![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
This is regarding this addition [1]. It was previously removed by another editor, then again recently by me. It has been reinserted now, and I do not wish to get into an edit war.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Health message foru ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Due to immigration and high fertility rates among Muslim communities, Islam is the second largest religion after Christianity in many European countries. Why I think the first part should be removed:
Last sentence of lead section: Only about 20 percent of Muslims come from Arab countries. Doesn't it mean come from or live? I don't have the source so I don't know but come from seems to include Arab migrants to other countries which are Muslim. That may not be what the source is suggesting. Just a clarification. Thank you Gizza Discuss © 22:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This section should indicate that the majority of Muslims are related to the tribes of Ishmael and quite often used the name Ismael for said same. This will historically keep the Muslim/Islam issue identified with its correct, historical linage. Muhammad was an Ishmalite as well as most of the others of Muslim/Islam. The term Ishmalel (Ismael) needs to be throughly defined here and linked to this article. Thanks Sons of Ishmael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby bosch ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This section is the very opposite of balanced if it ignores the preaching of some clerics today who equate jihad with a holy war against Israel. I added some referenced information on this subject (from a non-biased source) which was promptly removed, with a comment to take it to the talk page. I know the intention is to present Islamic in the best possible light, but there is no excuse for ignoring a phenomenon that is so significant today -whether or not it is pleasant to hear. This is supposed to be an encyclopdia and to help people understand the world. By making believe jihad does not exist in the sense of armed struggle against "infidels" (which includes Israel) you are making a joke of Wikipedia as an information source. I wrote that "some Muslim clerics" think this way. To ignore that is either wishful thinking or a deliberate attempt to deceive the reading public. --Gilabrand 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, just wanted to say that I dont think that 80% of muslims are sunni and 15% are Shi'a since there are more kinds of islam such as suffism or is their number not that large to be put in?
Thanks for reading this
--------------------------
According to Friedmann Islam maintains a hierarchy of religions wherein it occupies the uppermost place followed, in descending order, by Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and polytheism.
I think this is his idea. In Islam the religions divided to truly monotheistic comprising what all of the prophets of Islam have taught, distorted monotheistic comprising what we know as Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism today, polytheism and atheism. Islam guide to first group, tolerate the second one as dhimmis and fight with the last.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 06:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Islam maintains a hierarchy of religions wherein it occupies the uppermost place followed, in descending order, by Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and polytheism. [1] This idea of Islamic supremacy is encapsulated in the formula "Islam is exalted and nothing is exalted above it." [2] Accordingly, Muslims are not allowed to place themselves in a position inferior to that of the followers of other religions. [3] Pursuant to this principle, Muslim women may not marry non-Muslim men, non-Muslims may not inherit from their Muslim relatives, and a testimony of a non-Muslim is inadmissible against a Muslim. [4] A non-Muslim who insults Islam must be put to death, according to most schools of Islamic jurisprudence, or flogged and imprisoned, according to others. [5]
This latest addition to Jihad flatly contradicts the earlier part of the paragraph:
"Through history Muslims have regarded corruption, tyranny and irreligiosity within Muslim communities as even more critical targets and most Jihads have either been defensive in nature or directed at other Muslims with martyrs guaranteed a place in paradise."
This is the first part of the paragraph:
"Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to establish the universal domination of Islam. Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule"
Obviously both cannot remain as written, so I've reverted the latest addition. If that summary of Humphreys' views are accurate, so far he seems to be the only reliable source saying this. - Merzbow 18:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Even withing it's range of meaning as war on behalf of Islam, the term is often used in relation to conflicts between Muslims. Such examples include wars fought against groups of apostates rebelling against proper Islamic authority (murtaddun), dissenting groups denouncing legitimate Muslim authority (baghi), highway robbers and other violent people, and deviant or un-Islamic leadership. The determination of when Muslim leaders may call for jihad and the requisite demands that such a call makes upon the Muslim populace are developed in the legal literature.
The actual meaning of the term has nothing to do with warring or aggression. It means, rather "Striving", and is commonly used in the Quran and elsewhere as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah). This is striving to do the divine will and fulfill one's religious obligations in the Islamic context, includes protecting the religion from both outside aggressors who would dominate it and from internal sedition or subversion away from what is perceived to be the straight path established by God and his Prophet.
