![]() | 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
The word islam is derived from the Arabic verb aslama, which means to accept, surrender or submit. This sentence appears in Wikipedia and is a very common mistake that is easy to correct. Arabic, as is implied here, quite correctly, is made of derivations. Salima= came out safe, sallama = equiv., of "said hello", saleem = sound, reasonable; salaama = safety ; salam = peace ;on and on...dozens of verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs; all deriving from a single three (rarely four) letter root; always in the past tence third person verb. In this case it is SLM,a word pronouncible in a vowelless language as "salama" above. Aslama, in the sentence quoted from Wpdia does not at all mean to accept, which is Qabila (an entirely different root); nor to surrender , which is istaslama, the noun from which is istislam, not islam , same root yes; nor submit, if submission implies being submissive. Aslama , apart from its now acquired and eternally standardized connotation, viz : "became a Muslim" (and, certainly, not "moslem",absolutely nothing in Arabic is pronounced as in "mode" or in "rod" or in "gate" or "get") or " converted to Islam , ...etc . Arabic is all made of words construted upon these "meters" as I, possibly alone, like to call them. This is a discipline caltled "alsarf", essential to grasping language, culture and faith .Thus islam and istislam, like imdad and istimdad , iqbal and istiqbal idrak and istidrak are words deriving from the same roots but metrically reformed to carry related but different, sometimes reversed connotations .To this day, aslama can be used to say "delivered". "Delivered his soul" is "died", an everyday's expression . Deliverance, however, i.e. Islam, understandably, retains a certain exclusivity. Islam then, is the noun derived from a verb that means to deliver or hand over willingly. While surrender or the word for it in Arabic implies defeat or cooresion. Therefore we can say that the most correct translation of Islam is Deliverance (something similar to that word in English and Frensh). You deliver, that is, your soul to your Creator. -- Mohamed Elhadidi 00:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest adding a mention of the "expose" phenomenon that has been increasing in the West lately. These include significantly mainstream documentaries that have made it all the way to theaters purporting to give fair and balanced accounts concerning radical Islam, often by Islamic speakers. "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" is one among many. This would help to give balance to this article's failure to address one of the religion's signature identities (justified or not). A small header with a link to another article concerning this is in order at the absolute least. The particular video I mentioned can be seen here for your consideration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMLJJEDDDGc&feature=related
It is important to understand that this article largely fails to explain the greater ideals of Islam, instead including discussions of "family life" and "diet." While these articles ought to remain, it is a POV violation to discount important facts about a religion merely because it is politically popular or advantageous to do so. Very little import in this article is given to the specific roots of the phenomenon of Jihad, of the tax system that Islamic states impose on other religious peoples, of the religion's views on gender equality, of the unique nature of the Islamic paradise among all religions, of the political nature of Islam as it has always been, or of many of the important, and oft' controversial, things that the Qur'an actually says. Many articles on Wikipedia include a "criticisms of" section, and as perhaps the world's most polarizing religion, it is downright silly to leave something similar out in this instance. As is, this article is nearly a stub. I understand that, for example, the Christianity article does not include discussion of the KKK, but the KKK did not set root at the moment of the bible's inception, has not lasted to modern times in anything like its original form, and is not based on sound reasoning centered around the ideology of the Christian Bible. The same cannot be said for Islamic Militantism or Jihad (Lesser Jihad if you prefer). Factual realities are not opinions, even if adherence to that factual reality is based on one.
Edit: I notice that there has been some discussion below regarding a "criticisms of" section, and am aware of the seperate article on such, but I want to be clear that this is not literally what I am asking for. I am asking that the components of many of the problems that Islam runs into when confronted with or confronting Western thought be put under a common umbrella. A working name for this section could be something fairly broad, along the lines of "Ideological Incompatibilities with Western Society," which would include many of the political and social impossibilities that occur in the West that could not if the West were under Sharia law. 76.177.211.28 ( talk) 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Andrew
The section in this article called: "Ottomans and Islamic empires in India (1258–1918)," is inaccurate, because most Islamic Empires in SOUTH ASIA originated in Pakistan, which then expanded to India. It should be renamed to "Ottomans and Islamic empires in SOUTH ASIA (1258–1918)."
THANKS
In fact, what is now Pakistan, was considered India before 1947. So there is no need to change. 85.102.182.236 ( talk) 20:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea, Pakistan was part of India for a long time, so lay of the idiocy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xestox ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The section on Jihad is completely misquoted from the source mentioned. [Firestone (1999) pp. 17-18]. The source has been incorrectly quoted. I have tried editing but the original keeps reappearing a few seconds after I have edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anabbie ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"removed criticism section" ... if there ever was a definition of censorship ... this is it. Why does this page gets censored ? I understand that the information "is still in there" ... but now it has to be dug up. Only a full read of the page (which is quite lengthy) will reveal the criticism. Since criticism of islam actually is about mandating mass murders and worse (such as the current widespread persecution of christians, but even more jews and hindus in muslim and non-muslim lands) the criticism should be on top. Currently the criticism of islam is that it's causing thousands of deaths every year. As such, criticism is warranted and healthy. It should not be hidden. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tomcpp (
talk •
contribs)
23:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That is a totally ridiculous argument, that's like saying that since the US is criticised all over the Muslim (and a great portion of non-muslim) world for its brutal policies then any article on the US must have a criticism section on top telling us all about how many illegal wars the US has been involved in, how many dictators and tyrants they have supported, how many people have been assasinated by their covert organisations, how their economic might has been used to systematically starve whole populations leading to the death of millions, how they have refused to abide by the geneva conventions etc. You get my point? Islam does not mandate the persecution of other religions and that has been explained to the non-muslims by the muslim world but you choose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your agenda (whatever that might be). Jihad of war is a doctrine of self defence which no Muslim would be willing to reject, you can criticise it if you want but the widely accepted muslim view must be portrayed first (because Islam is what the Muslims follow and not what you accuse the Muslims of following) your list of accusations can then be listed at the end so you can get your chance at spreading your propaganda to the reader. WasimKhan80 07:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, please provide the full quote for this strange passage and explain why the author is authoritative. Thanks.
The general understanding of Jihad by Muslims today consists of both an internal and external duty. One that gives priority to the inner struggle against evil. The external struggle includes the struggle to make the Islamic societies conform to the Islamic norms of justice. The general modern discourse on Jihad places the traditional understanding of Jihad in terms of warfare in the context of a specific time and place that has come and gone; as such Jihad is understood to be only defensive.
Arrow740 04:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
<reset> this is what Reuven Firestone (1999) says, p. 17-18:
The Meaning of Jihād
The semantic meaning of the Arabic term jihād has no relation to holy war or even war in general. It derives, rather from the root j.h.d., the meaning of which is to strive, exert oneself, or take extraordinary pains. Jihād is a verbal noun of the third Arabic form of the root jahada, which is defined classically as "exerting one's utmost power, efforts, endeavors, or ability in contending with an object of disapprobation." 14 Such an object is often categorized in the literature as deriving from one of three sources: a visible enemy, the devil, and aspects of one's own self. There are, therefore, many kinds of jihād, and most have nothing to do with warfare. "Jihād of the heart," for example, denotes struggle against one's own sinful inclinations, while "jihād of the tongue" requires speaking on behalf of the good and forbidding evil. 15 Various activities subsumed under jihād are said by Muhammad(pbuh) to distinguish true believers who are loyal to God's Prophet:
Every prophet sent by God to a nation (umma) before me has had disciples and followers who followed his ways (sunna) and obeyed his commands. But after them came successors who preached what they did not practice and practiced what they were not commanded. Whoever strives (jāhada) against them with one's hand is a believer, whoever strives against them with one's tongue is a believer, whoever strives against them with one's heart is a believer. There is nothing greater than [the size of] a mustard seed beyond that in the way of faith. 16
Muhammad(pbuh) is also credited with saying: "The best jihād is [speaking] a word of justice to a tyrannical ruler." 17
The qualifying phrase "in the path of God" (fi sabīl Allah) specifically distinguishes the activity of jihād as furthering or promoting God's kingdom on earth. It can be done, for example, by simply striving to behave ethically and by speaking without causing harm to others or by actively defending Islam and propagating the faith. Jihād as religiously grounded warfare, sometimes referred to as "jihād of the sword" (jihād al-sayf), is subsumed under the last two categories of defending Islam and propagating the faith, though these need not be accomplished only through war. When the term is used without qualifiers such as "of the heart" or "of the tongue," however, it is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam (equivalent to "jihād of the sword"), and the merits of engaging in such jihād are described plentifully in the most-respected religious works. 18 Nevertheless, Muslim thinkers, and particularly ascetics and mystics, often differentiate between the "greater jihād" (al-jihād al-akbar) and the "lesser jihād" (al-jihād al-aṣghar), with the former representing the struggle against the self and only the "lesser jihād" referring to warring in the path of God.
Arrow, please explain the reason for this revert of yours? [3]. -- Aminz 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello: Is there any article or information that explains what an " Isra'iliyat Salaf" is so that Category:Isra'iliyat Salaf makes sense to those who have no idea what it means and can be "in on the secret", and why the articles that are in it are there? Thank you. IZAK 06:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Islam is also a law code and a political philosophy. This must be mentioned in the opening sentence as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.205.125 ( talk) 15:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
True - but don't most "religions" involve an all-encompasing worldview?
72.191.188.200 (
talk) —Preceding
comment was added at
07:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There should be some images which shows different aspect of Muslim history-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 06:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
There should be a picture which shows technical and scientific advancement of Mulims. Which one of these picture do you prefer:
Please add your idea: They weren't necesarily Muslims, you have no way of telling how islamic they are Protest against islamic imposition ( talk) 11:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
We need two images which show the different aspect of Re-Islamization and Modernization of Mulim world. Feel free to add other pictures.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 07:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Button_lower_letter.png Subscript —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.163.254 ( talk) 23:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Ibn Warraq and Robert Spencer are not considered reliable sources. Unless they are quoted by a reliable source, in which case they belong, their opinions should not be given space on this article. Bless sins 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion: Start a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that impartially states a question about this and refrain from commenting on it (that is to say the regulars here already butting heads over this should exercise restraint in cluttering such a discussion up with their usual disagreements). A related discussion of interest can be found here. As long as you only discuss reliability here the head butting will continue. Seek less partial perspectives on the matter. PelleSmith 20:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I will read it and give my opinion on it. It would also be nice, if you could provide more Islamic scholars who have disproved Robert Spencer. I'm open for alternative opinions. — EliasAlucard ( talk · contribs) 22:00 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
in reference to your example: i don't think a book about history written by an untrained amateur would ever be considered a reliable source, especially if it had an ideological axe to grind. there's no point linking to WP:RS if you aren't looking at the criteria it mentions. as for needless bad-faith allusions, it can be turned right round on you, and it can be claimed that you are promoting unreliable figures like Spencer solely because you endorse and defend his anti-Islam views. in the absense of any evidence indicating reliability, we cannot conclude that he is a reliable source - especially, as mentioned before, in the light of contraindications. ITAQALLAH 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The classical Muslim jurist ash-Shafi'i (d. 820) established the importance of the Sunnah in Islamic law, and Muslims were encouraged to emulate Muhammad's(pbuh) actions in their daily lives.
