Talk:Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islam article.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
This is not a forum for general discussion of Islam.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
Featured article star Islam is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 1, 2007.
Peer review This article was externally reviewed (April 30, 2007) by The Denver Post. "quite impressed"; "looks like something that might have been done by a young graduate student, or assistant professor, or two or three"; "clinical and straightforward, but not boring"; "where important translations of Arabic language or fine religious distinctions are required, Wikipedia acquits itself well." Please examine the findings.
To-do list for Islam: edit · history · watch · refresh

Post-FA work to improve the article:

  • The History section still needs to be shifted a bit more in the direction of religious history away from political history. It also needs to be integrated better internally; some sections do not flow properly.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive

Chronological Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,

19, 20, 21, 22, 23


Topical Archives
External Links
Archive index


Contents

[edit] Diagram on right

In the "Islam & other religions" box

It has Jainism and Sikhism; these are basically offshoots of Hindusim which pre-date the two.

Islam ought to be compared to major faiths, such as Christianity and Buddhism

[edit] Citation for Islam being the largest single religious denomination

The article is locked, but a citation for the missing one at the end of the first paragraph is at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080330/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_muslims --Jimbo42 (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That piece has already been included as a reference in the article. Celarnor Talk to me 23:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Islam is not a denomination. OUChevelleSS (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


This citation is not sufficient. The source is from the Vatican, not recognized as an authority on Islam by anybody but Catholics, and not even by all of them [correction: not even an official statement, an observation from a Vatican newspaper functionary]. The idea of Islam as "the largest denomination" is questionable on the face of it. First, Islam has denominations of it's own, and is not a denomination by itself. If it were, the word "denomination" would be meaningless in context. Second, denomination of what? Again, the label "denomination" would mark it as a smaller part of a larger religion, divided from others in the same religion by specific articles of faith or interpretation. MathewGSmith (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Islam is not a single denomination. There have for a long time been more Muslims that Catholics. Islam should be compared to Christianity in numbers, not Catholicism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.180.105.55 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that neither the Yahoo link nor the Vatican states that Islam is a Denomination. It clearly says that it is a larger religion than Catholicism. It can be inferred that the Vatican doesn't consider itself a denomination, rather a religion unto itself. mpa|mpa68.249.127.44 (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Not sure if this has been brought up before or not, but the main article for Islam contains more Shiite things than Sunni, so is there any way we can clean/discuss this? Thanks DevilAshTalk! 19:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

From Pink: I feel that the article for Islam should be much more general, while containing references or links to sections/articles that explain the viewpoints of the major sects (Sunni, Shia, etc.). For example, the "Five Pillars" is treated as if it were common to Shia and Sunni Islam, whereas Shia Islam has its own listing of its beliefs ("Usul ad-Din," 5) and its practises ("Furu' ad-Din," 10). Sunni Islam has the Five Pillars as a reference to core Sunni Islamic practises and also the Articles of Faith (6) in reference to its belief. Perhaps a brief treatment could be made of core Islamic beliefs and practises: 1) Belief in Allah 2) Belief in Prophet Muhammad 3) Belief in the Hereafter; 1) Salah 2) Zakat ("Charity" -> Zakat only for Sunni Muslims, Zakat and Khums for Shia Muslims) and 3) Hajj. Afterward, reference could be made to those points that distinguish Sunni and Shia Islam. This kind of treatment should also take care of DevilAsh's concern, since many topics would contain a general explanation of an Islamic topoic and then divert to Shia, Sunni, and other Islamic sectarian distinctions after covering the generality of Islamic belief/practise/etc. Therefore, it would not seem to contain so many references that specified only the Shia Islamic viewpoint of various topics. 209.206.216.59 (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Pink

[edit] Islam - not a new religion

Islam is not a new religion originating from teachings of Muhammad (PBUH) , its revival of teachings of Christ and Moses. Muslims believes in teachings of Christ and Moses and Quran - the Muslim holy book - is the revival of teachings of Bible. looking for citation to add this sentence to article introduction

I love Islam and I love Allah. Ya Allah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.110.74 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

usman 19:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

see the second sentence of the second paragraph. ITAQALLAH 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Islam was predicted by pagan gods. and the birth of Muhammad (reincarnation of pagan god) kinda messed up. dates back millions of years or something like that --Mohun (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost Mohun, I believe you are mistaken. There are no records of any predictions millions of years ago. Science indicates that modern humans have only been around for a couple hundred thousand years total, and even less in a civilized form. Secondly, if you are referring to the Pratisargaparvan of Hinduism (which I would like to state for the record that I do not consider to be 'pagan') it is evidenced that it was created somewhere between 700 and 800 AD, **after** Muhammad, and seems to have been written in a vilifying and accusatory manner, and certainly can't be called a 'prediction.' Thirdly, as I am sure this is patent nonsense and that you would not have any verifiable sources I fail to see how this conversation can have any bearing on this article. So I must assume, for the sake of courtesy, that I have misunderstood you. If this is the case, could you clarify what you actually meant? - Peter Deer (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only in Bhavishya Purana its also mentioned in Atharaveda, Sama Veda, RigVed, Bhagawat Purana, Kalkis and goes on and on. I think the only refs to claim this would be actual pictures from these Vedas. im still working on it. i gatherd a lot of sources. and so far i can also say that the information you hear about Muhammad and Vedas are all true. i went through some books and the page numbers and chapters that articles listed about Muhammad in Vedas it all matches up so far. and futher goes into more detail. its going to take some time for me, the most i can tell you is that these website that claim Muhammad in Vedas are not making stuff up and the page numbers and chapters seem to be proper. --Mohun (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

From Pink: As a conservative Muslim, I feel that it is easiest to treat Islam as its own religion when discussing it in an academic manner, rather than treating it as an original religion from which others branched. One problem in dealing with it as an original and ancient religion is that those qualities that distinguish it from other religions would have to undergo development in academic treatments. For example, the requirement for salat was different under Prophet Moses than under Prophet Muhammad, and it is alsmost certain that the various postures and recitations that comrpise salat have changed over the millenia. In addition, requirements for charitable contribution, pilgrimage, funeral processes, modesty, marriage, etc. have all changed over the millenia. Academically speaking, the primordial "Islam" is not recognisable. Furthermore, Muslims are taught that all are born on the natural path of monotheism - it is likely that this natural monotheism is what constituted the primordial religion of Prophet Adam and his family. It would simply be too confusing and require too much time, energy, and space to treat Islam as the religion that existed since the time of Adam. We Muslims have bigger fish to fry, anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.206.216.59 (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC) 209.206.216.59 (talk) 209.206.216.59 (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Pink

[edit] Necessary Update: Women

This article makes the statement that a woman recieves half the inheritence a man does, but does not explain why. In Islam, a man is required to provide for his family, and any money he has must be used for the general good of his wife and children. He is also expected to care for elderly parents. A woman's money from any source, however, is hers and hers alone. She is not required to spend it on necessities such as food, adequate clothing, shelter, heat, oil, etc.