-- Tigeroo 20:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Jihad means "to strive or struggle," and is commonly used in the Quran and elsewhere as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God" (al-jihad fi sabil Allah). In Islam Jihad is categorized under four archetypes: Jihad of the heart, the tongue, the hand and the sword and is waged against the devil's inducements, aspects of one's own self or against a visible enemy in a an attempt to build a godly community.
===Jihad as War===
The term Jihad used without any qualifiers is generally understood to be referring to war on behalf of Islam; either defending or propagating the faith. Islamic jurisprudence has developed a highly sophisticated doctrine of war for the regulation of Jihad. Jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, may be declared against apostates, rebels, highway robbers, violent groups, unIslamic leaders or non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule......
Many religous articles of wikipedia have a lead image. This article probably should have one too.-- Sefringle Talk 03:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the picture should have people kneeling. The whole point is submission, and that is a gesture of submission. Also Muslims are supposed to do that five times a day. Arrow740 06:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
#2, simply because the Kaaba is the most important building in Islam. All Muslims face it when they pray, and anyone who can makes a pilgrimage there, (as I'm sure you can find out in the article). The mass of people also demonstrates its status as a major world religion, though more symbolicaly than literally (duh). Besides, it just looks cool. Can someone please fix my edit, it's sticking out. Sorry, I'm not the best at this, I'm reletively new :) .
Result
OK. That's 2 for #1, 4 for #2, and 4 for #3.-- Sefringle Talk 02:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There is written analogical reasoning ( (qiyas)) is one the four fundamental roots of Fiqh while in Ja'fari jurisprudence 'Aql is used instead of it.
Mortaza Mutahhari has quoted:
Twelvers distinguish between offensive jihad and defensive jihad.
jihad requires the permission of the Imam. Abdulaziz Abdulhussein Sachedina, ‘‘The Just Ruler (al-sultan al-adil),’’ in Shi’ite Islam: The Comprehensive Authority of the Jurist in Imamite Jurisprudence (New York: 1988), 105. Quoted in Roger M. Savory (note 30), 18, 37.
He has explained this issue in another works:
-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 03:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I origionally put this template right under the image. Now it has been moved lower. Can someone explain why?-- Sefringle Talk 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, Tigeroo has made a vague argument in an edit summary that our reliable source is wrong. That is not sufficient grounds to remove cited material. Also I direct you to read surah 9 of the Qur'an, Tigeroo. Arrow740 01:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This is for information of all that the "Mecca" is not the right way to spell the name of Holy City of Islam. This spelling has become obsolete for quite a long time now. I don't know why some people still insist to spell it that way. The correct and authentic spelling is "MAKKAH". This is more close to the true pronunciation of this word in Arabic and has more vocal proximity to its Arabic origin. I strongly recommend to restore the original spelling (Makkah) in this article.Thanks, mushtanda
In "Other religions" section, the following sentences is written: "Dhimmis are subject to legal and social restrictions as well as humiliating regulations meant to highlight the inferiority of non-Muslim subjects". This phrase is totally untrue and reflects a purely biased opinion, since no examples or explanations were given to the term "humiliating regulations". non-muslims were treated as fairly as muslims were. A verse in the Quran says:" wa itha hakamtom bayn alnas fahkomo bil'adl", meaning if you are to judge the people then do it fairly. Non-muslims even had less obligations than muslims, since they didn't have to pay alzaka (charity money).
Hi, I'm not familiar with this actual article, but I was looking up the phrase "death cult" and Wiki auto-redirected me to to the Islam main article, which seems just a tad generalised. Furthermore, my browser's Find function didn't even pick up the string "death cult" in the actual text of the article. Is this someone taking a rather culturally insensitive web-mickey? Just thought I should say something.
Modern times (1918–present) has some problems especially what is written about revivalism. The 20th century saw the creation of many new Islamic "revivalist" movements. Groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan advocate a totalistic and theocratic alternative to secular political ideologies. Sometimes called Islamist, they see Western cultural values as a threat, and promote Islam as a comprehensive solution to every public and private question of importance. In countries like Iran and Afghanistan (under the Taliban), revolutionary movements replaced existing regimes with Islamist states, while transnational groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda engage in terrorism to further their goals. For Al-Qaeda it has also been held, however, among others by the US' National Security Council, that they use a distorted version of Islam .
I think we can improve it by using Islamic revival.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Asalaam-u-Alikum
Kk loach 09:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)In Islam there is no place for groups but Muslims are still divided into groups.In this page there is not a sentence that grouping is not allowed in Islam Can someone plz add that.I can add but i do not want to change any thing without readers permission.
