Talk:Five Pillars of Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Five Pillars of Islam has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
To-do list for Five Pillars of Islam: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • What we should do to achieve FA status criteria :
Here are some tasks you can do:
    Priority 1 (top) 

    Contents

    [edit] Removal of paragraph

    I cut this bit out:

    Note:
    In spite of the fact that the five pillars are obligatory and meant to be absolutely essential for every Muslim to keep, not all individual Muslims do, or are able to faithfully participate. Many secularized Muslims, have stopped participating in religious duties; many of them are so-called second-generation muslims in western countries, the children and grandchildren of muslim immigrants, who live in-between two cultures and have developed ambivalent feelings towards their religious duties. On the one hand they tend to cling to their traditions for identity reasons, on the other hand the influence of western mentality, daily life and peer-pressure tears them away from muslim culture. Plus, a complicating factor for observing Ramadan and the five prayers is the fact that western society is not designed for such radical habits.

    This is also true for Judaism and Christianity; perhaps this paragraph could be written in a more general form, and then it could have minor modifications made for Judaism, Chrisitianity and Islam. It could then be inserted into all of these topic? RK
    I'd say not. It's is, as Manning said below, 'commentary' on sociology of religion and not encyclopedic description of religion. There's certainly a place for it, but not on the pages devoted to the description of the religious groups themselves for themselves.--MichaelTinkler
    Actually, I have a number of books by Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jewish rabbis, all of whome bring of this precise point. They do not view a discussion of this as an attack on Judaism; they view it simply as a description of the changes that Jewish people have experienced since the Enlightenement and emancipation of the late 1700s and early 1800s. All of the major Jewish movements regard responding to this phenomenon as part of their religious mandate. I think many Christian groups feel the same way. I think a better differentiation would be that this description does not fall under theology, but under some other category describing the religion. Real world Judaism has less than 50% of American Jews following any form of Judaism as at all (recent surveys published last month have reaffirmed this.) Even a personal survey of gentiles I know shows that many, many people in America's northeast are only "cultural" Christians, and do not accept most tenets of their faith as expressed in their particular church's principles of belief. This phenomenon is growing among American Muslims as well, although I have no idea how widespread this actually is. RK
    Michael Tinkler writes "There's certainly a place for it, but not on the pages devoted to the description of the religious groups themselves for themselves." Do we really have any such pages? I don't think so. If we did, then the entry on Islam would have a long list of proofs "proving" the Torah, the Tanach, and the New Testament are all corrupt, and that only the Koran is true, and that Jews and Christians are trying to fool the followers of God. If we had such pages, then the entry on Christianity would have entries proving that the Jews are stubborn and the offspring of the Devil, and that worshipping Jesus is the only way to God. If we had such pages, then the entry on Judaism would contain polemic after polemic condemning idolatry and any form of polytheism, as well as condemning all those who follow atheism and agnosticism, and Deism. But we don't have this. Instead, we try to impartially describe what each faith/community teaches, but not 100% from their own point of view. More from a friendly outsider point of view, right? Thus, perhaps each section might include a paragraph on the real world sociology of the followers of these faiths, as distinct from the theoretical positions? RK

    About this passage written above:

    I feel this is not entirely true. I am not an immigrant and i lived in and around a muslim community and that was not in the western world. Yet i did not perform my duties as i should have. This para which says "Many secularized Muslims, have stopped participating in religious duties; many of them are so-called second-generation muslims in western countries, the children and grandchildren of muslim immigrants, who live in-between two cultures and have developed ambivalent feelings towards their religious duties."

    Now in my situation this did not apply and i know many others living in Islamic Communities in the east. They too lack the will too practice. So its not the place or the country based upon which the level of practice can be possible or impossible.

    This seemed to be a commentary on modern muslim sociology and not really related to the Five Pillars. Not to say it isn't a worthwhile subject, only that it was off-topic. - MMGB

    The matter of to what extent the Five Pillars are actually observed in practice by various groups within the muslim community is in fact directly relevant to the subject and is not at all "off-topic". Yes, it may be relevant to other topics, such as "modern muslim sociology", or "modernity and religous traditions", etc., but that doesn't mean it is not relevant and appropriate here. IT IS. -HWR

    (From the old page) -- This needs to be incorporated or to incorporate the Five Pillars of Islam article (unfortunate capitalization, but pre-existing). --MichaelTinkler

