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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Islamism’s New Clothes DECEMBER 22, 2011 The New York Review of Books Jean Daniel, translated from the French by Antony Shugaar 99.181.147.68 ( talk) 03:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
So Islam was invented by Muhammad sometime prior to 632. Why isn't this reflected in the first paragraph, as it is with all other religions articulated with a history notable enough to discern the creator of the religion in question, al la Scientology or Mormonism? I noticed the same thing lacking on the Christianity article, and am about to raise the same question, it's clearly an NPOV breach, and is clearly a feigned attempt to legitimize a religion as being derived from a supernatural entity as opposed to being created by a specific leader of the faith and his other religious folks who penned their holy books respectively.
Could we get this fixed, please? I'd like to at least be able to tell myself this is an encyclopedia and not a place for people to type out their belief systems verbatim and go unchallenged in neutrality. 211.30.150.122 ( talk) 10:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest the word worship, whereever it appears is replaced with obedience or obedience with submission : "acts of worship (`ibādah) and Islamic law (sharia)" as the term worship is inaccurate - implying ritualistic and devotional type activities, whilst the Arabic term refers to a more comprehensive obedience with full submission to God - classical Arabic dictionaries define it as obedience, for instance Lisaan al-Arab or al-Qamoos al-Muhit. -- Missyis21 ( talk) 01:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sir, The Ahmaddiyya is not even a minor denomination.they are not muslim(not being extreamist it is the truth). Regards,
Aaimabc (
talk) 13:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Taliban claim to be islamist but are they recognized as such by muslims scholars? Didn't mainstream muslims regard them as terrorist?
At any rate, it is suggested to improve the ending phrase of the paragraph "Jurispridence > Family Life", as Taliban is not a reference nor an exception to the standards; hence one could say : "Certain countries like Afghanistan, have enforced the veil onto women, while other countries like egypt have left this issue to the private realm".
Excuse me as I don't have in mind a sound reference to counter-argument Esposito's view (but I could search for it if asked) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khonsali ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Terrorist = Extremists of Islamism Mainstream Muslims = those promoted as Mainstream Paulthorne87 ( talk) 05:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The word "Islam" is a homograph and has also the meaning of "peace", look up at Arabian wikipedia, there is written: "The general meaning of the word Islam is peace and submission to God, [2]", translated with Google. -- 212.144.20.132 ( talk) 10:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I see this article talks extensively about Mahomet, but why no mention of the other Muslim deities Termagant, Apollo, and Baphomet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubrath ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
In this article, I found that it is extremely well cited. Anyway, what is wrong in it? Regards. Muhammad Mukhriz ( talk) 12:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
With respect, there seems to be a heavy use of religious phasing style in the article text that does not follow encyclopedic style. For example: "and that Muhammad is His prophet," (the quite symbols are mine. This is direct text in the article and not a quote in the article). The use of "His" seems non-standard English. Should this not be "God's prophet," even if this may be standard usage in religious text or perhaps a direct quote should be used?
Another minor point is: "compiled in the 3rd century AH (9th century CE)." Seems to violate the use of CE as the standard timeline in the dictionary. There could be mention of the AH calendar elsewhere in the article.
To keep wiki consistent, writing styles should be the same crisp, direct and unambiguous language regardless if it an article on economic cycles, WiFi technology or religion. While the information is very informative, the language could use a good scrubbing by a good editor for wiki consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.157.252.114 ( talk) 21:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Titodutta ( talk · contribs) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I am starting review. Please feel free to join! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I have read the article before starting review. The article looks very impressive and well written, but, still long way to go before making any conclusion!
Basic problems | Comment |
---|---|
The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability | No problem! |
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{ cleanup}}, {{ wikify}}, {{ POV}} | No! |
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars | No! |
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. | No problem |
First look assessment: Ok! There is not any "basic problem" in the article, and we can start the review in detail now. -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
There are few WP:DEADREF in the article, see here, please correct these dead references. -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The Qur'an was reportedly written down by Muhammad's companions (sahabah) while he was alive - Please clarify this sentence. Who reported this? Where (I mean in which book etc.)? -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
There is one citation needed template in this section after this sentence In practice, Islamic rulers frequently bypassed the Sharia courts with a parallel system of so-called "Grievance courts" over which they had sole control., add the citation! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is a list of the edits I am doing while reviewing. Basically these are all minor edits (a reviewer can make minor changes himself to improve the article.) Feel free to revert/change my edits. |
Edit summary | See the edit | Comment |
---|---|---|
Added CE after years 610 and 632 | See the edit here | Add your comment here (if any)! |
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | A major issue ( Islamic terrorism) has been completely omitted. This was present in the version of the article that brought it featured article status.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 16:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
This review appears to have missed the fact that the article has the follwing unaddressed cleanup tags which need sorting if it is to become GA class: [Wikipedia articles needing clarification (November 2010), Articles with dead external links (April 2012), Articles with unsourced statements (November 2010), Vague or ambiguous geographic scope (January 2012)] as some of them date from November 2010, clearly the article should be quickfailed. Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm new at the review process, so forgive me if I stumble a little, but I've been editing this article for a while. You say that the featured article version contained reference to Islamic Terrorism. Would you be so kind as to link that version? It might even be so simple as re-including it. Peter Deer ( talk) 17:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
(I have added a reference for 1.6 billion followers and over 23% of earth's population because it has breakdown of every country and region. The reference is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 18:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
ok. you can revert it back. MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I have added a link for 1.6 billion population: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/10/09/pew-world-muslim-population-at-16-billion-with-minority-in-middle-east MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 16:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
About 13% of Muslims live in Indonesia, "the largest Muslim country",25% in South Asia,[10] 20% in the Middle East,[11] 2% in Central Asia, 4% in the remaining South East Asian countries, and 15% in Sub-Saharan Africa.
South Asia "the largest Muslin Country" with 25% or Indonesia? Should be reedited for better clarification. --ER 13:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 ( talk • contribs)
ok, lol,... USER:Fat&Happy, yes the information is sourced. But the sentence doesn't make sense. How can Indonesia with 13% of Muslims be the "largest Muslim country" When in the same sentence it states that the middle east has 20%? This doesn't make sense. Because I am a nice guy I went and pulled an actual source that would support this much better, here it goes:
The largest Muslim country is Indonesia home to 12.7% of the world's Muslims followed by Pakistan (11.0%), India (10.9%), and Bangladesh (9.2%). [1] [2] --ER 04:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 ( talk • contribs)
I have been dealing quite some time with the concept of human equality in Islam. I have been told that there is a very specific social tenet of social and human equality mentioned in this religion, the so-mentioned concept of Universal Brotherhood. I couldn't find any reference to most important tenet of Islam mentioned here. I do not think that any other religion does mention such a thing. Could one of the editors bring in this subject, with some element of how it is practiced in Arabic, and how it cannot be practiced in other languages of Asia, which are feudal.
Also, the issue of Arab Slaver traders, who were Islam, and could practice equality among themselves, but couldn't force themselves to see the enslaved as equal human beings. -- Ved from Victoria Institutions ( talk) 08:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Narrated 'Aisha (the wife of the Prophet): Um Habiba and Um Salama mentioned about a church they had seen in Ethiopia in which there were pictures. They told the Prophet about it, on which he said, "If any religious man dies amongst those people they would build a place of worship at his grave and make these pictures in it. They will be the worst creature in the sight of Allah on the Day of Resurrection." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majilis ( talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Clarification This user recently removed a picture from the article, which was restored by several different users including my self. He justified the removal as above when contacted. I believe his goal with this post is to begin a discussion about removing pictures of human beings, based on my recommendation to him I can only assume. I have restored this section which was deleted by another user as a "Forum." Granted it is, seeing as the editor has already been blocked over this once, I feel that his suggestion should at least see some light. I am not a part of this discussion. I am only clarifying what I believe to be the intent of this editors post, based on previous interaction. Even though I am not a part of this discussion, I would appreciate knowing the outcome in case edits similar to those which resulted in this user's block come up again on this article. AndrewN talk 09:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
If it is helpful to you, there is a relevant discussion regarding images of the Prophet Muhammad which covers most of the same policies and ideas. As it has 25 archive pages, it should give you an idea how much we've gone over this. Peter Deer ( talk) 03:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Taking pictures of human beings is NOT forbidden in Islam. The Prophet was specifically addressing images of Jesus, Mary, or other holy people inside the church, or other holy people connected to other religions. Camera pictures, videos or artwork of ordinary people are allowed.-- 182.177.63.22 ( talk) 01:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
It was discussed, all not too long ago, as to why this article has virtually nothing on Islamic terrorism in it. It seems no one could/wanted to add anything to the article on this. There should be a short section on terrorism in a similar fashion to the criticism of Islam part, along with a link to the main article. Any thoughts? -- Τασουλα ( talk) 02:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
(Apologise about my spelling and grammar) I have been a great fan of wikipedia but I have seen a couple of problems like the Prophet mohamed images. I have read some of the faq about censorship. Just because ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored) that doesn't mean it to offend it's users. As wikipedia needs new users from a variety of background to keep it a neutral.
My suggestion is it possibe to hide some of this images by using ( ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Summer_Olympics) The sponsors table ). Therefore if you want to see it you will be able to press the show button.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.138.230 ( talk) 06:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I deleted "one of the fastest-growing religions in the world." because this is dubious according to the linked article and not mentioned in any other Religions' articles.
Christianity
Growth rate: 1.38 percent
Adherents: 2.2 billion
Means in absolute numbers 30 million
Islam
Growth rate*: 1.84 percent
Adherents: 1.3 billion
Means in absolute numbers 24 million
( http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2007/05/13/the_list_the_worlds_fastest_growing_religions)
Clickenglish ( talk) 18:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Given this comment I can only assume that you didn't understand what was written above. Can you explain which part of what I wrote you are having trouble with. By the way this was supposed to explain that there are a large number of Muslims in what has been not traditionally thought of as Islamic not more Muslim majority countries. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 05:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
As the phrase of Haji Bektash Veli "Whatever you're searching for, search in yourself, It's neither in Jerusalem, Mecca nor in the Hadj", the five pillars of Islam are not for Alevi people in Turkey and Balkans. They don't workship 5 times a day (namaz), they don't go for the Hadj. They also don't fast in Ramadans. Maybe that should be mentioned in "Five Pillars of Islam" section. -- Cemyildiz ( talk) 21:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is no sect in ISLAM called ahmaddiyah, so my request is to change sect section in islam with some reliable sources you can watch videos of Islamic scholar on ahmadiyah that they are not muslims and not promoting right religion Practices and they are not in circle of islam because they belive that mirza ghulam qadiyani was last prophet and that is not true. Our beloved Prophet MOHAMMAD pbuh was the last prophet and seal of prophets and messenger. Your attention is highly required on this issue.
Rjab1 ( talk) 00:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Based on the above reply, consensus will be needed before any changes are done.