Kk loach
09:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the criticism section, since another articles focuses solely on that. It should not be included in this article. The christianity article doesn't contain a criticism section. The inclusion of one here is provocative and irreverent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.60.241 ( talk • contribs)
this web site might give you good information http://www.55a.net/firas/english/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.234.191 ( talk) 22:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
i think this article needs a renew by a good muslim friend it can direct people in wrong ways thinking about islam—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereal100 ( talk • contribs)
Please refer to WP:OWN, Wikipedia:Etiquette & Wikipedia:Civility. Avenger786 04:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
since i have had no feedback on this yet still a few users resisting any significant changes to this section, i have replicated my comments here in a new section. ITAQALLAH 13:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
i also find the listing of four apparent examples of Islamic supremacy to be quite excessive. a few examples from Friedmann -from whom the whole narrative on supremacy is derived- seems appropriate. i'm not sure the passage from Lewis is crucial for an introductory section, the preceding examples are enough - and execution/imprisonment for insulting Islam is presumably not limited to non-Muslims anyway (it also isn't a very good example, it doesn't highlight any disparity between Muslims and non-Muslims). ITAQALLAH 19:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary of Islam says:
"The past two centuries have seen major reforms in Islamic family law: Tunisia rendered polygony illegal on Islamic grounds and established equal rights for men and women in divorce; Turkey also forbade polygony, but as a result of a wholesale adoption of the Western legal code."
This is being removed from the article.
Also, the article uses ( http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf) but doesn't represent it faithfully. Either this source is acceptable or not. If yes, it should be presented faithfully. -- Aminz 09:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
jihad should be changed, i will give the Quran as a source to prove my point (arent primary sources more reliable then secondary ones?)
"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"
(notice how muslims cant fight a jihad if the enemy wants peace, its against islamic religion to fight during peaceful times)
"God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)"
(notice here, how it refutes that statement [there can be no peace in islam] is wrong, jihad is supposed to be used as a response to those who try to opress the followers of islam)
"And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. (The Noble Quran 2:193)"
(agian jihad in response to wrongdoings, not becuase someone is not muslim)
"Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). (The Noble Quran, 15:2-3)"
(agian leave the disbelievers alone, i understand the verse is harsh, but clearly your are not to attack non-muslims just because they dont submit to muslim rule)
"If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then COMPEL mankind, against their will, to believe! (The Noble Quran, 10:99)"
(kind of self explanitory, dont you think?)
"Say: 'Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message). (The Noble Quran, 24:54)"
(everyone is reponsible for there own path, one more and thats it, i promise)
"Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (The Noble Quran, 109:1-6)"
(pretty much the same as above)
obviously the difinition of jihad is wrong, i understand you have a refrence, but honestly which source is more primary as it relates to islam, yours or mine?
also please note how i always gave the full verse, its easy to take things out of context to make your point, if you do want to refute this please give full verses not ...(signed by IP:209.27.62.219)
The material about Islam being an "ideological engine of war" is poorly sourced, strongly biased toward the present day, and too detailed for the main page on Islam. If good sources are found, it might go on one of the subsidiary pages, maybe Jihad, or Criticism of Islam. Tom Harrison Talk 00:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What do people think about integrating this section into the body of the article, like in Wikipedia:Criticism? Tom Harrison Talk 20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe that deleting it is the best solution, and instead of it make Miracles of Qur'an this web site might give you good information http://www.55a.net/firas/english/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.234.191 ( talk) 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
there does appear to be general agreement about merging the section into the rest of the article. we have already discussed ideas on how to relocate most of the first paragraph - (i.e. put it into the History sect and in the context of polemical writings during these times). i also think the critique on the spread of Islamism by Pipes and Kramer can be mentioned in the modern times section. that leaves the recentist material - which could also possibly go into the Modern Times section in describing contemporary tensions as Proabivouac mentioned. i will propose some specific changes soon. ITAQALLAH 16:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
As discussed in the archives on this topic, It makes clear in the lead of this article that 'Islam' means 'Submission'. This is correct. However, as the word Islam is 'often' misrepresented as meaning 'Peace' it needs to be made clear that the 'root' word of 'Islam' is 'Peace' (Salaam, Silm, Slm = if you go to an Islamic scholar they can explain this in more depth but the basics need to be in the lead, or at least in the article itself) - thus, in Islam true 'Peace' can be found through 'Submission' to Allah, or though 'Submission' to Allah true 'Peace' can be found. Please can it be made clear in the lead or article body that the root word is and why the confusion. Robert C Prenic 16:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I'm no translator, but I do know that "Salam Alikum" means "peace be unto you" (roughly), with salam connecting to the first half (roughly). I'm just saying, Islam, salam.