    As you were typing this, I was merging the two :) - MMGB

    this is looking VERY good. --MichaelTinkler

    Thanks for every suggestion here. About the 'note' paragraph above (which I wrote), it seems we are talking about two different subjects: 1. the loyality problem of the so-called 2nd generation immigrants, and 2. the practical difficulties people face when observing religious duties and traditions in 'foreign' cultures. Could both be worth a separate article? With my paragraph I wanted to emphasize the first. I have looked into the 'Sociology of religion' page, but cannot see how it would fit in there. I still think it should at least be mentioned in the Five Pillars article. In order to be able to elaborate on it, probably we should have a separate page named 'Muslims in western society', or something like Hank suggested and include both subjects there. I do not think it would be the best idea to broaden it to make it fit all major religions. Each religion has it's own background culture and it's own specific problems. We could then add more acceptation/adaptation/integration problems and processes into such an article. Ofcourse, it should then also be linked to some sociology page. What do you think? -- TK

    I have put back in a rewritten version of the paragraph. I've tried to keep it as close to the Five Pillars as I could, leaving out the 2nd generation topic. The issue of 'Muslims in Western society' in my opinion still deserves a separate treatment -- TK

    TK - yeah, the rewritten version is fine, it still relates directly to the discussion of the Five Pillars so is appropriate. Nice work - MMGB

    Thanks, and thank you for your style corrections -TK

    I agree - the fit is much better. --MichaelTinkler

    Moved from main article:

    Previous to the 20th century many Muslims held Jihad (holy war) to be the sixth pillar of Islam; Since the fundamentalist Islamist movement began its ascension in the 20th century, this point of view has become more prevalent. Muslims have been traditionally encouraged to engage in external forms of Jihad (warfare against those judged to be infidels or threats to Islam) by political motivations and through the promise that men who die in Jihad are rewarded in Heaven by being served daily by 70 female virgins. Islamist

    Reduced to factual statement of the first section, I haven't found any evidence of belief outside of the mentioned sect, the rest is irrelavent to the particular point, although possibly the middle section should be moved to Jihad. --Imran

    Though many westerners may not understand the intricacies of Islam, I'll try to condense it into USA-centric religious explanation. Look at the Sunni-Shia division like the division between Babtists and Catholics. Sunnis, like Baptists, believe they have a direct relationship to God, via a direct link with a prophet (Mohammed/Jesus). Whereas the Shia are akin to Catholics in that they have additional beliefs that are not in accordance with strict interpretations of the Bible/Q'uran. This is only an extreme generalization; it's an appropriate hook to find more information on google.com, or right here on wikipedia.com

    The paying of alms (Zakaah) - which is generally 2.5% of the yearly savings for a rich man working in trade or industry, and 10% or 20% of the produce for agriculturists. This money or produce is distributed among the poor. And 25% of found treasure such as non gambling lottery and every precious items found by someone. -- wow, the agriculturists certainly get the short end of the stick -- 20% of the gross for farmers versus 2.5% of the net for rich men? Nice.

    wow, the agriculturists certainly get the short end of the stick -- 20% of the gross for farmers versus 2.5% of the net for rich men? Nice. sounds like it. but unfortunately no. that 2.5% of the rich man may contribute more to that of 20% farms output if i may say. also considered the redundancy. 2.5% is deducted over and over for the same wealth throughout the years. farm product are consumables and only deducted once. also farm product are ready for direct distribution with only transport cost incurred. however for wealth requires transaction for conversion and thus incurred more cost than farm product. and by the way 2.5% percent wealth saving exceeding the nisab applies to anyone with wealth including farmers themselves. doctors, lawyers and other profession should actually observed the 20% of their annual income. 202.158.33.162 (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC) eko of jakarta

    [edit] Modern Muslim Section

    I think the last section ("Modern Muslims and the pillars of Islam") should be edited to remove a perceived bias. I'm not an expert on the issue though, and would like someone else to change it.

    • Besides a POV, the section is irrelevent. Modern Muslims not adhering to the "pillars" is just some Muslims who aren't as religious as others. Similarities exist in all religions. Catholic have their requirements of holy days of obligation, fasting on Fridays during Lent, going to confession once a year, etc, but far from a majority practice all of them. However some practitioners not following all the edicts doesn't change the religion itself. This section needs a rewrite only to reflect that not all Muslims devotly follow the 5 pillarsBarneygumble 21:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not really sure where this should go, but is "Striving to seek God's approval (Jihad)" an accurate description of either this Arabic word or Muslim belief?JBicha 21:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Changes

    I think we should have some review and comment on the changes shown here. I am not sure about all of them but I do not know enough. I just want to make sure the editors of this article are paying attention and an anon user (who once blanked the page) is not being arbitary. gren 19:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Odd search behavior

    Could someone please explain why this is, and how to fix it:

    A search (from the little search box in the sidebar) for "Five Pillars of Islam" will turn up this article.