RudolfRed (
talk) 04:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)There is a sect in Islam named the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. One thing that I like to suggest to the author of this article is that Ahmadiyya Muslim Community does beleive that the most respected Prophet, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the last law bearing prophet. The fact that they don't beleive in the Holy Prophet as the last prophet is an accusation that other Muslims put on the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to show that they are no true Muslims which is completely wrong. 12:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Wikiknownow ( talk)
Dear Author of the article Islam I thank you for adding the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community as one of the sects of Islam. There is a sect in Islam named the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. One thing that I like to suggest for this article is that Ahmadiyya Muslim Community does beleive that the most respected Prophet, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), is the last law bearing prophet. The fact that they don't beleive in the Holy Prophet as the last prophet is an accusation that other Muslims put on the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to show that they are no true Muslims which is completely wrong. I would extremely appreciate it if you could make that change. May God shower His blessings upon you and your loved ones, Amen. Wikiknownow ( talk) 12:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
To many non-Muslims (especially in the west), the propensity to breed extremism and violent fundamentalism is one of the defining characteristics of Islam. This is in fact the only exposure to Islam that most westerners ever see. And it is inarguable that Islamic extremism is the most widespread form of religious extremism in the world today. So why isn't there a paragraph or two in the article dealing with the topic of extremism? It would certainly be expected of a truly neutral article to discuss the most widely-known aspect of a religion. Canine virtuoso ( talk) 04:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
This should not be hidden under Criticism of Islam. It's not a small and isolated issue. 32.97.110.55 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC).
Seems there's already an extensive article on Wikipedia about Islamic Terrorism. I added a link to the article in the See Also section. Added it once before but it was deleted, so I readded it. Canine virtuoso ( talk) 01:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it should under the criticism of islam section. Muhammad Bin Abdullah ( talk) 19:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
America is paying its hooligans to stage protests. America knows very well that the 99.9% of Muslims do not give a damn about ridiculous films and will not react in anyway. The Quran clearly says that if anybody comes to fight, you have to fight but if they insult Islam from far simply ignore them and don't give them the satisfaction of a reaction. America knows that the 99.9% of Muslims will not give them the satisfaction of a reaction. So they are paying the 0.1% to stage protests and use that to try and make the 99.9% Muslims feel bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsUtvOW6SR0
This needs to be put in the article of how the main people who control western countries who are atheist and are concerned only with their interests and their two servants that they use occasionally from time to time the Christian fundamentalists and European Jews are using fake Muslims, people posing as Muslims to cause trouble to the Muslim community. This is in contrast to China that is more interested in equality and rise of Asia and Africa and end of western de facto colonialism. All Muslim scholars are in agreement that these are manufactured protests to demonize Muslims and cause problems for the China-Muslim-Africa alliance. Real Muslims ( talk) 15:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz" | ||
I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. -- Ibrahim ebi ( talk) 19:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC) |
The definition of Tawhid currently written under the Etymology and meaning section states "Islām is defined theologically as Tawhid, historically by asserting that Muhammad is messenger of God, and doctrinally by mandating five basic and fundamental pillars of practice".
I think it would be a more thorough definition if one were to rephrase as such, "Islām is defined theologically as Tawhid, historically by asserting that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the messenger of Allah, and doctrinally by mandating five basic and fundamental pillars of practice".
-- Anas93 ( talk) 18:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
There was a mistake in the article. The Prophets tomb is still in Madina and was not demolished. You could see many photos of it on Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The fast is dawn to sunset not dusk. Minor important point. Thanks Leroyjohn 01/25/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroyjohn ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
As some have probably noticed, I'm trying to do a little work on the references in this article. In their current form they're not particularly useful, since they just give the author's last name, date, and page numbers. Putting them in the Harv templates creates an internal link to the full citation in the References section below. I noticed that many of the references are already in a Harvard-like format already, and it looks almost like they were in Harv templates but that the templates got Subst'd at some point. Does anybody know anything about the history here? ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 18:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
after Muhammeds names saw which means peace be apon you. Could you edit this in brackets and muslims belieave they are reverts not converts 94.170.73.178 ( talk) 23:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed that the principle scripture of Islam is listed in the article as the "Qu'ran", "Quran" and even lowercase, "quran". Can somebody determine the proper canonical term and apply it uniformly throughout the article? I would do it but I'm not religious scholar, but I feel at least it should be uniform. Jefferson1957 ( talk) 05:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC) ABCDE
There is no official spelling or "proper canonical term" for the Quran with the Latin alphabet because the word is native to Arabic, which uses a different writing system. There are several different methods of translating it, which is probably why there are different spellings throughout the article. Fhqwgads ( talk) 17:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The term is sometimes spelt "Koran" and sometimes "Qu'ran" - this would reflect the fact that it is a transliteration of the Arabic alphabet, which, unlike the Latin alphabet, has 28 letters in it. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 16:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I removed the heterodox designation for several reasons; the source does not mention it, every denomination has been branded as heretic at some point, it has two sub-groups which are quite different so we would have to be more specific - something which Hamza Yusuf has also pointed out. Pass a Method talk 12:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
There are quite a few instances of referencing the quran as a source in this article. By Wikipedia policy, editors should avoid primary sources so I plan to look into cleaning up and some help would be nice. Sodicadl ( talk) 01:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The list could go on. It is just a vocabulary meaning, you can't alter that. Tahrif just mean the corruption of texts. Runehelmet ( talk) 14:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Poland company has released to market nail polish systems O2M, which allows to nail comes steam. Nail polish is not inconsistent with the rules of Islam, but the water during ritual ablutions before prayer has touched every part of the face and hands. Before this invention, a Muslim is required to remove the paint before each prayer or nail polish only during menstruation, because then they don`t˙ go to prayer. Varnish containing polymer that is commonly used in eye leaflets, according to the Croatian daily Glas Slavonia. 78.2.89.249 ( talk) 18:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned in this talk page in the section immediately above and in my brief edit summaries, wikipedia policy is to avoid using primary sources as references, which the user Johnleeds1 has done numerously. Again, see WP:NPS. The user has also used such sources in lengthy quotations numerously. Once again, see WP:QUOTE.
Before this user came along, the article was already long enough (>120,000) when it should be more summarized (see WP:LENGTH and WP:SS) and the point had been repeatedly established about moving the history section away from political history. I removed much but not all of those history sections edits. If johnleeds1 wishes, he/she can move them to their own articles if applicable.
Johnleeds1, you mentioned to me that “If you want people to make changes please just consult with them”. I did send you a message in the brief summary and on your talk page concerning your edits, even though that is not required Wikipedia policy.
Johnleeds1, you also mentioned that “I spent months researching all this and you should have just asked before doing a mass delete.” That you spent that much time is not exactly relevant to if an edit stays or not. Sodicadl ( talk) 23:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Over the last few months, I have done a lot of work to tie the Islam page to the other pages in Wikipedia about Islam, chronologically. I only put links to the other articles on wikipedia about actual events agreed to by every denomination and the historians. These articles have an important bearing on the development of the different denominations, as most the differences between these denominations are political. They are not about the concept of God, as in many other religions, as the concept of God is well defined in the Quran. So they differ on politics i.e. who has the right to rule. That is why the History section has expanded. If you look at the Christianity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) or the Judaism page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiasm) they are also long with lots of links to other pages. These are old religions, with lots of followers.
I would like to shift the history section more towards the development of the schools of thought and the early books. I also wanted to include a diagram to show the links between the early scholars. I have already done a lot of work in writing the Denominations sections and showing people how Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, Muhammad al-Baqir, Zayd ibn Ali, Jafar al-Sadiq, Abu Hanifa, and Malik ibn Anas worked together in Madina. How Al-Shafi‘i was taught by Malik ibn Anas. Ahmad ibn Hanbal was taught by Al-Shafi‘i. How Muhammad al-Bukhari travelled every where collecting hadith and why he did it. During the early Medina period all these imams studied together and the chains of hadith narration show this.
The academics divide the history of Islam into Mecca Period and the Madina Period for the Quran. Then the Madina period of the scholars, where the views of the scholars are very close and books like Muwatta were written by scholars like Malik ibn Anas. Then the Kufa period where the schools of thought begin to diverge taking into consideration the different ethnic mixes, urban populations, old Roman and Persian laws in those areas, the Greek ideas and the problems the jurists faced. Then to reduce the divergence, ash-Shafi'i proposed giving priority to the Qur'an and the Hadith (the practice of Muhammad) and only then look at the consensus of the Muslim jurists (ijma), and analogical reasoning (qiyas), which resulted in jurists like Muhammad al-Bukhari dedicating their lives to the collection of the correct Hadith, in books like Sahih al-Bukhari.
To shift the history sections to the history of Islam, we need to change the titles as currently they are focused to towards the political history. Shift them towards important early scholars and their early books. These early books are a snapshot in time.
In the History sections we could have titles like
Muhammad and the Quran
Early Scholars of Madina and Muwatta
Kufa and Baghdad - schools of thought and Hadith collections
Safavids and Salafi
Modern times
Then I could fit the history into the development of the denominations. The history has an important bearing on the development of the denominations.
I have put a diagram on the Fiqh page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh) of the relationship between the different early scholars but it may be a bit complex for the Islam page. But it shows that all these early scholars worked together and the chains of hadith naration also follow these lines.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 ( talk • contribs) 08:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC) -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 08:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with what DeCausa said above about Primary vs. Secondary sources. The article should use secondary sources. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 15:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I just found that there is a huge number of templates on this article that are not been displaced properly because they have exceed the number of templates recommended to be used by an article.I have tried to remove the chart that uses Template:Familytree and recommend that it should be made as a separate template or moved to another relevant article. The article also need a major trim off and the heading "Rightly Guided Caliphs, Umayyad, Abbasid era (632–1258)" should either moved to the relevant section or it should be shortened. -- Ibrahim ebi ( talk) 07:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The references in the article were not showing up, or is it just me? Checking the history of the article, this happened after the Allah template was added. I tried removing that and previewing and the references showed up again. I am not sure it has to do with the number of templates as I tried deleting the other templates and previewing and the problem still remained. Sodicadl ( talk) 06:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Initial section - 'islam is one of the world's fastest growing relations': every religion claims the same thing. The fact this sentence says 'one of the' suggests it could be one of many or one of few. I think this sentence should be removed as it is propaganda and not fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.201.64 ( talk) 00:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
After years of studying the religions of the world, Islam included, I have noticed something odd. In Afghanistan, the Pashtun people seem to follow a different sect. While I see no mention or Spirits, Magic or Spellcasters in Islam, the Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan cling very much to these beliefs, on top of their Islamic ideals. A good example would be the dotted tattoos seen on Pashtun warriors' hands, believed to confer luck and skill in battle (Tattooed on by a "wise woman"). Or the ornamentation of trucks, believed to ward off evil spirits. I haven't seen these anywhere else I have traveled in the Islamic world (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia). I could be my ignorance, but are these "trends" common across Islam, or is this unique to the Pashtun tribe? The Tajik and Hazara tribes do not seem to hold these beliefs. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army Infantryman ( talk) 18:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
How is Al qaeda, a significant militant force and political player who's sole purpose is to advance the cause of Islam, mentioned nowhere on the page? -- Jacksoncw ( talk) 00:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no mentioning of Sunni Barelvi Movement in the Article.which is significant movement in the world with in Islam.The picture showing various movements in the article does not show Sunni Barelvi as movement. Shabiha ( talk) 17:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I came to this article to find out why Muslims don't eat pork. I couldn't find anything at all in the article! When I was about to give up, I noticed the Islam and animals link in 'See also', but that too only seems to devote one line to the subject. Am I missing something? The avoidance of pork seems to be a well-known fact about Islam and has been covered recently in the UK news because of the adulteration of supermarket meat products. Should there at least be a paragraph covering the issue? Sionk ( talk) 11:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Under "Denominations/Other Denominations" there is currently an entry reading: "Karaite-Karaism or Karaimism a transitional religion between Mosaism and proto-Shiism, was brought from Khorezm to the Sabians of the Bosporan Kingdom (Southern Russia) after the Umayyad attack of 712AD. [sourced here: [3]]" I am doubtful of the accuracy of this assertion, of the designation of any form of Karaism as a denomination of Islam, and of the accuracy of the obviously strongly POV-problematic source cited; I note that nonetheless neither that source nor the Wikipedia page to which "Karaite-Karaism or Karaimism" is linked mention it as a denomination of Islam. Is there a reason to keep such an assertion on this page? Lyrelyre ( talk) 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Some Muslim authorities, especially among the Shi'a and Sufis, distinguish between the "greater jihad", which pertains to spiritual self-perfection, and the "lesser jihad", defined as warfare
Sunni claim this aswell, as much as the shia and sunni, check your own sources :) thanks in advance Abouantar ( talk) 07:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, this is regarding the main Islam article. I just wanted to bring to your attention the fact that the Arabic translation of 'prophets' (as given in the Prophets section of the article) is wrong, as it gives the Arabic word's singular form. The pluralised form of 'نبي' is in fact 'أنبياء'. You can check this in the Hans Wehr dictionary (p.1105), the Aratools website ( http://aratools.com/) as well as google translate. So please change the Arabic text in the aforementioned section to 'أنبياء'. Thank you. Kafir Madrus ( talk) 15:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure, so I would say the correct romanisation would be anbīa or anbīa', with the apostrophe to indication the 'ء', which is pronounced as a glottal stop. Personal I would include the apostrophe, otherwise the word could be أنبيا, but I am not sure if wikipedia has some sort of standardised way in which romanisation of Arabic is done. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kafir Madrus ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing rigorous in religion, certainly not the Abrahamic ones. Suggest text in the "God" § be redacted to "rigid monotheism". Rigour is a property of modern intellectual sectors such as
mathematical rigour Still think this is wrong/misleading but per edit I just made to
rigor this would be valid in the sense of "hard" which is not what "rigor" in works of the mind means in a modern context. It would be inconsistent not to support the usage that doesn't fit there here where it does. "Exacting" or the like would obviate the equivocation.
