Talk:Islamization

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091211211910/http://www.islam.in.th/ to http://islam.in.th/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Arabization
Arabization has not to do a lot with Islamization. Islam is a religion and arabs are a people, ethnicity. If no-one opposes with foundation, I'd remove the completely about Arabization. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Different from "spread of Islam"?
How do we distinguish the content of this article "Islamization" with the content at "spread of Islam"?VR talk  15:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * should we merge this article with Spread of Islam?VR talk 02:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for bringing back this discussion to life. I definitely agree that a merger or deletion should be performed. too_muchcuriosity (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Undue recentism
The section on history gives undue weight to recent trends like Islamization of the Gaza Strip. I skimmed through the relevant chapter on "Conversion to Islam in Theological and Historical Perspectives" in this book and it doesn't even mention Gaza. It gives more weight to conversions in Central, South and Southeast Asia, Africa and the Balkans. That's what this article should focus on instead.VR talk 01:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this page should be deleted (or merge)?
I got to this page through a link while reading about the history of Afghanistan. I expected it to be about the historical spread of Islam, but this content is covered by the Spread of Islam page. The content on this is really disjointed--why are Arabization and the rise of Islamic groups on the same page? Some of the content also seems to violate NPOV. I wonder if it makes sense to delete the page and redirect any Islamization links to the Spread of Islam page or merge this page with the latter. Seems like many others share these thoughts. Please share your thoughts. too_muchcuriosity (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, maybe. At the moment is a terrible mixture of unsourced material and unbalanced sourcing. On way or another, at just 16 actual references, once you've stripped out the unsourced stuff, there's not really a great to actually merge. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, so the "History" section actually just links directly to Spread of Islam, which, really, is a tacit admission that these two bodies of material are absolutely one and the same, and lend weight to the utility of a simple redirect. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ha! The mess is deeper than this still - most of the different sections by country on Spread of Islam link back in turn to other articles entitled "Islamization of X". I suppose the opening "Islamization" lead intro could possibly be used to create the start of a terminology section on the Spread of Islam page to explain where this word is coming from in advent of all the links. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Toomuchcuriosity: I've either copied or rehomed all of the material that was present here either at Spread of Islam or Talibanization, so, pending consensus here, we are clear to turn this target into a redirect. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Iskandar323 Thank you so much for doing the heavy lifting!! Really appreciate it :)
 * I agree that the only unique element of this page is the terminology/etymology section. This can be moved as to the Spread of Islam page if need be.
 * Yeah, I will start a delete discussion. too_muchcuriosity (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)