaning" reads "Islam, by its own inner logic, embraces every possible facet of existence, for God has named Himself al-Muḥīṭ, the All-Embracing." This may well be true but nothing in the preceding explanation of the etymology/meaning of "Islam" prepares the claim, much less supports it. It seems rather like this is theology; it is poetic and beautiful, and perhaps even true; nevertheless it seems to have been inserted mistakenly into what should be a rather dry section, altogether without poetry and religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbr84 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

History in the lead?
In the lead of Christianity article you have couple of lines about the history of that religion but not a single word about the history of Islam in the lead of this article. 164.58.68.181 (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

How is "predestination" an "article of faith" ?
Maria De Cillis has stated that the free-will/predestination issue is "one of the most contentious topics in classical Islamic thought" ( https://books.google.ca/books?id=1YliAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA142&dq=islam+free+will&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=predestination&f=false ), and yet "predestination" has been casually promoted to the level of "article of faith" in this article, without an equal weight given to free will. Even though none of the cited sources state that predestination is an "article of faith". This sub-category should removed from this section, and be integrated in other sections (its proper place is actually in an Islamic Philosophy article.) Does anyone have an objection to this before I make the change? c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> LogicBomb! </i> 17:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't find a category in this article where I can move it, so I've created a sub-category on the Metaphysics section of the Islamic philosophy article with this content . I'll remove the content from this article, since no sources are provided to justify predestination as an "article of faith". c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> LogicBomb! </i> 18:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent Image edits
I have replaced the image of the angel with a (in my opinion) better one. My rationale is as follows. Feel free to give your input as part of BRD. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The subject matter of the image I removed is not an angel, it is Muhammad; while the image I added is of an angel.
 * The image I removed is not listed as a good or featured image, while the one I added is a Featured image in Persian wiki.
 * The image I added is of better quality and better overall.
 * The image I added has a wider usage in wikipedia as opposed to the one I removed.
 * As previously discussed, the current image has consensus support because (a) it illustrates the text (duties of angels) and (b) it is a well known image. DeCausa (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @DeCausa All previous discussions were focused on Removing the image, no replacement has ever been discussed as far as I can see. Perhaps you can guide me to a meaningful discussion where a replacement was discussed. Secondly you have not given any counter arguments. Thirdly, consensus can change. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you going to answer my points? DeCausa (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. You said "It illustrates the text", this is a highly subjective sentence. Any picture of an angel will "illustrate" the text. Simple as that, you cannot prove that a simple picture of an angel (which I added) "doe not illustrate the text". If you can show that my image does not illustrate the text feel free to try. Your second point was that "it is a well known image", as far as I can see the image I used is more "well known" as it is in a british museum and it is featured image in persian wikipedia. As I have answered your points I think you should answer my rationale given above. I gave four points, please counter them pointwise. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I assumed that you had also read my edit summary, but perhaps you hadn't. By "illustrates the text", I was refering to the duties of angels, which is a major part of the section. One of the duties is revelation, so an angel communucating with Muhammad is more apt than your image which us simply "here is an angel", and could in fact be an angel from any Abrahamic religion except for the fact we know its origins. I think there are better immages representing Islamic revelation: there is one of Gabriel revealing the Quran to Muhammad available. If you would care to propose that image, I would support it. DeCausa (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @DeCausa you have not answered my points and have continued to discuss your arguments. Please answer my points in your next comment. As far as you concern about "illustrating the text" is concerned; I would like to point out, again, that it is a subjective matter. Which means that unless you can "prove" that one image is not illustrating the text, you cannot say it does not belong here. I don't think there is any reason to drag this further, it is just a moot point that what "illustrates" the text better because both of them illustrate the text to an equal degree and the image you have added is far, far inferior in other aspects. Your second point is that there are better images available, like that of Gabriel revealing the Quran. Well, the only image of that kind I could find on wiki is far inferior in quality and otherwise to the one I added. Perhaps you can post the link to "better image" here? Also please give your counter arguments to the points I have raised, you seem to forget them every time you comment. regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Would either of you would object to using both images?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It might be overkill to have both, but I don't have a strong view. Freeatlastchitchat, I don't understand your point about illustration of the text. Your image is just an image of an angel, with the only distinctively Islamic aspdct being its artistic origin. Aside from the cultural origin of the image, that could be any Abrahamic angel. The current image is more than that. Firstly, it illustates one of the duties of angels discussed in the text i.e. revelation. I don't understand how you can fail to see that illustrates more in the text than your image. Secondly, it clearly relates to Islam as Muhammad is in the image. QED the current image is better suited for the section text. DeCausa (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @DeCausa The image I provided is of an Islamic angel as that is what the museum says about it and it has been extensively used in wikipedia as an Islamic angel, how did you get the information that it is not an Islamic angel when it has been used extensively on multiple wikipedias as an Islamic angel. Perhaps you will be kind enough to share with us who told you that an angel painted during Islamic regn in an Islamic country is 'not' an Islamic angel, even when it is titled thus. You again and again use the same point that your image "illustrates" the text better. I have already told you that first of all the painting is not of "an angel" i.e the subject matter is not an angel, the subject matter is the Islamic Prophet SAW. So as far as paintings are concerned it is not a painting of an "angel" per se. The angel is secondary. You have made half a dozen comments and not a single one of them addresses the points I raised, everytime you just copypaste your "illustrates the text better" argument, which is ofc not true. How about you address the fact that the image you provide is very poor in quality, both in the original(we can see that it almost in tatters) and also in the picture taken. Furthermore it is a relatively unknown image, both on wikipedia and in the real world, while the image I provided is a Featured image and is being used on a number of wikipedias especially persian, English and Russian. To be frank this discussion is should not even be started, as I am replacing a bad quality image with a featured image. No person in sane mind can say that a Featured image is "worse" than a bad quality image when they both depict the same thing. Please discuss the image quality, its featured status and its usage across a wide range of wikis in your next comment, you seem to purposefully "forget" these points and stick to just discussing the highly subjective point that "it illustrates the text better" Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since DeCausa does not mind having FreeatlastChitchat's preferred image as well as his/her own preferred image, and FreeatlastChitchat has no objection to other editors' preferred image, I have added FreeatlastChitchat's preferred image to the gallery. If people feel that having three images in a gallery is too much, we could always delete the calligraphy image. ☺ --  Toddy1 (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with that solution. Freeatlastchitchat, I assume you are being deliberately obtuse for the purposes of advancing your objective. I did not say that your image was not an Islamic angel. I've already explained to you why the existing image better illustrates the text because it also illustrates one of the duties of an angel, as discussed in the text, as well as being the image of an angel. It illustrates the text in two ways. Your argument that the image is not of an angel is pointless. I don't think there is anything more worth saying to you. DeCausa (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Toddy1 Whatever happens with this debate, please do not delete the calligraphical depiction, because that is the only accurate rendering of the concept of angel in Islamic Art. I'll add a source to the section to make this fact clear. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> LogicBomb! </i> 20:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: So I've expanded the section on Angels, adding a source which clarifies why pictorial representation of angels in Islam is generally avoided. Thus, the most accurate pic is actually the calligraphical depiction. So even if the other pictures are kept in the gallery, the calligraphy image should not be sacrificed to make room for them. Plz + Thnx. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> LogicBomb! </i> 20:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Simple English grammar
I'm sorry to start anything, but I came across: "As for the Qur'an, Muslims consider it be both the unaltered .."