What does it mean? As I know Sunnah was important in Islamic law from the beginning and you can see former jurists referred to it.-- Seyyed( t- c) 03:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
"Eventually, some time after the preaching of Islam had begun, the term sunna came to stand for the generally approved standard or practice introduced by the Prophet as well as the pious Muslims of olden days, and at the instigation of al-Shāfiʿī, the sunna of the Prophet was awarded the position of the second root ( aṣl ) of Islamic law, the sharīʿa , after the Ḳurʾān."
"But while traditionists were collecting traditions and attempting to verify their authority, there were others who were not prepared to lay great emphasis on the importance of tradition. As a result there were disputes between parties; but largely as a result of the genius of al-Shafi'i (d. 204/820) [q.v.] the party of Tradition won the day, and Hadith came to be recognized as a foundation of Islam second only to the Kur`an. Al-Shafi'i laid emphasis on an argument which seems to have been current even before this time (cf. ZDMG , lxi (1907), 869), that when the Kur`an spoke of the Book and the Wisdom (cf. ii, 151; iii, 164; iv, 113; lxii, 2) it meant Kur`an and Hadith. Thus hadith was given a kind of secondary inspiration. Though not the eternal word of God, like the Kur`an it represented divine guidance."
I think the original definition should be kept. It expands on the issue, and offers detials, something "apostasy" alone does not do. Yahel Guhan 01:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There are numerous online (and I stress online) sources to confirm this:
This is a highly debatable issue.
It is doubtable the Encyclopedia of Islam is a reliable source about Sikhism.
Thanks,
Pureaswater 13:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The header "Predestination" should be "Predestination or Divine Justice".
This is clear both from the next line referring to this two -- and from the two paragraphs.
The beginning of the second paragraph has to be changed a bit as well. It's not that the Twelver call Predestination Justice, but: Whereas the Sunnites stress the Omnipotence of God Almighty, the Twelver Shiites stress the Divine Justice. The first view allows God to make arbitrary decisions, the second sees his present and future Freedom of Choice "diminished" by his earlier decrees and promises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.8.114 ( talk) 14:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
please refer to the assertion of consensus by FE. Peters:
"... few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad(pbuh) taught, and is expressed in his own words... ...The search for variants in the partial versions extant before the Caliph Uthman’s alleged recension in the 640s (what can be called the “sources” behind our text) has not yielded any differences of great significance" (Peters, F. E. (Aug., 1991) "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad(pbuh)." International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 291-315.)
for similar points about the fragility of such variants see the Qur'an article in the Encyclopedia of Islam:
"Western scholarship has not reached a consensus on what value this mass of allegedly pre- Uthmanic variants has for our knowledge of the history of the Kur`an. Confidence in the variants declined during the 1930s as they were being collected and analysed. Bergsträsser ( Gesch. des Qor. , ii, 77-83, 92-6) still gave a fairly positive appraisal, but Jeffery (Materials, 16) wrote: “ With the increase of material one feels less inclined to venture on such a judgment of value ” , a view that came to be shared by O. Pretzl. Then after the project to prepare a critical edition of the Kur`an came to a halt, A. Fischer ( Isl. , xxviii [1948], 5) concluded that most of the allegedly pre-Kur`anic variants were later attempts by philologers to emend the `Uthmanic text."
minority views (i.e. of Luxembourg, Weil etc.) do not affect the presence of general consensus as asserted by Peters - thus your edit which presents a minority view alongside the majority view violates WP:NPOV - see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE (in any case the presence of variant modes - ahruf - has no bearing on the assertion that the Uthmanic script was representative of Muhammad's(pbuh) recitation). ITAQALLAH 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
<reset>::"Peter my claim consensus but Encyclopedia of Islam say there is no" - they are writing about two different things - please read the texts more closely. the quote-mining from the internet isn't relevant here, i have responded to this red herring. ITAQALLAH 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
and by the way I am not the subject here.So don't change the head line because it is about the Quran preservation and not me.
Oren.tal
19:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there is dispute over the order of the quranic verses; over the readings of certain words (at the time of writing "dot" was not used) so some variant recitations. That's pretty much it. Maybe Oren.tal can cite an specific example. --
Aminz
20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=kXvhz04I-0YC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=kpQ9ds5Urw&sig=KsG2PwOvYMxLCc01AdoPdPnLCew
http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=kXvhz04I-0YC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=kpQ9ds5Urw&sig=KsG2PwOvYMxLCc01AdoPdPnLCew http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=cbfORLWv1HkC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PA112&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=tWSoEn5iSY&sig=e6iIpKbdKQEpIYo0AMi1p4-jIaU http://www.jstor.org/view/13561898/ap020033/02a00080/0 http://www.islamlighthouse.com/admin/1sub/books/098enchbook.pdf http://www.jstor.org/view/05855292/ap050077/05a00020/0 http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=qIDZIep-GIQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=Biwda4VKNv&sig=4n8XXkmNv47B_1a1SCWKY0MxyNA http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=WBx2ejzo_v0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=ULZ4eonsEw&sig=zns_n-SVuI8OxyxJIRa98rmvAeA#PPA81,M1 I will back to this topic in the —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.151.98 ( talk) 09:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest to change the wording of the sentence discussed here to emphasize that it can only be proven, there were no changes since the time of Uthman:
It now says: From textual evidence, modern Western academics find that the Qur'an of today has not changed over the years.[25]
I suggest: From textual evidence, modern Western academics find that the Qur'an of today has not changed after Uthman's standardization.[25]
NineBerry ( talk) 15:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I am totally agree. Oren.tal ( talk) 15:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The article on Organization of the Islamic Conference asserts:
But there is no source, and I can find no references for it. Nor does it seem likely that such an explosive plan would have escaped the notice of right-wingers and the media worldwide.
Could someone please verify this?
-- 99.226.23.121 ( talk) 05:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
sigiwan is da best and u know dis man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.219.189.8 ( talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It is more or less a revival of the same type of hatred that European leaders showed towards Jews not even a century ago. They may as well start writing a book called "The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca." Muslim immigration to Europe is not rapid enough to succeed in doing such a thing, the majority of the Muslims in Europe were brought over by Europeans; they are not illegally immigrating for the most part. France did it to themselves due to immigration from French Algeria, Germany did it to themselves because they had a shortage of male labor following World War II. Even if a source is found, I think it's wishful thinking by both the right wing and "Islamic Radicals" that this passive invasion will ever take place. Most Muslims do want to integrate in most of their countries, and perhaps the problems lay moreso with the Europeans because the United States has virtually no problems with its 7,000,000 strong Muslim community, most of whom are middle-class or better. - 68.43.58.42 21:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article states that Islam was founded by Muhammad scum. Please delete "scum" from this article.
On the Article Christianity Under the section "bible" There is a see also link to "Criticism of the Bible" I thought that this did not portray a neutral point of view, as the Section on the koran in this page does not have a link to criticism of the koran.
After edititing, and having my edit removed several times, i thought, for the sake of neutrality, that instead of removing the Bible Criticism link, i should instead add a Criticism of the Qu'aran link, for the sake of fairness to both Christians and Muslims and not portraying either in a better light than the other.
I added the link here on Islam, to Criticism of the Koran, and it has been removed. For the sake of Neutrality, either the link to "Criticism of the Bible" should be removed from the Christianity page, or "Criticism of the Qu'aran should be added to the Islam page. I am happy with either personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathaytace ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The article has been targeted by vandalisms will someone please fix it and lock it, its embarrassing. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.200.174 ( talk) 01:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The western world has been targeted by islamic vandalisms will someone please fix it and lock it, its embarrassing. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.196.95 ( talk) 19:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Haha word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.72.243 ( talk) 10:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Criticism of Islam seems to have been removed, would someone please fix this? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.136.194 ( talk) 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with putting the Ahmadi in the others section of the various sects and groups in Islam as I do know like other sects not associated with the main 2, it holds controversial beliefs. What I do however see a problem with is putting it in the same group as different religions and off-shoots of Islam. Ahmadis do not claim to not be Muslims or not follow Islam but as the differences I gave in the paragraph I suggested for them as well as their page does, they have mainly have certain latter day beliefs that are very different from the mainstream but not enough to say they created a different religion as they do essentially follow Islam. The sources aren't hard to find if that was all that was the problem though. Jedi Master MIK ( talk) 07:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
was looking at the EoI articles on Dar as-Sulh/Dar al-'Ahd. it was the opinion of those who divided lands into only dar al-islam/harb, for example that any such treaties would be of temporary nature until conditions became favourable. others, however (such as Shafi'i) stated that an 'ahd (agreement/covenant) could be established so long as they paid kharaj (in which case war cannot be declared upon them) - in return maintaining autonomous rule - in theory, these lands were to be ultimately considered dar al-islam (due to payment of kharaj). the EoI elaborates on certain treaties formed by Mu'awiya (with Armenian princes), and by the Ottomans (with Christian tributaries). i don't think it's as simplistic as currently expressed. ITAQALLAH 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a logical fallacy with the inclusion of the termination material because it pre-supposes that Jihad is defined as war against non-Muslims. Theologically jihad does not single out non-Muslims as the only valid opponents in a Jihad. They are again one sub-category in the fiqh literatures discussing whom it may be waged against.
The military expression of Jihad as its communal expression was a "tool of statecraft" used both for and against the Islamic state. While raids for the expansion of the state are a part of the Jihad history and literature, singling them out exclusively for mention tends to singularly impose a definition as "military war directed exclusively against non-Muslims". This is incomplete. Jihad has an equally long history in theological/ judicial discussions and literature on its legality as a vehicle for legitimizing use of force in situations of internal resistance and sectarian strife (note that Humphreys states that most Jihads were waged against Muslims).
Yes, there is a POV that places the focus solely on the non_Muslims aspect but it is not the only POV. To this end I agree with the editor who had truncated the section earlier along the lines that the Jihad section in this article just needs to get the gist out (see comparative size with other sections) and that the details be addressed in the main article. Details of how, or under what conditions and what the differing POVs on the situation are should be detailed in the page on Jihad where there is adequate room for the proper treatment of all the facets. I am not familiar with the contents of the EoI article, however from the representations reflected in the article, it seems to appear a bit generic or of a particular POV by appearing to raise content issues with other works dealing more fully with the subject. I favor a return to the last stable version of this section because there is not sufficient space in this article for a balanced treatment of the issues raised by the current edit.-- Tigeroo ( talk) 13:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
In the discussion [ here]. Abtract ( talk) 15:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the Principles of Islam are not mentioned in this article? That is, islam (submission to God and God alone), iman (faith in God, his messengers, and angels), and ihsan (to do what is beautiful). It seems like these three concepts are fairly necessary for a complete understanding of the Islamic faith and practice. Bgamari ( talk) 19:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, we should get an admin to do it since its locked til Jan. 3 (a thanks to who locked it) -- Maz640 ( talk) 14:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be great to see such map as Islam is fastest groving religion. Regards, S. Pal, Istanbul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.194.87 ( talk) 15:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Some of the statements made in the Jihad section seem to be incorrect. Jihad can not be declared against a non-muslims for the simple fact that they do not believe in Islam. Fundamentally, Jihad is a struggle against injustice and/or opression. The idea of Jihad within the context of idelogical warefare for the sake of millitary expansion was a mechnisim used by Arab rulers to rechannel their subjects' aggressive pre-Islamic way of (dessert) life. The contemprary idea of 'jihad' came from pakistan abd began with Sayyid Ahmed of Bareili (d. 1831), and later controversially expanded by Gen Zia-ul-Haq . The Quran further suppourts this idea (urah al-Hujurat 49:13) in stating that God has created man of different tribes and nations in order to get to know one another. This in no means contradicts the idea of defensive jihad which would allow millitray tactics such as pre-emptive stike. I recommend the removal of portions that define Jihad as anti-nonmuslim or imperialistic in nature.