Ok after studying this i found 2 meanings of the word Islam:
i think this definition:"submission and outward conforming with law of God and its derived from the same Arabic root of word Salam(peace)." will be clear, short, & meaningful for many people. << Smart_Viral 20:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)>>
Tigeroo, in this edit, you changed this:
Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to establish the universal domination of Islam. Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule. [6] Jihad is perpetual in nature; in theory, there can be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states, only truces which can be repudiated when circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities. It ceases only when Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians submit to the authority of Islam and agree to pay the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax), and when polytheists convert to Islam. [6]"
to this:
The term Jihad used without any qualifiers is generally understood to be referring to war on behalf of Islam. [7]. Islamic jurisprudence has developed a highly sophisticated doctrine of ethical injunctions for the regulation of Jihad of the sword. [8] "Jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and may be declared against apostates, rebels, highway robbers, violent groups, unIslamic leaders or non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule [7] Jihad has usually been taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants with the ultimate purpose of establishing the universal domination of Islam by the defense or expansion of the Islamic state against those who refuse to convert or submit to Islamic rule by paying the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax). [6] [6] Through history Muslims have regarded corruption, tyranny and irreligiosity within Muslim communities as even more critical targets and most Jihads have been directed at other Muslims with wars with even significant political overtones being classified as such. [9]
The effect of this edit is to bury the most conventional use of "jihad" within a number of very confusing passages (e.g." …Jihads have been directed at other Muslims with wars with even significant political overtones being classified as such") referring to less central usages. Additionally, it's not particularly useful to observe that, "Islamic jurisprudence has developed a highly sophisticated doctrine of ethical injunctions for the regulation of Jihad of the sword," without specifying what any of these actually are; see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Proabivouac 02:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hope that helps to show where I am coming from, the specifics can be hashed out through discussion.-- Tigeroo 22:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please explain this edit? Come on, you can't pretend that's acceptable content: it's completely unreferenced and utterly non-neutral. This is supposed to be a FA. Moreschi Talk 10:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I was reading through the article and came upon this portion, and it feels like it is repeated, word from word, from another text. Take, for example, the Life Insurance portion--it talks on all these points concerning life insurance in islam (obviously), but it feels forced and lacks any citation. (In fact, all portions of this section lack citations, and I feel that without them it seems, again, lifted improperly.)
76.18.186.58 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Should the article not explain briefly what "Twelver" means in relation to Shi'a Islam, and say if there are other kinds of Shi'a? Perhaps a one-sentence addition could be helpful. Thanks. Itsmejudith 20:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I need some help on this article, pronto. — EliasAlucard| Talk 23:40 01 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
The article claims there are between 0.9 to 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, and it gives the source as adherents. Funny, cause in Adherents site, the figure is placed at 1.5 billion. [5]. I have changed the figure and placed 1 to 1.5 billion. -- Itsalif 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone has changed it back to 0.9 billion yet again.. please fix it. 216.99.49.175 19:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This page has been locked from editing. The figure has yet again placed at 0.9 billion ? What the heck?? If you want to put 0.9 billion then cite a 1981 census or something, because the source cited i.e Adherents.com places the figure to 1.5 billion. So, please change the figure to reflect the current census
[7]. Thanks --
Itsalif
01:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If the figure is 0.9 - 1.3bn why has the upper limit not changed over the last 25+ years considering it is widely agreed both sides of the isles (incl. Daniel Pipes, Mark Steyn on the right) that Muslims have high birth rates. Surely a caveat needs to be added that the upper limit is either controversial or arguable. Avenger786 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Very absurd. Still no changes yet. The figure 0.9 billion is an extremely outdated figure [8]. A more reliable figure is 1.5b as given from adherents and many other reliable sources. Heck, the figure of 0.9b would put Islam the third-largest religion, so, then change the texts from 'second largest' to 'third largest' faith. That would be more appropriate with the figure. -- Itsalif 03:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