76.180.168.166 (
talk) 05:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the Islam Template is not collapsed by default? Otr500 ( talk) 15:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
An editor has removed the "An overview of the major schools and branches of Islam" diagram today. [17] Please can we have a discussion of whether it should be deleted or whether it should stay. This diagram replaced an earlier one "Some of the major movements in Islam".
The diagram is very imperfect in that it does not mention two of the Islamic sects commonly mentioned in the press: the Salafists and the Wahhabis. In that respect the older one is better. However the older one does not mention the Twelvers, who are so often promoted on Wikipedia, almost as if they were the only Shias.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 15:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
pewmuslim1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I put the diagram of the early scholars and their books back because you could link off it to all the main early scholars and their books. It graphically represents the links between the early teachers and their students and their books and is the foundation to understanding the links between the sects and the chains of narration of the hadiths. Most importantly it shows that the early scholars all worked together but unfortunately these days, their followers do not get on with each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
John Leeds asked me to comment on the latest version of the diagram. This is difficult.
-- Toddy1 ( talk) 19:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
|
I suggest that the article main image at the top is changed to this image, the featured image of this topic.
Perhaps it would be better to change it to this image, which is much more suitable to the article scope as it is a much better visual renedition of what the caption says the purpose of the picture is.
I would suggest this be done quickly as the current image is useless as a visualisation of the article subject and is clearly VERY low-quality. This would definitely lower the aesthetic of the actual article.
-- Speeditor ( talk) 16:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
There are 3 reasons why i reverted Adjwilley. Firstly the MOS was wrong, at 530 px the image took up the entire screen. Secondly, i removed original research from the first paragraph. Thirdly the second part i removed i moved to the Zaydi article, so i see no reason to have duplicate information accross two articles. Pass a Method talk 20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The following section states women, children and civilians but the reference only says women and children. "In Islam there is also no compulsion in religion, as stated in surah Al-Baqara 256 in the Quran[110][111] and there are clear limits imposed, for example, in war Muhammed prohibited the killing of women, children and civilians.[112]" Please add additional references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.242.232 ( talk) 02:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I have deleted the following paragraph - it is original research from religious primary sources - the Koran and Hadith. In addition the linking of the first statement about compulsion and the second statement about limits in war is clearly synthesis:
-- Toddy1 ( talk) 07:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of modern times Islamic terrorism? Half of all terrorist attacks are attributed to Islamic persons. [20] And the other "unknown/unspecified" terrorism fatalities happened in Islamic regions such as Iraq and Afghanistan, or in regions where Islam is otherwise involved in conflicts such as the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, southern Thailand and Kashmir.
Also, isn't Islam the only religion where its denominations have continued to kill each other? Yet, there is no mention of this.
From http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AboutSite.htm [Copyvio redacted]
I know encyclopedia articles are intended to give a historical, neutral and worldwide perspective, but this article gives no mention of any of the above. Islam has some very unique negative characteristics.-- Loomspicker ( talk) 17:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
And most of the people who bomb abortion clinics are Christian. Obviously, all Christians are murderers! See the fallacy you're presenting? Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Look, we get it, you're scared of Muslims. However, Wikipedia is not built around your fear, or your attempts to justify your fear by hypocritically misrepresenting facts about a minority as if it says anything about the majority. You're not gonna accomplish anything with this line of discussion except wasting space on the servers and annoying a few people. Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Peace Be upon you all, for those who think that Islam is a terrorism religion, I'll answer you in two verses from the holy Quran :
so according to the these verses, Qaeda's Improper conduct is not Islamic at all.. , My talking is certified with the sourced of the Holy Quran, the Essential reference for the Muslims. so? factually, I still in 14, but I wanted to answer your questions about Islam.. I hope that my answers were clear for you. if you have more questions please visit these sites:
-- 蛙莫格倫 ( talk) 19:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
According to many Muslims the last caliph is Ali ibn Abi Talib (the forth Rashidun caliph) not Abdulmecid II... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.76.109 ( talk) 13:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Please mention Muslims majorities in the balkans, Albania, Kosovo and parts of Eastern Europe you are missing then out these are Muslim majority countries that have not been mentioned at all. Islam is not just restricted to Asia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.12.251 ( talk) 14:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
who wrote that? we gather everywhere to pray in unity! Maybe it should write Muslims gather there for spiritual cleansing for Hajj or something rather than "pray in unity". I think it's not a good description.-- In Allah We Trust ( talk) 06:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Most of you know that most of we Muslims take it as a grave deed calling Our Beloved Prophet his forename without adding some phrase to praise him. In our belief Allah warns us so:
Do not make [your] calling of the Messenger among yourselves as the call of one of you to another. Already Allah knows those of you who slip away, concealed by others. So let those beware who dissent from the Prophet's order, lest fitnah strike them or a painful punishment. (Quran 24:63)
Therefore I suggest calling him in all English Wikipedia as the Prophet of Islam replacing all "Muhammad"s (sallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam) with the Prophet of Islam including occurrences in the article about him except its title. We are obliged to follow Article 18 of UDHR:
"Everyone has the right ... to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
Concerning worship: Observance of commandments of Quran is essential in worshipping Allah in Islam. Most of Muslims cannot add information which includes his name to Wikipedia because we cannot write his forename solely without any praising phrase. Other than that, hundreds of thousands of Muslims cannot read such occurrences of his name without feeling uneasy, because of the commandment I quoted. So we all have to figure out a neutral phrase where most of us can read without feeling discontentment. Also this way, some actions which are seen as vandalism by non-Muslims will come to an end in the future, I guess. I added this opinion in the talk page about Him. I think it is necessary to add it here, too.
So, this problem must be handled. I assume the phrase "the Prophet of Islam" is the phrase that we can end this conflict with. Using bots this can be handled in time. What will be the decision?-- SeyitC mesaj 21:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seyitserdarcihan ( talk • contribs)
Can we apply Infobox religion to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninniuz ( talk • contribs) 10:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Reason For Muhammad Prophet To Leave 'MECCA' And Go To 'MEDINA'.
Muhammad prophet left Mecca and settled to Medina because his enemies were troubling him .
-divyesh.N.V.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divyesh nandlal ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I have heard that the topic of female circumcision is barely mentioned in the Quran if at all, and the ancient Egyptians were historically the first to practice it. However I have some religious questions concerning it's origins and occurrence. Could an Imam Marja or Shaikh please tell Wikipedia when the first female circumcision is said to occur and why, was it to create a covenant like Abraham; was eve circumcised Eve? Also are there any cases of female aposthia that are mentioned in Islamic literature outside of the Quran, is it considered a sign of some kind of great ability when it occurs in women? Lastly, what do the traditions say about Karina the first female Djin, was she circumcised or born with Aposthia? Thank you for answering questions of this nature, I know this is one of the most overly emphasized aspects of Islam in Media, however much education is still needed on the topic. CensoredScribe ( talk) 20:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
We have a talk about considering another important Abrahamic religion or not? Please come and participate in our talk in this page Abrahamic-Religions -- Wiki hamze ( talk) 10:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Under the History section, subsection "muhammed" the city name is misspelled in one instance as "Madina" instead of "Medina." I would have changed it but the page is locked. Someone with editing privileges should fix this. -Dave K.
Can someone please verify if this is a good upgrade? No text nor sources were removed, this is intended to be a straight addition, with some alterations to give more specifics. The sources were provided by User:Saleemthebody, but my *own* understanding of this particular split-denomination is entirely from *wikipedia* articles, which we all know may not be 100% trustworthy in all cases. :-)
Ahmadiyya is an Islamic reform movement (with Sunni roots) founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad [1] that began in India in 1889 and is practiced by over ten million [2] people around the world. [3] Ahmadiyyas are divided [4] into two subgroups, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community ( 5th Khalifa of Ahmad the subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement ( 6th Emirate of Ahmad the second coming).
If this suggested version passes muster, please stick it into the article for me, since the page is locked down, and Saleem has not gotten back to me. If any troubles crop up, please ping my talkpage, I'm unable to create a watchlist-entry for this talkpage. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 17:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
p.s. See analysis of WP:UNDUE over here. User_talk:Sp33dyphil#Islam TLDR, I don't think two sentences is overblown, even if they are pretty dense with links and sources. 10M people is a good-sized chunk. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 17:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Respested Sir, I am a Muslim I read this topic(ISLAM) on Wikipedia but in this topic our Prophrt MUHAMMAD(Peace be upon Him) name come without Peace be upon Him or(PBUH) I request you kindly edit this or give me authority to edit this topic. I am very grateful to you.
Best Regards, MUHAMMAD IRFAN Irfan447 ( talk) 09:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Please add {{Other uses|Bomb (disambiguation)} to the page to help redirect all of us infidels. Thank you 76.200.118.133 ( talk) 20:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change 'Usury allows the rich to get richer without sharing in the risk' TO 'Usury which allows the rich to get richer without sharing in the risk is prohibited in Islam' 183.83.203.146 ( talk) 06:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
but how do they know when it's islamic new year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.230.199 ( talk) 11:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Many Islam buildings have a moon symbol on them, so how come the symbol isn't in the article? GMRE ( talk) 16:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that Islam had 1.9 billion followers in 2000, now they have 1.57. One reason is because the Muslim birthrate are now normalising in the West. The second could be that the Muslim birthrate is stagnating in most parts of Asia. Why is there no mention of the millions of Muslims converting out of Islam? And the increased persecution in the Middle East and Asia in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookieballer ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I wish to reopen the discussion waged previously (at least once, for example as “Muslims believe this, Muslims believe that”, from 19:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)) about making the distinction between Islam, the religion, and muslims, its followers – because there are significant differences between the official teachings of this religion, and what its followers make of it – just like there are significant differences between the Pope and the Vatican vs. Catholics.
