Talk:Religion of peace

NPOV
I think this article need improvement to meet Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policies, and also it didn't seems as an encyclopedic content.--Hidayatsrf (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please state specifically which issues need to be addressed in your opinion, and particularly sources conveying other coverage. Is it too pro-Islamic? anti-Islamic? Other issues?Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Is the article about the term or the phenomenon, or for that matter the ironic coinage of the term? By analogy, we have an article on 'Love thy Neighbour.' Does it include all those who have pointed out how confrontational christianity has been and how hypocritical christians are ...ie try to establish whether christians actually follow it. Or is it simply expect an explanation of the origins and meaning of the expression and distinct uses? Pincrete (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Love thy neighbor" is not an alternative sobriquet for the Christian religion, but rather a quote from Christian scripture, so I fail to see its relevance here. The sarcasm connected with "religion of peace" arises naturally from the apparent discrepancy between the lofty rhetoric and events occurring in the world.  For those with a little knowledge دين السلام is similar to and reminiscent of دار السلام, but دار السلام does not imply peace, but rather war with the دار الحرب ... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, so my example should have been religion of "peace and good will towards men" or similar, it hardly matters. Some articles are about terms or expressions and their histories, whether those be religious or political or whatever and whether they be sobriquets, crucial injunctions or common terms. The articles are about the terms or concepts, eg christian love, not about whether christians actually display that quality. We could either write an article about a notable slogan, (brotherhood of man? workers of the world unite?) associated with a particular group, or we could write about whether the slogan is apt or inaccurate and hypocritical, (whether socialist states are really brotherly or united?) - though the second would be pretty odd in this instance on WP - doing both (ie this is a Marxist slogan, but some critics have pointed out it is inaccurate as a description of socialist states), seems simply muddled and PoV-ish.