18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The nature of Jihad is dependent upon the situation and the interpretation. Obviously, the decline of ijtihad (striving by the pen/Jihad by the pen)is one of the principal reasons why technology, science, philosophy and learning began to decline in the Muslim World. On the other end, it would be nonsensical to not consider Ottoman expansion into Constantinople to have not been a part of Jihad by the sword. The nature of Jihad includes many facets; it should be included that one of these facets is political expansion, however, it should also be noted that Jihad is not a pillar of Islam, nor is it limited to one interpretation or form. From the Sufi era until the beginning of British Imperialism, Jihad was primarily considered figurative in much of Central Asia, South Asia, and on the Iranian plateau. - Rosywounds ( talk) 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not dispute that Jihad may manifest itself in a multitude of forms based on circumstance, culture and time. However, what I dispute are faulty corollary statments that define Jihad based on millitary situations where muslims may have been involved. For example, an inaccurate argument would arise from any premise that would imply that the Turkish Ottoman empire was (let's be charitable and say) anything close to a utopian Islamic caliphate. If it is agreed to keep the 'political expansionist' face of Jihad, then I must insist on a credible citation from an aunthentic Islamic source. Straight from the horses mouth. -Al 21:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss these new additions here before inserting them into the article. Those sections reflect substantial collaboration to maintain balance, and also reflect longstanding consensus. Inserting opinionated or otherwise biased material to disrupt that is not on. ITAQALLAH 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's be clear here on just what you've removed (you didn't actually remove every one, I noted the ones you didn't below):
From the beginning, Christians were taught by both precept and practice to distinguish between God and Caesar and between the different duties owed to each of the two. Muslims received no such instruction. [13]
You removed all but the Ottoman material, which you are now attacking. Please explain. What is your stance on the Lewis quote regarding women? Arrow740 ( talk) 01:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The sentence you are referring to is this "Umayyad general Muhammad bin Qasim expanded Muslim territory into India; this invasion was particularly brutal." right? The inclusion of a sentence or two on expansion into India seems fine; it is an important piece of history. The wording sounds a little POV with words like "brutal." You could simply say outrightly that many people died during Muslim expansion into India, but the word brutal is fairly loaded and borderline offensive (brutal is synonymous with "savage"). The term is also kind of redundant, because I don't think any political expansion (Muslim or otherwise) was peaceful. But I wouldn't oppose any type of sourced reference to expansion into South Asia, so long as it is worded neutrally. - Rosywounds ( talk) 03:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The use of the term "genocide" immediately makes the sources come off as POV or loaded, since none of these events are recognized as genocidal by the International Association of Genocide Scholars. The Muslim invasions were certainly bloody, but they weren't any more "genocidal" or bloody than the Third Punic War or the Mongol Invasions, for example. Alexander the Great burned numerous cities to the ground, as did the Persians, the Athenians and the Spartans. We would never use terms like "brutal" or "savage" or "barbaric" or "subhuman" to describe those events in an encyclopedia, either. Moreover, the source is Will Durant. While I would consider Will Durant to be a good-enough source, he should be used carefully. For one, he is known for writing very general, accessible history books that attempt to combine essentially all the history of the world into one collection. While it's a noble idea on his part, it would be safe to say that Durant only peripherally understands Muslim conquests, but it was not necessarily his area of expertise. He writes in an informal, literary style. Durant was actually opposed to specialized study on history (which is what is most widely accepted today in academia). Certainly many people died in these conquests, but the use of terms like barbaric are intended to dehumanize and represent a strongly charged POV. Further, the section that this is being included in is about conquests; the nature of these conquests could be elaborated on in Muslim conquests or in conquests on the Indian subcontinent, but does not necessarily deserve depth in an article on Islam itself. Those two articles I just mentioned would actually be a good place to go in depth, since the Muslim conquests article only gives a very brief overview. As for this specific case, I strongly disagree with terms like "barbaric"; perhaps we could get a few more opinions on it. - Rosywounds ( talk) 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Arrow740 seriously needs to re-read WP:NPOV. Apparently, for some reason the "Somnath temple" is important to this article. We haven't even mentioned important Islamic shrines like those at Karbala and Najaf. Nor have we mentioned the Mount Arafat, which is where one of the most important rites in Islam takes place. What, then makes Arrow740 think we should talk about the "Somnath temple"? Bless sins ( talk) 09:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Including terms like "brutal" are POV-pushing; I think we've discussed this enough. I can use dictionary references if you don't think the term brutal is intended to be offensive. I already showed you a place where you can go more in depth in Muslim conquests of India; in an article on Islam itself, it would be good enough to mention that Muslims expanded into India. It would be tangential and POV-pushing to provide commentary on how "brutal" that was in an article on Islam as a faith. - Rosywounds ( talk) 19:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I already told you that the invasion of India is notable and that it ought to be briefly mentioned. We are not, however, going to use words like "barbaric" because they are emotionally charged words that dehumanize the subject. Moreover, can you verify that someone is behaving barbarically? No, you cannot; there are no standards or metrics for one to follow. If a terminology is unverifiable, then it is unfit for Wikipedia. At this point, I do not think I will entertain anymore of your whining on this issue. You have already made it quite clear, based on your edit history, that your only intention here is to pass blatant POV edits on Islam anywhere that you can find a location to do so - in a featured article, no less. - Rosywounds ( talk) 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think my opinion on the motives of the Muslims would constitute original research. The problem here is not that I am "avoiding the issues"; the problem here is that you are avoiding Wikipedia's policies for page editors (repeatedly). I will not entertain your baiting questions. Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussions on Islam; it is not a soapbox for you to vent about how much you hate Muslims or, at least, insinuate that (as your edits clearly do). Your pointish edits on the Islamic conquest of India article and your whining on this page are quite enough, Arrow. I think I have given you a fair answer already; the conquest of India is a notable event in Muslim history that should be included here. Words like barbaric are associated with words like savagery and would be inappropriate here just as they would be in an article on the British Raj in reference to the Asian Indian natives. Certainly it would be offensive and POV-pushing to refer to Asian Indians and American Indians as noble savages. Do not play stupid here. It is enough. - Rosywounds ( talk) 00:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are referring to individuals such as Trifkovic that have no expertise on Islam (or even medieval history in general for that matter), then those sources do not deserve to be discussed. You have already been given a proper response and I have provided links to all of the Wikipedia policies that you have already violated. The sentence on this page that we were discussing was the sentence that included the word barbaric; I have given you a response. You are having trouble reading it; that is not my problem. Whether or not these conflicts were religiously motivated is a debatable issue, but they do not deserve placement in an article on Islam as a faith. Similarly, an article on Christianity should not discuss forced conversions during the Spanish Inquisition and whether or not religious scripture or politics was the cause. That would be inappropriate. There are other articles where these issues can be included. Your baiting questions will not be entertained because they are not pertinent to this article. I already clarified this for you. It is interesting that you call me uncivil, while at the same time you accuse me of sock puppetry on my user page, but I will let that insult slide. - Rosywounds ( talk) 02:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, smite unbelievers, or drop smart bombs on them, or whatever, like in any battle. Until they are manageable, then don't kill them. There's nothing particularly brutal about that verse. Especially if he allowed them to go free for a ransom which sounds more civil than keeping them as slaves.
Quran 47:4 Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.
Quran 8:67 It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
I don't see that this says anything different either. If some guy fights with a cop, the cop clubs, tazes, shoots, whatever, until the guy is subdued and submits, then the cop arrests him and takes him prisoner. That's just common sense. Muslims and non-Muslims alike twist the Quran to make it say things it doesn't and blow it out of shape. So I'd be inclined to add all that for NPOV along with your statements if they are ever used somewhere. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Or keep them as prisoners until they are deemed to be trustworthy and work to earn their keep, like prisoners who make license plates, do you consider them to be slaves? Quran 90 says to take the righteous path of freeing slaves, feeding the poor, and helping orphans. As I indicated, some Muslims also distort the Quran to justify aspects of Islamic Law.
So the point maybe is, Hajjaj quoted the Quran as a reason for why bin Qasim should wage a more effective war to quickly subdue the enemy in order to avoid even more loss of life, an early example of shock and awe. So we have gone from barbaric brutality and violence, to common and effective military strategy. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Arrow740 ( talk) 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)The great God says in the Qur'an, "O True Believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth, grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man.
Later, he wrote: "My distinct orders are that all those who are fighting men should be assassinated, and their sons and daughters imprisoned and retained as hostages." Sind So it appears that he meant to kill all those who still wanted to fight, not everyone. Again, common modern practice for everyone from police to soldiers on the battlefield when enemies continue to fight. And when they were deemed to be trustworthy, they were supposed to be freed.
As for female slavery, this may help...
It is a fact that the Qur’an makes a distinction between free women and “those whom your right hands possess”, the latter being women taken as prisoners of war. But there could be no intimacy even with the latter without marriage as is clear from the following verse:...(4:25). Thus, marriage for the sake of satisfying lust only, or secret marriage, is not permissible in Islam. It requires that husband and wife should live together in a bond of wedlock.
Muhammad Asad, a noted modern commentator of the Qur’an, adopts the uncompromising position that the Qur’an never, at any point, gave Muslim men the sanction to acquire war captives as concubines. In his masterful commentary, Asad states that verse 4:3 of the Qur’an exhorts Muslim men to marry free believing women and if these not be available, then to marry those from the captives and by doing so elevate their status in Muslim society. Concubines
So then, there is no image of savage beasts raping slave girls, but where women may be indentured and possibly have no other place to turn after their people have been defeated and killed, Muslims were allowed to marry them and treat them as respectfully as any other woman. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 21:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Details regarding Maria al-Qibtiyya are as clear as mud, some say she was a slave, some say she was his wife. As for dividing women, if their husbands and families were killed in battle and they needed to be cared for, Mohammed would certainly be generous to enable that, dividing them up among Muslims so that no one would have too great a burden. What was he to do, leave them there to starve and suffer after their towns had been destroyed in battle? It's no different than US soldiers caring for Iraqis caught in the crossfire after battle there. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 22:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You have an ahistorical idea of Muhammad. Rodinson quotes one of Muhammad's warriors, Abu Said Khudri:
We were lusting after women and chastity had become too hard for us, but we had no objections to getting the ransom money for our prisoners. So we wanted to use coitus interruptus. We asked the Prophet about it and he said: 'You are not under any obligation to forbear from that...' Later on women and children were ransomed by envoys. They all went away to their country and nto one wanted to stay, although they had the choice.