The notion that ‘Islam’ is not preferable to use as the subject of many sentences or verbs, I think is not tenable. First of all: Islam happens to be the subject of the article, so there is good reason why the article’s statements should be about it. For statements about muslims, there’s a separate article about them.
Second: the argument that ‘Islam’ is ill suited as the subject of many verbs because it is an abstraction doesn’t hold up – Islam isn’t just some abstract idea (like the word ‘idea’), but a full-fledged religion with all the trappings (see the article!). Key source materials; normative statements and example by its authority figures etc..
Thirdly: the argument that one can’t make categorical, broad-sweeping statements about Islam, and that it would therefore be better to make equally categorical, broad-sweeping statements about its followers, makes no sense.
Fourthly: when such categorical, broad-sweeping statements about muslims go into what they believe, there is the additional scientific challenge of backing that up with suitable research / sources.
I therefore argue to let statements about Islam be phrased as such, as much as possible, and to be channeled through statements about something distinguishable from it, as little as possible ! -- GeeTeeBee ( talk) 12:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The To-do list for this article states that it: ".. should cover the fact [?!] that sharia law is only a personal law b/t someone and God (not a political or non-Muslim law), ..".
This is not a fact at all ! This seems to be an opinion of the editor, and far from neutral !
The fact is that, according to the article "
Application of sharia law by country", about ten countries have applied sharia law in full, or for the most part, including application of sharia (elements) in criminal law.
Another thirty (or more) countries apply sharia law at least to matters like ".. marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody ..".
Even though this is termed (personal)
Status law, it regulates an individuals position ".. in regards to the rest of the community ..", in other words: between a person and other persons, not just ".. b/t someone and God.. ".
As for how sharia is intended to be used, a neutral article should be very careful to reach a conclusion, and should certainly look at various sources. One aspect worth mentioning is the sharia concept of Jizya, ".. a per capita tax, levied on [...] an Islamic state's non-Muslim citizens ..", which is clearly a law pertaining to non-muslims ! -- GeeTeeBee ( talk) 09:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Moreover: the lead section of this very article states, that sharia law: ".. touches on virtually every aspect of life and society, providing guidance on multifarious topics from banking and welfare, to warfare and the environment ..". -- GeeTeeBee ( talk) 10:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tighten up prose, and fix accidentally-mangled parens, of the first entry in the Islam#Other_denominations subsection. Please change:
- Ahmadiyya is... ((no changes)) ...two subgroups: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community ( 5th Khalifa of Ahmad, who believe Ahmad to be the second coming) and subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement ( 6th Emirate of Ahmad, who believe him to be the second coming), but not a prophet.
To:
- Ahmadiyya is... ((no changes)) ...two subgroups: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community ( 5th Khalifa of Ahmad the second coming plus subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement ( 6th Emirate of Ahmad the second coming only).
Thanks to Salaamthebody for fixing up the accuracy of my original suggestion made at Talk:Islam. This change-request is not intended to adjust the meaning of the words currently in mainspace, but merely to fix parens and omit needless words.
74.192.84.101 ( talk) 21:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- ...two subgroups: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community ( 5th Khalifa of Ahmad, who believe Ahmad to be the second coming and subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement ( 6th Emirate of Ahmad, who believe him to be the second coming, but not a prophet).
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Asking that the date of this religion be stated as A.D. .. It does not state this fact anywhere and while many other "religions" broke away from both Judaism and Christianity (Orthodoxy) to become Catholic and on and on .. At least the others say A.D. .
It is only fair that this page show the true date of this formation of Muslim religion .. That is all we are asking ..
74.4.114.94 ( talk) 12:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Fat&Happy (
talk) 18:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Farida baby ( talk) 13:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I would have liked to see Osama bin Laden being mentioned here because he is a notable figure. If muslims condemn what he did, even that should be mentioned. The slogan of Islam is, 'La Ilahi il Allah, Muhammadur Rasool Allah', which means Allah is the only God and Muhhammad (peace be upon him) is his prophet and that also needs a mention - it is just as important. I am new here and would prefer someone more experienced to do this.— Khabboos ( talk) 15:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please remove the picture of angel Gabriel giving a message to Muhammad (peace be upon him) as it is very offensive to Islam and all Muslims. ParadiseCars ( talk) 17:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
t •
e •
c) 18:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove an image of pig from this page. 27.106.4.70 ( talk) 04:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I undid a revision that changed the heading from "God" to "Allah". We do not translate everything into Arabic; Angels would be "malaika", revelations would be "wahy", fasting would be "sawm", government might be "hukumah". Where to draw the line? Even for those who do not know Arabic or the Arabic word for God, the English title is more accessible, while its contents explain the etymology in detail. I would judge having all titles in English, instead of some, is something we can get most editors to agree to. Sodicadl ( talk) 21:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The Shahadah (testimony) of Islam is, "I testify that there are no deities other than Allah alone and I testify that Muhammad is his Messenger", which is a fanatic one (because it means Jehovah, Yāhweh, Jesus, the Buddha, Ahura Mazda, Amun Re, the Pagan and Hindu Gods and Godesses etc. are not deities) and so, I had put it in the criticism section as well. Please tell me why it was removed, despite having the right references/citations (I'm planning to restore it in the criticism section).— Khabboos ( talk) 15:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
We have two editors who have tried to remove the image of the angel and Muhammad, each using terms giving the reason that Islam rejects images by mistakenly stating that Islam rejects the doctrine of rejecting images (i.e. aniconism or iconoclasm):
Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Wiqi55, I remind you that the belief of any religion or lack thereof does not drive any site policy or guidelines. My statement (which was not part of the article) was countering the claim that Islam, as a whole, without exception, is aniconistic; when it is in fact only portions of Islam. WP:Undue applied to this situation would be stopping someone from flooding the angels section with every bloody Islamic picture of angels and/or all the info we have on Islamic angelology, so that it was more than one paragraph was on angels with a single picture. A single picture for the whole section, especially when that section is more than a couple of lines, is well within the boundaries for due weight.
Walid562, how is it that you and Septate made the exact same total vocabulary blunder for the exact same edit? (And at any rate, zombietime is not the origin of the image, but merely copied it from it's original and true source, which would be reliable if primary source for an example of Islamic art and of Islamic depictions of angels).
Ian.thomson ( talk) 23:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Irrelevant image. The image which is coming from this website: http://www.zombietime.com/ has no significance for inclusion. Please, provide here reasons for inclusion. Thanks,-- Edmondhills ( talk) 05:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
DeCausa there won't be a general agreement, we're clearly not on the same page. If General agreement is the only way to get that image removed then there should be a general agreement for it to stay! Walid562 ( talk) 10:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia article entitled, "Islam," Islam is defined as a religion, which completely misses the essence of what it actually is. Islam is primarily a geo-politcal system of governance created to be spread by any means, worldwide. Islam includes a set of religious beliefs, but it is not a religion independent of government. Is simply is not, and any Islamic scholar knows this, as do the following skeptics about the peaceful nature of Islam: Abdullah Al-Araby, Director, The Pen vs. The Sword Publications, Serge Trifkov, Author, The Sword of the Prophet, Robert Spencer, Director of JhadWatch.org
The word Islam does not mean "peace" in the sense of no conflict, but peace that comes from having all of mankind obedient to god's perfect words as dictated to Mohammed by ArchAngel Gabriel, words that have been replaced by later Q'ran entries over time by Mohammed himself, that deprecate earlier verses. "Jihad" means struggle, both personal and at war against infidels, to become martyrs in the name of Allah.
Sure, let's be objective as possible in Wikipedia, but let's not get PC, okay? Islam is a single world governance system with a government called a "Califate," a legal system called "Sharia," and a religion that justifies in the name of Allah, the two fates for all non-believers: Conversion to Islam or subservient second-class status. This is crystal clear. Ask any scholar.
Fundamentalist Islamists follow the teachings of Islam. So called "Peaceful Muslims" are actually not practicing Islam, just a minor piece of it. And btw, Christians are Mesionic Jews either, so let's not be afraid to call a spade a space. I'll say again, Islam is not primarily a religion, but a system of world goverance.
I give donations annual donations to Wikipedia, and expect objectivity and truth, not PC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.94.3 ( talk) 08:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
many people in world believe Islam is religion of violence because of how some muslims act. on the other hand, there are mistranslating or errors of how Qura'n translated to other languages and how extremist muslim define Qura'n. If we look in history ottoman empire had huge influence on how some muslims act today which not part of Islam. for example, inheriting leadership of country from the father, this in not in islamic act. changing the name of islamic empire to ottoman empire not islamic act. ottoman declared war and high merchant tax on european causing them to suffer hunger also not islamic act. the ottoman resulted in many other changes on islam that made islamic world very violence today. therefore, i will list words mistranslated in other languages. and whats tradition and culture thats not is islam. on the table below the words, tradition or culture that ottoman empire resulted in changing from peaceful to violence.
(before ottoman empire) (after ottoman empire)
the word muslim or islam meaning: submitting to one god or any person fellowed islam, christian, jewish. muslim or islam meaning: a person who fellow islam only.
the word "Kafer": any person who act barbaric or savage. "Kafer" meaning: any person who do not practice radical islam.
do not argue with anyone about religion. argue with everyone about religion because muslim religion is perfect.
the word "Jihad" meaning: achievements in life. the word "Jihad" meaning: killing anyone that not muslim.
religion is not meant be extermist or radical, but successful. religion is to be stubborn and its like sword.
woman are our nurses, mothers and the key of happiness. woman are something a man need only. and force is the best way to treat them.
ottoman empire ruled from Morroco to pakistan nearly 500 years caused muslims to suffer uncivilized ideology. the ottoman empire resulted heavily radical muslims today that they believe there are no history before islam and denying any history before islam, while in Qura'n has rich history before islam. also they believe islam is sword and radical muslim very stubborn. on other hand, Qura'n rich of how to treat people with respect. for example, "Do not argue with the People of the Book except only by the best manner, except the unjust among them. Tell them, "We believe in what is revealed to us and to you. Our Lord and your Lord is one. We have submitted ourselves to His will". — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Samiaqel (
talk •
contribs) 09:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There is too much Ottoman pictures in this article, Topkapi palace, the last so-called Caliph, Nicopolis and finally the Anti-Hijab picture is going to flare up Islamophobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.8.220 ( talk) 15:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Most Muslims will completely agree that the last Caliph of Islam was Ali ibn Abi Talib not the Ottoman Sultan..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.22.101 ( talk) 15:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
This article needs more information on Islamic Theology and Sufism..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.8.220 ( talk) 15:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please Remove the image depicting the angel and MOHAMMED(Peace be upon him) in Articles of faith -God section.
