Talk:Islam in Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Muslims before the Europeans?

The historical explanation at the beginning of this article seems bent on showing that the Muslims conquered Europe before the current Europeans. This should be studied seriously and appropriates dates and citations brought for every region. The historical part should deal with which nations were conquered. The Muslims were not conquering empty territory.

There is a lot of stress on whether Islam conquered a country before Christianity did, which seems very tendentious. This article should be bringing facts, not being biased in any specific direction.

Misheu 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The current Europeans"? What do you mean? Funkynusayri (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of weasel words

I rewrote the part about early Muslim history in Europe. This includes removal of all unrelated data. For example:

Sicily and Constantinople were already attacked by Arab Muslims even before the Bulgarians reached the Balkans

They were attacked before Spain became Muslim, before Columbus discovered America, and before man got to the moon. The fact that Bulgarians got to the Balkans is unrelated to the issue. All such statements were removed.

Removal of unreferenced material:

  • "a first Muslim community already existed inside Europe´s center of Orthodoxy" - No source, and does not appear in Constantinople
  • the first Muslims, who were Bogumils (ancestors of the present Bosnians) migrated and settled in the Eastern parts of what is today Romania before the Romanian principalities were mentioned - The Bogumils who found refuge in Bosnia became Muslim after the Turks conquered the area. It is unclear when and if they came to Romania and whether those who did were Muslim. The link brought as reference does not state that the Bogumils were Muslim at all.

Misheu 05:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not mention the Bogumils, in my mind there were Nogay Tatars in the Dodrudja since 1300 (Romanian principalties not before 1330) but anybody else added the Bogumils. Of course this is not the same but it is not my fault. And that a small muslim community was already inside the city while the Muslim armies attacked an from outside, is interesting. More relevant that they established themselves there on the Balkan long before the then neigbhoured Bulgarians became Christians. They even established their community inside the city before the Bulgarians created the first state on the Balkans but today the Muslims are seen as intruders and the Bulgarians as autochthon??? --Roksanna 21:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

About Bulgarians - I do not follow the logic. Please explain more. The local Bulgarians accepted Christianity, so why should they be seen as intruders? The Muslim population came in with the Turkish invasion, and were not local (except for converts). where and when did Muslims establish a community in Bulgaria? The original article talked about Muslims in Sicily before Bulgarians reached Bulgaria. I see no connection between the two.Misheu 18:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article expansion

There are several things to be added:

  1. Find references for unreferenced claims
  2. Fill more information about history of Islam in Eastern Europe. Tatar and Turkic forces pushed into Eastern Europe in the middle ages, but need to verify if they were Muslim at the time.
  3. Review the major battles between Muslim and European forces.
  4. Add information about cultural influences - architecture, art, science