Obviously it should be: > Muslims consider it to be both the .....

I don't understand how this oversight has gotten past every single editor, including the ones who have locked the page...??? Especially considering that this page will the the first source of information for many uninformed people. This seems like a potentially very embarrassing issue, but I can't edit the page myself.
 * That's because the page is semi-protected. You must have a confirmed account in order to be able to edit the page.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing it out, fixed it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're wondering how so many people missed it, it probably happened the same way that you managed to miss "...that this page will the the first source of information...". So it's really not that embarrassing because we all do it from time to time. Thanks for catching the mistake though! UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

1. islam or musalmanon ka etqad? 2. kia islam tervorest ki taleem deta hai? islam k asasi etaqad mai sai insan dosti or jis deen ki taleem mohabbat or bashar dosti ho woh bhala tervorest ki taleem kese de sakta hai

you'd think sunni islam was the only 'real' islam after reading this wiki
this article has a seriously shameful hadith/sunnah authoritative bias which only serves to diminish the credibility of religion articles on wikipedia. i would suggest the active editors of this article really take the time to study the broad variability of positions within islam, particularly non-sunni interpretations The5thForce (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Law section lede
The lede in the law section seems poorly written. Some sentences are obviously careless like "Since Jafar al-Sadiq and Zayd ibn Ali did not themselves write any books." which makes me wonder if anyone is even watching over these. There's citing of the quran alone as a primary source, which is not allowed by wiki policy. Most of its citations only have the titles of books. I think most of it should be summarized and sent to the history section since it is mostly about the development of usul ul fiqh and the contributions of individuals and the history section is supposed to be about that kind of history more than political history. I've added the first paragraph to the section's lede, which I thought brought important points. Sodicadl (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Slavery is an integral part of Islam
Islam was the master of the slave trade for a thousand years. There were even slave dynasties.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 19:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed acknowledgement of hadith rejection, especially among female muslims
Many important elements of traditional Islam such as five salat prayers, the abhorrence of paintings and sculpture of living things, stoning adulterers, are mentioned in the hadith but not the Quran.

The hadith literature is based on spoken reports(hearsay) that were in circulation in society after the death of Muhammad. Unlike the Quran itself, which was compiled under the official direction of the early Islamic State in Medinah, the hadith reports were not.

The hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections during the 8th and 9th centuries, generations after the death of Muhammad.

Many critics say the hadith has radicalized islam, and the quran itself says to reject written hadiths that do not exist in the quran.

The quran says do not write down another hadith aside from the quran, only oral hadith in addition to the quran is acceptable and that a written hadith that is not contained in the quran is idolatry.

The quran says 'allah' did not approve of even muhammad's 'sinful lifestyle' (muhammad's hadith) which is why muhammad said do not record my hadith, the quran also says allah only used muhammad as the messenger of the quran and not necessarily an exemplary model himself.

http://submission.org/Corruption_of_Religion.html

http://muslimvilla.smfforfree.com/index.php?topic=789.0;wap2

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CHntEWeff2iGbrQ7YpCnCb18BjkFmbDyXrcqryOxzpE/edit