Drawing pictures of MOHAMMED(Peace be upon him) is unacceptable by all the Muslim world and we strictly condemn it. Khadeer4u786 ( talk) 09:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Not done: see WP:NOTCENSORED. Cannolis ( talk) 09:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Septate attempted to remove the Muahammad/angel image yet again with this edit. Aside from the edit warring and clearly having no consensus to do this (per earlier talk page thread), please note that this was done with the dishonest edit summary that he "moved image to the right section". I have reinstated the image, but Septate's edit summaries need to be treated with caution. DeCausa ( talk) 20:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Islamism’s New Clothes DECEMBER 22, 2011 The New York Review of Books Jean Daniel, translated from the French by Antony Shugaar 99.181.147.68 ( talk) 03:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
So Islam was invented by Muhammad sometime prior to 632. Why isn't this reflected in the first paragraph, as it is with all other religions articulated with a history notable enough to discern the creator of the religion in question, al la Scientology or Mormonism? I noticed the same thing lacking on the Christianity article, and am about to raise the same question, it's clearly an NPOV breach, and is clearly a feigned attempt to legitimize a religion as being derived from a supernatural entity as opposed to being created by a specific leader of the faith and his other religious folks who penned their holy books respectively.
Could we get this fixed, please? I'd like to at least be able to tell myself this is an encyclopedia and not a place for people to type out their belief systems verbatim and go unchallenged in neutrality. 211.30.150.122 ( talk) 10:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest the word worship, whereever it appears is replaced with obedience or obedience with submission : "acts of worship (`ibādah) and Islamic law (sharia)" as the term worship is inaccurate - implying ritualistic and devotional type activities, whilst the Arabic term refers to a more comprehensive obedience with full submission to God - classical Arabic dictionaries define it as obedience, for instance Lisaan al-Arab or al-Qamoos al-Muhit. -- Missyis21 ( talk) 01:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Sir, The Ahmaddiyya is not even a minor denomination.they are not muslim(not being extreamist it is the truth). Regards,
Aaimabc (
talk) 13:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Taliban claim to be islamist but are they recognized as such by muslims scholars? Didn't mainstream muslims regard them as terrorist?
At any rate, it is suggested to improve the ending phrase of the paragraph "Jurispridence > Family Life", as Taliban is not a reference nor an exception to the standards; hence one could say : "Certain countries like Afghanistan, have enforced the veil onto women, while other countries like egypt have left this issue to the private realm".
Excuse me as I don't have in mind a sound reference to counter-argument Esposito's view (but I could search for it if asked) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khonsali ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Terrorist = Extremists of Islamism Mainstream Muslims = those promoted as Mainstream Paulthorne87 ( talk) 05:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The word "Islam" is a homograph and has also the meaning of "peace", look up at Arabian wikipedia, there is written: "The general meaning of the word Islam is peace and submission to God, [2]", translated with Google. -- 212.144.20.132 ( talk) 10:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I see this article talks extensively about Mahomet, but why no mention of the other Muslim deities Termagant, Apollo, and Baphomet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubrath ( talk • contribs) 02:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
In this article, I found that it is extremely well cited. Anyway, what is wrong in it? Regards. Muhammad Mukhriz ( talk) 12:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
With respect, there seems to be a heavy use of religious phasing style in the article text that does not follow encyclopedic style. For example: "and that Muhammad is His prophet," (the quite symbols are mine. This is direct text in the article and not a quote in the article). The use of "His" seems non-standard English. Should this not be "God's prophet," even if this may be standard usage in religious text or perhaps a direct quote should be used?
Another minor point is: "compiled in the 3rd century AH (9th century CE)." Seems to violate the use of CE as the standard timeline in the dictionary. There could be mention of the AH calendar elsewhere in the article.
To keep wiki consistent, writing styles should be the same crisp, direct and unambiguous language regardless if it an article on economic cycles, WiFi technology or religion. While the information is very informative, the language could use a good scrubbing by a good editor for wiki consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.157.252.114 ( talk) 21:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Titodutta ( talk · contribs) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I am starting review. Please feel free to join! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I have read the article before starting review. The article looks very impressive and well written, but, still long way to go before making any conclusion!
Basic problems | Comment |
---|---|
The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability | No problem! |
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{ cleanup}}, {{ wikify}}, {{ POV}} | No! |
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars | No! |
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. | No problem |
First look assessment: Ok! There is not any "basic problem" in the article, and we can start the review in detail now. -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
There are few WP:DEADREF in the article, see here, please correct these dead references. -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The Qur'an was reportedly written down by Muhammad's companions (sahabah) while he was alive - Please clarify this sentence. Who reported this? Where (I mean in which book etc.)? -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
There is one citation needed template in this section after this sentence In practice, Islamic rulers frequently bypassed the Sharia courts with a parallel system of so-called "Grievance courts" over which they had sole control., add the citation! -- Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is a list of the edits I am doing while reviewing. Basically these are all minor edits (a reviewer can make minor changes himself to improve the article.) Feel free to revert/change my edits. |
Edit summary | See the edit | Comment |
---|---|---|
Added CE after years 610 and 632 | See the edit here | Add your comment here (if any)! |
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | A major issue ( Islamic terrorism) has been completely omitted. This was present in the version of the article that brought it featured article status.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 16:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC) | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
This review appears to have missed the fact that the article has the follwing unaddressed cleanup tags which need sorting if it is to become GA class: [Wikipedia articles needing clarification (November 2010), Articles with dead external links (April 2012), Articles with unsourced statements (November 2010), Vague or ambiguous geographic scope (January 2012)] as some of them date from November 2010, clearly the article should be quickfailed. Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm new at the review process, so forgive me if I stumble a little, but I've been editing this article for a while. You say that the featured article version contained reference to Islamic Terrorism. Would you be so kind as to link that version? It might even be so simple as re-including it. Peter Deer ( talk) 17:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
(I have added a reference for 1.6 billion followers and over 23% of earth's population because it has breakdown of every country and region. The reference is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 18:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
ok. you can revert it back. MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I have added a link for 1.6 billion population: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/10/09/pew-world-muslim-population-at-16-billion-with-minority-in-middle-east MohammedBinAbdullah ( talk) 16:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
About 13% of Muslims live in Indonesia, "the largest Muslim country",25% in South Asia,[10] 20% in the Middle East,[11] 2% in Central Asia, 4% in the remaining South East Asian countries, and 15% in Sub-Saharan Africa.
South Asia "the largest Muslin Country" with 25% or Indonesia? Should be reedited for better clarification. --ER 13:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 ( talk • contribs)
ok, lol,... USER:Fat&Happy, yes the information is sourced. But the sentence doesn't make sense. How can Indonesia with 13% of Muslims be the "largest Muslim country" When in the same sentence it states that the middle east has 20%? This doesn't make sense. Because I am a nice guy I went and pulled an actual source that would support this much better, here it goes:
The largest Muslim country is Indonesia home to 12.7% of the world's Muslims followed by Pakistan (11.0%), India (10.9%), and Bangladesh (9.2%). [1] [2] --ER 04:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwinramos2 ( talk • contribs)
I have been dealing quite some time with the concept of human equality in Islam. I have been told that there is a very specific social tenet of social and human equality mentioned in this religion, the so-mentioned concept of Universal Brotherhood. I couldn't find any reference to most important tenet of Islam mentioned here. I do not think that any other religion does mention such a thing. Could one of the editors bring in this subject, with some element of how it is practiced in Arabic, and how it cannot be practiced in other languages of Asia, which are feudal.
Also, the issue of Arab Slaver traders, who were Islam, and could practice equality among themselves, but couldn't force themselves to see the enslaved as equal human beings. -- Ved from Victoria Institutions ( talk) 08:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Narrated 'Aisha (the wife of the Prophet): Um Habiba and Um Salama mentioned about a church they had seen in Ethiopia in which there were pictures. They told the Prophet about it, on which he said, "If any religious man dies amongst those people they would build a place of worship at his grave and make these pictures in it. They will be the worst creature in the sight of Allah on the Day of Resurrection." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majilis ( talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Clarification This user recently removed a picture from the article, which was restored by several different users including my self. He justified the removal as above when contacted. I believe his goal with this post is to begin a discussion about removing pictures of human beings, based on my recommendation to him I can only assume. I have restored this section which was deleted by another user as a "Forum." Granted it is, seeing as the editor has already been blocked over this once, I feel that his suggestion should at least see some light. I am not a part of this discussion. I am only clarifying what I believe to be the intent of this editors post, based on previous interaction. Even though I am not a part of this discussion, I would appreciate knowing the outcome in case edits similar to those which resulted in this user's block come up again on this article. AndrewN talk 09:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
If it is helpful to you, there is a relevant discussion regarding images of the Prophet Muhammad which covers most of the same policies and ideas. As it has 25 archive pages, it should give you an idea how much we've gone over this. Peter Deer ( talk) 03:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Taking pictures of human beings is NOT forbidden in Islam. The Prophet was specifically addressing images of Jesus, Mary, or other holy people inside the church, or other holy people connected to other religions. Camera pictures, videos or artwork of ordinary people are allowed.-- 182.177.63.22 ( talk) 01:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
It was discussed, all not too long ago, as to why this article has virtually nothing on Islamic terrorism in it. It seems no one could/wanted to add anything to the article on this. There should be a short section on terrorism in a similar fashion to the criticism of Islam part, along with a link to the main article. Any thoughts? -- Τασουλα ( talk) 02:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
(Apologise about my spelling and grammar) I have been a great fan of wikipedia but I have seen a couple of problems like the Prophet mohamed images. I have read some of the faq about censorship. Just because ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored) that doesn't mean it to offend it's users. As wikipedia needs new users from a variety of background to keep it a neutral.
My suggestion is it possibe to hide some of this images by using ( ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Summer_Olympics) The sponsors table ). Therefore if you want to see it you will be able to press the show button.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.138.230 ( talk) 06:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I deleted "one of the fastest-growing religions in the world." because this is dubious according to the linked article and not mentioned in any other Religions' articles.
Christianity
Growth rate: 1.38 percent
Adherents: 2.2 billion
Means in absolute numbers 30 million
Islam
Growth rate*: 1.84 percent
Adherents: 1.3 billion
Means in absolute numbers 24 million
( http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2007/05/13/the_list_the_worlds_fastest_growing_religions)
Clickenglish ( talk) 18:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Given this comment I can only assume that you didn't understand what was written above. Can you explain which part of what I wrote you are having trouble with. By the way this was supposed to explain that there are a large number of Muslims in what has been not traditionally thought of as Islamic not more Muslim majority countries. CambridgeBayWeather ( talk) 05:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
As the phrase of Haji Bektash Veli "Whatever you're searching for, search in yourself, It's neither in Jerusalem, Mecca nor in the Hadj", the five pillars of Islam are not for Alevi people in Turkey and Balkans. They don't workship 5 times a day (namaz), they don't go for the Hadj. They also don't fast in Ramadans. Maybe that should be mentioned in "Five Pillars of Islam" section. -- Cemyildiz ( talk) 21:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is no sect in ISLAM called ahmaddiyah, so my request is to change sect section in islam with some reliable sources you can watch videos of Islamic scholar on ahmadiyah that they are not muslims and not promoting right religion Practices and they are not in circle of islam because they belive that mirza ghulam qadiyani was last prophet and that is not true. Our beloved Prophet MOHAMMAD pbuh was the last prophet and seal of prophets and messenger. Your attention is highly required on this issue.
Rjab1 ( talk) 00:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Based on the above reply, consensus will be needed before any changes are done.