    But, searches for: "five pillars of islam" "Five PIllars of Islam" "Five Pillars Of Islam"

    All of these say that an article by that title doesn't exist, and ask if I'd like to create it or search Google or Yahoo for it (which is how I eventually found it). This is NOT true, oddly enough, for "Pillars of Islam", but it is for the same in lowercase.

    Why is the uppercasedness of the title so important for finding this article?

    Because no-one had made a Re-Direct from those pages yet. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:25, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] Jihad

    This seems a little oversimplistic: "Modern interpretations of Jihad have lead to the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism and particularly suicide bombers." This implies that the Jihad tradition is the only reason for Islamic terrorism, which is a claim that would require a little more backing. Perhaps "Modern interpretations of Jihad have contributed to the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism and particularly suicide bombers."?

    Why was the section Jihad as the sixth pillar of Islam? removed? I have not found any explanation here so I put it in again.

    - - Removing the reference to the Beslan school siege

    The Beslan school siege is controversial. Shamil Basayev claimed responsibility for the Beslan school siege in September 2004 in which over 350 people, most of them children, were killed and hundreds more injured. Some see in him Chechnya's most famed contemporary national hero, others a Islamic fundamentalist, politician, or terrorist. Since 2003, Basayev has also used the pseudonym and title Abdallah Shamil Abu-Idris, Amir of the Brigade of Shahids 'Riyadus Salihiin'".

    Taken from the lemma on Shamil Basayev: In "an interview to Russian journalist Andrei Babitsky in which Shamil Basayev describes himself as 'a bad guy, a bandit, a terrorist.' But, to justify his own acts to intentionally kill unarmed civilians, women and children, he claimed that the Russians 'officially' killed 40,000 Chechen children and are therefore terrorists as well" [1].

    Hence, it can be argued from a neutral POV that the reference to the Beslan school siege as a terrorist act and part of jihad is valid and should be included again in the main article.

    Jihad has been removed from this article because it does not fit the Wikiliberal agenda. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. --Haizum 12:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    Jihad is indeed the essential and very important part of Islam but it is not included in five pillars of Islam. Wikipedia is not based on original research. --- ALM 12:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Template

    Should not the "Template:Basic Muslim Beliefs" be included? --Striver 01:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

    As appropriate as it may be, two large templates on page is unsightly. joturner 01:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, and therefore i propose that we discared the one less relevant to this specifical topic, that is the "Islam" template. --Striver 04:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

    hi guys

    [edit] recent edits

    All~

    This page was looking quite good, and I have contributed a few changes. A couple of these are terminological:

    -I have taken out the word 'fundamental' from the description of the status of the five pillars, since this term is of dubious semantic value when it comes to describing Islam.

    -I have replaced the term 'sect' in all places it occurs, since the term itself is an impediment to expressing a neutral POV.

    The major change I have made is to add a paragraph at the beginning historicizing the five pillars model. This is by no means a consensus model of piety among all Muslims, and that fact is even more apparent if one looks back in history. I am not sure if this belongs here at the beginning or in a debates section later in the entry. In any case, I think it is important to register the fact that large communities of Muslims in the world today (and particularly groups with a low level of international visibility and presence on the internet owing to illiteracy, poverty, linguistic identity and so forth) do not understand Islam through this five pillars model.


    elbev

    [edit] More changes...

    I deleted the following:

    "The five pillars are intended to increase one's faith and make a person "better". If they do not have this impact on a person, then they are practiced in vain."


    There was no reference for this and I don't think it complies with the general Islamic creed.

    [edit] Zakat

    From the article: "Zakāt, the paying of alms

       Main article: Zakat
   Zakat means both purification and growth. Each Muslim calculates his or her own
   Zakat is calculated"

    And there it ends. I'd add something to make it a complete sentence, but I don't know that much about Islam. I'd appreciate it if someone who knows what this is supposed to be would correct it. cøøkiə Ξ (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

    I could be wrong about this as I am not Muslim, but it is my (limited) understanding of the concept of Zakat that its beneficiaries must be Muslim. As there is nothing about this on the main Zakat article, I fully realize I could be off base, but if I'm not, I think it's relevant enough to include in this article as well as the Zakat one. Can anyone speak to this from experience? Thanks Kitmention (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    I've seen nothing in the Quran to indicate this, but I'm no hafiz so I could have missed something.