The5thForce (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Some friendly advice: First, familiarize yourself with the following guidelines: WP:Identifying reliable sources, WP:Fringe theories and WP:No original research. None of the links you've posted above qualify as reliable. Here's an example of an article with some reliable academic sources on this topic: Criticism of Hadith. Secondly, the key source which will be needed in order to get these views represented in this main article, is some quantitative research on the number of Muslims who reject/criticize hadith. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 22:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * the quran is the source, I had hoped that was obvious but I'll provide quotes directly from the quran- "Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed?" 6:114, "This (Quran) is not fabricated hadith, but an authentication of what is with you, a detailed account of all things and guidance and mercy for people who believe." 12:111, “We did not leave anything out of the book; then to their Lord they will be summoned.” 6:38, "You shall all follow what has been brought down to you from your Lord and do not follow any allies besides Him. Rarely do you remember." 7:2-3, "Among the people, there is one who trades in baseless hadith to mislead from the path of God without knowledge and he does it as a mockery. For these is a humiliating punishment.” 31:6, "So in which Hadith, other than this (quran), do they believe" 77:50, "Say, "I am not different from other messengers. I have no idea what will happen to me or to you. I only follow what is revealed to me. I am no more than a clear warner (muhammad)." 46:9 (also in 10:15), "The only duty of the messenger is to deliver this message (quran)." 5:99, "The word of your Lord is complete in truth and justice" 6:115, "A.L.R. This is a book (quran) whose verses have been perfected" 11:1, "Do not write down anything from me (muhammad) except the Quran. Whoever writes other than that should delete it" (Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol. 1, page 171 also Sahih Muslim, Book 42, Number 7147) -- http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/a_dozen_reasons_(P1153).html and -- http://www.quran-islam.org/islam/articles/the_history_of_hadith_(P1148).html and -- http://www.masjidtucson.org/submission/perspectives/hadith/practiceswithouthadith.html The5thForce (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I asked you to review those guidelines, which you clearly haven't done. You can not quote from primary sources without backing up those views with  reliable secondary sources . If this is actually important to you, then don't be lazy. Do your due diligence and make an actual effort. Imagine you're writing an undergad paper and apply the same standard. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 01:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * its a very credible talk page discussion and has been one of the key debate issues in the muslim world since islam's inception, i've provided sources which themselves provide more sources, i'm not an editor and this is not an undergrad paper, but hopefully more viewers can contribute to this specific issue with some of the brand name sources available online, at a minimum it should be acknowledged that islam has a long history of controversy regarding the hadiths, some of which have been rejected, mainstreamed, and rejected again multiple times to suit the political atmosphere, hadith hardliners will openly admit the fact that only the hadiths prescribe the hadiths as authentic sources of islamic teachings while simultaneously contradicting the quran. The5thForce (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

relevant developments with additional sources:

-taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Hadith#A_summary_of_this_article_should_be_included_in_the_main_Islam_article criticism of the hadith is fundamental to islam and history confirms this, excluding criticism of the hadith from the main islam article can only be described as religious bias and political pandering to the hadith hardliners, which should not be allowed to pervade any neutral presentation of a broad religion such as islam. i propose a summary of hadith criticism and its sources should be included in the main islam article's 'criticism' section.

-taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Debate_on_the_Hadith quantifying any religion is inherently difficult as the only real empirical evidence-the only truly reliable sources are the religious texts themselves along with the historical record of who wrote those religious texts, the rest is largely at the adherents discretion and in the case of islam it's divided into 'quranists' who seek to interpret islam by directly interpreting 'the word of god through the prophet muhammad' as contained within the quran, and the other approach which is interpreting the 'word of god through the unprophetic followers of the prophet muhammad' who for simplicity i would call "hadithists", among the 'hadithists' you have sunni following one collection of hadith literature and shia following another, but its accepted by all muslims that the hadiths are not 'the word of god' and that the hadiths are highly vulnerable to fabrication- the hadiths have always been politically sorted into various hadith classifications which can be found here: Hadith terminology, these distinctions have an exceptional impact on how islam is practiced and they should be clearly emphasized by any article attempting to illustrate a thorough unbiased description of islam. i will provide another article containing a large amount of sources here: http://www.free-minds.org/does-hadith-have-solid-historical-basis and its worth pointing out that there are well respected quranist muslims who have been compiling evidence showing the hadiths fabrication for decades, such as Edip Yuksel

The5thForce (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * the main islam article may need to be entirely rewritten to distinguish quranic islam from hadithic islam, as the two are actually radically different approaches to the religion of islam along with a high degree of conflicting ideology between them. unfortunately the main islam article presently holds a strong hadith bias which is likely to give the impression that islam is centered around the teachings of the hadith. The5thForce (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section
Riddle me this - why is it alright that the Wiki articles on Hinduism, Judaism and Shinto don't have "criticism" sections, and yet the Wiki articles on Christianity and Islam do have "criticism" sections. To be fair, either all articles on religions and other worldviews should have criticism sections or none of them should - and info criticizing a religion or other worldview should be relegated to a separate "Criticism of ___ " page. MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2015‎ (UTC)
 * , Do it yourself-- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail  11:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I tried to add a "Criticism of atheism" section to the atheism page but was shot down, so I assumed adding a bunch of criticism of religions/worldviews sections would be impossible - too many people would get upset and stop me. As such, I thought it would be easier to delete the criticism sections on the articles about Islam and Christianity.MagicatthemovieS (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2015‎ (UTC)


 * I agree with the principle, either all said pages should have a criticism section or none at all... The only reason I haven't removed this category from this page myself is because Christianity also has this category currently. If there's some agreement to add/delete these sections from all said pages concurrently then I'm all for it. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black"> LogicBomb! </i> 12:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * religions are not created equal by any stretch of the imagination, dharmic religions tend to place highest priority on 'nonviolence' whereas judaism and islam extensively outline when violence is not only permitted- but necessary. it is my belief that most everything should occasionally be criticized so i would favor adding a criticism section to more articles, not less. - The5thForce (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, Hinduism explicitly endorses violence and war. The Bhagavad Gita is all about the justifications for war and killing.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Islam is not a religion
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete theopolitical system. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.' When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:


 * United States — Muslim 1.0%
 * Australia — Muslim 1.5%
 * Canada — Muslim 1.9%
 * China — Muslim 1%-2%
 * Italy — Muslim 1.5%
 * Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:


 * Denmark — Muslim 2%
 * Germany — Muslim 3.7%
 * United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
 * Spain — Muslim 4%
 * Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).