Please ensure that statments such as this are fully explained. The last thing we need is people using articles like this as "proof" of Islam's negativity toward women simply because they are not complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblebeltmuslimah (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's true. I don't think it implies any negativity by not explaining, but if you can locate any academic reliable sources expounding upon this then we can decide on how to briefly incorporate it. Further discussion is likely warranted at daughter articles like Women and Islam. ITAQALLAH 18:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I would worry about adding any explanation on this page. Mostly these justifications are ad hoc attempts to counter Western critics. And that doesn't mean they're not valid... but it does mean it's hard to represent in the sentence we are giving to the issue. And, fundamentally, for most of the history of Islam it's just how it is and it makes sense. It needs no more justification than any other law. gren グレン 10:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, and we do not want to add unnecessary complications. The statement made above is not valid in the case of a widow with children, who does often have to use her own money to provide necessities. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rejection of Ahadith and Sunnah

There are many devout Muslims who do not trust the authenticity of recorded ahadith and sunnah of Mohammed (pbuh). There are also many devout Muslims who, regardless of their authenticity or inauthenticity, believe that the Qur'an itself is complete (by its own statment, many many times within its pages) and that ahadith and sunnah are simply unnecessary. These beliefs are definitely worth mentioning, especially since questionable ahadith and sunnah have formed the backbone of many "Islamist" regimes.

Please include a section on these beliefs, as the number of believers who ascribe to them is growing. I will gladly provide any information and documentation that may prove helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblebeltmuslimah (talk • contribs) 18:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The number of "Qur'an-only" adherents is extremely small when weighed against even other minority sects such as Ibadis or Ahmadiyya. So as per undue weight I don't think this merits mention, and this has been the general view when this issue came up previously. ITAQALLAH 22:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Three or so years ago I was supporting the inclusion of some of the Qur'an alone viewpoints in Islam--I'm glad I have gained better perspective. But, I do think there is a valid point about skepticism--since skepticism comes in other forms than Qur'an only. There is Sunni-Shia hadith collection disputes. There is Fazlur-Rahman-ish/liberalized scholars who argue more scrutiny is necessary but don't call for rejection. There are Hamza Yusuf types who talk about needing to study matns to make sure they do not contradict the Qur'an--even of sahih hadith. So, I would have no problem if some of that skepticism was worded in... but, I'm not sure it's necessary. gren グレン 10:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the Qur'an-only adherents are small in numbers, but that does not mean they are nonexistent. I have read the "Undue Weight" policy and it has caused me to lose some respect for Wikipedia. Failure to mention minority viewpoints after they have been brought to attention is dishonest and misrepresentative. Biblebeltmuslimah (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The issues of authenticity, as well as the existence and standpoint of Quran-alone Muslims, are addressed in the hadith page. On an unrelated note, that Qur'an Alone page is very poorly done. I'll take a look at it myself later, but if any of you would like to take a crack at fixing it first that'd be just fine. Peter Deer (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The hadith page looks like it could do with some improvement too. ITAQALLAH 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it could. Suppose I'll have to actually crack open a book or two. Swell. Peter Deer (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll be happy to help... I have a few good sources available. :-) ITAQALLAH 15:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be particularly helpful. I look forward to working with you. Peter Deer (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only are the Quraniyoon extremely small as a sect, they have been summarily dismissed by nearly every other Islamic sect as infidel on the basis of their rejection of the use of the Prophetic Sunnah as a source of Islam. The rest of Muslims view this rejection as a rejection of Prophet Muhammad himself, which is unbelief in terms of Islam. 209.206.216.59 (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Pink

[edit] History of Hadith + Quran

In the sections for Al-Bukhari's Sahih Hadith and the Quran, you can include two photos that I have taken of the worlds first printed copies of them, these are extremely rare and I'm not sure if there are other photos of them on the internet. Photos are below in my Islamic History section, if they will be used I will take my watermarks off them so let me know.

[Photos of Islamic History] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshadhabib (talk • contribs) 00:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arshadhabib. These images would be ideal for the Qur'an and Hadith articles respectively. Less so for this article because we already have a picture of a page from the Qur'an in the Qur'an ssection, and hadith is covered quite briefly in the Muhammad section which already contains an image of Masjid al-Nabawi. But certainly the other two articles could benefit from these images.
Just as a sidenote, it looks like you've taken some photographs of impressive quality. You might wish to consider releasing some of them under a license like GFDL (or another one usable on Wikipedia) as Wikipedia tends to lack high-quality images of this nature and topic. Some may even be of featured quality. ITAQALLAH 00:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammadans

Hello, I noticed when i type Muhammadan it redirects to Islam. Muhammadan refers to (Pagans) that are Hindus and Buddhists that were known as Muhammadans before Islam was created. Note, there was no name of Hindu or Buddhists that time they were known as Muhammadans beacause of the Muhammadan Dynasty that arrived in South Asia. Muhammadan shold be an article about the pagan clans that were with Muhammad and shared all rituals and also described in the sacred vedas by pagan religon. Later, it was already predicted by the sacred vedas that Muhammad will be born as a reincarnation of another god and would be the one to lead the pagans and goes on and on. So its better to redirect Muhammadan to Muhammad article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohun (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually no that is completely untrue. Muhammadan is a western term for Muslim/Islamic that has become mostly archaic. You will find that in western terminology predating about 1960 the terms were interchangeable in western society. Peter Deer (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=muhammadan A Muhammadan is a follower of Muhammad. I'm curious if this means that Muhammadans follow only Muhammad's teachings and dismiss all the dogma that he had nothing to do with the creation of. Followers of Jesus Christ preach of following moral sincerity rather than strictly following religious ritual, so I think I see a comparison here. Also, as a random musing, if Muhammadans are followers of Muhammad that appeared before Islam was codified as it is today, wouldn't that make them a 'pure' form of followers?74.67.17.22 (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Muhammadan is a catch-all. It covers the same people as are now covered by the far more commonly used word in English, Muslim. I think you are trying to read too much into the name. Historically it is based from the fact that Westerners originally came to know Islam as the religion brought by Muhammad and that, they were Muhammadans. It's just a matter of nomenclature and Muhammad has been phased out for various reasons including that some feel it is derogatory. gren グレン 10:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Page Isalamic External Links