RudolfRed (
talk) 04:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)There is a sect in Islam named the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. One thing that I like to suggest to the author of this article is that Ahmadiyya Muslim Community does beleive that the most respected Prophet, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the last law bearing prophet. The fact that they don't beleive in the Holy Prophet as the last prophet is an accusation that other Muslims put on the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to show that they are no true Muslims which is completely wrong. 12:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Wikiknownow ( talk)
Dear Author of the article Islam I thank you for adding the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community as one of the sects of Islam. There is a sect in Islam named the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. One thing that I like to suggest for this article is that Ahmadiyya Muslim Community does beleive that the most respected Prophet, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), is the last law bearing prophet. The fact that they don't beleive in the Holy Prophet as the last prophet is an accusation that other Muslims put on the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to show that they are no true Muslims which is completely wrong. I would extremely appreciate it if you could make that change. May God shower His blessings upon you and your loved ones, Amen. Wikiknownow ( talk) 12:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
To many non-Muslims (especially in the west), the propensity to breed extremism and violent fundamentalism is one of the defining characteristics of Islam. This is in fact the only exposure to Islam that most westerners ever see. And it is inarguable that Islamic extremism is the most widespread form of religious extremism in the world today. So why isn't there a paragraph or two in the article dealing with the topic of extremism? It would certainly be expected of a truly neutral article to discuss the most widely-known aspect of a religion. Canine virtuoso ( talk) 04:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
This should not be hidden under Criticism of Islam. It's not a small and isolated issue. 32.97.110.55 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC).
Seems there's already an extensive article on Wikipedia about Islamic Terrorism. I added a link to the article in the See Also section. Added it once before but it was deleted, so I readded it. Canine virtuoso ( talk) 01:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it should under the criticism of islam section. Muhammad Bin Abdullah ( talk) 19:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
America is paying its hooligans to stage protests. America knows very well that the 99.9% of Muslims do not give a damn about ridiculous films and will not react in anyway. The Quran clearly says that if anybody comes to fight, you have to fight but if they insult Islam from far simply ignore them and don't give them the satisfaction of a reaction. America knows that the 99.9% of Muslims will not give them the satisfaction of a reaction. So they are paying the 0.1% to stage protests and use that to try and make the 99.9% Muslims feel bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsUtvOW6SR0
This needs to be put in the article of how the main people who control western countries who are atheist and are concerned only with their interests and their two servants that they use occasionally from time to time the Christian fundamentalists and European Jews are using fake Muslims, people posing as Muslims to cause trouble to the Muslim community. This is in contrast to China that is more interested in equality and rise of Asia and Africa and end of western de facto colonialism. All Muslim scholars are in agreement that these are manufactured protests to demonize Muslims and cause problems for the China-Muslim-Africa alliance. Real Muslims ( talk) 15:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Proposal for removing prefixes "Islamic views on xyz" | ||
I have started a request move to remove the prefixes Attached with the Prophets in Islam to there Names as in Islam. Like Islamic views on Abraham → Ibrahim as it becomes difficult to search the topic. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Page Thanks. -- Ibrahim ebi ( talk) 19:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC) |
The definition of Tawhid currently written under the Etymology and meaning section states "Islām is defined theologically as Tawhid, historically by asserting that Muhammad is messenger of God, and doctrinally by mandating five basic and fundamental pillars of practice".
I think it would be a more thorough definition if one were to rephrase as such, "Islām is defined theologically as Tawhid, historically by asserting that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the messenger of Allah, and doctrinally by mandating five basic and fundamental pillars of practice".
-- Anas93 ( talk) 18:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
There was a mistake in the article. The Prophets tomb is still in Madina and was not demolished. You could see many photos of it on Google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The fast is dawn to sunset not dusk. Minor important point. Thanks Leroyjohn 01/25/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroyjohn ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
As some have probably noticed, I'm trying to do a little work on the references in this article. In their current form they're not particularly useful, since they just give the author's last name, date, and page numbers. Putting them in the Harv templates creates an internal link to the full citation in the References section below. I noticed that many of the references are already in a Harvard-like format already, and it looks almost like they were in Harv templates but that the templates got Subst'd at some point. Does anybody know anything about the history here? ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 18:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
after Muhammeds names saw which means peace be apon you. Could you edit this in brackets and muslims belieave they are reverts not converts 94.170.73.178 ( talk) 23:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed that the principle scripture of Islam is listed in the article as the "Qu'ran", "Quran" and even lowercase, "quran". Can somebody determine the proper canonical term and apply it uniformly throughout the article? I would do it but I'm not religious scholar, but I feel at least it should be uniform. Jefferson1957 ( talk) 05:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC) ABCDE
There is no official spelling or "proper canonical term" for the Quran with the Latin alphabet because the word is native to Arabic, which uses a different writing system. There are several different methods of translating it, which is probably why there are different spellings throughout the article. Fhqwgads ( talk) 17:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The term is sometimes spelt "Koran" and sometimes "Qu'ran" - this would reflect the fact that it is a transliteration of the Arabic alphabet, which, unlike the Latin alphabet, has 28 letters in it. ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 16:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I removed the heterodox designation for several reasons; the source does not mention it, every denomination has been branded as heretic at some point, it has two sub-groups which are quite different so we would have to be more specific - something which Hamza Yusuf has also pointed out. Pass a Method talk 12:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
There are quite a few instances of referencing the quran as a source in this article. By Wikipedia policy, editors should avoid primary sources so I plan to look into cleaning up and some help would be nice. Sodicadl ( talk) 01:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
The list could go on. It is just a vocabulary meaning, you can't alter that. Tahrif just mean the corruption of texts. Runehelmet ( talk) 14:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Poland company has released to market nail polish systems O2M, which allows to nail comes steam. Nail polish is not inconsistent with the rules of Islam, but the water during ritual ablutions before prayer has touched every part of the face and hands. Before this invention, a Muslim is required to remove the paint before each prayer or nail polish only during menstruation, because then they don`t˙ go to prayer. Varnish containing polymer that is commonly used in eye leaflets, according to the Croatian daily Glas Slavonia. 78.2.89.249 ( talk) 18:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned in this talk page in the section immediately above and in my brief edit summaries, wikipedia policy is to avoid using primary sources as references, which the user Johnleeds1 has done numerously. Again, see WP:NPS. The user has also used such sources in lengthy quotations numerously. Once again, see WP:QUOTE.
Before this user came along, the article was already long enough (>120,000) when it should be more summarized (see WP:LENGTH and WP:SS) and the point had been repeatedly established about moving the history section away from political history. I removed much but not all of those history sections edits. If johnleeds1 wishes, he/she can move them to their own articles if applicable.
Johnleeds1, you mentioned to me that “If you want people to make changes please just consult with them”. I did send you a message in the brief summary and on your talk page concerning your edits, even though that is not required Wikipedia policy.
Johnleeds1, you also mentioned that “I spent months researching all this and you should have just asked before doing a mass delete.” That you spent that much time is not exactly relevant to if an edit stays or not. Sodicadl ( talk) 23:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Over the last few months, I have done a lot of work to tie the Islam page to the other pages in Wikipedia about Islam, chronologically. I only put links to the other articles on wikipedia about actual events agreed to by every denomination and the historians. These articles have an important bearing on the development of the different denominations, as most the differences between these denominations are political. They are not about the concept of God, as in many other religions, as the concept of God is well defined in the Quran. So they differ on politics i.e. who has the right to rule. That is why the History section has expanded. If you look at the Christianity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) or the Judaism page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiasm) they are also long with lots of links to other pages. These are old religions, with lots of followers.
I would like to shift the history section more towards the development of the schools of thought and the early books. I also wanted to include a diagram to show the links between the early scholars. I have already done a lot of work in writing the Denominations sections and showing people how Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, Muhammad al-Baqir, Zayd ibn Ali, Jafar al-Sadiq, Abu Hanifa, and Malik ibn Anas worked together in Madina. How Al-Shafi‘i was taught by Malik ibn Anas. Ahmad ibn Hanbal was taught by Al-Shafi‘i. How Muhammad al-Bukhari travelled every where collecting hadith and why he did it. During the early Medina period all these imams studied together and the chains of hadith narration show this.
The academics divide the history of Islam into Mecca Period and the Madina Period for the Quran. Then the Madina period of the scholars, where the views of the scholars are very close and books like Muwatta were written by scholars like Malik ibn Anas. Then the Kufa period where the schools of thought begin to diverge taking into consideration the different ethnic mixes, urban populations, old Roman and Persian laws in those areas, the Greek ideas and the problems the jurists faced. Then to reduce the divergence, ash-Shafi'i proposed giving priority to the Qur'an and the Hadith (the practice of Muhammad) and only then look at the consensus of the Muslim jurists (ijma), and analogical reasoning (qiyas), which resulted in jurists like Muhammad al-Bukhari dedicating their lives to the collection of the correct Hadith, in books like Sahih al-Bukhari.
To shift the history sections to the history of Islam, we need to change the titles as currently they are focused to towards the political history. Shift them towards important early scholars and their early books. These early books are a snapshot in time.
In the History sections we could have titles like
Muhammad and the Quran
Early Scholars of Madina and Muwatta
Kufa and Baghdad - schools of thought and Hadith collections
Safavids and Salafi
Modern times
Then I could fit the history into the development of the denominations. The history has an important bearing on the development of the denominations.