 * France — Muslim 8%
 * Philippines — Muslim 5%
 * Sweden — Muslim 5%
 * Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
 * The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
 * Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is to convert the world & to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris, Sweden –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).


 * Guyana — Muslim 10%
 * India — Muslim 13.4% (*note: India is currently at approx. 20%)
 * Israel — Muslim 16%
 * Kenya — Muslim 10%
 * Russia — Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:


 * Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:


 * Bosnia — Muslim 40%
 * Chad — Muslim 53.1%
 * Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:


 * Albania — Muslim 70%
 * Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
 * Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
 * Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:


 * Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
 * Egypt — Muslim 90%
 * Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
 * Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
 * Iran — Muslim 98%
 * Iraq — Muslim 97%
 * Jordan — Muslim 92%
 * Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
 * Pakistan — Muslim 97%
 * Palestine — Muslim 99%
 * Syria — Muslim 90%
 * Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
 * Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
 * United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s (supposed) to be peace because now everybody is a Muslim. We know, however, that this isn’t true, is it.


 * Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
 * Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
 * Somalia — Muslim 100%
 * Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that’s not the reality. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons...and they are coming to a neighborhood near you ...so keep thinking they are not going to harm you and they "accept" you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hon. Paliver (talk • contribs) 07:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * See WP:No original research, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and WP:NOTFORUM. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * deleted, no contribution to improve the article --Nillurcheier (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sodicadl
Sodicadl: Your last two edits and this edit removed information with encyclopedic value, please revert yourself and establish consensus for removal here at the talk page.  Sh eri ff  | report  | 19:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The reason for my edits were already given, but I have yet to hear what your opposition is. To explain again if you like, it was mentioned on the talk page to move away from political history - Abu Muslim does not have to be there because we should not have to list the general of every battle or like the Marathas, should we list all territorial losses? How about you tell us why we need eight lines on non-denominational muslims, most of which is arguing over one study by Pew. Sodicadl (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Abu Muslim can go, Marathas can go, the images you removed can go and political history portion can go but i think Pew Research and reference about respect for older scriptures (which is one of the basics of Islamic teachings) should be added back. These two items have an encyclopedic value.  Sh eri ff  | report  | 20:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Good to know what you think. "Abu Muslim can go, Marathas can go," - then sorry I brought them up, the reason I thought that was your problem is because those were edits you removed, right? "i think Pew Research,..should be added back" - it does not need to be added back because it has not been taken out. You dodged the question. This is about undue weight. Again, "How about you tell us why we need eight lines on non-denominational muslims, most of which is arguing over one study by Pew." Additionally, this article is supposed to be a summary article and is way above the recommended 100kb. Sodicadl (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That was my response to your response. It means that I conceded my position about Abu Muslim and Marathas. Now I already told you why Pew Research be in there and yes it was there before you removed it and there was no consensus to remove it. That is going back in again until we establish a consensus for removal.  Sh eri ff  | report  | 20:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll be nice. You keep diverting to talk page, but then do not care to respond to what is said. Thrice, I stated my case for the way I edited the nondenomination muslim section. For the second time, you only respond that I removed the nondenomination section and I do not know why you cannot understand that it was not removed. If I cannot get a response from you, can we get some other opinions instead,.. who prefers my version of the nondenominational muslims section, which I feel is due weight (see above) for the article, or Sheriffisintown's preference ? Sodicadl (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sodicadl I have reverted your edits and restored a previous version. Please discuss what you want to add/delete/change here instead of steamrolling controversial edits when a discussion is going on. We can discuss your edits using a list form. You can tell us what you want to do and we can reach an agreement on how best to do it, then you can insert your rpoposed changes. You can ping me when you have mde the said list. Ty regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Take the time to read the discussion first. I agreed to not change anymore what sheriffisintown wanted to talk about. From the revision history, you have made edits too that you did not first bring on the talk page, which is fine because not every edit needs that. But, then why undo my edit that only fixes citations, or ? Was I supposed to first bring it up on the talk page? You not taking the effort means by restoring a past version you even undid other editor's edits. Sodicadl (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Sodicadl asked me to have a look at this discussion as an uninvolved editor. If we take the difference between the version of 15:44, 17 December 2015 and the version of 17:57, 20 December 2015 as the point under discussion, I think that Sodicadl needs to explain the major deletions of material.  I am sorry if he/she has already done so; but he/she either needs to do so again, or provide diffs to explanations.--  Toddy1 (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The differences between those versions were over multiple edits and each was explained. I can explain each again and would like to discuss edits but do not like the talk page used as a diversion tactic. I state my case in what I think is great detail and then get a response basically saying 'meh' and not addressing the points I made like the talk page is a place to send edits to die. Sodicadl (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Political history in lede
As agreed on the talk page, there needs to be a shift away from political history and move toward religious history. The lede now has a para on its own about political history. I summarized it in one sentence not two. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Conditional support: Only if there is a separate page which covers political history of Islam so that this page can be dedicated to specifics about the religion.  Sh eri ff  | report  | 21:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Political history in history section
As agreed on the talk page, there needs to be a shift away from political history and move toward religious history. I removed a mention about a general Abu Muslim in a battle and about Marathas and Normans from a list of territorial losses because we do not need an exhaustive list of generals and territorial losses. This is the edit which also explains removing the emphasis of a particular point with the quran used as a primary source, but that is for another time. From the above discussion, Sherrifisintown agreed to the edits and I do not know if any one else has issues with it. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Partly agree: I agree with the removal of reference to Abu Muslim, Marathas and Normans unless we want to mention all generals and all the battles. I do not agree removing the reference about Muslims being obliged to respect the other scriptures and The Holy Quran as the source, i mean what else can describe Islam better than The Holy Quran.  Sh eri ff  | report  | 21:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Nondenominational Muslims
For the third time, the nondenominational muslim section is eight lines and most of it is arguing over one study done by Pew. This is undue weight for an arguable classification in an article on Islam. I summarized it to four lines, "Non-denominational Muslims defend their position by pointing to the Quranic verses such as Al Imran verse 103, which asks the Muslims to stay united and not to become divided. The Pew Research Center reports that Muslims self identifying as non-denominational Muslims make up a majority of Muslims in seven countries. At least one in five Muslims in at least 22 countries identify as non-denominational Muslims. However, other sources give Sunni majorities for these countries except Azerbaijan which has been traditionally a Shi'a Muslim majority country". I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well right off the bat, the "However, other sources..." at the end seems to violate WP:SYNTH, although not nearly as much as the section currently seems to violate both WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR, as you would need a reliable source specifically saying "However, these figures can be misleading and should be taken with caution", where instead it seems that there is just a list of sources to prove that OR position, rather than sources specifically saying that the Pew study should be taken with caution. I would suggest finding a way to write the section without using the word "However" to bring it more in line with policy. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can take the word "however" out and say, "Non-denominational Muslims defend their position by pointing to the Quranic verses such as Al Imran verse 103, which asks the Muslims to stay united and not to become divided. The Pew Research Center reports that Muslims self identifying as non-denominational Muslims make up a majority of Muslims in seven countries. At least one in five Muslims in at least 22 countries identify as non-denominational Muslims. Other sources give Sunni majorities for these countries except Azerbaijan which has been traditionally a Shi'a Muslim majority country" The last sentence cites ten sources to claim that "other sources give Sunni majorities". Maybe you might find that as synthesis, but how else then can it be written? Sodicadl (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Written that way it does not appear (to me) to violate synth, and I see no real problems with it. The only potential issue I see is that if there really are ten sources saying that they are Sunni majority, and only one source (the Pew study) saying that nondenominational is majority, it almost seems like the Pew study is getting undue weight. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Disagree with the view that the Pew study is getting undue weight simply based on the number of polls conducted, that is not how polling data is properly evaluated. The questions that need to be asked here are 1) what dates were the polls conducted and 2) what questions were asked on the polls? If the Pew study is more recent, it should get more weight. Also, if the other polls didn't offer "non denominational" as a given option, and people simply picked "sunni" as their alternative, then the pew is also more valid as a source and deserves more weight. This is how scholarly analysis of statistical polls is conducted, and as responsible editors we should do our due diligence here. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 11:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, firstly it is not up to us to conduct "scholarly analysis" of anything, that is original research, we simply report what is widely considered to be the consensus among experts. Secondly, not all the sources are polls, and I would imagine polls are not a particularly accurate measure. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, especially if you want to do a bit of"Scholarly analysis", the poll by Pew never actually mentions the word/phrase "nondenominational". Specifically what it says is that some respondents answered "Just a Muslim" as opposed to stating which sect they belong to. This does not mean that they do not belong to one of those sects, just that they did not feel it necessary to mention it. Much in the same way that many Catholics and Protestants will self report as "Just a Christian", it doesn't mean that they aren't a practitioner of one or the other, and it doesn't mean that they actually belong to a nondenominational church. Someone could easily practice Sunni Islam, and yet respond that they are "Just a Muslim" when asked. That is why polls (About anything) are not as good sources as scholarly works on the subject are, especially when using different nomenclature than the poll itself, as "Just a Muslim" and "Nondenominational" are not necessarily synonyms.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you're bringing up a point that has already been discussed ad-nauseum on the main article's TP[]. It was suggested to rename/move the entire article to be titled "Just a Muslim" (I was actually in favor of it) but it was decided that phrasing is not adequate for a title of a wiki article. Therefore, a compromise was made to consider these two terms as equal (for the sake of convenience.) So unless you want to restart that debate on the main's TP, I suggest sticking with the status-quo on this issue. Secondly, I've given reasons why your methodology is flawed and the pew study can't be dismissed using the criteria you're proposing (especially considering the above point.) You can invite other neutral editors to establish consensus on this issue. I also suggest you post these concerns over to the main article's TP, establish consensus there, and then edit the other articles in order to keep the issues and its debates organized. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 12:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