Why external links don't have eastern Muslims websits are nonMuslims afraid of the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.112.228 (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than play the fear card, try helping the article. Post links to sites written in English whenever possible however, as this is the English language Wikipedia. Also, the suggestion you make that only eastern Muslim websites have the truth sounds quite biased. You should clear up any misunderstanding without throwing the 'afraid of the truth' idea around like a common conspiracy theorist.74.67.17.22 (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that western websits don't have the truth. Eastern sites have more info and has more members. There are many scholars for example see the site islam house. It has 74 languages in English there are alot of article audio books you will not stop learning from the site for years. Though every time I try to post this link the next page say spam i very good site for muslims and other to read as they like to understand is called a spam an no one can benefite from it. 2 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.30.159.86 (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Our linking policy has been to try to present a few basic introductory sites which are not overly pushing a strong religious or anti-religious point of view; a few sites that will have audio, video, and visual art of Islam related works; and, primarily the DMOZ directories. There are far too many sites about Islam to chose which belongs and keep the number of links manageable. This is why we linked to the DMOZ directory which should give a large array of sites of all sorts. gren グレン 10:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islam is not one denomination

"There are between 1.2 billion to 1.8 billion Muslims, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world after Christianity,[4] ---> but the largest single religious denomination.[5]"

What about Sunnis, Shi'a, Kharijites, etc? The article even has a section on denominations, so the above quote is clearly false hype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.215.140.180 (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree here 100%. The Pope's use of "denomination" is unconventional and probably says more about how the Vatican considers "Catholicism" than "Islam." It was also clearly not spoken in English but has been translated as such. The conventional use of "denomination," which we have adopted here on Wikipedia makes the statement entirely illogical. Why are we publishing this strange perspective in the lead? I'm removing it ... please do not simply revert it because it is "sourced." Please provide a good rationale for including this oddity, and in the lead no less.PelleSmith (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I honestly think it's an unnecessary insertion. The ambiguity over religious groups etc. also doesn't really help. Broadly speaking Christianity is still the largest world religion, and the Vatican finding that Muslims have overtaken Catholics to become the single largest "religious group" is more of a footnote really. ITAQALLAH 19:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Itaqallah on this one. It is unnecessary. Yahel Guhan 05:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, completely unnecessary and very political whether you decide that Islam is one or many. Better to leave it out gren グレン 10:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
So why is it still there afer 16 days?Tourskin (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A denomination is a branch of a world religion so you can't really say "single denomination" it's just confusing also there in Islam one of the main reasons it's the largest growing religions is because when your'e born into a Muslim family you become a Muslim even though you may not follow the rules or lifestyle of a Muslim so a lot of the Islamic population is in fact made up of a lot of non Muslims really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.200.162 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article +others may need to be updated. Islam now = Largest religion in the world.

Islam is now the largest religion in the world as per a few days ago.


CaribDigita (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See the above section. Yahel Guhan 07:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No it is not the largest religion in the world. Islam as a whole is now larger than one division of christianity: the catholics. This is including shi'a and Sunni muslims. 33-38% of the world's population follows christianity, whereas only 18% of the world are Muslims, so NOT the largest group or even division, as Catholicism is larger than Sunni Muslims without shi'a muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.154.181 (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

islam has atleast 1.2 billion minimum this bs about islam being only a billion strong, is not true. The cia world factbook, council on american islamic relations, and the vatican all say so they seem like credible sources to me [with the possible exeption of the cia, but lets not make this a wmd fakeout discussion] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvpggt (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are the facts: there are 2 billion Christians in the world and between 1.1-1.9 billion Muslims in the world of all sects. Does that sort out the problem? LOTRrules (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

ok look im getting tired of beating this to death, until u tell me why the cia, the vatican, and the councl on american islamic relations are all, no your claim that 1.1 to 1.9 does not settle it. How about you provide me with an link to your supposed facts as i will do now #REDIRECT [[1]]

  1. REDIRECT [[2]]#REDIRECT [[3]] You can also explain this wiki consistancy issue shown in the next redirect, the site titled the muslim world say a far more reasonable estimate of 1.3 billion to 1.5 billion muslims #REDIRECT [[4]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvpggt (talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Islam, as a whole, Sunni and Shi'ite is now bigger than the single Christian sect of Catholicism. But not bigger than Christianity as a whole, which includes Protestantism, Orthodox, Catholicism, etc. Islam I believe would not even qualify as the largest single sect in the world, because it is split into Sunni and Shi'ite, and other smaller divisions. You can compare Christianity as a whole with Islam as a whole. You can't compare Islam as a whole with the single Christian sect of Catholicism, as Islam is broken into sects, and Catholics aren't. So Catholicism is still the largest single denomination in the world, and Christianity as a whole is still larger then Islam as a whole.

Just my two cents. If the Vatican says that Islam is the largest religion, next to Catholicism, then that pretty much dismisses any arguement. The Vatican is clearly saying that Catholicism is not a sect, denomination or anything other than a pure religion. Why there is so much resistance with grouping together Catholicism and Protestantism, when the Vatican has clearly implied that is not correct, is beyond me. Therefore either the Vatican is wrong, or you guys are right. So I agree that changes will have to be made to this article, and the articles in Christianity and Catholicism. Islam is the largest religion in the world, and apparently that is a hard pill to swallow. MPA 00:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

@ MPA WOW, you're really pushing for Islam to be named the world's largest religion huh? Here's the jiff for the illogical to understand. Christianity as a WHOLE is bigger then Islam as a WHOLE. If you take denominations of each religion and look at them as religions in themselves, then Christianity (Catholicism) will STILL be the biggest religion. You can't lump ALL forms of Islam together and compare it with only ONE form Christianity. The Vatican was mistaken in looking at Islam as monolithic and without divisions, i.e. the SHIA, and others. If the Vatican gave themselves the same fair treatment to Islam in their comparison, they would realized they are the biggest, EITHER WAY. 71.126.110.131 (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

       The Logical Muslim : Let me tell you people that it not like blind following the blind, it does not really make a

difference that the christianity is the most largest or Islam is the most larget religion. The thing that matters is

which one is true and which one is not. I am sure we can understand and differentiate things being neutral. I can

assure that the is not a verse in Quraan that is not true. But there are many such in bible. The proofs here

www.gotquestions.org/Bible-errors.html. any clarifications visit www.ilovezakirnaik.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sufi umar (talk • contribs) 08:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Dowry"