I can provide more proof that the Muslims were having sex with their female captives if needed. Arrow740 ( talk) 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Also note chapter 4 verse 3 which proposes having a concubine as an alternative to marriage. Arrow740 ( talk) 23:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
After some back-and-forth, the FAR for this article is closed. I unpacked the rationale here. The principal point is that to show an instability breach, you need to show how the article content has been compromised. To put it in positive terms: this remains a good article. The writing is succinct, the coverage broad, the lead appropriate, and the citations copious. Most importantly for FAR, it's clearly recognizable versus the promoted version.
One thing that has changed is the number of Muslims in the first paragraph. "Islamic population" is clearly a non-neutral source in this context. At the time of featuring, it was 900 million to 1.3 billion from Teece (probably too low). Might we avoid a specific number? "Islam is the second largest religion in the world, after Christianity. Estimates of the total number of Muslims are usually above one billion and sometimes more than 1.5 billion." The reference could then list two or three different sources. Marskell ( talk) 12:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the Qur'an sections ends with "From textual evidence, modern Western academics find that the Qur'an of today has not changed over the years.[25]" This implies that all Western academics believe that this, which is obviously not true. It needs to be changed to say "some Western academics believe that the Qur'an of today has not changed over the years". Preferably, we should then mention some Western academics who dispute this. Also, we need to mention that there is more than one version of the Qur'an. Egypt uses the Asim of Kufa version whilst the rest of North Africa uses the Nafi of Medina version. It cannot a balanced article without this point. Epa101 ( talk) 16:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
At any rate, the two references given for that sentence are completely insufficient to say that Western academics find in favour of the Qur'an's authenticity point blank. It is far from an issue of consensus in the Western world. As to different versions of the Qur'an, a sentence could be inserted that said, "There are very slight differences in the Qur'an: for example, between the Asim of Kufa version and the Nafi of Medina version." Just because the differences are slight does not mean that it is not worth mentioning. Epa101 ( talk) 23:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that people are missing my initial point here. Under the Wikipedia rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed , the burden is on those who believe that there is a consensus amongst Western scholars on this issue to state so. So far, all we have in the article is the opinions of two Western scholars. That is not a sufficient citation for the sentence, and it should be altered to state that only some Western scholars have expressed this opinion. The burden is not on me but on those who defend the current article. From readin the comments since my last edit, I think that it is unfair to say that proposed sources cannot be from elite scholarly journals and libraries, seeing as the current citations are of a similar kind of source. Wikipedia has a policy of not allowing "extremist" viewpoints, and it is quite hard in religion articles to define "extremist". If we start excluding university viewpoints as well, then it would be impossible to have a decent article. Epa101 ( talk) 21:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think saying " modern Western academics find that the Qur'an of today has not changed over the years" is too much in the sense that it does not define "change". Some scholars think the alleged grammatical mistakes in the Qur'an are the result of copyists' errors (I am aware that this is controversial among western academics but that it is a result of changes is a POV). I think it is important to get the flavor of the type of alleged changes that scholars are debating. The debate is typically over how a few letters in a word in a sentence could have changed (that's the extent of the change usually debated over). Here is an example: "Ḥaṣab: fuel. Read ḥaṭab, with Ubayy b. Kaʿb, in q 21:98. Ḥaṣab cannot mean “fuel”; ḥaṭab occurs with this meaning in q 111:4 and q 72:15. The mistake was caused by a copyist omitting the vertical stroke of the ṭāʾ, turning it into a ṣād".
In other words, I think it is safe to say that "modern Western academics think that a sentence has not been added to the Qur'an" is reasonably accurate but letters within a word might have changed as a result of copyists' errors. -- Be happy!! ( talk) 21:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
If any great changes by way of addition, suppression or alteration had been made, controversy would almost certainly have arisen; but of that there is little trace. Uthman offended the more religous among Muslims, and ultimately became very unpopular. Yet among the charges laid against him, that of having mutilated or altered the Qur'an is not generally included, and was never made a main point. The Shi'a, it is true, has always held that the Qur'an was mutilated by the suppression of much which referred to Ali and the Prophet's family. This charge, however, is not specially directed against Uthman, but just as much against the first two Caliphs whose auspicies the first collection is assumed to have been made. It is also founded on dogmatic assumption which hardly appeal to modern criticism. On general grounds then, it may be concluded that the 'Uthmanic revision was honestly carried out, and reproduced, as closely as was possible to men in charge of it, what Muhammad had delivered.
Modern study of the Qur'an has not in fact raised any serious question of its authenticity. The style varies, but is almost unmistakable. So clearly does the whole bear the stamp of uniformity that doubts of its genuineness hardly arise...
Here is my suggestion: "Modern Western academics generally hold that no significant changes by way of addition, suppression or alteration had been made in the Qur'an over the years." -- the evidence is not just textual. -- Be happy!! ( talk) 22:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
What caused the dispute?? Who are the main parties in this dispute and how can it be resolved amicably?? I'm trying to help the situation here. Thanks, -- Solumeiras talk 11:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This article has a lot of deep issues in regards to full coverage. I will provide a few examples. There is no discussion of the place of Islamic science and literature in the golden age of Islam. This preservation and development of knowledge had a massive impact on society, history and culture in the West. This influence is very widely discussed in reliable sources. The article completely fails to address the tenuous/heretical social position of Sufi in many Islamic countries and sects. It also completely fails to address the Salafi and Wahhabi, which are sects that have a huge impact on the modern Muslim world. The influence of both on modern Islamic radicalism and the latter as the dominating faith of Saudi Arabia is well-documented and vigorously discussed in reputable references. This article needs to appropriately reflect the body of reliable sources, which it currently fails to do. Vassyana ( talk) 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I request two edits:
the first line of this article says" Islam (Arabic: الإسلام; al-'islām (help·info)) is a monotheistic Abrahamic religion originating with the teachings of Jack FitzGerald a 21th century student political figure". this article has gone seriously wrong here. Islam has nothing to do with Jack FitzGerald and obviously its origination has nothing to do with 21st century. please fix this article as soon as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhorn ss ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it a little ridiculas to have a whole article about Islam and not mention terrorism? a subject which is unseprable from Islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.187.32 ( talk) 08:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No, its not. Same way that the Christianity page does not mention the Ku Klux Klan and how the Judaism page does not mention the Jewish Terrorist campaign during the early years of the Israeli state. Its a totally different subject. -- The Fear ( talk) 00:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't asking about the Christianity page or the Jewish page, but the fact is that there is currently daily terrorist atrocities happening because of Islam. To ignore this fact is further abuse of the victims of Islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.65.91 ( talk) 19:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesnt matter. The fact that you wish to single out one religion and ignore the rest is a matter of POV. This is suppposed to be a resource, not a battlefield for religious beliefs. -- The Fear ( talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a short mention in the "Modern times (1918–present)" section. Yahel Guhan 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Glad to hear this little debate is over. The Fear ( talk) 01:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
How is terrorism inseparable from Islam? Over a billion Muslims have no trouble separating it. What a ridiculous assertion to make! Peter Deer ( talk) 19:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think a section should be added on Islam as the fastest spreading religion in the world. This has been verified by numerous sources over the years.
Unimpeccable ( talk) 15:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing about the Mongols and their impact upon the history of Islam. Technically the Mongol Invasions and the later Turco-mongol empires had a much more substantial impact both culturally and historically than the crusades in the medieval world. Also a note needs to go in about the Ghazi emirates. The Ottomans did not rise from the Seljuks but came about almost two centuries later, another missing period in Muslims history, the Turks before the Mongols. Hope that clears it up.-- Salikk ( talk) 20:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
We are learning about Islam in class! It's fun to learn about! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.6.202 ( talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There's something very weird about the line "In modern times Islam has come under criticism from idealogues such as Robert Spencer..." In the first place, Islam has always been criticized from the West, and the particular criticisms that Spencer makes aren't even new or scholarly respectable. But I think what's more important here is that Spencer is a fairly minor figure outside of the American conservative movement, and Islam is a major world religion. It's like having the Judiasm page include "Roald Dahl, the British author, hated some Jews." Obviously we wouldn't do that. Hell, we wouldn't even say "Judaism has come under some criticism from Ezra Pound..." We are we doing it here? Ethan Mitchell ( talk) 18:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an article in " The Quʼran as Text", which is written by Wild. It describes the meaning of revelation( p.137) in Christianity and propose not to use it for qur'an. As he explains and I, as a Muslim, understand we should use "God sents down Quran" and "Qur'an comes down"(pp. 137-156).-- Seyyed( t- c) 03:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to first thank you for this great explanation of islam. I would like to add some information as to explain the actions behind the some of the acts of Haj. Most of the acts are simbolic in tribute to prophets or religious stories. following you will find the explanation for some of the acts: 1- running seven times between Mount Safa and Mount Marwah: It is called al-saie. it is in the memmory of Hajar, wife of Ibrahim, when she could not find water to serve for her thirsty baby ismail. she ran 7 times between the two hills in hopes of finding a Convoy that could supply water. When she was about to despair, A miracule occured out of the mercy of god in which water emerged from under the feet of her son in the form of what is called the water of zamzam.THis well is still exsistant and millions of piligrimers drink from it every day. This water is said through the words of mohamed (pbuh) "the hadith" is a blessed water that could cure illnesses. 2-symbolically stoning the Devil : is tribute to Ibrahim when his faith in god was tested in which he had to slaughter his son had he really believed in god. while on the way to proceed with the deed the devil emerged 3 times to Persuade him against following god's orders. each time he stoned him and thus we do as well in his memory. 3- when Ibrahim demonstrated his true faith in god through intent in slautering his son, god spared his son and decended a sheep from the heavens to be slautered instead of his son. thus, in the end of each Haj season, we slaughter a sheep and donate the meat to the poor in tribute to ibrahim and in thank to god for his murcy.