This is regarding this addition [1]. It was previously removed by another editor, then again recently by me. It has been reinserted now, and I do not wish to get into an edit war.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Health message foru ( talk • contribs) 04:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Due to immigration and high fertility rates among Muslim communities, Islam is the second largest religion after Christianity in many European countries. Why I think the first part should be removed:
Last sentence of lead section: Only about 20 percent of Muslims come from Arab countries. Doesn't it mean come from or live? I don't have the source so I don't know but come from seems to include Arab migrants to other countries which are Muslim. That may not be what the source is suggesting. Just a clarification. Thank you Gizza Discuss © 22:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This section should indicate that the majority of Muslims are related to the tribes of Ishmael and quite often used the name Ismael for said same. This will historically keep the Muslim/Islam issue identified with its correct, historical linage. Muhammad was an Ishmalite as well as most of the others of Muslim/Islam. The term Ishmalel (Ismael) needs to be throughly defined here and linked to this article. Thanks Sons of Ishmael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby bosch ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This section is the very opposite of balanced if it ignores the preaching of some clerics today who equate jihad with a holy war against Israel. I added some referenced information on this subject (from a non-biased source) which was promptly removed, with a comment to take it to the talk page. I know the intention is to present Islamic in the best possible light, but there is no excuse for ignoring a phenomenon that is so significant today -whether or not it is pleasant to hear. This is supposed to be an encyclopdia and to help people understand the world. By making believe jihad does not exist in the sense of armed struggle against "infidels" (which includes Israel) you are making a joke of Wikipedia as an information source. I wrote that "some Muslim clerics" think this way. To ignore that is either wishful thinking or a deliberate attempt to deceive the reading public. --Gilabrand 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, just wanted to say that I dont think that 80% of muslims are sunni and 15% are Shi'a since there are more kinds of islam such as suffism or is their number not that large to be put in?
Thanks for reading this
--------------------------
According to Friedmann Islam maintains a hierarchy of religions wherein it occupies the uppermost place followed, in descending order, by Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and polytheism.
I think this is his idea. In Islam the religions divided to truly monotheistic comprising what all of the prophets of Islam have taught, distorted monotheistic comprising what we know as Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism today, polytheism and atheism. Islam guide to first group, tolerate the second one as dhimmis and fight with the last.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 06:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Islam maintains a hierarchy of religions wherein it occupies the uppermost place followed, in descending order, by Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and polytheism. [1] This idea of Islamic supremacy is encapsulated in the formula "Islam is exalted and nothing is exalted above it." [2] Accordingly, Muslims are not allowed to place themselves in a position inferior to that of the followers of other religions. [3] Pursuant to this principle, Muslim women may not marry non-Muslim men, non-Muslims may not inherit from their Muslim relatives, and a testimony of a non-Muslim is inadmissible against a Muslim. [4] A non-Muslim who insults Islam must be put to death, according to most schools of Islamic jurisprudence, or flogged and imprisoned, according to others. [5]
This latest addition to Jihad flatly contradicts the earlier part of the paragraph:
"Through history Muslims have regarded corruption, tyranny and irreligiosity within Muslim communities as even more critical targets and most Jihads have either been defensive in nature or directed at other Muslims with martyrs guaranteed a place in paradise."
This is the first part of the paragraph:
"Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to establish the universal domination of Islam. Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule"
Obviously both cannot remain as written, so I've reverted the latest addition. If that summary of Humphreys' views are accurate, so far he seems to be the only reliable source saying this. - Merzbow 18:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Even withing it's range of meaning as war on behalf of Islam, the term is often used in relation to conflicts between Muslims. Such examples include wars fought against groups of apostates rebelling against proper Islamic authority (murtaddun), dissenting groups denouncing legitimate Muslim authority (baghi), highway robbers and other violent people, and deviant or un-Islamic leadership. The determination of when Muslim leaders may call for jihad and the requisite demands that such a call makes upon the Muslim populace are developed in the legal literature.
The actual meaning of the term has nothing to do with warring or aggression. It means, rather "Striving", and is commonly used in the Quran and elsewhere as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah). This is striving to do the divine will and fulfill one's religious obligations in the Islamic context, includes protecting the religion from both outside aggressors who would dominate it and from internal sedition or subversion away from what is perceived to be the straight path established by God and his Prophet.