Islam#Family_life states "The groom is required to pay a dowry (mahr) to the bride, as stipulated in the contract". Mahr is not dowry... since it's from the man to the woman. And it's not bride price because it's to the woman and not her parents. And it's not really dower since that has the implications of for after husband dies... but maybe that's the closest. In any case, we should come to agreement and also... the fact that dowry is used makes me wonder how applicable the sources really are. Do they sources say dowry? I hope not. gren グレン 10:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes that would seem to be inaccurate terminology. But perhaps this is less of inaccurate understanding of the nature of Mahr and more that the term dowry has come to mean something different in western vernacular than it originally meant. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to explain this and what it would mean for the article... do you think we should keep on using dowry? gren グレン 05:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I dunno. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia defines dowry as "Money, goods, or estate that a woman brings to her husband in marriage." What about the term "groomwealth"? there is no such term in English but it may be closer. although groomwealth is paid to the family of the woman and not the woman herself but this seems to be closer to Mahr.--Be happy!! (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
When I studied social anthropology a long time ago there was a basic distinction between 1) "dowry", when the transfer of resources was from the bride's side to the groom's side or the couple and 2) "bridewealth", when the transfer of resources was from the groom's side to the bride's side or the couple. Ideally, we would refer at this point to a scholarly text that discussed the whole question across cultures and proposed a consistent terminology. In the absence of that, can we find a wording that explains the concept without reference to terms like "dowry" which are used loosely and potentially very confusingly. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick review of the sources:
Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world: "Mahr is a gift that the Muslim bridegroom offers the bride upon marriage ... ... In English, mahr has commonly been translated as "dower." (that's all it says about the English rendition)
"Mahr" article in the Encyclopedia of Islam: "Mahr: Hebrew mohar, Syriac mahrā, "bridal gift" , originally "purchase-money" , synonymous with ṣadāḳ which properly means "friendship" , then "present" , a gift given voluntarily and not as a result contract, is in Muslim law the gift which the bridegroom has to give the bride when the contract of marriage is made and which becomes the property of the wife." - in the rest of the article the Arabic rendition mahr is favoured although it's sometimes substituted with "bridal gift."
"Bridal gift" is also the rendition of mahr given in the Encyclopedia of Women and Islamic cultures (Brill publishers) p. 258
Other sources use "dowry," "bride price," "dower," and so on. I'd probably be in support of using bridal gift because it seems to be the most accurate, but there really is no unanimity amongst the sources on this one. ITAQALLAH 21:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we should do our best to explain what it is and not refer to "dowry" or even "bridal gift" as these words do not provide much enlightenment. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In English, the word "dowry" has several meanings (as Itsmejudith should know), one of which is " a gift of money or property by a man to or for his bride".[5] An online Arabic-English dictionary also translates mahr as "dowry".[6] Beit Or 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sufi umar (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)thegeniousumar== Creation ==


When Jibra'el the angel came to tell to Mohammad( SAWS) to preach ,the muslim era didn't start there but it started when Adam(A.S) was sent down to earth. According to the muslim calendar we are in the year 1386. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedi952 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New map is better

I'd like to weigh in on the map situation. The new map, put up by Moshino, is much more intuitive than the one we had up previously. That's not to say that the old map was no good, but the gradient of greens from light to dark (low to high) makes more sense than arbitrary colors assigned to the different percentages. Another similar option would be to go between two colors in a gradient, like yellow and red, but I think this one is supurb. I'm going to revert back to Moshino's map and I'd like to hear a good argument for keeping the old one. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if the darker side of the map, with the high percentages isn't clearly distinct enough between some of the groups I'm assuming Moshino can tweak the coloring a bit. That problem does not change the fact that this map is much more informative for what it does and requires much less work to figure out.PelleSmith (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree as well with your comments thanks a lot, plus for the old maps, I have also given links to them on the maps if people are having trouble viewing them.. for all of them. Moshino31 (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You should propbably credit the CIA World Factbook and the other map as a source. I almost disagreed with the change because I thought yours was unsourced until I checked the difference between the two and saw none. gren グレン 07:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tahrif

Tahrif is a significant Islamic belief, but not significant enough to be in the lead. A more significant belief, that in the Day of Judgment, would be much better suited. We should also state Tawhid more explicitly (saying that Islam is monotheist is not enough).Bless sins (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

A couple of nights ago, I readded the criticism section that had been agreed upon at FAC but it was removed. (I actually closed this at FAR and either missed that the section was gone or looked at a version that temporarily had it.)

The reverting edit summaries suggested that it had been incorporated into the rest of the article. I don't disapprove of moving criticism in general, and I think it's right (usually) to deprecate criticism sections. But looking now I don't see that anything has actually been reincorporated. The best I can find is the last paragraph of Modern times. There's no criticism there—it's a typical, badly done strawman + apologism paragraph. (Side note: which David Duke?!)

I know if someone comes along and demands criticism it might seem like they have an axe to grind. I don't think I've behaved that way with this article. I sung it's praises closing the FAR—but I missed this removal of information. I find it a little troubling, for instance, that the See also didn't take the link to the criticism article. I don't see reincorporation. Only removal. Marskell (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It does seem some information got lost in the movement, and addition of loaded descriptors like "idealogues". I think your recent change is an improvement. - Merzbow (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I added the see also link. I think it was a while ago that it was agreed that the criticism section should be merged within other parts of the article. Yahel Guhan 05:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Some feedback: I have an issue with using inherently unreliable citations, such as Spencer's/Warraq's works or the cite to FPM. Better alternatives such as Rippin's work or the NYT book review have been removed. So I don't agree with replacing good quality sources with poorer ones. You may have mistaken apologism for apologetics, but I disagree with your basic point. The version you inserted is much less balanced, as it includes ~5 claims, and a comment about fundamentalism; and essentially 1 counter claim, with a comment about Islamophobia. There's also an uninformative list of apologists (arguably as loaded as 'idealogues') tacked on at the end.

A much fairer balance is stuck in the prior version, where we have two critiques (which aren't straw men, else they wouldn't have remained in the current version either); a recognition that Muslim scholars contest these claims (not a response); a response from some academic scholars and a more informative comment about Islamophobia from Carl Ernst.