For my suggested rewrite, UnequivocalAmbivalence only found undue weight an issue and that synthesis was not an issue any more. As you can see from the beginning of this non-denominational muslims section on the talk page, my original point was to rewrite the eight line para to four lines because I thought it was undue weight for one study by Pew. A study helping to illuminate the level of people describing themselves without denominations is at least worth mentioning, so I vote that this four line rewrite is a good compromised position. Sodicadl (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Soo, does the suggested four line rewrite address the undue weight issue or not? Sodicadl (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * We've had another round of editing and robust discussion on this issue at Non-denominational Muslims, which seems to be converging (have converged?) toward consensus. How about using the new lead for the eponymous section here? The current section text here still has a few problems which have been addressed there. Eperoton (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Schools of jurisprudence
The madhabs (schools of jurisprudence) seems a pretty notable in a topic on Islam. I added a three line subsection in the Law section in this edit which also explains summarizing the nondenomination section as explained above. Nothing was brought up about this. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Denominations
I moved the Shia subsection ahead of the sufi subsection because Shia are more notable as a sect here,. Nothing was brought up about this. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Family life
I moved the marriage section from the culture section to the family life section in the law section because it only talks about law. Nothing was brought up about this. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the last part in this section needs to be included about sexual relations "Even after marriage, there are limitations regarding sex. For example, Islam prohibits a man to have sexual intercourse with his wife while she is menstruating and during postpartum period. It is considered a great sin for a man to have anal sex with his wife.[104]" This is not suitable and no idea why its included. Children can access this information if they are searching about a faith and this is not appropriate. Please remove. Why is this page protected also? — Preceding Saffycakes comment added by Saffycakes (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Though I disagree with this reasoning, I agree that this passages is problematic. Injunctions against having sex with menstruating and post-partum women are hardly notable enough to be discussed in a general article on religion, perhaps unless they are significant in some other context, such as the ritual purity laws in Judaism. The discussion of anal sex only seems to be here for its lurid effect. Besides, the whole passage is not reliably sourced. Eperoton (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Scholars section
The scholars section uses Islamqa which is not a reliable source and the quran as a primary source. I added the template on usul fiqh. Nothing was brought up against that edit, except sheriffintown added back the quran as a source. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Pics
A pic of the soviet union did not seem as relevant to modern times section as the flag of the OIC. There are a number of pics of mosques and there should be a reasonable limit. I reduced the number and gave the calendar section a pic, as explained here,. Nothing was brought up about this. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Sodicadl your change is largely bad except the lunar pics.

regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) You removed Islamic population and replaced with Islamic organization. This is of no encyclopedic value to the said section, Islamic revival. We have a picture which shows that muslim population increased in europe and Russia during the 1960's, as is written in the text of the article. Your replacement is an organization which has been criticised for its human rights abuses and holds no sway, what is being portrayed here? So a big oppose on that from me.
 * 2) As to the other changes, I am against pictures in those subsections in general. I will be performing a WP:BOLD edit to move them into a gallery after the Culture section. The gallery template is there, it should be used.

Lede in law section
The lede in law goes on about history and has information about hadiths in general. I shifted a para from there to the history section and the prophets section. The lede there is also hard to follow so I added an intro para, defining about "fard" to "haram", which is pretty important Nothing was brought up about this. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That edit put the para in more appropriate sections. And this edit made the intro to law section a little easier to read,. Again, anything new to bring up about them? Sodicadl (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

This is nine days without input. Nothing was brought up about this previously either. I made the proposed edit. Sodicadl (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Addition by FRDHU and Ankhsoprah2
Since when are comments by a politician a RS on theology? Eperoton (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

In the paragraph where you takl about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), as the last "law bearing" Prophet, please remove the words "Law bearing" because Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the Final and Last Messenger of Allah Almighty. In Islam, there is no new Prophet after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

In the table where you give the different sects of Islam, please remove the box "Ahmadis" as this movement is outside of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanas92 (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia doesn't take sides in which sect is the "true" sect and which is not. From an academic perspective, the Ahmadis describe themselves as Muslims.  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Islam
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islam's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hassan-Decline":<ul> <li>From Islamic Golden Age: Ahmad Y Hassan, Factors Behind the Decline of Islamic Science After the Sixteenth Century (cached)</li> <li>From Islam and science: Ahmad Y Hassan, Factors Behind the Decline of Islamic Science After the Sixteenth Century</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Distractions
The awkward paintings of Muhammad and Angels are unreal and distract users from the main essences of this article therefore I propose their removal; any objections can be discussed here.--WindWalk55555 (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the archives. They were created by individuals who identified as Muslim at the behest of other self-identified Muslims.  They assist visual learners.  Wikipedia is not censored.  Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016
This sentence, "Piety appears to be deepening worldwide." is backed up by articles that are outdated and misconstrued, and therefore the sentence should be removed. All of the references are only talking about an increase in conservative Islam within the Middle East. This does not necessarily mean an increase in piety as a whole, as it is only talking about in Islam. It also clearly does not mean worldwide, because it does not talk about the world outside of the Middle East. The articles are also 8 years old now causing them to be outdated for a current standing of the piety trend in the world.

Also, this sentence "Perhaps as a result of these efforts, most experts agree that Islam is growing faster than any other faith in East and West Africa" seems quite unfounded with little to no correlation being proven with the rise of the electronic media. There are also many other factors that can and do contribute to the choice of turning to Islam. Therefore, you should remove the "Perhaps as a result of these efforts" clause.

All in all, I would request that the entire paragraph between these sentences be looked at for modification and/or removal.

Thank you! Accuracycounts1 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Accuracycounts1 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Western-centric wording
The use of "most of them" in the line of the first paragraph reading "...considered by most of them to be the last prophet of God." sounds biased and excluding. "considered by most followers to be..." or "considered by most muslims..." would be less excluding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:112A:408D:A476:11F0:6623:BDE9 (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with the pronoun "they" per se, but its use here is certainly awkward, with an apparent double quantification ("most of the vast majority of adherents"). This sentence is trying to convey too much information. Eperoton (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologetics
Christianity has an 'Apologetics' section; Why not Islam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:C501:3083:84E3:1E83:35AD:B513 (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess because the term has been hijacked by talking heads. There are many books on Christian apologetics, but the phrase "Muslim/Islamic apologist" is a shibboleth of anti-Islam polemics. Eperoton (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Muhammed the Pedofile
Not very important? It is really.--Thelawlollol (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Child marriage isn't pedophilia, which is " a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." We discuss his marriage to [Aisha]] at her article, at Criticism of Muhammad and |Islam and children#Marriage. Doug Weller  talk 12:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Quran/Qur'an/Koran/Qu'ran spelling
I noticed a lot of inconsistent spellings of "Quran" on this page, and decided to make the article uniform. Based on Quran, the discussion of said article's name in its archives, and not finding anything in the archives of this page, I have settled on "Quran" rather than the variants "Qur'an" or "Koran." Of course "Qu'ran" is an obvious typo. If a consensus is reached to instead change the spelling back to "Qu'ran" for whatever reason, despite the acceptance of the spelling "Quran," I'm alright with that. Sennsationalist (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For some reason I can't edit the two "Qur'an" instances out of the lede. Otherwise I've cleaned it up and unified the spellings. If no one else gets to it, I'll probably remember to do it when I get on a better internet connection. Sennsationalist (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it finally worked! Sennsationalist (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion notification
Hi, I could not get much attention from WP:WikiProject Islam (apart from the Shia task force), so I am putting a notification here about a merger discussion regarding Demolition of al-Baqi→Al-Baqi'. The discussion takes place at Talk:Al-Baqi'. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Lead?
Reverted lead? Metaphysicswar said,"Standardized with other major religions articles like Christianity & Hinduism. Second lead should be more facts based rather than cramming it with details that can possibly go on forever."