Thank you so much Reemalqatami ( talk) 03:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reem
Islam teaches that all prophet from adam to muhammed including jesus preached islam. one cannot be a true muslim if he rejects any of these prophets.islam pictures jesus as a great prophet who did great miracles in the name of god and invited masses to islamic fold.At the same time islam rejects the divinity of jesus and asks christians to pray to that one God to whom jesus himself prayed whenever he needed help.Quran rejects the crucifixion of jesus and informs that he was raised to heaven alive and will return to earth again before the last day -- Smilek ( talk) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islam article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
![]() | 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
The word islam is derived from the Arabic verb aslama, which means to accept, surrender or submit. This sentence appears in Wikipedia and is a very common mistake that is easy to correct. Arabic, as is implied here, quite correctly, is made of derivations. Salima= came out safe, sallama = equiv., of "said hello", saleem = sound, reasonable; salaama = safety ; salam = peace ;on and on...dozens of verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs; all deriving from a single three (rarely four) letter root; always in the past tence third person verb. In this case it is SLM,a word pronouncible in a vowelless language as "salama" above. Aslama, in the sentence quoted from Wpdia does not at all mean to accept, which is Qabila (an entirely different root); nor to surrender , which is istaslama, the noun from which is istislam, not islam , same root yes; nor submit, if submission implies being submissive. Aslama , apart from its now acquired and eternally standardized connotation, viz : "became a Muslim" (and, certainly, not "moslem",absolutely nothing in Arabic is pronounced as in "mode" or in "rod" or in "gate" or "get") or " converted to Islam , ...etc . Arabic is all made of words construted upon these "meters" as I, possibly alone, like to call them. This is a discipline caltled "alsarf", essential to grasping language, culture and faith .Thus islam and istislam, like imdad and istimdad , iqbal and istiqbal idrak and istidrak are words deriving from the same roots but metrically reformed to carry related but different, sometimes reversed connotations .To this day, aslama can be used to say "delivered". "Delivered his soul" is "died", an everyday's expression . Deliverance, however, i.e. Islam, understandably, retains a certain exclusivity. Islam then, is the noun derived from a verb that means to deliver or hand over willingly. While surrender or the word for it in Arabic implies defeat or cooresion. Therefore we can say that the most correct translation of Islam is Deliverance (something similar to that word in English and Frensh). You deliver, that is, your soul to your Creator. -- Mohamed Elhadidi 00:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest adding a mention of the "expose" phenomenon that has been increasing in the West lately. These include significantly mainstream documentaries that have made it all the way to theaters purporting to give fair and balanced accounts concerning radical Islam, often by Islamic speakers. "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" is one among many. This would help to give balance to this article's failure to address one of the religion's signature identities (justified or not). A small header with a link to another article concerning this is in order at the absolute least. The particular video I mentioned can be seen here for your consideration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMLJJEDDDGc&feature=related
It is important to understand that this article largely fails to explain the greater ideals of Islam, instead including discussions of "family life" and "diet." While these articles ought to remain, it is a POV violation to discount important facts about a religion merely because it is politically popular or advantageous to do so. Very little import in this article is given to the specific roots of the phenomenon of Jihad, of the tax system that Islamic states impose on other religious peoples, of the religion's views on gender equality, of the unique nature of the Islamic paradise among all religions, of the political nature of Islam as it has always been, or of many of the important, and oft' controversial, things that the Qur'an actually says. Many articles on Wikipedia include a "criticisms of" section, and as perhaps the world's most polarizing religion, it is downright silly to leave something similar out in this instance. As is, this article is nearly a stub. I understand that, for example, the Christianity article does not include discussion of the KKK, but the KKK did not set root at the moment of the bible's inception, has not lasted to modern times in anything like its original form, and is not based on sound reasoning centered around the ideology of the Christian Bible. The same cannot be said for Islamic Militantism or Jihad (Lesser Jihad if you prefer). Factual realities are not opinions, even if adherence to that factual reality is based on one.
Edit: I notice that there has been some discussion below regarding a "criticisms of" section, and am aware of the seperate article on such, but I want to be clear that this is not literally what I am asking for. I am asking that the components of many of the problems that Islam runs into when confronted with or confronting Western thought be put under a common umbrella. A working name for this section could be something fairly broad, along the lines of "Ideological Incompatibilities with Western Society," which would include many of the political and social impossibilities that occur in the West that could not if the West were under Sharia law. 76.177.211.28 ( talk) 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Andrew
The section in this article called: "Ottomans and Islamic empires in India (1258–1918)," is inaccurate, because most Islamic Empires in SOUTH ASIA originated in Pakistan, which then expanded to India. It should be renamed to "Ottomans and Islamic empires in SOUTH ASIA (1258–1918)."
THANKS
In fact, what is now Pakistan, was considered India before 1947. So there is no need to change. 85.102.182.236 ( talk) 20:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea, Pakistan was part of India for a long time, so lay of the idiocy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xestox ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The section on Jihad is completely misquoted from the source mentioned. [Firestone (1999) pp. 17-18]. The source has been incorrectly quoted. I have tried editing but the original keeps reappearing a few seconds after I have edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anabbie ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"removed criticism section" ... if there ever was a definition of censorship ... this is it. Why does this page gets censored ? I understand that the information "is still in there" ... but now it has to be dug up. Only a full read of the page (which is quite lengthy) will reveal the criticism. Since criticism of islam actually is about mandating mass murders and worse (such as the current widespread persecution of christians, but even more jews and hindus in muslim and non-muslim lands) the criticism should be on top. Currently the criticism of islam is that it's causing thousands of deaths every year. As such, criticism is warranted and healthy. It should not be hidden. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tomcpp (
talk •
contribs)
23:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
That is a totally ridiculous argument, that's like saying that since the US is criticised all over the Muslim (and a great portion of non-muslim) world for its brutal policies then any article on the US must have a criticism section on top telling us all about how many illegal wars the US has been involved in, how many dictators and tyrants they have supported, how many people have been assasinated by their covert organisations, how their economic might has been used to systematically starve whole populations leading to the death of millions, how they have refused to abide by the geneva conventions etc. You get my point? Islam does not mandate the persecution of other religions and that has been explained to the non-muslims by the muslim world but you choose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your agenda (whatever that might be). Jihad of war is a doctrine of self defence which no Muslim would be willing to reject, you can criticise it if you want but the widely accepted muslim view must be portrayed first (because Islam is what the Muslims follow and not what you accuse the Muslims of following) your list of accusations can then be listed at the end so you can get your chance at spreading your propaganda to the reader. WasimKhan80 07:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, please provide the full quote for this strange passage and explain why the author is authoritative. Thanks.
The general understanding of Jihad by Muslims today consists of both an internal and external duty. One that gives priority to the inner struggle against evil. The external struggle includes the struggle to make the Islamic societies conform to the Islamic norms of justice. The general modern discourse on Jihad places the traditional understanding of Jihad in terms of warfare in the context of a specific time and place that has come and gone; as such Jihad is understood to be only defensive.
Arrow740 04:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
<reset> this is what Reuven Firestone (1999) says, p. 17-18:
The Meaning of Jihād
The semantic meaning of the Arabic term jihād has no relation to holy war or even war in general. It derives, rather from the root j.h.d., the meaning of which is to strive, exert oneself, or take extraordinary pains. Jihād is a verbal noun of the third Arabic form of the root jahada, which is defined classically as "exerting one's utmost power, efforts, endeavors, or ability in contending with an object of disapprobation." 14 Such an object is often categorized in the literature as deriving from one of three sources: a visible enemy, the devil, and aspects of one's own self. There are, therefore, many kinds of jihād, and most have nothing to do with warfare. "Jihād of the heart," for example, denotes struggle against one's own sinful inclinations, while "jihād of the tongue" requires speaking on behalf of the good and forbidding evil. 15 Various activities subsumed under jihād are said by Muhammad(pbuh) to distinguish true believers who are loyal to God's Prophet:
Every prophet sent by God to a nation (umma) before me has had disciples and followers who followed his ways (sunna) and obeyed his commands. But after them came successors who preached what they did not practice and practiced what they were not commanded. Whoever strives (jāhada) against them with one's hand is a believer, whoever strives against them with one's tongue is a believer, whoever strives against them with one's heart is a believer. There is nothing greater than [the size of] a mustard seed beyond that in the way of faith. 16
Muhammad(pbuh) is also credited with saying: "The best jihād is [speaking] a word of justice to a tyrannical ruler." 17
The qualifying phrase "in the path of God" (fi sabīl Allah) specifically distinguishes the activity of jihād as furthering or promoting God's kingdom on earth. It can be done, for example, by simply striving to behave ethically and by speaking without causing harm to others or by actively defending Islam and propagating the faith. Jihād as religiously grounded warfare, sometimes referred to as "jihād of the sword" (jihād al-sayf), is subsumed under the last two categories of defending Islam and propagating the faith, though these need not be accomplished only through war. When the term is used without qualifiers such as "of the heart" or "of the tongue," however, it is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam (equivalent to "jihād of the sword"), and the merits of engaging in such jihād are described plentifully in the most-respected religious works. 18 Nevertheless, Muslim thinkers, and particularly ascetics and mystics, often differentiate between the "greater jihād" (al-jihād al-akbar) and the "lesser jihād" (al-jihād al-aṣghar), with the former representing the struggle against the self and only the "lesser jihād" referring to warring in the path of God.
Arrow, please explain the reason for this revert of yours? [3]. -- Aminz 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello: Is there any article or information that explains what an " Isra'iliyat Salaf" is so that Category:Isra'iliyat Salaf makes sense to those who have no idea what it means and can be "in on the secret", and why the articles that are in it are there? Thank you. IZAK 06:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Islam is also a law code and a political philosophy. This must be mentioned in the opening sentence as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.205.125 ( talk) 15:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
True - but don't most "religions" involve an all-encompasing worldview?
72.191.188.200 (
talk) —Preceding
comment was added at
07:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There should be some images which shows different aspect of Muslim history-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 06:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
There should be a picture which shows technical and scientific advancement of Mulims. Which one of these picture do you prefer:
Please add your idea: They weren't necesarily Muslims, you have no way of telling how islamic they are Protest against islamic imposition ( talk) 11:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
We need two images which show the different aspect of Re-Islamization and Modernization of Mulim world. Feel free to add other pictures.-- Sa.vakilian( t- c) 07:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Button_lower_letter.png Subscript —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.163.254 ( talk) 23:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Ibn Warraq and Robert Spencer are not considered reliable sources. Unless they are quoted by a reliable source, in which case they belong, their opinions should not be given space on this article. Bless sins 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion: Start a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that impartially states a question about this and refrain from commenting on it (that is to say the regulars here already butting heads over this should exercise restraint in cluttering such a discussion up with their usual disagreements). A related discussion of interest can be found here. As long as you only discuss reliability here the head butting will continue. Seek less partial perspectives on the matter. PelleSmith 20:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I will read it and give my opinion on it. It would also be nice, if you could provide more Islamic scholars who have disproved Robert Spencer. I'm open for alternative opinions. — EliasAlucard ( talk · contribs) 22:00 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
in reference to your example: i don't think a book about history written by an untrained amateur would ever be considered a reliable source, especially if it had an ideological axe to grind. there's no point linking to WP:RS if you aren't looking at the criteria it mentions. as for needless bad-faith allusions, it can be turned right round on you, and it can be claimed that you are promoting unreliable figures like Spencer solely because you endorse and defend his anti-Islam views. in the absense of any evidence indicating reliability, we cannot conclude that he is a reliable source - especially, as mentioned before, in the light of contraindications. ITAQALLAH 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The classical Muslim jurist ash-Shafi'i (d. 820) established the importance of the Sunnah in Islamic law, and Muslims were encouraged to emulate Muhammad's(pbuh) actions in their daily lives.