I don't intend to make any immediate changes, but I prefer the previous version with some tweaks (idealogues -> writers) and the inclusion of the sentence about fundamentalism. ITAQALLAH 15:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize Spencer is problematic, as he's so polemical. But I would not call him "inherently unreliable." If we flag his opinions as his opinions, I think they are valid for inclusion, given that he has an established and well known reputation on the subject. (Ditto Rushdie—that letter about Islamophobia was in here at one point, and has also been removed.)
As for balance, we need to consider the article as a whole. I find the readded paragraph balanced because, as I say, there's basically no other criticism anywhere. For instance, Family life (a section added during FAC) elides commonly brought up criticisms of polygamy and inheritance. If those were included, I wouldn't see a need to mention Spencer.
On the whole, this article remains clinical and soundly written. It is a strong Wikipedia piece and I don't want to mess up sections with he said/she said paragraphs. But it shouldn't be completely absent modern criticisms, as the reader will arrive considering them and NPOV suggests we include them. Marskell (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
While the current criticism section is better than the pseudo-criticism featured before, it's still problematic in many respects. For example, the section mentions some people who criticised Islam in the Middle Ages, but it doesn't say what charges those people put at Islam's door. Furthermore, in Abbasid times, there was an extensive anti-Islamic Christian polemical literature (and, of course, anti-Christian Muslim polemical literature), which the article passes over in silence. The recentist focus of the criticism section is also troubling. Modern times have seen much more prominent critics of Islam than Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq; Henri Lammens and Winston Churchill may be the first who come to mind. Beit Or 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course the polemical literature is mentioned. Did you miss the following in the Golden Age (750-1258) section: "The spread of the Islamic dominion induced hostility among medieval ecclesiastical Christian authors who saw Islam as an adversary in the light of the large numbers of new Muslim converts. This opposition resulted in polemical treatises which depicted Islam as the religion of the antichrist and of Muslims as libidinous and subhuman.[79] In the medieval period, a few Arab philosophers like the poet Al-Ma'arri adopted a critical approach to Islam, and the Jewish philosopher Maimonides contrasted Islamic views of morality to Jewish views that he himself elaborated." ITAQALLAH 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I missed it because it was buried deep inside in the body of the article? It's funny that the description of this polemics is itself polemical: some early writers do call the Arabs libidinous (not sure where the "subhuman" comes from), but the main points of dispute were, of course, theological. Anyway, my other points stay. Beit Or 20:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
After checking the source (Tolan, John V. (2002). Saracens: Islam in the Medieval European Imagination. Columbia University Press.), I must say that it is badly misrepresented in the article. Yes, the book says on p. xvi "Medieval Christian writings about Islam contain much that is appalling to the twentieth-century reader: crude insults to the Prophet, gross caricatures of Muslim ritual, deliberate deformation of passages of the Koran, degrading portrayals of Muslims as libidinous, gluttonous, semihuman barbarians.", but "This opposition resulted in polemical treatises which depicted Islam as the religion of the antichrist and of Muslims as libidinous and subhuman." is certainly not a correct summary of the Christian polemical literature, since it contained much more than that. "Libidinous and subhuman" is senationalist cherry-picking. Beit Or 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Badly misrepresented? I see no misrepresentation of the source whatsoever. Did you bother checking pp. 40-41? "Over time, however, it became clear that the new Muslim rulers were here to stay. Muslims affirmed their power, proselytized among Christians and Jews, and dotted the landscape with new mosques; only then did Christians begin to take Islam seriously as a religious rival and to attempt to define it in Christian terms. Some authors ascribed an apocalyptic role to Islam; its rise and its winning of new Christian converts were proof that it was the religion of Antichrist and that the last days were at hand. Some authors branded Islam as heresy, falsely derived from Christian doctrine. In an attempt to stem the tide of conversions to Islam, they denigrated it using the familiar traditions of antiheretical polemics. A few Christians attacked Islam and its prophet in public, deliberately provoking the Muslim authorities into inflicting the death penalty; thus they became new martyrs whose hagiographers attempted to boost the flagging Christian morale." I think the description used in the article is quite a sober representation of the source and that quote you gave. I fail to see where the "cherry-picking" has taken place. Can you show me where the source makes your claim that there was "much more than that"? ITAQALLAH 21:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You did that for me. Just in the paragraph above, the source cites the theme of Islam being a Christian heresy. Other themes include: Muslim conquests as punishment for the sins of Christians (p. 40), Muhammad being a false prophet (p. 52), Qur'an being full of absurdities (p. 52) etc. Even without delving much into sources, some common sense is enough to see that "polemical treatises which depicted Islam as the religion of the antichrist and of Muslims as libidinous and subhuman" is not an accurate and clinical summary of Christian-Muslim polemics. Beit Or 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No. Your contention was that the main points of the early Christian opposition to Islam were theological, and that the book had somehow been misrepresented by omitting the mainstay of the criticism. None of what you cited were theological refutations, just more examples of polemical accusations. The notion of Muslim conquests as punishment for Christian sin wasn't directly an attack on Islam as it was a blame on Christians. I don't see any point being made except that every single attack the book mentions isn't highlighted in the two-sentence summary (if it were, I suspect the passage would be looking much more "polemical" than it apparently does now). Putting the Christian polemics into perspective with regards to the whole of Muslim history which the section attempts to cover, I think the two to three sentences on this specific issue is fair, and I think the source has been adequately, fairly, and soberly represented. ITAQALLAH 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Marskell, I disagree with you on the issue of which sources may be used and when. If Spencer's view is of repute, can't we find an independent reliable source discussing it? If reliable sources aren't discussing it... well it's a good indication that it's probably not as popular as forwarded, and subsequently not noteworthy here either. We did that with Warraq, as we have some of his views covered by Andrew Rippin and the NYT Book review. So we're using reliable sources to provide information about Warraq and his views. [Tangent: It's like saying one should use Ahmed Deedat's or Zakir Naik's works themselves in the Christianity article to provide examples of criticism. Hence, any source is technically "reliable for its own views," and so long as the source is notable and the comment relevant, it merits inclusion. That's a view I've always disagreed with. If a person isn't reliable in and of themselves (i.e. a polemical writer, for example), then they shouldn't be used as a source in the article. That doesn't mean their view shouldn't be mentioned, because we can use a reliable source (i.e. mainstream newspaper, journal, book review) that has mentioned the view, ultimately demonstrating its significance.]
To look at the distribution of article from the perspective of where criticism is present and absent is fundamentally flawed IMO. Encyclopedic, dispassionate coverage about the facts of Islam isn't exactly "pro-Islam" by default. The family life section should give us the facts about the Islamic family structure in a concise manner as per WP:SS. The issue of those saying the Islamic familial system is just, of the natural order/fitra, empowering, or oppressive, misogynist, backward, is all secondary - and really this section isn't the place to discuss it. The counter-balance to criticism here is response. And the focus on negative opinions should be in equal proportion with opposing views, so that the reader is at least shown both perspectives and in equal weightage. I fear that current layout, which is just under half a dozen unanswered critiques and a single generic response about old myths and polemics, doesn't quite strike that balance.
I have no issue with mentioning the opinions raised about Islam in recent times and I think it warrants discussion in this article. But I want to ensure the coverage of views about Islam is balanced. Perhaps the next productive step here is to work on a presentation that meets in the middle between the two versions. ITAQALLAH 20:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If we're not going to have a criticism section, the family life section is the logical place for a short (sentence or two) nod to criticism directed at, well, family life in Islamic religion/culture... - Merzbow (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
"Secularists and non-Muslims have questioned the compatibility of Islam with modern notions of women's rights. Reformist Muslims have not necessarily adopted Western or other outside frameworks in arguing for greater rights for female Muslims. The ability of a man to treat multiple wives equally has been questioned, for instance, with reference to the Qu'ran itself.[1]"
Will this do? It gives a single sentence nod to outside criticism but then focuses on developments within the religion. Marskell (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the rationale behind compensating a more neutral layout (i.e. integration of the criticism section) by adding more criticism. I personally don't believe any further coverage of criticism - especially recentist - is necessary, especially when the perspectives of reformists and Islamists are already covered. ITAQALLAH 11:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Your argument amounts, then, to having no criticism in the article at all. (And it's clear that the section wasn't integrated—it was simply removed.) How three sentences on the status of women compromises the coverage, I don't know. It's pertinent, widely discussed, and deals directly with the text of the Qu'ran. Hardly recentism, in the sense that that term is used around here. Marskell (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I've explained my position in detail above, and it doesn't amount to omitting mention of criticism. The issue isn't about interpretations about the status of women - if you look at the section, that is already given copious coverage. There's a long list of other - factual - things we can discuss about family life in Islam as related in academic texts, long before giving the nod to individuals who don't just criticise this aspect, but virtually every aspect. The comparison with modern ideals is indeed of recentist and undue focus, as we omit any mention of the comparative status of women thirteen hundred years prior (e.g. Women had the right to independently own property/wealth before and after marriage in Islam, a right which was only granted in Britain in the late 19th century).
We already cover the issue of criticism, two paragraphs worth in the History section. To say the criticism section was ever removed is just plain wrong. Most of the content from those two paragraphs were simply relocated, as is plainly viewable in the article history and talk archives. Some specific critiques were removed, so as to maintain an air of balance and adequately recognise that such critiques are indeed disputed; as opposed to a string of undisputed claims opposed by one generally vague dismissal. The paragraph in the Modern times section is something I think needs tweaking, as already explained. Instead of recognising that this aspect needs collaborative work, the focus seems to be more on where else we can add yet more "criticism," as if these opinions are the most important things that can be said about the topic. ITAQALLAH 16:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The entire article, by necessity and nature, has a recentist focus. That's why there is a specific "history" section. The article as a whole focuses on what Islam is in the here and now. So recent debate on the subject is of far more importance that what the situation was 1300 years ago. - Merzbow (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The article should actually avoid a recentist focus for reasons mentioned here. The history section is about the history of Islam up until today - hence it includes a section on modern times, which does provide substantial coverage about criticism and recent discourse. The article itself isn't about recentist focus at all, it's about what the academic scholarly texts say about Islam, taking into account the primary texts, the secondary texts, and the institution of Islam as a whole and throughout its history. Whilst "recent debate" is a noted topic, and has been given its own space, it's certainly not significant enough to saturate the entire article by virtue of it being more recent. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
We should not shoehorn criticism into its own section for the same reasons we should not shoehorn discussion of the "modern-time" debate over these issues into its own section. If you grant one, you must grant the other. This is highly relevant information to today's readers. - Merzbow (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I find myself agreeing with the first part of the statement at least, in regards to there being a criticism section, but I find that Itaqallah has made some good points as well and I think that he is right in regards to the criticisms that were removed, unless I've overlooked something significant. Perhaps it's just me but a criticism section by itself seems like it might be undue weight to individual points of view, where a popular opposition section might be more appropriate, and having these critical viewpoints represent their respective oppositions. Or perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about, that's also a possibility, happens all the time. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think modern developments have been shoehorned, as discussing them in that section is natural as it's a part of the timeline of Muslim history. But my point is that certain perspectives being more recent doesn't mean they're more significant to the topic as a whole, or that they merit more coverage on that basis alone. The strength of coverage is determined by the comparative weight given to the topic in academic scholarly discussion. The family life section already gives decent coverage to different perspectives in modern times, so I don't understand why more should be inserted as opposed to more content about factual matters, like women's ownership of property/wealth, who qualifies as mahram, children's role in the family, and so on. The presumption is of course that further coverage is actually needed, and I don't believe that to be the case. ITAQALLAH 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Prophet Muhammad