What do you guys think about the metaphysicswar lead? To me, it looks fine.

..................Metaphysicswar lead begin: (update.7)..................

Islam (الإسلام, al-ʾIslām ; is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion articulated by the Quran, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Allāh), and, for the vast majority of adherents, by the teachings and normative example (called the sunnah, composed of accounts called hadith) of Muhammad (c. 570–8 June 632 CE). It is the world's second-largest religion and the fastest-growing major religion in the world, with over 1.7 billion followers or 23% of the global population, known as Muslims. Muslims also believe that Islam is the original, complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.

Islam upholds that God is one and incomparable and that the purpose of existence is to worship God. Muslims consider Muhammad to be the last prophet of God. As for the Quran, Muslims consider it to be both the unaltered and the final revelation of God. Religious concepts and practices include the five pillars of Islam, which are obligatory acts of worship, and following Islamic law, which touches on virtually every aspect of life and society, from banking and welfare to the status of women and the environment.

Islam began in the early 7th century. Originating in Mecca, it quickly spread in the Arabian peninsula and by the 8th century the Islamic empire was extended from Iberia in the west to the Indus river in the east. The Islamic Golden Age refers to the period traditionally dated from the 8th century to the 13th century when much of the historically Islamic world was experiencing a scientific, economic and cultural flourishing. The expansion of the Muslim world involved various caliphates and empires, traders and conversion to Islam by missionary activities.

Most Muslims are of one of two denominations: Sunni (75–90%) or Shia (10–20%). About 13% of Muslims live in Indonesia, the largest Muslim-majority country, 32% in South Asia, 20% in the Middle East, and 15% in Sub-Saharan Africa. Sizable Muslim communities are also found in Europe, China, Russia, and the Americas. Converts and immigrant communities are found in almost every part of the world.

......................Lead end (update.7)...................... 001blondjamie (talk) 16:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I've reverted an earliest revert of 's lead because it was made without explanation. Now is the first time I looked into the changes more closely. I haven't tracked down all the changes, but the ones I see are not an improvement. They include, for example, a false statement that Islam is "articulated by the Quran", period. They also include this word salad: "The Quran, a religious text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Allāh), and, for the vast majority of adherents, by the teachings [...]". So, I support 's reset to status quo ante, and we can consider specific changes individually. Eperoton (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed the issue you mentioned in the above lead. Let me know if there are other problems that you can see that needs to be fixed.001blondjamie (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The second sentence is also word salad and should probably be deleted. The statement that Islam is mostly found in the Muslim world is too tautological to serve as a good excuse for the hyperlink. Otherwise, from what I can see at the moment, I don't really have a preference between the two versions. Eperoton (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed again according to your recent concerns, let me know if you see other problems. 001blondjamie (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That second sentence is still weird... "found most notably in Greater Middle East and some of its surrounding areas." Sounds like you are referring to some elusive leopard that is only found in certain habitats lolz. I agree with Eperton, it's best to just delete it. It's not adding anything insightful anyway.  c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 15:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this format was copied from the first line of Hinduism article which says,"Hinduism is a religion, or a way of life, found most notably in India and Nepal." 001blondjamie (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Doesnt really matter where its copied from, we are discussing this page, and it should be subtracted because of the multiple reasons listed by multiple editors. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 21:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The only differences I can notice are not improvements. The introductory statement is important and it being that Islam is found most notably in the Greater Middle East is not the most notable thing about Islam. Never mind that the Greater Middle East probably does not even include most Muslims, such as in India, Bangladesh and Indonesia. There was a layout change, but I am not sure the demographics should be split to be in the first para of the lead and then again in the fourth para of the lead. With these faults to consider, I was wondering what are the advantages claimed by this edit and it said that this lead is “more facts based rather than cramming it with details that can possibly go on forever”. How is cramming it with details being unfactual or how does being fact based prevent you from going on forever? Nevermind that nothing was changed in the lead’s factual-ness and the length is still the same. Sodicadl (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So I fixed the -found most notably- issue according to your recommendation. I think the rest is formatted according to the main Christianity article which says,"Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. It is the world's largest religion, with over 2.4 billion followers, or 32% of the global population, known as Christians. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the savior of humanity whose coming as the Messiah (the Christ) was prophesied in the Old Testament." Which looks pretty good. 001blondjamie (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Still not sure what advantage this brings. That the Christianity article begins a certain way is not a good enough reason. Sodicadl (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * and i still dont think you "fixed" the issue with the second sentence. The recommendation by editors was that it be deleted/subtracted. You just reworded it. c Ө de1+6 <i style="color:black">TP </i> 12:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. 001blondjamie (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is beginning to look just like the current lead. The differences I notice are that "Muslims believe God is one,...and that the purpose of existence" sentence was shifted to being after Muslims believing their religion was revealed before to other prophets when the sentence about Muslims believing God is one, etc is more fundamental and should come earlier. The other difference is the demographics information is split for the beginning and end. You may have to say what differences this edit has and why they are better instead of simply, "to me, it looks fine". Sodicadl (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We are not following MOS:BEGIN, so according to it the first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic; for example, the lead for the article List of environmental issues succinctly states the limits of that list. I will explain to you how we are currently breaking almost all the major points of the MOS:BEGIN. Right now the current hosted opening paragraph just sticks with in short Quran, GOD, Sunnah, Hadith, Muhammad, Muslims, GOD, GOD, GOD which is in totality too specific. Second we are not giving the location and time of when Islam started and where it is located in our world right now. Third we have not set the circumstances or facts that surround Islam as a topic. Fourth we have not establish the boundaries of the topic with information like demographics, how Islam is related to other Abrahamic religions and generally different with other primordial faiths. Updated version above fixes most of these issues. 001blondjamie (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like nobody is interested in discussing this topic any further. I will make the changes if nobody replies back soon. 001blondjamie (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see some of your points. I would agree to keeping your second sentence in the lead as the second sentence since it goes some way towards the Manuel of Style. However, the third sentence about "complete and universal version" is not so much about "establish[ing] the boundaries of the topic". How Islam is "generally different with other faiths" is better done with the "Muslims consider the Quran,..." sentence and that would not exactly work as the third sentence. Sodicadl (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As an aside, per suggestion by the Manuel of Style, I would suggest changes to the lead sentence. It became unnecessarily bulky to supposedly incorporate quranists. I suggest the second part be simplified to "and by the teachings of Muhammad" since quranists would likely not disagree with because the reliability of the sources is criticized not the teachings themselves. A sentence about hadith can be added later after the sentence about the Quran later on like "The normative example of Muhammad is called the sunnah and is composed of accounts called hadith." The Manuel recommends that the lead sentence not be "too specific", so I suggest moving "Abrahamic monotheistic" to the later sentence as "Islam is an Abrahamic Monotheistic religion that upholds that God is one and incomparable and that the purpose of existence is to worship God." Sodicadl (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you please update the above lead according to all of your recommendations so I can update the live version with it. Or you can incorporate the second sentence into the live version with your recommendations so we can call it a day. Let me know either way. Thank you 001blondjamie (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I updated the live version with your second sentence. Sodicadl (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good. 001blondjamie (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2016
the first appearance of the following string is the should be replaced with ) is the