-- Tigeroo 20:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Jihad means "to strive or struggle," and is commonly used in the Quran and elsewhere as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God" (al-jihad fi sabil Allah). In Islam Jihad is categorized under four archetypes: Jihad of the heart, the tongue, the hand and the sword and is waged against the devil's inducements, aspects of one's own self or against a visible enemy in a an attempt to build a godly community.
===Jihad as War===
The term Jihad used without any qualifiers is generally understood to be referring to war on behalf of Islam; either defending or propagating the faith. Islamic jurisprudence has developed a highly sophisticated doctrine of war for the regulation of Jihad. Jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, may be declared against apostates, rebels, highway robbers, violent groups, unIslamic leaders or non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule......
Many religous articles of wikipedia have a lead image. This article probably should have one too.-- Sefringle Talk 03:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the picture should have people kneeling. The whole point is submission, and that is a gesture of submission. Also Muslims are supposed to do that five times a day. Arrow740 06:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
#2, simply because the Kaaba is the most important building in Islam. All Muslims face it when they pray, and anyone who can makes a pilgrimage there, (as I'm sure you can find out in the article). The mass of people also demonstrates its status as a major world religion, though more symbolicaly than literally (duh). Besides, it just looks cool. Can someone please fix my edit, it's sticking out. Sorry, I'm not the best at this, I'm reletively new :) .
Result
OK. That's 2 for #1, 4 for #2, and 4 for #3.-- Sefringle Talk 02:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
There is written analogical reasoning ( (qiyas)) is one the four fundamental roots of Fiqh while in Ja'fari jurisprudence 'Aql is used instead of it.
Mortaza Mutahhari has quoted:
Twelvers distinguish between offensive jihad and defensive jihad.
jihad requires the permission of the Imam. Abdulaziz Abdulhussein Sachedina, ‘‘The Just Ruler (al-sultan al-adil),’’ in Shi’ite Islam: The Comprehensive Authority of the Jurist in Imamite Jurisprudence (New York: 1988), 105. Quoted in Roger M. Savory (note 30), 18, 37.
He has explained this issue in another works:
-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 03:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I origionally put this template right under the image. Now it has been moved lower. Can someone explain why?-- Sefringle Talk 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, Tigeroo has made a vague argument in an edit summary that our reliable source is wrong. That is not sufficient grounds to remove cited material. Also I direct you to read surah 9 of the Qur'an, Tigeroo. Arrow740 01:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This is for information of all that the "Mecca" is not the right way to spell the name of Holy City of Islam. This spelling has become obsolete for quite a long time now. I don't know why some people still insist to spell it that way. The correct and authentic spelling is "MAKKAH". This is more close to the true pronunciation of this word in Arabic and has more vocal proximity to its Arabic origin. I strongly recommend to restore the original spelling (Makkah) in this article.Thanks, mushtanda
In "Other religions" section, the following sentences is written: "Dhimmis are subject to legal and social restrictions as well as humiliating regulations meant to highlight the inferiority of non-Muslim subjects". This phrase is totally untrue and reflects a purely biased opinion, since no examples or explanations were given to the term "humiliating regulations". non-muslims were treated as fairly as muslims were. A verse in the Quran says:" wa itha hakamtom bayn alnas fahkomo bil'adl", meaning if you are to judge the people then do it fairly. Non-muslims even had less obligations than muslims, since they didn't have to pay alzaka (charity money).
Hi, I'm not familiar with this actual article, but I was looking up the phrase "death cult" and Wiki auto-redirected me to to the Islam main article, which seems just a tad generalised. Furthermore, my browser's Find function didn't even pick up the string "death cult" in the actual text of the article. Is this someone taking a rather culturally insensitive web-mickey? Just thought I should say something.
Modern times (1918–present) has some problems especially what is written about revivalism. The 20th century saw the creation of many new Islamic "revivalist" movements. Groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan advocate a totalistic and theocratic alternative to secular political ideologies. Sometimes called Islamist, they see Western cultural values as a threat, and promote Islam as a comprehensive solution to every public and private question of importance. In countries like Iran and Afghanistan (under the Taliban), revolutionary movements replaced existing regimes with Islamist states, while transnational groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda engage in terrorism to further their goals. For Al-Qaeda it has also been held, however, among others by the US' National Security Council, that they use a distorted version of Islam .
I think we can improve it by using Islamic revival.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Asalaam-u-Alikum
Kk loach 09:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)In Islam there is no place for groups but Muslims are still divided into groups.In this page there is not a sentence that grouping is not allowed in Islam Can someone plz add that.I can add but i do not want to change any thing without readers permission.