I have put a diagram on the Fiqh page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh) of the relationship between the different early scholars but it may be a bit complex for the Islam page. But it shows that all these early scholars worked together and the chains of hadith naration also follow these lines.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 ( talk • contribs) 08:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC) -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 08:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with what DeCausa said above about Primary vs. Secondary sources. The article should use secondary sources. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 15:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I just found that there is a huge number of templates on this article that are not been displaced properly because they have exceed the number of templates recommended to be used by an article.I have tried to remove the chart that uses Template:Familytree and recommend that it should be made as a separate template or moved to another relevant article. The article also need a major trim off and the heading "Rightly Guided Caliphs, Umayyad, Abbasid era (632–1258)" should either moved to the relevant section or it should be shortened. -- Ibrahim ebi ( talk) 07:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The references in the article were not showing up, or is it just me? Checking the history of the article, this happened after the Allah template was added. I tried removing that and previewing and the references showed up again. I am not sure it has to do with the number of templates as I tried deleting the other templates and previewing and the problem still remained. Sodicadl ( talk) 06:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Initial section - 'islam is one of the world's fastest growing relations': every religion claims the same thing. The fact this sentence says 'one of the' suggests it could be one of many or one of few. I think this sentence should be removed as it is propaganda and not fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.201.64 ( talk) 00:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
After years of studying the religions of the world, Islam included, I have noticed something odd. In Afghanistan, the Pashtun people seem to follow a different sect. While I see no mention or Spirits, Magic or Spellcasters in Islam, the Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan cling very much to these beliefs, on top of their Islamic ideals. A good example would be the dotted tattoos seen on Pashtun warriors' hands, believed to confer luck and skill in battle (Tattooed on by a "wise woman"). Or the ornamentation of trucks, believed to ward off evil spirits. I haven't seen these anywhere else I have traveled in the Islamic world (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia). I could be my ignorance, but are these "trends" common across Islam, or is this unique to the Pashtun tribe? The Tajik and Hazara tribes do not seem to hold these beliefs. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army Infantryman ( talk) 18:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
How is Al qaeda, a significant militant force and political player who's sole purpose is to advance the cause of Islam, mentioned nowhere on the page? -- Jacksoncw ( talk) 00:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no mentioning of Sunni Barelvi Movement in the Article.which is significant movement in the world with in Islam.The picture showing various movements in the article does not show Sunni Barelvi as movement. Shabiha ( talk) 17:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I came to this article to find out why Muslims don't eat pork. I couldn't find anything at all in the article! When I was about to give up, I noticed the Islam and animals link in 'See also', but that too only seems to devote one line to the subject. Am I missing something? The avoidance of pork seems to be a well-known fact about Islam and has been covered recently in the UK news because of the adulteration of supermarket meat products. Should there at least be a paragraph covering the issue? Sionk ( talk) 11:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Under "Denominations/Other Denominations" there is currently an entry reading: "Karaite-Karaism or Karaimism a transitional religion between Mosaism and proto-Shiism, was brought from Khorezm to the Sabians of the Bosporan Kingdom (Southern Russia) after the Umayyad attack of 712AD. [sourced here: [3]]" I am doubtful of the accuracy of this assertion, of the designation of any form of Karaism as a denomination of Islam, and of the accuracy of the obviously strongly POV-problematic source cited; I note that nonetheless neither that source nor the Wikipedia page to which "Karaite-Karaism or Karaimism" is linked mention it as a denomination of Islam. Is there a reason to keep such an assertion on this page? Lyrelyre ( talk) 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Some Muslim authorities, especially among the Shi'a and Sufis, distinguish between the "greater jihad", which pertains to spiritual self-perfection, and the "lesser jihad", defined as warfare
Sunni claim this aswell, as much as the shia and sunni, check your own sources :) thanks in advance Abouantar ( talk) 07:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, this is regarding the main Islam article. I just wanted to bring to your attention the fact that the Arabic translation of 'prophets' (as given in the Prophets section of the article) is wrong, as it gives the Arabic word's singular form. The pluralised form of 'نبي' is in fact 'أنبياء'. You can check this in the Hans Wehr dictionary (p.1105), the Aratools website ( http://aratools.com/) as well as google translate. So please change the Arabic text in the aforementioned section to 'أنبياء'. Thank you. Kafir Madrus ( talk) 15:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure, so I would say the correct romanisation would be anbīa or anbīa', with the apostrophe to indication the 'ء', which is pronounced as a glottal stop. Personal I would include the apostrophe, otherwise the word could be أنبيا, but I am not sure if wikipedia has some sort of standardised way in which romanisation of Arabic is done. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kafir Madrus ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing rigorous in religion, certainly not the Abrahamic ones. Suggest text in the "God" § be redacted to "rigid monotheism". Rigour is a property of modern intellectual sectors such as
mathematical rigour Still think this is wrong/misleading but per edit I just made to
rigor this would be valid in the sense of "hard" which is not what "rigor" in works of the mind means in a modern context. It would be inconsistent not to support the usage that doesn't fit there here where it does. "Exacting" or the like would obviate the equivocation.
76.180.168.166 (
talk) 05:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the Islam Template is not collapsed by default? Otr500 ( talk) 15:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
An editor has removed the "An overview of the major schools and branches of Islam" diagram today. [17] Please can we have a discussion of whether it should be deleted or whether it should stay. This diagram replaced an earlier one "Some of the major movements in Islam".
The diagram is very imperfect in that it does not mention two of the Islamic sects commonly mentioned in the press: the Salafists and the Wahhabis. In that respect the older one is better. However the older one does not mention the Twelvers, who are so often promoted on Wikipedia, almost as if they were the only Shias.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 15:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
pewmuslim1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I put the diagram of the early scholars and their books back because you could link off it to all the main early scholars and their books. It graphically represents the links between the early teachers and their students and their books and is the foundation to understanding the links between the sects and the chains of narration of the hadiths. Most importantly it shows that the early scholars all worked together but unfortunately these days, their followers do not get on with each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
John Leeds asked me to comment on the latest version of the diagram. This is difficult.
-- Toddy1 ( talk) 19:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
|
I suggest that the article main image at the top is changed to this image, the featured image of this topic.
Perhaps it would be better to change it to this image, which is much more suitable to the article scope as it is a much better visual renedition of what the caption says the purpose of the picture is.
I would suggest this be done quickly as the current image is useless as a visualisation of the article subject and is clearly VERY low-quality. This would definitely lower the aesthetic of the actual article.
-- Speeditor ( talk) 16:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
There are 3 reasons why i reverted Adjwilley. Firstly the MOS was wrong, at 530 px the image took up the entire screen. Secondly, i removed original research from the first paragraph. Thirdly the second part i removed i moved to the Zaydi article, so i see no reason to have duplicate information accross two articles. Pass a Method talk 20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The following section states women, children and civilians but the reference only says women and children. "In Islam there is also no compulsion in religion, as stated in surah Al-Baqara 256 in the Quran[110][111] and there are clear limits imposed, for example, in war Muhammed prohibited the killing of women, children and civilians.[112]" Please add additional references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.242.232 ( talk) 02:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I have deleted the following paragraph - it is original research from religious primary sources - the Koran and Hadith. In addition the linking of the first statement about compulsion and the second statement about limits in war is clearly synthesis:
-- Toddy1 ( talk) 07:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of modern times Islamic terrorism? Half of all terrorist attacks are attributed to Islamic persons. [20] And the other "unknown/unspecified" terrorism fatalities happened in Islamic regions such as Iraq and Afghanistan, or in regions where Islam is otherwise involved in conflicts such as the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, southern Thailand and Kashmir.
Also, isn't Islam the only religion where its denominations have continued to kill each other? Yet, there is no mention of this.
From http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AboutSite.htm [Copyvio redacted]
I know encyclopedia articles are intended to give a historical, neutral and worldwide perspective, but this article gives no mention of any of the above. Islam has some very unique negative characteristics.-- Loomspicker ( talk) 17:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
And most of the people who bomb abortion clinics are Christian. Obviously, all Christians are murderers! See the fallacy you're presenting? Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Look, we get it, you're scared of Muslims. However, Wikipedia is not built around your fear, or your attempts to justify your fear by hypocritically misrepresenting facts about a minority as if it says anything about the majority. You're not gonna accomplish anything with this line of discussion except wasting space on the servers and annoying a few people. Ian.thomson ( talk) 19:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Peace Be upon you all, for those who think that Islam is a terrorism religion, I'll answer you in two verses from the holy Quran :
so according to the these verses, Qaeda's Improper conduct is not Islamic at all.. , My talking is certified with the sourced of the Holy Quran, the Essential reference for the Muslims. so? factually, I still in 14, but I wanted to answer your questions about Islam.. I hope that my answers were clear for you. if you have more questions please visit these sites:
-- 蛙莫格倫 ( talk) 19:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
According to many Muslims the last caliph is Ali ibn Abi Talib (the forth Rashidun caliph) not Abdulmecid II... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.76.109 ( talk) 13:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Please mention Muslims majorities in the balkans, Albania, Kosovo and parts of Eastern Europe you are missing then out these are Muslim majority countries that have not been mentioned at all. Islam is not just restricted to Asia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.12.251 ( talk) 14:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
who wrote that? we gather everywhere to pray in unity! Maybe it should write Muslims gather there for spiritual cleansing for Hajj or something rather than "pray in unity". I think it's not a good description.-- In Allah We Trust ( talk) 06:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Most of you know that most of we Muslims take it as a grave deed calling Our Beloved Prophet his forename without adding some phrase to praise him. In our belief Allah warns us so:
Do not make [your] calling of the Messenger among yourselves as the call of one of you to another. Already Allah knows those of you who slip away, concealed by others. So let those beware who dissent from the Prophet's order, lest fitnah strike them or a painful punishment. (Quran 24:63)
Therefore I suggest calling him in all English Wikipedia as the Prophet of Islam replacing all "Muhammad"s (sallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam) with the Prophet of Islam including occurrences in the article about him except its title. We are obliged to follow Article 18 of UDHR:
"Everyone has the right ... to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
Concerning worship: Observance of commandments of Quran is essential in worshipping Allah in Islam. Most of Muslims cannot add information which includes his name to Wikipedia because we cannot write his forename solely without any praising phrase. Other than that, hundreds of thousands of Muslims cannot read such occurrences of his name without feeling uneasy, because of the commandment I quoted. So we all have to figure out a neutral phrase where most of us can read without feeling discontentment. Also this way, some actions which are seen as vandalism by non-Muslims will come to an end in the future, I guess. I added this opinion in the talk page about Him. I think it is necessary to add it here, too.
So, this problem must be handled. I assume the phrase "the Prophet of Islam" is the phrase that we can end this conflict with. Using bots this can be handled in time. What will be the decision?-- SeyitC mesaj 21:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seyitserdarcihan ( talk • contribs)
Can we apply Infobox religion to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninniuz ( talk • contribs) 10:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Reason For Muhammad Prophet To Leave 'MECCA' And Go To 'MEDINA'.
Muhammad prophet left Mecca and settled to Medina because his enemies were troubling him .
-divyesh.N.V.- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divyesh nandlal ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I have heard that the topic of female circumcision is barely mentioned in the Quran if at all, and the ancient Egyptians were historically the first to practice it. However I have some religious questions concerning it's origins and occurrence. Could an Imam Marja or Shaikh please tell Wikipedia when the first female circumcision is said to occur and why, was it to create a covenant like Abraham; was eve circumcised Eve? Also are there any cases of female aposthia that are mentioned in Islamic literature outside of the Quran, is it considered a sign of some kind of great ability when it occurs in women? Lastly, what do the traditions say about Karina the first female Djin, was she circumcised or born with Aposthia? Thank you for answering questions of this nature, I know this is one of the most overly emphasized aspects of Islam in Media, however much education is still needed on the topic. CensoredScribe ( talk) 20:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
We have a talk about considering another important Abrahamic religion or not? Please come and participate in our talk in this page Abrahamic-Religions -- Wiki hamze ( talk) 10:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Under the History section, subsection "muhammed" the city name is misspelled in one instance as "Madina" instead of "Medina." I would have changed it but the page is locked. Someone with editing privileges should fix this. -Dave K.
Can someone please verify if this is a good upgrade? No text nor sources were removed, this is intended to be a straight addition, with some alterations to give more specifics. The sources were provided by User:Saleemthebody, but my *own* understanding of this particular split-denomination is entirely from *wikipedia* articles, which we all know may not be 100% trustworthy in all cases. :-)
Ahmadiyya is an Islamic reform movement (with Sunni roots) founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad [1] that began in India in 1889 and is practiced by over ten million [2] people around the world. [3] Ahmadiyyas are divided [4] into two subgroups, the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community ( 5th Khalifa of Ahmad the subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement ( 6th Emirate of Ahmad the second coming).
If this suggested version passes muster, please stick it into the article for me, since the page is locked down, and Saleem has not gotten back to me. If any troubles crop up, please ping my talkpage, I'm unable to create a watchlist-entry for this talkpage. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 17:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
p.s. See analysis of WP:UNDUE over here. User_talk:Sp33dyphil#Islam TLDR, I don't think two sentences is overblown, even if they are pretty dense with links and sources. 10M people is a good-sized chunk. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 17:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Respested Sir, I am a Muslim I read this topic(ISLAM) on Wikipedia but in this topic our Prophrt MUHAMMAD(Peace be upon Him) name come without Peace be upon Him or(PBUH) I request you kindly edit this or give me authority to edit this topic. I am very grateful to you.