    9:60 Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and the officials (appointed) over them, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth) and the (ransoming of) captives and those in debts and in the way of Allah and the wayfarer; an ordinance from Allah; and Allah is knowing, Wise.

    So I think if you're poor and needy but not a Muslim, that you still benefit from Zakat. But then I'm not all that familiar with the individual rulings within Islamic jurisprudence, my knowledge of Islam is almost entirely Quranic. Peter Deer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Five Pillars

    Someone corrupted the first pillar bulleted in the list. Could someone correct this? I would if I was already familiar with the five pillars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.127.89.216 (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

    [edit] Sunni versus Shia

    Is everything in this article correct from the viewpoint of each branch of Islam? If the two major branches (or any others) have differences on some significant aspect of the Five Pillars, the differences should be mentioned here. On the other hand, if there are no differences, it would be helpful to those of us not very knowledgeable about Islam if the article would mention that fact. JamesMLane t c 07:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

    I tried to clarify Shia viewpoint. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Good article nomination

    Indeed this article is good one. I want to nominate it if you agree with me.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] GA improvements

    • Mention necessity to perform Salah/Sawm (or lack of) for women during menstruation and following childbirth AA
    • Contents from the external link can (and should) be incorporated in the article and the EL removed. AA
    • The following quote in the lead ""the five duties incumbent on every Muslim" needs a citation or the quotemarks removed. AA
    I removed '' ''.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Good Article Candidate, 2007-07-05

    This article is perfectly covers this subject without going into great detail. It is also concise, and surprisingly neutral considering that it deals with religion. The main issues that I found were so minor, that I fixed most of them up myself.

    1. It is well written.

    I found the article an enjoyable read with good writing quality, but could do with less redundancy words. (see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises)

    2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

    All information is cited by reliable sources, and the article contains no cases of original research.

    3. It is broad in its coverage.

    I did not feel, that the article was lacking in anyway, except that it may benefit from having more comparison between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Secondly it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details.

    4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

    As I said above, I was expecting a small amount of bias, but there seems to be no clear evidence of this.

    5. It is stable.

    Besides the higher than normal levels of vandalism, yes.

    6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labelled accordingly. A lack of images does not disqualify an article from Good Article status.

    The images are appropriate to the subject, however a more relevant image could probably replace Image:Date-seller.jpg. They also follow the copyright policy.


    In conclusion to this I hereby award this article Good article Good article status. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Shi'a viewpoint section incomplete

    This paragraph notes that there are three additional essential practices adhered to by Shi'a Muslims. It only describes two. Could someone knowledgeable on the subject add the third? --68.39.187.136 18:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

    It appears the first additional essential practice was removed without explanation. I'm reinserting it, but I must confess that I do not know much about this subject. If I am in error, please revert me.--Rise Above The Vile 18:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    It looks like your reinstatement has been undone already. Whether or not the mention of Jihad is appropriate in this section, the opening of the paragraph should correllate with the rest. I think first it should be decided whether Jihad should be mentioned here, and if it is to be removed, the first sentence should then be changed to introduce two additional practices instead of three. It seems appropriate to me that Jihad be part of the article, but again I'm not an expert on this topic either. --66.202.1.140 22:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Peer review

    This article looks complete and stable. I want to ask for peer review.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Iman

    I removed whatever Millhamstreet had added to the article[2], due to the fact that it related to the belief and should be added in articles like Iman (concept) or Aqidah.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] T/Z

    I d like to ask which is the correct form of writing: Zakat/Zakah or Salat/Salah. I ve found it in a book both with T written at the end and on websites as well. Does it matter whether I use T or Z? Nóra (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Sixth pillar of Islam

    It appears that there has been such a substantial number of Muslims who believe in the sixth pillars of Islam that a mention is needed. The main Jihad article clearly refers to it as the "Sixth pillar". I suspect that a mention has not been made because of the expected nagative publicity. For a person who knows nothing about the five pillars of Islam, I believe that a mention of the sixth pillar is warranted. EgraS (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Someone removed my comment on the source of the 5 pillars

    Someone has removed a statement that I added concerning the origin of the 5 pillars. I have since re-added it, but am wondering about the reason for the removal (none was given). Here is the statement that was removed:

    "The concept of five pillars is taken from the Hadith collections, notably those of Al-Bukhari and Muslim. The Qur'an does not speak of five pillars, although one can find in it scattered references to their associated practices."

    Is there something inappropriate about this? Inaccurate? Please let me know. 71.166.114.186 (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)