What does it mean? As I know Sunnah was important in Islamic law from the beginning and you can see former jurists referred to it.-- Seyyed( t- c) 03:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
"Eventually, some time after the preaching of Islam had begun, the term sunna came to stand for the generally approved standard or practice introduced by the Prophet as well as the pious Muslims of olden days, and at the instigation of al-Shāfiʿī, the sunna of the Prophet was awarded the position of the second root ( aṣl ) of Islamic law, the sharīʿa , after the Ḳurʾān."
"But while traditionists were collecting traditions and attempting to verify their authority, there were others who were not prepared to lay great emphasis on the importance of tradition. As a result there were disputes between parties; but largely as a result of the genius of al-Shafi'i (d. 204/820) [q.v.] the party of Tradition won the day, and Hadith came to be recognized as a foundation of Islam second only to the Kur`an. Al-Shafi'i laid emphasis on an argument which seems to have been current even before this time (cf. ZDMG , lxi (1907), 869), that when the Kur`an spoke of the Book and the Wisdom (cf. ii, 151; iii, 164; iv, 113; lxii, 2) it meant Kur`an and Hadith. Thus hadith was given a kind of secondary inspiration. Though not the eternal word of God, like the Kur`an it represented divine guidance."
I think the original definition should be kept. It expands on the issue, and offers detials, something "apostasy" alone does not do. Yahel Guhan 01:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
There are numerous online (and I stress online) sources to confirm this:
This is a highly debatable issue.
It is doubtable the Encyclopedia of Islam is a reliable source about Sikhism.
Thanks,
Pureaswater 13:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The header "Predestination" should be "Predestination or Divine Justice".
This is clear both from the next line referring to this two -- and from the two paragraphs.
The beginning of the second paragraph has to be changed a bit as well. It's not that the Twelver call Predestination Justice, but: Whereas the Sunnites stress the Omnipotence of God Almighty, the Twelver Shiites stress the Divine Justice. The first view allows God to make arbitrary decisions, the second sees his present and future Freedom of Choice "diminished" by his earlier decrees and promises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.8.114 ( talk) 14:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
please refer to the assertion of consensus by FE. Peters:
"... few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad(pbuh) taught, and is expressed in his own words... ...The search for variants in the partial versions extant before the Caliph Uthman’s alleged recension in the 640s (what can be called the “sources” behind our text) has not yielded any differences of great significance" (Peters, F. E. (Aug., 1991) "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad(pbuh)." International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 291-315.)
for similar points about the fragility of such variants see the Qur'an article in the Encyclopedia of Islam:
"Western scholarship has not reached a consensus on what value this mass of allegedly pre- Uthmanic variants has for our knowledge of the history of the Kur`an. Confidence in the variants declined during the 1930s as they were being collected and analysed. Bergsträsser ( Gesch. des Qor. , ii, 77-83, 92-6) still gave a fairly positive appraisal, but Jeffery (Materials, 16) wrote: “ With the increase of material one feels less inclined to venture on such a judgment of value ” , a view that came to be shared by O. Pretzl. Then after the project to prepare a critical edition of the Kur`an came to a halt, A. Fischer ( Isl. , xxviii [1948], 5) concluded that most of the allegedly pre-Kur`anic variants were later attempts by philologers to emend the `Uthmanic text."
minority views (i.e. of Luxembourg, Weil etc.) do not affect the presence of general consensus as asserted by Peters - thus your edit which presents a minority view alongside the majority view violates WP:NPOV - see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE (in any case the presence of variant modes - ahruf - has no bearing on the assertion that the Uthmanic script was representative of Muhammad's(pbuh) recitation). ITAQALLAH 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
<reset>::"Peter my claim consensus but Encyclopedia of Islam say there is no" - they are writing about two different things - please read the texts more closely. the quote-mining from the internet isn't relevant here, i have responded to this red herring. ITAQALLAH 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
and by the way I am not the subject here.So don't change the head line because it is about the Quran preservation and not me.
Oren.tal
19:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think there is dispute over the order of the quranic verses; over the readings of certain words (at the time of writing "dot" was not used) so some variant recitations. That's pretty much it. Maybe Oren.tal can cite an specific example. --
Aminz
20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=kXvhz04I-0YC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=kpQ9ds5Urw&sig=KsG2PwOvYMxLCc01AdoPdPnLCew
http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=kXvhz04I-0YC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=kpQ9ds5Urw&sig=KsG2PwOvYMxLCc01AdoPdPnLCew http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=cbfORLWv1HkC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PA112&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=tWSoEn5iSY&sig=e6iIpKbdKQEpIYo0AMi1p4-jIaU http://www.jstor.org/view/13561898/ap020033/02a00080/0 http://www.islamlighthouse.com/admin/1sub/books/098enchbook.pdf http://www.jstor.org/view/05855292/ap050077/05a00020/0 http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=qIDZIep-GIQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=Biwda4VKNv&sig=4n8XXkmNv47B_1a1SCWKY0MxyNA http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=WBx2ejzo_v0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=ULZ4eonsEw&sig=zns_n-SVuI8OxyxJIRa98rmvAeA#PPA81,M1 I will back to this topic in the —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.151.98 ( talk) 09:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest to change the wording of the sentence discussed here to emphasize that it can only be proven, there were no changes since the time of Uthman:
It now says: From textual evidence, modern Western academics find that the Qur'an of today has not changed over the years.[25]
I suggest: From textual evidence, modern Western academics find that the Qur'an of today has not changed after Uthman's standardization.[25]
NineBerry ( talk) 15:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I am totally agree. Oren.tal ( talk) 15:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The article on Organization of the Islamic Conference asserts:
But there is no source, and I can find no references for it. Nor does it seem likely that such an explosive plan would have escaped the notice of right-wingers and the media worldwide.
Could someone please verify this?
-- 99.226.23.121 ( talk) 05:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
sigiwan is da best and u know dis man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.219.189.8 ( talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It is more or less a revival of the same type of hatred that European leaders showed towards Jews not even a century ago. They may as well start writing a book called "The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca." Muslim immigration to Europe is not rapid enough to succeed in doing such a thing, the majority of the Muslims in Europe were brought over by Europeans; they are not illegally immigrating for the most part. France did it to themselves due to immigration from French Algeria, Germany did it to themselves because they had a shortage of male labor following World War II. Even if a source is found, I think it's wishful thinking by both the right wing and "Islamic Radicals" that this passive invasion will ever take place. Most Muslims do want to integrate in most of their countries, and perhaps the problems lay moreso with the Europeans because the United States has virtually no problems with its 7,000,000 strong Muslim community, most of whom are middle-class or better. - 68.43.58.42 21:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article states that Islam was founded by Muhammad scum. Please delete "scum" from this article.
On the Article Christianity Under the section "bible" There is a see also link to "Criticism of the Bible" I thought that this did not portray a neutral point of view, as the Section on the koran in this page does not have a link to criticism of the koran.
After edititing, and having my edit removed several times, i thought, for the sake of neutrality, that instead of removing the Bible Criticism link, i should instead add a Criticism of the Qu'aran link, for the sake of fairness to both Christians and Muslims and not portraying either in a better light than the other.
I added the link here on Islam, to Criticism of the Koran, and it has been removed. For the sake of Neutrality, either the link to "Criticism of the Bible" should be removed from the Christianity page, or "Criticism of the Qu'aran should be added to the Islam page. I am happy with either personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathaytace ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The article has been targeted by vandalisms will someone please fix it and lock it, its embarrassing. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.200.174 ( talk) 01:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The western world has been targeted by islamic vandalisms will someone please fix it and lock it, its embarrassing. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.196.95 ( talk) 19:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Haha word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.72.243 ( talk) 10:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Criticism of Islam seems to have been removed, would someone please fix this? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.136.194 ( talk) 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with putting the Ahmadi in the others section of the various sects and groups in Islam as I do know like other sects not associated with the main 2, it holds controversial beliefs. What I do however see a problem with is putting it in the same group as different religions and off-shoots of Islam. Ahmadis do not claim to not be Muslims or not follow Islam but as the differences I gave in the paragraph I suggested for them as well as their page does, they have mainly have certain latter day beliefs that are very different from the mainstream but not enough to say they created a different religion as they do essentially follow Islam. The sources aren't hard to find if that was all that was the problem though. Jedi Master MIK ( talk) 07:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
was looking at the EoI articles on Dar as-Sulh/Dar al-'Ahd. it was the opinion of those who divided lands into only dar al-islam/harb, for example that any such treaties would be of temporary nature until conditions became favourable. others, however (such as Shafi'i) stated that an 'ahd (agreement/covenant) could be established so long as they paid kharaj (in which case war cannot be declared upon them) - in return maintaining autonomous rule - in theory, these lands were to be ultimately considered dar al-islam (due to payment of kharaj). the EoI elaborates on certain treaties formed by Mu'awiya (with Armenian princes), and by the Ottomans (with Christian tributaries). i don't think it's as simplistic as currently expressed. ITAQALLAH 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a logical fallacy with the inclusion of the termination material because it pre-supposes that Jihad is defined as war against non-Muslims. Theologically jihad does not single out non-Muslims as the only valid opponents in a Jihad. They are again one sub-category in the fiqh literatures discussing whom it may be waged against.
The military expression of Jihad as its communal expression was a "tool of statecraft" used both for and against the Islamic state. While raids for the expansion of the state are a part of the Jihad history and literature, singling them out exclusively for mention tends to singularly impose a definition as "military war directed exclusively against non-Muslims". This is incomplete. Jihad has an equally long history in theological/ judicial discussions and literature on its legality as a vehicle for legitimizing use of force in situations of internal resistance and sectarian strife (note that Humphreys states that most Jihads were waged against Muslims).
Yes, there is a POV that places the focus solely on the non_Muslims aspect but it is not the only POV. To this end I agree with the editor who had truncated the section earlier along the lines that the Jihad section in this article just needs to get the gist out (see comparative size with other sections) and that the details be addressed in the main article. Details of how, or under what conditions and what the differing POVs on the situation are should be detailed in the page on Jihad where there is adequate room for the proper treatment of all the facets. I am not familiar with the contents of the EoI article, however from the representations reflected in the article, it seems to appear a bit generic or of a particular POV by appearing to raise content issues with other works dealing more fully with the subject. I favor a return to the last stable version of this section because there is not sufficient space in this article for a balanced treatment of the issues raised by the current edit.-- Tigeroo ( talk) 13:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
In the discussion [ here]. Abtract ( talk) 15:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the Principles of Islam are not mentioned in this article? That is, islam (submission to God and God alone), iman (faith in God, his messengers, and angels), and ihsan (to do what is beautiful). It seems like these three concepts are fairly necessary for a complete understanding of the Islamic faith and practice. Bgamari ( talk) 19:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, we should get an admin to do it since its locked til Jan. 3 (a thanks to who locked it) -- Maz640 ( talk) 14:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be great to see such map as Islam is fastest groving religion. Regards, S. Pal, Istanbul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.194.87 ( talk) 15:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Some of the statements made in the Jihad section seem to be incorrect. Jihad can not be declared against a non-muslims for the simple fact that they do not believe in Islam. Fundamentally, Jihad is a struggle against injustice and/or opression. The idea of Jihad within the context of idelogical warefare for the sake of millitary expansion was a mechnisim used by Arab rulers to rechannel their subjects' aggressive pre-Islamic way of (dessert) life. The contemprary idea of 'jihad' came from pakistan abd began with Sayyid Ahmed of Bareili (d. 1831), and later controversially expanded by Gen Zia-ul-Haq . The Quran further suppourts this idea (urah al-Hujurat 49:13) in stating that God has created man of different tribes and nations in order to get to know one another. This in no means contradicts the idea of defensive jihad which would allow millitray tactics such as pre-emptive stike. I recommend the removal of portions that define Jihad as anti-nonmuslim or imperialistic in nature.