 * Your answer makes the article even odder. One figure mistranslates a term, other marginal US figures variously think that the description is undeserved or that it is 'PC' to use it. Bizarre. I look forward to an article in which some other figures complain that Ireland isn't accurately described as a Sapphire Island and the Irish should stop calling it that and forcing other people to do so. Pincrete (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This epithet, or slogan, has been used by successive US presidents and other western leaders to describe Islam and to denounce the Islamic thought of AQ, Taliban, IS, and othera. It has since taken an ironic turn when detractors picked up on the various ironies here. It is definitely a notable epithet.Icewhiz (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * What you are saying now bears little relationship to what is in the article and what you are arguing for is 'article as term'. This is a mistranslation, which has been used by US presidents to describe a particular set of beliefs, which ironically has then been criticised by US figures as inaccurate, (just as Ireland doesn't really have sapphires?). I didn't say it was or wasn't notable, I said the article has little idea what it is and has a consequent muddled PoV. If we had an article on "make America great again", it would be about the history of the slogan, it wouldn't be about "some critics have said that American power has actually diminished recently". However .... reading the comments above the same point has been made umpteen times. So be it. Pincrete (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * We do have an article on Make America Great Again. "Religion of Peace" was a widely used slogan - used by successive US presidents and lampooned by various critics (to a large extent since neither Bush nor Obama (or for that matter just about any US president) could be considered Islamic scholars). Bush rolled out with this slogan following 9/11 - as part of an effort to distance AQ (US enemy) from Islam (US non-enemy). CRYSTALBALLING - I'm sure that if Trump "falls on his face", so to say, and brings the US to shambles - that MAGA will take a turn to the ironic / counter-slogan.Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Apologies, my previous post is more caustic than I intended. Your explanation of the term HERE, is probably clearer and more coherent than the article IMO. Even so, some of the article is conflating - or at least failing to distinguish - a R of P, and the R of P and other variants. The land of the free is not the same as a free land. … … … I still think the article is conflating the history of the term, with the question of whether Islam is really a R of P. The MAGA article doesn't attempt to ask whether Am is actually becoming GrAg, nobody expects slogans to have literal truth. ..... Anyhow. Pincrete (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree this article should NOT delve into whether the slogan is correct or not, however criticism of the use of the slogan should be in as should it's adoption by Islam critics and use as a counter-slogan. Just as this slogan effectively turned into a counter-slogan, MAGA just might do the same (for Democrats in 2020 or 2024). At present - this slogan is still being used, but mainly by critics of Islam - the meaning has switched polarity since introduction (LGM-118 Peacekeeper comes to mind).Icewhiz (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC) missing not.Icewhiz (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there any source that the meaning has switched polarity since introduction? Also, the name "religion of peace" has been used for a while about Islam, before 9/11 (because the word "Islam" implies "peace (through submission to God)", you can see that the word "I-slam" has the same root as the words "As-salam Alaikum" which mean "Peace be unto you". Here are examples of the usage of "Islam" as meaning "peace" from before 9/11: Cassius Clay - 1964: "You call it Black Muslims, I don't. The real name is Islam. That means peace.", in 1996 the state governments represented at the Organization for Islam Conference described their decision to take "steps to counter the negative propaganda against Islam; to remove and rectify misunderstandings; and to present the true image of Islam: the religion of peace and tolerance.", this paper from 2000 in the Journal of Advanced Nursing, citing an author from 1994 who stated "caring is an attribute of Islam, a religion of peace, 'from all individuals not only towards all human beings, but also...'". So at the very least this should be reflected in the article, that it's a very old understanding of the term "Islam" and that it hasn't only been in use since 9/11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavriksfan11 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not 100% switched (e.g. Obama did use it after San Bernardino), however it has been taken up by critics - some are in the article, others not (e.g. https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ ). Regarding usage before Bush and 9/11 - phrasing was somewhat different I believe - but you could put this in the article (I don't think it was notable prior to Bush, but the roots for this could be explained much better than presently). I'm not sure if I'd characterize the roots as very old - you seem to be citing mainly western English speakers.Icewhiz (talk) 05:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Mavriksfan11 -- Unfortunately, your hyphenation "I-slam" shows a certain lack of knowledge about how word-derivation from roots usually works in the Arabic language. It's usually more like as shown in File:Nonconcatenative-muslim-derivation.png rather than anything which could be adequately represented with hyphens... AnonMoos (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

the etymological meaning of the word "Islam" is related to the Arabic word salām, meaning "peace"
This is kind of true in a way, yet also misleading as presented in the article. Both Islām and salām derive from the same abstract triconsonantal root s-l-m س ل م, yet the word "Islam" itself does not mean "peace" in any way, nor is it directly derived from a word meaning "peace" (rather it is derived from the Stem IV verb form, which basically means "to hand over, submit")... AnonMoos (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree - but the lead does say "related". What is more relevant is that western media made this association initially (this whole phrase began as a Western notion - initiated by the noted "Islamic luminary" Bush (or one of his aides). e.g. -  . How would you clarify this?Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The original idea more likely came from some less-distinguished and minor advocates of Islam, whose Arabic grammar was a little weak, or who were willing to elide some some grammatical complexities in the service of their advocacy. Of course, the final simplification (to "Islam means peace" or similar) may have been done by Westerners who knew no Arabic at all... AnonMoos (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I pointed out a well known example of a famous Western convert to Islam who made this claim way back in 1964: Muhammad Ali, when he said "You call it Black Muslims, I don't. The real name is Islam. That means peace.". Mavriksfan11 (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Muhammad Ali aint no expert in Arabic, neither he is an islamic scholar, hence has no expertise to be cited in encyclopedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