Kk loach
09:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the criticism section, since another articles focuses solely on that. It should not be included in this article. The christianity article doesn't contain a criticism section. The inclusion of one here is provocative and irreverent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.60.241 ( talk • contribs)
this web site might give you good information http://www.55a.net/firas/english/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.234.191 ( talk) 22:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
i think this article needs a renew by a good muslim friend it can direct people in wrong ways thinking about islam—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereal100 ( talk • contribs)
Please refer to WP:OWN, Wikipedia:Etiquette & Wikipedia:Civility. Avenger786 04:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
since i have had no feedback on this yet still a few users resisting any significant changes to this section, i have replicated my comments here in a new section. ITAQALLAH 13:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
i also find the listing of four apparent examples of Islamic supremacy to be quite excessive. a few examples from Friedmann -from whom the whole narrative on supremacy is derived- seems appropriate. i'm not sure the passage from Lewis is crucial for an introductory section, the preceding examples are enough - and execution/imprisonment for insulting Islam is presumably not limited to non-Muslims anyway (it also isn't a very good example, it doesn't highlight any disparity between Muslims and non-Muslims). ITAQALLAH 19:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary of Islam says:
"The past two centuries have seen major reforms in Islamic family law: Tunisia rendered polygony illegal on Islamic grounds and established equal rights for men and women in divorce; Turkey also forbade polygony, but as a result of a wholesale adoption of the Western legal code."
This is being removed from the article.
Also, the article uses ( http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf) but doesn't represent it faithfully. Either this source is acceptable or not. If yes, it should be presented faithfully. -- Aminz 09:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
jihad should be changed, i will give the Quran as a source to prove my point (arent primary sources more reliable then secondary ones?)
"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"
(notice how muslims cant fight a jihad if the enemy wants peace, its against islamic religion to fight during peaceful times)
"God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)"
(notice here, how it refutes that statement [there can be no peace in islam] is wrong, jihad is supposed to be used as a response to those who try to opress the followers of islam)
"And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. (The Noble Quran 2:193)"
(agian jihad in response to wrongdoings, not becuase someone is not muslim)
"Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). (The Noble Quran, 15:2-3)"
(agian leave the disbelievers alone, i understand the verse is harsh, but clearly your are not to attack non-muslims just because they dont submit to muslim rule)
"If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then COMPEL mankind, against their will, to believe! (The Noble Quran, 10:99)"
(kind of self explanitory, dont you think?)
"Say: 'Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message). (The Noble Quran, 24:54)"
(everyone is reponsible for there own path, one more and thats it, i promise)
"Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (The Noble Quran, 109:1-6)"
(pretty much the same as above)
obviously the difinition of jihad is wrong, i understand you have a refrence, but honestly which source is more primary as it relates to islam, yours or mine?
also please note how i always gave the full verse, its easy to take things out of context to make your point, if you do want to refute this please give full verses not ...(signed by IP:209.27.62.219)
The material about Islam being an "ideological engine of war" is poorly sourced, strongly biased toward the present day, and too detailed for the main page on Islam. If good sources are found, it might go on one of the subsidiary pages, maybe Jihad, or Criticism of Islam. Tom Harrison Talk 00:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What do people think about integrating this section into the body of the article, like in Wikipedia:Criticism? Tom Harrison Talk 20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe that deleting it is the best solution, and instead of it make Miracles of Qur'an this web site might give you good information http://www.55a.net/firas/english/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.234.191 ( talk) 22:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
there does appear to be general agreement about merging the section into the rest of the article. we have already discussed ideas on how to relocate most of the first paragraph - (i.e. put it into the History sect and in the context of polemical writings during these times). i also think the critique on the spread of Islamism by Pipes and Kramer can be mentioned in the modern times section. that leaves the recentist material - which could also possibly go into the Modern Times section in describing contemporary tensions as Proabivouac mentioned. i will propose some specific changes soon. ITAQALLAH 16:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
As discussed in the archives on this topic, It makes clear in the lead of this article that 'Islam' means 'Submission'. This is correct. However, as the word Islam is 'often' misrepresented as meaning 'Peace' it needs to be made clear that the 'root' word of 'Islam' is 'Peace' (Salaam, Silm, Slm = if you go to an Islamic scholar they can explain this in more depth but the basics need to be in the lead, or at least in the article itself) - thus, in Islam true 'Peace' can be found through 'Submission' to Allah, or though 'Submission' to Allah true 'Peace' can be found. Please can it be made clear in the lead or article body that the root word is and why the confusion. Robert C Prenic 16:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I'm no translator, but I do know that "Salam Alikum" means "peace be unto you" (roughly), with salam connecting to the first half (roughly). I'm just saying, Islam, salam.