(i.e. it missing a ")")

Bianjiang (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 05:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

To Do list – item: The relationship of Islam and politics
This To Do list item states that "The section should cover the fact that sharia law is only a personal law b/t someone and God (not a political or non-Muslim law).." as well as some other "facts". I do not believe however that this is a fact..., but rather the opinion of the writer.

There are examples in history where the sharia (literally 'law') was imposed on all the people in the land, and non-muslims had to pay a specific tax (the jizya, in accordance with the sharia !.

I therefore feel that this item on the To Do list has to be rewritten / reconsidered. GTvehicle (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have removed it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Indonesia islam
Indonesia islam Panji0916 (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

First paragraph in the Lead and the word God?
Considering MOS:BEGIN. The word God is repeated 4 times in the first paragraph in the lead which is too specific. So can we remove some of the mention of God which is repeated too many times and broadened the subject of the first paragraph in the lead. 000meow (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like nobody want to discuss this so I am going to make my changes soon. 000meow (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Repeating four times is not itself a problem. You did not elaborate on what you mean by broaden the subject of the first paragraph but I don't see how the edit you made helped. Sodicadl (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * By repeating four times I mean that the first paragraph is focusing too much on God. According to MOS:BEGIN crteria we need to cover whole lot of other facts in the first paragraph.


 * These sentences, "Islam is a Abrahamic monotheistic religion that upholds that God is one and incomparable and that the purpose of existence is to worship God. Muslims consider Muhammad to be the last prophet of God." goes into too many details about God and repeats the word God thrice which is against the instruction in MOS:BEGIN which says the first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. So that is why I moved this sentence to the second paragraph. Also God is already mentioned once above in the same paragraph.


 * This sentence, "Muslims also believe that Islam is the original, complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus." provides the circumstances or facts that form the setting of Islam as a religion in the universal context, regional context and sets the boundaries of the topic within the many different religions of the world by claiming that Islam is a primordial faith through Adam, the first human, and within that related to Judaism (Moses) & Christianity (Jesus) which follows the instruction in MOS:BEGIN which says it should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic. So that is why I moved this sentence to the first paragraph. 000meow (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems like nobody wants to discuss this further so I am making my changes. 000meow (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Only two of those mentions of the word God were directly about God, the other two were "verbatim word of God" and "last prophet of God" so that is not about "focusing too much on God" it is only a reflection of the topic, Islam, which focuses quite a bit on God.
 * To fulfill establishing the context in which the topic is being considered there is the statement that it is a Abrahamaic and monotheistic faith, which everyone agrees that it is. The statement about Muslims believing Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith is just another article of Muslim belief not what a neutral point of view would agree to how Islam is defined as a topic.
 * From what I understand of establish the boundaries of the topic it is to state the limits of the article. Your proposal does not change anything there. Sodicadl (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Criticism section: apostasy
A link to the apostasy in Islam page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam) should be provided. The Hadith mentions killing apostates. That fact should not be ignored. Cinn4v4g (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , so edited: . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong !!!! This hadith states that people who then fight against you should be killed and not just apostase STOP ISLAMOPHOBIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrk786 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017
Laya sub (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  12:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  JTP (talk • contribs) 14:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit request, 5 Feb 2017
The Shia section contains the possessive form Shia's, when the sentence structure requires the nominative plural Shias. 2.25.149.66 (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)