From page history:
 * (cur | prev) 13:45, 30 November 2017‎ Mavriksfan11 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,163 bytes) (+471)‎ . . (Someone removed this, but in the talk page I was encouraged to add these references. Have clarified that the exact phrase "religion of peace" wasn't used. But "Islam. That means peace" is pretty much the same idea.) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 14:03, 30 November 2017‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,692 bytes) (-471)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by Mavriksfan11 (talk): Nope. Mohammad Ali is not an expert in Arabic, nor he is an islamic scholar . (TW)) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 12:48, 2 December 2017‎ Mavriksfan11 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,163 bytes) (+471)‎ . . (Undid revision 812957627 by Staszek Lem (talk) Neither are the members of OIC, George Bush, Prime minister Mahathir bin Mohamad, etc. experts in Arabic or scholars, how does that matter?) (undo | thank)


 * But "Islam. That means peace" is pretty much the same idea No it is not. "The same idea" is Wikipedian's interpretation of M.Ali's utterance. If you find reliable sources which convincingly say that M.Ali's quote conveys the same idea, then you may re-add the text with 3rd party explanation. Otherwise "M.Ali's" phrase is pretty much repetition of ignorant etymology of the term "Islam", and wikipedina's opinion on this matter is questionable original research. 17:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither are the members of OIC, George Bush - All of them are using exact phrase which is the subject of the article, hence belong to the section of examples. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Staszek Lem George W. Bush did not use the exact phrase "religion of peace" in his speech either. Nor is there any 3rd party commentary on how that came to be equivalent to "religion of peace". GWB used this exact phrasing: "Islam is peace." M. Ali used this phrasing: "Islam. That means peace." I appreciate you trying to uphold standards, but you are applying one separate standard to my source (It must be from an Arabic scholar or expert, or it must use the exact phrase, or it must have 3rd party explanation) and a separate standard to the speech from George W. Bush (doesn't need to be from an Arabic scholar or expert, doesn't need to use the exact phrase, doesn't need to have 3rd party explanation). Since this double standard is not merited in any Wikipedia standards, I am reintroducing the source. If you have additional reasons to remove it, please post them here. Thanks Mavriksfan11 (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For starters, do not restore the contested text until the discussion is finished. Second, you are right that Bush did not use this term either. And the proper approach is not to moan about "double standards", but to remove the second piece of original research. I.e., upholding common standards must in the direction of the higher quality of wikipedia articles, not the lower quality. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bush is widely credited for the phrase. While it perhaps did not appear verbatim this way in the speech, it was cited this way. Some sources:
 * News coverage: CNN 2017, CSM 2017, NPR 2010, 2003.
 * Some books:, , ,.
 * Some journal articles, e.g. Merskin, Debra. "The construction of Arabs as enemies: Post-September 11 discourse of George W. Bush." Mass Communication & Society 7.2 (2004): 157-175., Smidt, Corwin E. "Religion and American attitudes toward Islam and an invasion of Iraq." Sociology of Religion 66.3 (2005): 243-261., Lincoln, Bruce. "Bush’s God Talk." Political Theologies: Public Religions in a Post-Secular World (2006): 275.
 * Or in short - these are ample sources connecting Bush to this phrase.Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Different religions
As the list of example religions keep being edited, maybe we should consider not giving examples in the opening statement?

AussieWikiDan (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There are only 2 religions sourced in the article, Christianity and Islam. All others were unsourced, as far as I have seen. Therefore we should keep these two in the intro per MOS:INTRO and WP:VERIFY. After somebody comes with a source for another major religion, we can add it there, why not, but for now I do not see a reason to discuss a "list of example religions" because we have only these two.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

So the reason I removed the ever changing list (if you see the edit history) is to reduce vandalism and edit warring. I also feel like it doesn't take away from the article to remove the two examples. The policies you have listed doesn't mean you are right, they just state what an intro is and how to use citations in an article. It's a shame you have started edit warring before discussing on here. You should know better. I'm not going to revert your edit but I feel you should have engaged in a civil process of discussion with me, as advised in policy.