Ok after studying this i found 2 meanings of the word Islam:
i think this definition:"submission and outward conforming with law of God and its derived from the same Arabic root of word Salam(peace)." will be clear, short, & meaningful for many people. << Smart_Viral 20:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)>>
Tigeroo, in this edit, you changed this:
Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to establish the universal domination of Islam. Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule. [6] Jihad is perpetual in nature; in theory, there can be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states, only truces which can be repudiated when circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities. It ceases only when Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians submit to the authority of Islam and agree to pay the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax), and when polytheists convert to Islam. [6]"
to this:
The term Jihad used without any qualifiers is generally understood to be referring to war on behalf of Islam. [7]. Islamic jurisprudence has developed a highly sophisticated doctrine of ethical injunctions for the regulation of Jihad of the sword. [8] "Jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and may be declared against apostates, rebels, highway robbers, violent groups, unIslamic leaders or non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule [7] Jihad has usually been taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants with the ultimate purpose of establishing the universal domination of Islam by the defense or expansion of the Islamic state against those who refuse to convert or submit to Islamic rule by paying the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax). [6] [6] Through history Muslims have regarded corruption, tyranny and irreligiosity within Muslim communities as even more critical targets and most Jihads have been directed at other Muslims with wars with even significant political overtones being classified as such. [9]
The effect of this edit is to bury the most conventional use of "jihad" within a number of very confusing passages (e.g." …Jihads have been directed at other Muslims with wars with even significant political overtones being classified as such") referring to less central usages. Additionally, it's not particularly useful to observe that, "Islamic jurisprudence has developed a highly sophisticated doctrine of ethical injunctions for the regulation of Jihad of the sword," without specifying what any of these actually are; see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Proabivouac 02:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hope that helps to show where I am coming from, the specifics can be hashed out through discussion.-- Tigeroo 22:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please explain this edit? Come on, you can't pretend that's acceptable content: it's completely unreferenced and utterly non-neutral. This is supposed to be a FA. Moreschi Talk 10:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I was reading through the article and came upon this portion, and it feels like it is repeated, word from word, from another text. Take, for example, the Life Insurance portion--it talks on all these points concerning life insurance in islam (obviously), but it feels forced and lacks any citation. (In fact, all portions of this section lack citations, and I feel that without them it seems, again, lifted improperly.)
76.18.186.58 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Should the article not explain briefly what "Twelver" means in relation to Shi'a Islam, and say if there are other kinds of Shi'a? Perhaps a one-sentence addition could be helpful. Thanks. Itsmejudith 20:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I need some help on this article, pronto. — EliasAlucard| Talk 23:40 01 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
The article claims there are between 0.9 to 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, and it gives the source as adherents. Funny, cause in Adherents site, the figure is placed at 1.5 billion. [5]. I have changed the figure and placed 1 to 1.5 billion. -- Itsalif 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone has changed it back to 0.9 billion yet again.. please fix it. 216.99.49.175 19:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This page has been locked from editing. The figure has yet again placed at 0.9 billion ? What the heck?? If you want to put 0.9 billion then cite a 1981 census or something, because the source cited i.e Adherents.com places the figure to 1.5 billion. So, please change the figure to reflect the current census
[7]. Thanks --
Itsalif
01:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If the figure is 0.9 - 1.3bn why has the upper limit not changed over the last 25+ years considering it is widely agreed both sides of the isles (incl. Daniel Pipes, Mark Steyn on the right) that Muslims have high birth rates. Surely a caveat needs to be added that the upper limit is either controversial or arguable. Avenger786 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Very absurd. Still no changes yet. The figure 0.9 billion is an extremely outdated figure [8]. A more reliable figure is 1.5b as given from adherents and many other reliable sources. Heck, the figure of 0.9b would put Islam the third-largest religion, so, then change the texts from 'second largest' to 'third largest' faith. That would be more appropriate with the figure. -- Itsalif 03:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)