The article says that Muslims view Muhammad as the greatest prophet, this is untrue. According to hadith the Prophet Muhammad said to the Muslims never to say one prophet was better than another. So please change this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.45.241 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It says that "Muslims view Muhammad as the greatest prophet", it doesn't say "Muhammad said he was the greatest prophet". So, I think the distinction is clear or I am mistaken? --Be happy!! (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I am a muslim, and I dont view him as the greatest prophet! (I view each prophet has come down with his own miracle/sign and Job/duty and) what distinguishes Muhammed is that (in islam) he is the final prophet to be born with the final message. A more appropriate sentence would be "Muslims view Muhammad as the final prophet born bringing the final message (the Koran)" [[User:Cs1kh]] (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The influence of Islam...

"The Alevi, Yazidi, Druze, Ahmadiyya, Bábí, Bahá'í, Berghouata and Ha-Mim movements either emerged out of Islam or came to share certain beliefs with Islam. Some consider themselves separate while others still sects of Islam though controversial in certain beliefs with mainstream Muslims. Sikhism, founded by Guru Nanak in late fifteenth century Punjab, incorporates aspects of both Islam and Hinduism."

This paragraph is currently located under Denominations: Others but I think it would fit better under Islam and other religions. Oore (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To-Do List

Well, I think that the history is already told, and the history section should be converted to "Political History" or "History After Muhammad". Will someone change that section? --Obaidz96 (talk • contribs • count) 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesian version of Islam?

IS there any room for this topic here or should a new page be written. I ask as Indonesia is numerically the most populous Muslim nation- and there is much variety and discussion within Indonesia about Islam.Starstylers (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is notable and sourced, add it to Islam in Indonesia. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deen or religion

Seeing that my edit replacing the word "religion" with and internal link to the article on "Deen" (the word muslims and the Koran use to describe Islam) has been reverted by Jet, I felt it appropriate to bring this up on the talk page instead of reverting his revert. Islam is regarded by Muslims as a deen (way of life) and not a mere religion. Seeing that the Koran also uses this word instead of the arabic word for relgion, I think it is appropriate that in internal link be provided to "deen" so that a reader can understand both sides of the issue. Mushoo (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, for numerous reasons. Islam is seen as a religion by many more than a way a life. The idea that it is a way of life stems from the belief that it is the one true faith, and therefore the way of life. Tourskin (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I also disagree in that the very first part of the article should try hard not to confuse the reader. It's confusing enough already with the specialized terms. A religion or a religious tradition that also has elements that explicitly direct how to organize one's life is not unheard of, so it is not 'false' to say it is a religion. The idea of Deen (Arabic term) should be brought out in the article, and actually I'm quite surprised that it does not seem to be mentioned? In fact, can someone point to where the (Western notion of) tension between religion and society is resolved? Shenme (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Apart from all that, can someone check whether my change at Deen (Arabic term) seems correct? It was confusing to me... Shenme (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with use of 'religion' over 'deen'. It may be less specific, but it's far more familiar. And for the reasons Shenme gave, it doesn't really add any new information. Ilkali (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps the idea of Deen should be brought up later in the article, and yes it is surprising that it has not been mentioned. Mushoo (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.202.27 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"Religion" is the common rendition of "din." Yes, I know it's a pretty sloppy one at that, but the article does note that din is "usually translated as religion", and also provides a link to the respective article where the issue can be clarified. ITAQALLAH 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Talk page has been semi-protected for 48 hours given graffiti. Marskell (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Unorthodox Islamic sects

I'm surprised by the lack of allusions to unorthodox Islamic sects. No allusions to the Druze, Ahmadiyah, Ansariyah...It's non-scientific to repudiate those branches of Islam, only because they are opposite to the Islamic orthodoxy. And, certainly, leaves an impression of pro-political correctness bias.