AussieWikiDan (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that it does not need a discussion when somebody adds unsourced material (or - as it is in your case, sorry) when somebody removes sourced material. The Wikipedia discussions exist in order to clear real problems and difficulties, not to discuss everything possible for discussion sake.Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Reality
Hindu(Sanatan) religion is most peaceful because the only motive of this religion is to follow Dharma and karma. Sainiboyreal (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Terrorism Niranjan108om (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hinduism is the most peaceful religion ever, it's respect all the other religions and Hinduism never tells anyone to worship any god to gain in to heaven ... Hinduism never invaded in to any country, Hindus never force anyone to accept Hinduism in anyway.. Niranjan108om (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The criticism section
More of a question than a request,

While I understand that the term has been used for Islam most of the time, the article talks Islam and Christianity, yet the criticism section only talks about Islam. This makes the article structure a little absurd, so can someone familiar with the topic clarify whether this is because the term is simply criticized more when it is used for Islam, or because it is used for Islam most of the time? If this is the case, I think appropriate material describing this should be added in my opinion.

I guess another option would be that this is the work of POV editors but I haven't seen much evidence of that in that section. Uness232 (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2021
I want to edit the whole thing because there it is written a specific religion is a peaceful religion but here i want to edit is that no religion is good or bad. The thing that makes a religion good is what they teach their followers and if their followers are peacefull then the religion itself is peacefull but at the same time if a religions follower are terrorists mostly then it can't be called a peacefull religion. Ayush38206 (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

there it is written a specific religion is a peaceful religion but here i want to edit is that no religion is good or bad. The thing that makes a religion good is what they teach their followers and if their followers are peacefull then the religion itself is peacefull but at the same time if a religions follower are terrorists mostly then it can't be called a peacefull religion. Ayush38206 (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Article is unbalanced, seems to be entirely about Islam
Just happened to look at this article. The lead sentence says the term has been applied to Christianity and Islam, but the article text seems to talk only about Islam. In the text there is one passing menntion of Christianity. There is no mention anywhere in the article of other religions such as Hinduism and Judaism. IMO this article should either be expanded so that it discusses multiple religions, or else the title should be changed to somehow reflect that it is talking about Islam. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess the problem is that most usage of this term - positive or otherwise - is about Islam. This might be because of recentism, but I'm not necessarily convinced that such expansion can be made, in the total absence of sources. I'm more inclined towards your second suggestion but I'm really not sure what an appropriate title would be. Uness232 (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The only time I see this term as a standalone thing is in lazy comment sections under stories where the killer is Muslim. It's usually "quoted", as if to "throw it back" at some archetypal Muslim they heard or read use the snippet in a complete sentence somewhere, or just because other bigoted trolls "quote" it. In this mostly peaceful world, most religions are of peace, and most have said as much in various words, but as a fragmentary slogan/meme/shitpost, yeah, it would be wise and just to mercilessly slaughter this article before it grows even more familiar to normal people. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I agree, just looking at it from the perspective of "what is someone that landed on this page looking for?" or "what does this offer that other pages don't?", I'm short of answers, so I'm okay with an AFD. I'm not sure if I should be the one starting it though. Uness232 (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I quit starting years ago, just instigate now, sometimes reaffirm things. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The "See also" section is now 60% Christian instead of 0%. If that seems unfair, blame math, I tried to split five evenly! It's not the great fix deletion could be, but it's something. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Uness232, MelanieN, I agree with InedibleHulk - if we turn this article into article about Islam specifically, then, you risk to make it irrelevant one which fails on notability, and which could eventually qualify for AfD, because the phrase in that context is just a meme, one often used in diatribes against Muslims as pointed by InedibleHulk.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  09:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, Uness232, InedibleHulk, will you argue your position if I propose AfD ?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  10:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course! I was planning to start it myself, but I was quite busy and so I forgot, so thanks for reminding me! Uness232 (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * AfD might be the solution. A complete rewriting to describe the pacifistic or peaceful nature of many world religions might make an acceptable article, but it its current state - basically a collection of quotes of nice things and not-nice things people have said about Islam - it should not be here. Ping me if someone launches an AfD; I will comment there. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - I have XfD article, so it's open for discussion and arguments.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  22:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)