18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The nature of Jihad is dependent upon the situation and the interpretation. Obviously, the decline of ijtihad (striving by the pen/Jihad by the pen)is one of the principal reasons why technology, science, philosophy and learning began to decline in the Muslim World. On the other end, it would be nonsensical to not consider Ottoman expansion into Constantinople to have not been a part of Jihad by the sword. The nature of Jihad includes many facets; it should be included that one of these facets is political expansion, however, it should also be noted that Jihad is not a pillar of Islam, nor is it limited to one interpretation or form. From the Sufi era until the beginning of British Imperialism, Jihad was primarily considered figurative in much of Central Asia, South Asia, and on the Iranian plateau. - Rosywounds ( talk) 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not dispute that Jihad may manifest itself in a multitude of forms based on circumstance, culture and time. However, what I dispute are faulty corollary statments that define Jihad based on millitary situations where muslims may have been involved. For example, an inaccurate argument would arise from any premise that would imply that the Turkish Ottoman empire was (let's be charitable and say) anything close to a utopian Islamic caliphate. If it is agreed to keep the 'political expansionist' face of Jihad, then I must insist on a credible citation from an aunthentic Islamic source. Straight from the horses mouth. -Al 21:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Please discuss these new additions here before inserting them into the article. Those sections reflect substantial collaboration to maintain balance, and also reflect longstanding consensus. Inserting opinionated or otherwise biased material to disrupt that is not on. ITAQALLAH 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's be clear here on just what you've removed (you didn't actually remove every one, I noted the ones you didn't below):
From the beginning, Christians were taught by both precept and practice to distinguish between God and Caesar and between the different duties owed to each of the two. Muslims received no such instruction. [13]
You removed all but the Ottoman material, which you are now attacking. Please explain. What is your stance on the Lewis quote regarding women? Arrow740 ( talk) 01:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The sentence you are referring to is this "Umayyad general Muhammad bin Qasim expanded Muslim territory into India; this invasion was particularly brutal." right? The inclusion of a sentence or two on expansion into India seems fine; it is an important piece of history. The wording sounds a little POV with words like "brutal." You could simply say outrightly that many people died during Muslim expansion into India, but the word brutal is fairly loaded and borderline offensive (brutal is synonymous with "savage"). The term is also kind of redundant, because I don't think any political expansion (Muslim or otherwise) was peaceful. But I wouldn't oppose any type of sourced reference to expansion into South Asia, so long as it is worded neutrally. - Rosywounds ( talk) 03:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The use of the term "genocide" immediately makes the sources come off as POV or loaded, since none of these events are recognized as genocidal by the International Association of Genocide Scholars. The Muslim invasions were certainly bloody, but they weren't any more "genocidal" or bloody than the Third Punic War or the Mongol Invasions, for example. Alexander the Great burned numerous cities to the ground, as did the Persians, the Athenians and the Spartans. We would never use terms like "brutal" or "savage" or "barbaric" or "subhuman" to describe those events in an encyclopedia, either. Moreover, the source is Will Durant. While I would consider Will Durant to be a good-enough source, he should be used carefully. For one, he is known for writing very general, accessible history books that attempt to combine essentially all the history of the world into one collection. While it's a noble idea on his part, it would be safe to say that Durant only peripherally understands Muslim conquests, but it was not necessarily his area of expertise. He writes in an informal, literary style. Durant was actually opposed to specialized study on history (which is what is most widely accepted today in academia). Certainly many people died in these conquests, but the use of terms like barbaric are intended to dehumanize and represent a strongly charged POV. Further, the section that this is being included in is about conquests; the nature of these conquests could be elaborated on in Muslim conquests or in conquests on the Indian subcontinent, but does not necessarily deserve depth in an article on Islam itself. Those two articles I just mentioned would actually be a good place to go in depth, since the Muslim conquests article only gives a very brief overview. As for this specific case, I strongly disagree with terms like "barbaric"; perhaps we could get a few more opinions on it. - Rosywounds ( talk) 05:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Arrow740 seriously needs to re-read WP:NPOV. Apparently, for some reason the "Somnath temple" is important to this article. We haven't even mentioned important Islamic shrines like those at Karbala and Najaf. Nor have we mentioned the Mount Arafat, which is where one of the most important rites in Islam takes place. What, then makes Arrow740 think we should talk about the "Somnath temple"? Bless sins ( talk) 09:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Including terms like "brutal" are POV-pushing; I think we've discussed this enough. I can use dictionary references if you don't think the term brutal is intended to be offensive. I already showed you a place where you can go more in depth in Muslim conquests of India; in an article on Islam itself, it would be good enough to mention that Muslims expanded into India. It would be tangential and POV-pushing to provide commentary on how "brutal" that was in an article on Islam as a faith. - Rosywounds ( talk) 19:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I already told you that the invasion of India is notable and that it ought to be briefly mentioned. We are not, however, going to use words like "barbaric" because they are emotionally charged words that dehumanize the subject. Moreover, can you verify that someone is behaving barbarically? No, you cannot; there are no standards or metrics for one to follow. If a terminology is unverifiable, then it is unfit for Wikipedia. At this point, I do not think I will entertain anymore of your whining on this issue. You have already made it quite clear, based on your edit history, that your only intention here is to pass blatant POV edits on Islam anywhere that you can find a location to do so - in a featured article, no less. - Rosywounds ( talk) 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think my opinion on the motives of the Muslims would constitute original research. The problem here is not that I am "avoiding the issues"; the problem here is that you are avoiding Wikipedia's policies for page editors (repeatedly). I will not entertain your baiting questions. Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussions on Islam; it is not a soapbox for you to vent about how much you hate Muslims or, at least, insinuate that (as your edits clearly do). Your pointish edits on the Islamic conquest of India article and your whining on this page are quite enough, Arrow. I think I have given you a fair answer already; the conquest of India is a notable event in Muslim history that should be included here. Words like barbaric are associated with words like savagery and would be inappropriate here just as they would be in an article on the British Raj in reference to the Asian Indian natives. Certainly it would be offensive and POV-pushing to refer to Asian Indians and American Indians as noble savages. Do not play stupid here. It is enough. - Rosywounds ( talk) 00:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
If you are referring to individuals such as Trifkovic that have no expertise on Islam (or even medieval history in general for that matter), then those sources do not deserve to be discussed. You have already been given a proper response and I have provided links to all of the Wikipedia policies that you have already violated. The sentence on this page that we were discussing was the sentence that included the word barbaric; I have given you a response. You are having trouble reading it; that is not my problem. Whether or not these conflicts were religiously motivated is a debatable issue, but they do not deserve placement in an article on Islam as a faith. Similarly, an article on Christianity should not discuss forced conversions during the Spanish Inquisition and whether or not religious scripture or politics was the cause. That would be inappropriate. There are other articles where these issues can be included. Your baiting questions will not be entertained because they are not pertinent to this article. I already clarified this for you. It is interesting that you call me uncivil, while at the same time you accuse me of sock puppetry on my user page, but I will let that insult slide. - Rosywounds ( talk) 02:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, smite unbelievers, or drop smart bombs on them, or whatever, like in any battle. Until they are manageable, then don't kill them. There's nothing particularly brutal about that verse. Especially if he allowed them to go free for a ransom which sounds more civil than keeping them as slaves.
Quran 47:4 Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.
Quran 8:67 It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
I don't see that this says anything different either. If some guy fights with a cop, the cop clubs, tazes, shoots, whatever, until the guy is subdued and submits, then the cop arrests him and takes him prisoner. That's just common sense. Muslims and non-Muslims alike twist the Quran to make it say things it doesn't and blow it out of shape. So I'd be inclined to add all that for NPOV along with your statements if they are ever used somewhere. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Or keep them as prisoners until they are deemed to be trustworthy and work to earn their keep, like prisoners who make license plates, do you consider them to be slaves? Quran 90 says to take the righteous path of freeing slaves, feeding the poor, and helping orphans. As I indicated, some Muslims also distort the Quran to justify aspects of Islamic Law.
So the point maybe is, Hajjaj quoted the Quran as a reason for why bin Qasim should wage a more effective war to quickly subdue the enemy in order to avoid even more loss of life, an early example of shock and awe. So we have gone from barbaric brutality and violence, to common and effective military strategy. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Arrow740 ( talk) 21:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)The great God says in the Qur'an, "O True Believers, when you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads." The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. You should not be so fond of showing mercy, as to nullify the virtue of the act. Henceforth, grant pardon to no one of the enemy and spare none of them, or else all will consider you a weak-minded man.
Later, he wrote: "My distinct orders are that all those who are fighting men should be assassinated, and their sons and daughters imprisoned and retained as hostages." Sind So it appears that he meant to kill all those who still wanted to fight, not everyone. Again, common modern practice for everyone from police to soldiers on the battlefield when enemies continue to fight. And when they were deemed to be trustworthy, they were supposed to be freed.
As for female slavery, this may help...
It is a fact that the Qur’an makes a distinction between free women and “those whom your right hands possess”, the latter being women taken as prisoners of war. But there could be no intimacy even with the latter without marriage as is clear from the following verse:...(4:25). Thus, marriage for the sake of satisfying lust only, or secret marriage, is not permissible in Islam. It requires that husband and wife should live together in a bond of wedlock.
Muhammad Asad, a noted modern commentator of the Qur’an, adopts the uncompromising position that the Qur’an never, at any point, gave Muslim men the sanction to acquire war captives as concubines. In his masterful commentary, Asad states that verse 4:3 of the Qur’an exhorts Muslim men to marry free believing women and if these not be available, then to marry those from the captives and by doing so elevate their status in Muslim society. Concubines
So then, there is no image of savage beasts raping slave girls, but where women may be indentured and possibly have no other place to turn after their people have been defeated and killed, Muslims were allowed to marry them and treat them as respectfully as any other woman. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 21:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Details regarding Maria al-Qibtiyya are as clear as mud, some say she was a slave, some say she was his wife. As for dividing women, if their husbands and families were killed in battle and they needed to be cared for, Mohammed would certainly be generous to enable that, dividing them up among Muslims so that no one would have too great a burden. What was he to do, leave them there to starve and suffer after their towns had been destroyed in battle? It's no different than US soldiers caring for Iraqis caught in the crossfire after battle there. - Bikinibomb ( talk) 22:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
You have an ahistorical idea of Muhammad. Rodinson quotes one of Muhammad's warriors, Abu Said Khudri:
We were lusting after women and chastity had become too hard for us, but we had no objections to getting the ransom money for our prisoners. So we wanted to use coitus interruptus. We asked the Prophet about it and he said: 'You are not under any obligation to forbear from that...' Later on women and children were ransomed by envoys. They all went away to their country and nto one wanted to stay, although they had the choice.