See the last paragraph of Islam#Other religions. ITAQALLAH 18:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, nomen est omen, as Latin adagio goes. "Other religions". It's assumed they are marginal, instead of studying with Sunnism, or Shiism. Anyway, I think this matter is very controversial, and therefore, difficult to treat it adequately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.128.75.213 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Islam world's largest religion?

Ive heard Islam is the world's largest religion So I checked on the Internet and it says it's true check for your self if you don't beleive me. I was still wondering and I don think it's true so I am going to ask if it's true from you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.84.93 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

All of the sources I've encountered agree with this article, in that Islam is the second-largest. Unless you provide a link to a reliable source, your claim doesn't mean much. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I think what the suer means is this: discounting the fact that Muslims are split into two major sects (Sunni and Shia), Islam is the largest denomination in the world, given that Muslims outnumber Catholics (the largest Christian denomination). This conclusion, however, is based upon Vatican statistics, who has specifically said that it can't vouch for statistics on Muslim population. I've not seen independent sources come to the same conclusion.Bless sins (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jihad

The section on Jihad is not only extremely inaccurate but also offensive. Jihad is the 'internal struggle against temptation'. What the hell happened to that belief which is held by virtually all muslims, and why is the belief of a few violent lunatics is represented more here. This is common sense and I don't think sources are necessary for it, but I'll try gathering some if I have time if there's any opposition. I'll attempt changing the wording slightly if there's no objections. Pink Princess (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you need sources for all your edits. Everything needs sources. If you've heard something, or know something but don't recall the source, you may post it here and someone may find a source.Bless sins (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Pink Princess, the article does say that "Most Muslims today interpret Jihad as only a defensive form of warfare: the external Jihad includes a struggle to make the Islamic societies conform to the Islamic norms of justice."
Don't you agree that a culture within which a religion is born specifies the kind of distortions that would take place in it? Don't Muslims claim (truly or falsely) that Christianity became distorted once it was separated from its Jewish culture and won converts in a Hellenistic one? Now, just think about it for a minute: what were the most salient features of the Arabian culture that could possibly color Islam in its own image? These were the idea of Arab superiority, and warfare (Bedouin's national sport); lo and behold, developments towards both of these can be located in the early centuries of Islam some of which were later corrected upon and some were kept.--Be happy!! (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Certainly Pink Princess, it is clear that the Quran teaches "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors" And it is also certain that the primary battle in Islam is against Satan fought in one's own heart, as it is in all the religions of God. As far as the article goes, however, it notes the personal nature of an individual's struggle against Evil (the greater Jihad) quite prominently. I do not see the objectionable nature you seem to see here. Peter Deer (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Deer, I'll read it again tomorrow and get back to you mate. Be Happy, WTF you mean warfare is a beduins national sport? Are you implying Beduins are bloodthirsy loons or are warmongerers, as that is very insulting and shows the ignorance of such a idiot. Look at most wars today, who is starting them for their own greed you bigot. Pink Princess (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that "national sport" was a good way of putting it. The Beduins were a war-like people who clashed with one another in tribal warfare yes. Tourskin (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course in the beduin culture of pre-islamic arabia, they were careful not to kill because of the blood feud incurred; in fact the main purpose of raids were to acquire booty not to kill. Without doing that the survival of Bedouins was not fully possible; something dictated by the harsh environment of the desert. Sometimes it was indeed carried as a sport and show of brevity. This was the culture in which Islam was born; this is not say that Islam at the time of Muhammad endorsed that form of warfare; in fact to the contrary. Nor do I claim that in practice Muslims were historically more violent than say Christians, to the contrary. My point was the mark that the Arabian culture left in the formation of the traditional concept of Jihad. Yes, as I said most modern Muslims view Jihad as defensive but that you can find in modern times.
Lastly, Pink Princess, see WP:CIVILITY --Be happy!! (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I too think that putting it as "national sport" is not a good description. More appropriate would be to say that they Bedouin did not see any moral objection is seizing goods by force.
But we should look at it another way to. The pre-Islamic Arabs had months of peace, in which warfare was forbidden. Thus, they were very far from the civilized concept of "All is fair in war". Given the forbidden months, wars longer than a few months would have been impossible.Bless sins (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Unless it was seasonal, like 6 months rest than the remaining 6 months are war? Tourskin (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Be Happy, I misunderstood you, but saying war to them is a national sport was very misleading and gives the impression I got which does not seem to be what you intended to. I appologise for my harsh langauge, I agree totally that unfortunately a lot of Beduin Arab pre-Islamic culture which was at that time violent, was wrongfully kept in Islam. However, this shold be highlighted in the article so to prevent it being taken as being a true part of Islamic teachings. And Tourskin, what are you implying? Lastly, I keep my objections to the Jihad section, I read it again, and it still remains to represent the minority twisted view of the radicals and not at all mainstream Islam. Also it almost excuses misinterpretaions and wrong interpretations of Jihad, by stating 'It is commonly taken as the military form', or something similar. I hope you all understand this is a wrong interpretation - especially one born from anti-Islam loons after the 'War on Terror'.

True Jihad is internal struggle against evil - yes Islam does have rule for defensive warfare, and sanctions it in some cases, but that is not at all Jihad. Also Islam never allows wars and violence to spread Islam or for expansionism, though this was used by Muslim Missionaries in practice - much like those of virtually all other religions including Christianity.