Misheu 08:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I mostly agree. I think that this article lacks focus. The article should focus on Islam in Europe. (1) Islam is a religion. So the article should mostly be about the religion in Europe over history and the relationships of Muslims with other people in Europe. The historical part of the article goes mostly about wars and conquests - which should be less relevant than how the religion was practised in Europe, what influence the religion had on culture and thinking in Europe, etc... (2) The article should go about Islam "in Europe". The crusades and colonization parts are no longer "in Europe", making this article a de facto article about the "Relations between (non-Muslim) Europeans and Muslims". Such an article is in my opinion valid, but then this article should be renamed accordingly. Additional comments include: (3) language and art and architecture have little to with Islam (except when it would be about specific religious terms or religious art) as these things are not related to Islam, but to the specific cultures. Such content should be included in articles, named like: "Arabic influence on European cultures/architecture/science/... The mentioned Venetian Gothic and Moorish Revival for instance have little or nothing to do with Islam, but with Arabic and Moorish architectural influences. Arabic non-religious texts have also nothing to do with Islam... Etc. (4) Little or no attention is paid to the specific nature of Islam in Europe. For instance European Muslims are less practising than their counterparts elsewhere in the world, and researchers are currently suggesting that an European Islam is emerging. (5) This article should also mention - besides the obvious discrimination that exists in many countries - on things like the recognition of the religion by most European governments, the open attitude towards the religion (no restrictions on conversion efforts, etc.), etc. Sijo Ripa 13:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Why remove the languages affected by the Muslim conquests and not the architectural styles? I don't see the difference. Though I agree that all those things have more to do with Arabic culture, you cannot ignore the fact that Arab and Islamic culture are intertwined. That is, they were brought by Berbers and Turks (who were not Arabs).
I don't think it is right to say that one is not born a Muslim. Of course, a kid can always break away from his family's religion, but this is not the point of those statistics. It is the only way to talk about future demographics, and it is done by serious researchers.
I agree that this article needs a lot of work. I think the first contacts between Europeans and Muslims are important to mention, though. What can you, it was mostly wars and conquests. As for how Islam is changing in Europe, there's a whole article about it European Islam. Misheu 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
(1)Concerning the architecture, I wasn't sure whether to remove it or not. I gave it the benefit of the doubt because it is called "Islamic architecture" and because the example was a Jewish temple build in the style of a mosque. The rest of architecture I did remove. (2) And I don't deny that Europeans mostly came into contact with Arab Muslims and Turks, but there are many points of contention to equalize or interwine them in this article. Islam is a religion, Arabian/Turkish is a ethnicity/culture. Less than half of Muslims are Arab, even less are Turkish. Arab/Turkish culture and mythology also precedes Islam and in many Arab countries there is a significant minority of Christians (e.g. 40% of Lebanon, 5-10% of Egypt, etc.). (3) Concerning whether one is born with a religion or not, I only made a minor change: changing "Muslim birth rates" to "birth rates in Muslim communities". I don't think this formulation is a point of discussion or contention. (4) I do not think that wars should be removed, they are necessary to explain a lot of things. They should however not dominate the history section. There are many interesting topics about the relations in Europe between Christians and Muslims (e.g. Poland, Albania, ...), the conversion in two ways, etc. (5) I'm a contributor to the European Islam article. Nevertheless it should be a good idea to put one or two paragraphs about that topic in this article as this is one of the most important current topics of "Islam in Europe".Sijo Ripa 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
1. then I suggest you remove it all
2. I don't agree. Islam is a religion, but it's also a culture, and it's a culture that Turkish/Moroccan/Pakistanis etc brought with them into Europe. It does not matter how many Christians there are (in Lebanon there are much less than 40% btw)
3. I did not see that, sorry. Wiki comparisons are not the best
4. Please add.. About the two way conversion, there are other article talking about European influence on Islam (both in Europe and elsewhere).
5. Me too. There are a couple of paragraphs, and there was a link to the full article, which you removed. You say this article lacks focus, but you can't turn it into another existing article. "European Islam" talks about how Islam (the religion) has changed and adapted in Europe. "Islam in Europe" talks about Muslims and Islam came to Europe, how Islam affected Europe and what's the current situation in terms of demographics. Those two are related, but not the same.
Misheu 06:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
1 & 2. Islam is not a culture, it would be a huge mistake to confuse the two. Just like Christianity is not a culture. It is a religion. I don't object to certain additions, such as the typical Islamic architecture or typical Islamic books (Qu'ran) in this article, as they are strongly related to the religion. But if you wish to remove them, I won't oppose it.
4. I'm afraid that while I know a bit about it, I lack the expertise and the books.
5. I removed the link, because (a) there was already a link in the text to that article; and (b) because the section could have given the impression that everyone agrees that European Islam is the future of Islam in Europe (i.e. by using a ":Main article"-link it could seem so). Many think so, but there is no consensus.Sijo Ripa 13:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
There's no such thing as Islamic culture?
There is a link to European Islam, but it should be understood that what we have here is just a small intro. If you don't agree with what it says please change it, but I think there should be a 'main article' link. Objections to European Islam should also appear in that article. Misheu 13:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
(1) The article Islamic culture deals with religious practices, religious festivals, islamic architecture (mosques), marriage in islam and religious music. Only the language section and martial arts section seem to be filled with unsourced nonsense (i.e. not related to Islam). So I think that article proves my point more or less: if topics are strongly related to the religion, they can be added. (2) A main article reference to European Islam (EI) and by merely putting objections to EI in this article or in the EI article it could give the impression that EI is the evolution that has gained most attention and acceptance. I think this would constitute OR. So I'm not fond of a main article reference.Sijo Ripa 14:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Lewis and the future of Islam in Europe

Someone who has more time than I do should find good sources for the future of Islam in Europe. Bernard Lewis isn't exactly disinterested.

Also, there should be a section about the backlash against Muslim immigrants. Mr Lewis's commentary belongs there. Chip Unicorn 21:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the section about Future of Islam (or more specifically what Bernard Lewis thinks of it) due to its lack of information and singular viewpoint. It also generalizes even what Bernard Lewis actually says! Until a more substantial and sourced section can be maintained this section is a detriment to the article. Makwy2 16:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)