I can provide more proof that the Muslims were having sex with their female captives if needed. Arrow740 ( talk) 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Also note chapter 4 verse 3 which proposes having a concubine as an alternative to marriage. Arrow740 ( talk) 23:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
After some back-and-forth, the FAR for this article is closed. I unpacked the rationale here. The principal point is that to show an instability breach, you need to show how the article content has been compromised. To put it in positive terms: this remains a good article. The writing is succinct, the coverage broad, the lead appropriate, and the citations copious. Most importantly for FAR, it's clearly recognizable versus the promoted version.
One thing that has changed is the number of Muslims in the first paragraph. "Islamic population" is clearly a non-neutral source in this context. At the time of featuring, it was 900 million to 1.3 billion from Teece (probably too low). Might we avoid a specific number? "Islam is the second largest religion in the world, after Christianity. Estimates of the total number of Muslims are usually above one billion and sometimes more than 1.5 billion." The reference could then list two or three different sources. Marskell ( talk) 12:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the Qur'an sections ends with "From textual evidence, modern Western academics find that the Qur'an of today has not changed over the years.[25]" This implies that all Western academics believe that this, which is obviously not true. It needs to be changed to say "some Western academics believe that the Qur'an of today has not changed over the years". Preferably, we should then mention some Western academics who dispute this. Also, we need to mention that there is more than one version of the Qur'an. Egypt uses the Asim of Kufa version whilst the rest of North Africa uses the Nafi of Medina version. It cannot a balanced article without this point. Epa101 ( talk) 16:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
At any rate, the two references given for that sentence are completely insufficient to say that Western academics find in favour of the Qur'an's authenticity point blank. It is far from an issue of consensus in the Western world. As to different versions of the Qur'an, a sentence could be inserted that said, "There are very slight differences in the Qur'an: for example, between the Asim of Kufa version and the Nafi of Medina version." Just because the differences are slight does not mean that it is not worth mentioning. Epa101 ( talk) 23:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that people are missing my initial point here. Under the Wikipedia rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed , the burden is on those who believe that there is a consensus amongst Western scholars on this issue to state so. So far, all we have in the article is the opinions of two Western scholars. That is not a sufficient citation for the sentence, and it should be altered to state that only some Western scholars have expressed this opinion. The burden is not on me but on those who defend the current article. From readin the comments since my last edit, I think that it is unfair to say that proposed sources cannot be from elite scholarly journals and libraries, seeing as the current citations are of a similar kind of source. Wikipedia has a policy of not allowing "extremist" viewpoints, and it is quite hard in religion articles to define "extremist". If we start excluding university viewpoints as well, then it would be impossible to have a decent article. Epa101 ( talk) 21:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think saying " modern Western academics find that the Qur'an of today has not changed over the years" is too much in the sense that it does not define "change". Some scholars think the alleged grammatical mistakes in the Qur'an are the result of copyists' errors (I am aware that this is controversial among western academics but that it is a result of changes is a POV). I think it is important to get the flavor of the type of alleged changes that scholars are debating. The debate is typically over how a few letters in a word in a sentence could have changed (that's the extent of the change usually debated over). Here is an example: "Ḥaṣab: fuel. Read ḥaṭab, with Ubayy b. Kaʿb, in q 21:98. Ḥaṣab cannot mean “fuel”; ḥaṭab occurs with this meaning in q 111:4 and q 72:15. The mistake was caused by a copyist omitting the vertical stroke of the ṭāʾ, turning it into a ṣād".
In other words, I think it is safe to say that "modern Western academics think that a sentence has not been added to the Qur'an" is reasonably accurate but letters within a word might have changed as a result of copyists' errors. -- Be happy!! ( talk) 21:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
If any great changes by way of addition, suppression or alteration had been made, controversy would almost certainly have arisen; but of that there is little trace. Uthman offended the more religous among Muslims, and ultimately became very unpopular. Yet among the charges laid against him, that of having mutilated or altered the Qur'an is not generally included, and was never made a main point. The Shi'a, it is true, has always held that the Qur'an was mutilated by the suppression of much which referred to Ali and the Prophet's family. This charge, however, is not specially directed against Uthman, but just as much against the first two Caliphs whose auspicies the first collection is assumed to have been made. It is also founded on dogmatic assumption which hardly appeal to modern criticism. On general grounds then, it may be concluded that the 'Uthmanic revision was honestly carried out, and reproduced, as closely as was possible to men in charge of it, what Muhammad had delivered.
Modern study of the Qur'an has not in fact raised any serious question of its authenticity. The style varies, but is almost unmistakable. So clearly does the whole bear the stamp of uniformity that doubts of its genuineness hardly arise...
Here is my suggestion: "Modern Western academics generally hold that no significant changes by way of addition, suppression or alteration had been made in the Qur'an over the years." -- the evidence is not just textual. -- Be happy!! ( talk) 22:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
What caused the dispute?? Who are the main parties in this dispute and how can it be resolved amicably?? I'm trying to help the situation here. Thanks, -- Solumeiras talk 11:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
This article has a lot of deep issues in regards to full coverage. I will provide a few examples. There is no discussion of the place of Islamic science and literature in the golden age of Islam. This preservation and development of knowledge had a massive impact on society, history and culture in the West. This influence is very widely discussed in reliable sources. The article completely fails to address the tenuous/heretical social position of Sufi in many Islamic countries and sects. It also completely fails to address the Salafi and Wahhabi, which are sects that have a huge impact on the modern Muslim world. The influence of both on modern Islamic radicalism and the latter as the dominating faith of Saudi Arabia is well-documented and vigorously discussed in reputable references. This article needs to appropriately reflect the body of reliable sources, which it currently fails to do. Vassyana ( talk) 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I request two edits:
the first line of this article says" Islam (Arabic: الإسلام; al-'islām (help·info)) is a monotheistic Abrahamic religion originating with the teachings of Jack FitzGerald a 21th century student political figure". this article has gone seriously wrong here. Islam has nothing to do with Jack FitzGerald and obviously its origination has nothing to do with 21st century. please fix this article as soon as possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhorn ss ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it a little ridiculas to have a whole article about Islam and not mention terrorism? a subject which is unseprable from Islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.187.32 ( talk) 08:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No, its not. Same way that the Christianity page does not mention the Ku Klux Klan and how the Judaism page does not mention the Jewish Terrorist campaign during the early years of the Israeli state. Its a totally different subject. -- The Fear ( talk) 00:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't asking about the Christianity page or the Jewish page, but the fact is that there is currently daily terrorist atrocities happening because of Islam. To ignore this fact is further abuse of the victims of Islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.65.91 ( talk) 19:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesnt matter. The fact that you wish to single out one religion and ignore the rest is a matter of POV. This is suppposed to be a resource, not a battlefield for religious beliefs. -- The Fear ( talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a short mention in the "Modern times (1918–present)" section. Yahel Guhan 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Glad to hear this little debate is over. The Fear ( talk) 01:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
How is terrorism inseparable from Islam? Over a billion Muslims have no trouble separating it. What a ridiculous assertion to make! Peter Deer ( talk) 19:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think a section should be added on Islam as the fastest spreading religion in the world. This has been verified by numerous sources over the years.
Unimpeccable ( talk) 15:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing about the Mongols and their impact upon the history of Islam. Technically the Mongol Invasions and the later Turco-mongol empires had a much more substantial impact both culturally and historically than the crusades in the medieval world. Also a note needs to go in about the Ghazi emirates. The Ottomans did not rise from the Seljuks but came about almost two centuries later, another missing period in Muslims history, the Turks before the Mongols. Hope that clears it up.-- Salikk ( talk) 20:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
We are learning about Islam in class! It's fun to learn about! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.6.202 ( talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There's something very weird about the line "In modern times Islam has come under criticism from idealogues such as Robert Spencer..." In the first place, Islam has always been criticized from the West, and the particular criticisms that Spencer makes aren't even new or scholarly respectable. But I think what's more important here is that Spencer is a fairly minor figure outside of the American conservative movement, and Islam is a major world religion. It's like having the Judiasm page include "Roald Dahl, the British author, hated some Jews." Obviously we wouldn't do that. Hell, we wouldn't even say "Judaism has come under some criticism from Ezra Pound..." We are we doing it here? Ethan Mitchell ( talk) 18:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There is an article in " The Quʼran as Text", which is written by Wild. It describes the meaning of revelation( p.137) in Christianity and propose not to use it for qur'an. As he explains and I, as a Muslim, understand we should use "God sents down Quran" and "Qur'an comes down"(pp. 137-156).-- Seyyed( t- c) 03:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to first thank you for this great explanation of islam. I would like to add some information as to explain the actions behind the some of the acts of Haj. Most of the acts are simbolic in tribute to prophets or religious stories. following you will find the explanation for some of the acts: 1- running seven times between Mount Safa and Mount Marwah: It is called al-saie. it is in the memmory of Hajar, wife of Ibrahim, when she could not find water to serve for her thirsty baby ismail. she ran 7 times between the two hills in hopes of finding a Convoy that could supply water. When she was about to despair, A miracule occured out of the mercy of god in which water emerged from under the feet of her son in the form of what is called the water of zamzam.THis well is still exsistant and millions of piligrimers drink from it every day. This water is said through the words of mohamed (pbuh) "the hadith" is a blessed water that could cure illnesses. 2-symbolically stoning the Devil : is tribute to Ibrahim when his faith in god was tested in which he had to slaughter his son had he really believed in god. while on the way to proceed with the deed the devil emerged 3 times to Persuade him against following god's orders. each time he stoned him and thus we do as well in his memory. 3- when Ibrahim demonstrated his true faith in god through intent in slautering his son, god spared his son and decended a sheep from the heavens to be slautered instead of his son. thus, in the end of each Haj season, we slaughter a sheep and donate the meat to the poor in tribute to ibrahim and in thank to god for his murcy.
Thank you so much Reemalqatami ( talk) 03:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reem
Islam teaches that all prophet from adam to muhammed including jesus preached islam. one cannot be a true muslim if he rejects any of these prophets.islam pictures jesus as a great prophet who did great miracles in the name of god and invited masses to islamic fold.At the same time islam rejects the divinity of jesus and asks christians to pray to that one God to whom jesus himself prayed whenever he needed help.Quran rejects the crucifixion of jesus and informs that he was raised to heaven alive and will return to earth again before the last day -- Smilek ( talk) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islam article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.