Unfortunately now I am very bussy (still) - the more university forms I fill in and send, the more come through the post, and they need me to do research on the internet to understand and of the crap on them. Also I need to pass my driving test. :( So I'd appreciate if someoe can try and find some sources for true Jihad so it can get edited and corrected, and PM me to let me know, as I wont come here for a while. Many thanks in advance. Pink Princess (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The section as written is quite fair and is based on a variety of reliable sources. - Merzbow (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No I disagree as a Muslim, it is not at all fair, and very biased to show Islam as an exceptionally violent religion, and as I said plays into current misinterpretations by anti-muslims or muslim crazies about Jihad. And sources don't matter, as with all belief systems, interpretations of the individuals count the most. Those sources are from the minority opinion of Muslims. Pink Princess (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahh come on, where is the bias? It doesn't even mention the fact that many terrorists have been misguided to believe jihad justifies their actions. It says that its the only form of warfare allowed. It was issued to expand the Islamic state, thats how the Moors conquered southern spain, the Turks conquered Byzantium and how the Arabs conquered the Middle East in c 630 AD. Its also been used to defend Islamic countries/territories like in Afghanistan. Interpretations of individuals count the most? Then why do you label those sources as minority opinions and criticize; make up your mind do you want the narrow opinions of a few terrorists to tell you what Jihad is or would you like sources and scholars to tell you? Besides, you should be impartial to this regardless of your Islamic identity, this is how wikipedia works, if you're insulted by the truth, too bad, I'm insulted by the fact that there's anti-religious jokes around every corner, but you gotta stop fantasizing about what you think it is and accept what it is, whatever it is. Tourskin (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Pink, your personal opinions are your own, but this section was carefully written and has achieved wide consensus. It uses very reliable sources, per WP:V, and is balanced per WP:NPOV. If you have additional reliable sources to present, please do, and we will discuss how to add them. If you think we are misrepresenting an existing source, or giving undue weight to some of the existing sources, please say how, in specific reference to the text. - Merzbow (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin, I clearly said that despite what people have excused in history - much like the bloodbaths you fanatic Christians have caused, it does not represent the original teaching you idiot - but hey, reading your page I should guess you'd enjoy anything that slants Islam into a bad like you anti-Islamic racist prick. And when since terrorists or History represented Islam or any other religion - do the missionaries who offer food and aid to the poor, taking advantage of their situation represent Christianity, because I never see that in the Christianity section, nor the massacres carried out to spread that religion, or most others. Religion is scripture and majority opinion - none of those are whats represented in that section in my opinion. Majority opinion and Scripture says Jihad has nothing to do with warfare, and that is what must be represented first and foremost - not the opinions of a few extremists brainwashed or tricked, nor the racist anti-Islam, hate-mongering bigots like Tourskin who seem to want to slander everyone else without looking at themselves. Like I said, I don't have time to keep coming here and search for sources. I created this section specifically to appeal for others lucky enough to have more time on their hands to find such sources, and PM me so I can try putting an arguement forwards at some time.

And Merzbow, thanks but only because it was present on Wikipedia first, does not at all mean that it is in any way superior or truth as per the 'Wiki-Elitest' attitudes. As long as we have people who know nothing about Islam, nor have anything to do with it but to further their own hate-mongering political agendas - wether that be the terrorist loons or extremist Christian racists and hatemongerers like Tourskin - whatever is written here will have a clear bias no matter how strict the many rules here are - but nothing's completely unbiased in the world. I'll try reading the sources when I get time - writing all this is surprisingly much less time consuming than reading all the sources ;) . Thanks again for the advice.

I'll try convince my local Imam to come here with religious, rather than historic sources which this seems to be mainly based on, to correct this. In the meantime I want this section primarily for new sources of Jihad to represent that opinion rather than discussion - a request for help rather than discussion as I have no time to search the whole archives of the internet. I don't know what the wiki policy is on that or what I should do to ask for help in terms of sources here. Should I delete all this discussion and simply put a notice for help on sources to support that or what? Unfortunately even if I get sources I wont be able to come here for some time. Pink Princess (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You are a misguided individual. First of all, I am not a Christian fanatic. My User page shows sayings of Jesus Christ, all of which are totally peaceful. Secondly, Islamic terrorism exists, and is the largest form of terrorism. Christian terrorism or terrorism in the name of Christianity is almost non-existent in contrast. Thirdly, I did not say that Islam commits massacres or anything and I did not say that Islamic Jihad supports terrorism. Look at my arguments. Did I say that? Why do you continue to make up your stuff? I said that terrorists use Islamic Jihad, and that is not mentioned in the article. Nor did I ask it to be mentioned. All I asked was that you be consistent. You can't use the sources that you like, which is what you are doing. All religions have had followers who have commited terrible crimes, including followers of Catholicism and followers of Islam. You live in a foolish fantasy world and refuse to acknowledge religious persecution, regardless of religion. It is high time for you to cease your personal attacks against me, wake up from your belief that Islam or any religion has never commited mistakes and accept the overwhleming number of sources that state what Jihad is, and I have not said anywhere on this page at all that Islam is a religion or war or that Jihad supports terrorism, anywhere at all!!! You want to stay in wikipedia, you stop your personal attacks.Tourskin (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Pink, you are on ice so thin its thickness can only be measured with an electron microscope. Please reconsider your approach here. - Merzbow (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Pink Princess would not stay much in wikipedia if personal attacks are not stopped. --Be happy!! (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys think it would be a good idea to contrast the Qur'anic view of Jihad and of warfare with the way Muslims have historically approached it, using the Encyclopedia of the Qur'an articles on Jihad and Warfare? --Be happy!! (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, that would include more useful information that would distinguish between what its suppose to be and what it is. Tourskin (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the balance that has previously been agreed upon is a fair one. Jihad in Islamic legal discourse refers primarily to military combat. In more ascetic, spiritual tracts it assumes the meaning of striving against sin or internal evils - or self purification. As far as I remember (although I haven't checked the section recently), the section does maintain a balance between these two aspects. ITAQALLAH 13:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I will only push this matter if there is support for it, I'll drop it otherwise. I don't want to be seen as anti-Islamic or a Christian fanatic, but I hate political correctness as well. Tourskin (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Tourskin, like I said many times before, the current Islamic Jihad is used as a military/political tactic against the sometime's equally harsh foriegn policies of the mainly Christian West towards third-world Muslim countries. I'm sure if the West was Muslim - Islamic terrorist would be totally obscilete, so we'll get Arab/Central Asian terrorism instead. Be Happy, I think that would be a great idea, so to shut some of those fanatics and bigots up who claim Islam is a religion of war more so than others, and teaches hate to everything West - for political motives. Tourskin, I agree with you there for once, but I'll continue to find sources that represent Jihad to what I was bought up to believe it is, and I believe/hope most muslims will agree to that rather than Itaqallah's and the section's views of it being also/more military based. But it'll probably take me some time - as answering these has taken most my PC time today. Pink Princess (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The definition "Surrender to the will of God" is only half of the interpretation. Islam defined is "peaceful surrender to the will of God".

...The Arabic word for surrender without the connotation of peace is "Har-ram". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.190.59 (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and edit it yourself, adding in sources Tourskin (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Or if you do not know how, or just don't want to do it yourself, post the location of the sources here and one of the other editors or myself will do so (provided they're neutral, verifiable, and not original research, of course). Peter Deer (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)