Best Regards, MUHAMMAD IRFAN Irfan447 ( talk) 09:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Please add {{Other uses|Bomb (disambiguation)} to the page to help redirect all of us infidels. Thank you 76.200.118.133 ( talk) 20:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change 'Usury allows the rich to get richer without sharing in the risk' TO 'Usury which allows the rich to get richer without sharing in the risk is prohibited in Islam' 183.83.203.146 ( talk) 06:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
but how do they know when it's islamic new year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.230.199 ( talk) 11:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Many Islam buildings have a moon symbol on them, so how come the symbol isn't in the article? GMRE ( talk) 16:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that Islam had 1.9 billion followers in 2000, now they have 1.57. One reason is because the Muslim birthrate are now normalising in the West. The second could be that the Muslim birthrate is stagnating in most parts of Asia. Why is there no mention of the millions of Muslims converting out of Islam? And the increased persecution in the Middle East and Asia in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookieballer ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I wish to reopen the discussion waged previously (at least once, for example as “Muslims believe this, Muslims believe that”, from 19:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)) about making the distinction between Islam, the religion, and muslims, its followers – because there are significant differences between the official teachings of this religion, and what its followers make of it – just like there are significant differences between the Pope and the Vatican vs. Catholics.
The notion that ‘Islam’ is not preferable to use as the subject of many sentences or verbs, I think is not tenable. First of all: Islam happens to be the subject of the article, so there is good reason why the article’s statements should be about it. For statements about muslims, there’s a separate article about them.
Second: the argument that ‘Islam’ is ill suited as the subject of many verbs because it is an abstraction doesn’t hold up – Islam isn’t just some abstract idea (like the word ‘idea’), but a full-fledged religion with all the trappings (see the article!). Key source materials; normative statements and example by its authority figures etc..
Thirdly: the argument that one can’t make categorical, broad-sweeping statements about Islam, and that it would therefore be better to make equally categorical, broad-sweeping statements about its followers, makes no sense.
Fourthly: when such categorical, broad-sweeping statements about muslims go into what they believe, there is the additional scientific challenge of backing that up with suitable research / sources.
I therefore argue to let statements about Islam be phrased as such, as much as possible, and to be channeled through statements about something distinguishable from it, as little as possible ! -- GeeTeeBee ( talk) 12:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The To-do list for this article states that it: ".. should cover the fact [?!] that sharia law is only a personal law b/t someone and God (not a political or non-Muslim law), ..".
This is not a fact at all ! This seems to be an opinion of the editor, and far from neutral !
The fact is that, according to the article "
Application of sharia law by country", about ten countries have applied sharia law in full, or for the most part, including application of sharia (elements) in criminal law.
Another thirty (or more) countries apply sharia law at least to matters like ".. marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody ..".
Even though this is termed (personal)
Status law, it regulates an individuals position ".. in regards to the rest of the community ..", in other words: between a person and other persons, not just ".. b/t someone and God.. ".
As for how sharia is intended to be used, a neutral article should be very careful to reach a conclusion, and should certainly look at various sources. One aspect worth mentioning is the sharia concept of Jizya, ".. a per capita tax, levied on [...] an Islamic state's non-Muslim citizens ..", which is clearly a law pertaining to non-muslims ! -- GeeTeeBee ( talk) 09:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Moreover: the lead section of this very article states, that sharia law: ".. touches on virtually every aspect of life and society, providing guidance on multifarious topics from banking and welfare, to warfare and the environment ..". -- GeeTeeBee ( talk) 10:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tighten up prose, and fix accidentally-mangled parens, of the first entry in the Islam#Other_denominations subsection. Please change:
- Ahmadiyya is... ((no changes)) ...two subgroups: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community ( 5th Khalifa of Ahmad, who believe Ahmad to be the second coming) and subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement ( 6th Emirate of Ahmad, who believe him to be the second coming), but not a prophet.
To:
- Ahmadiyya is... ((no changes)) ...two subgroups: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community ( 5th Khalifa of Ahmad the second coming plus subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement ( 6th Emirate of Ahmad the second coming only).
Thanks to Salaamthebody for fixing up the accuracy of my original suggestion made at Talk:Islam. This change-request is not intended to adjust the meaning of the words currently in mainspace, but merely to fix parens and omit needless words.
74.192.84.101 ( talk) 21:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- ...two subgroups: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community ( 5th Khalifa of Ahmad, who believe Ahmad to be the second coming and subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement ( 6th Emirate of Ahmad, who believe him to be the second coming, but not a prophet).
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Asking that the date of this religion be stated as A.D. .. It does not state this fact anywhere and while many other "religions" broke away from both Judaism and Christianity (Orthodoxy) to become Catholic and on and on .. At least the others say A.D. .
It is only fair that this page show the true date of this formation of Muslim religion .. That is all we are asking ..
74.4.114.94 ( talk) 12:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Fat&Happy (
talk) 18:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Farida baby ( talk) 13:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I would have liked to see Osama bin Laden being mentioned here because he is a notable figure. If muslims condemn what he did, even that should be mentioned. The slogan of Islam is, 'La Ilahi il Allah, Muhammadur Rasool Allah', which means Allah is the only God and Muhhammad (peace be upon him) is his prophet and that also needs a mention - it is just as important. I am new here and would prefer someone more experienced to do this.— Khabboos ( talk) 15:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please remove the picture of angel Gabriel giving a message to Muhammad (peace be upon him) as it is very offensive to Islam and all Muslims. ParadiseCars ( talk) 17:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
t •
e •
c) 18:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove an image of pig from this page. 27.106.4.70 ( talk) 04:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I undid a revision that changed the heading from "God" to "Allah". We do not translate everything into Arabic; Angels would be "malaika", revelations would be "wahy", fasting would be "sawm", government might be "hukumah". Where to draw the line? Even for those who do not know Arabic or the Arabic word for God, the English title is more accessible, while its contents explain the etymology in detail. I would judge having all titles in English, instead of some, is something we can get most editors to agree to. Sodicadl ( talk) 21:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The Shahadah (testimony) of Islam is, "I testify that there are no deities other than Allah alone and I testify that Muhammad is his Messenger", which is a fanatic one (because it means Jehovah, Yāhweh, Jesus, the Buddha, Ahura Mazda, Amun Re, the Pagan and Hindu Gods and Godesses etc. are not deities) and so, I had put it in the criticism section as well. Please tell me why it was removed, despite having the right references/citations (I'm planning to restore it in the criticism section).— Khabboos ( talk) 15:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
We have two editors who have tried to remove the image of the angel and Muhammad, each using terms giving the reason that Islam rejects images by mistakenly stating that Islam rejects the doctrine of rejecting images (i.e. aniconism or iconoclasm):
Ian.thomson ( talk) 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Wiqi55, I remind you that the belief of any religion or lack thereof does not drive any site policy or guidelines. My statement (which was not part of the article) was countering the claim that Islam, as a whole, without exception, is aniconistic; when it is in fact only portions of Islam. WP:Undue applied to this situation would be stopping someone from flooding the angels section with every bloody Islamic picture of angels and/or all the info we have on Islamic angelology, so that it was more than one paragraph was on angels with a single picture. A single picture for the whole section, especially when that section is more than a couple of lines, is well within the boundaries for due weight.
Walid562, how is it that you and Septate made the exact same total vocabulary blunder for the exact same edit? (And at any rate, zombietime is not the origin of the image, but merely copied it from it's original and true source, which would be reliable if primary source for an example of Islamic art and of Islamic depictions of angels).
Ian.thomson ( talk) 23:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Irrelevant image. The image which is coming from this website: http://www.zombietime.com/ has no significance for inclusion. Please, provide here reasons for inclusion. Thanks,-- Edmondhills ( talk) 05:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
DeCausa there won't be a general agreement, we're clearly not on the same page. If General agreement is the only way to get that image removed then there should be a general agreement for it to stay! Walid562 ( talk) 10:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia article entitled, "Islam," Islam is defined as a religion, which completely misses the essence of what it actually is. Islam is primarily a geo-politcal system of governance created to be spread by any means, worldwide. Islam includes a set of religious beliefs, but it is not a religion independent of government. Is simply is not, and any Islamic scholar knows this, as do the following skeptics about the peaceful nature of Islam: Abdullah Al-Araby, Director, The Pen vs. The Sword Publications, Serge Trifkov, Author, The Sword of the Prophet, Robert Spencer, Director of JhadWatch.org
The word Islam does not mean "peace" in the sense of no conflict, but peace that comes from having all of mankind obedient to god's perfect words as dictated to Mohammed by ArchAngel Gabriel, words that have been replaced by later Q'ran entries over time by Mohammed himself, that deprecate earlier verses. "Jihad" means struggle, both personal and at war against infidels, to become martyrs in the name of Allah.
Sure, let's be objective as possible in Wikipedia, but let's not get PC, okay? Islam is a single world governance system with a government called a "Califate," a legal system called "Sharia," and a religion that justifies in the name of Allah, the two fates for all non-believers: Conversion to Islam or subservient second-class status. This is crystal clear. Ask any scholar.
Fundamentalist Islamists follow the teachings of Islam. So called "Peaceful Muslims" are actually not practicing Islam, just a minor piece of it. And btw, Christians are Mesionic Jews either, so let's not be afraid to call a spade a space. I'll say again, Islam is not primarily a religion, but a system of world goverance.
I give donations annual donations to Wikipedia, and expect objectivity and truth, not PC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.94.3 ( talk) 08:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
many people in world believe Islam is religion of violence because of how some muslims act. on the other hand, there are mistranslating or errors of how Qura'n translated to other languages and how extremist muslim define Qura'n. If we look in history ottoman empire had huge influence on how some muslims act today which not part of Islam. for example, inheriting leadership of country from the father, this in not in islamic act. changing the name of islamic empire to ottoman empire not islamic act. ottoman declared war and high merchant tax on european causing them to suffer hunger also not islamic act. the ottoman resulted in many other changes on islam that made islamic world very violence today. therefore, i will list words mistranslated in other languages. and whats tradition and culture thats not is islam. on the table below the words, tradition or culture that ottoman empire resulted in changing from peaceful to violence.
(before ottoman empire) (after ottoman empire)
the word muslim or islam meaning: submitting to one god or any person fellowed islam, christian, jewish. muslim or islam meaning: a person who fellow islam only.
the word "Kafer": any person who act barbaric or savage. "Kafer" meaning: any person who do not practice radical islam.
do not argue with anyone about religion. argue with everyone about religion because muslim religion is perfect.
the word "Jihad" meaning: achievements in life. the word "Jihad" meaning: killing anyone that not muslim.
religion is not meant be extermist or radical, but successful. religion is to be stubborn and its like sword.
woman are our nurses, mothers and the key of happiness. woman are something a man need only. and force is the best way to treat them.
ottoman empire ruled from Morroco to pakistan nearly 500 years caused muslims to suffer uncivilized ideology. the ottoman empire resulted heavily radical muslims today that they believe there are no history before islam and denying any history before islam, while in Qura'n has rich history before islam. also they believe islam is sword and radical muslim very stubborn. on other hand, Qura'n rich of how to treat people with respect. for example, "Do not argue with the People of the Book except only by the best manner, except the unjust among them. Tell them, "We believe in what is revealed to us and to you. Our Lord and your Lord is one. We have submitted ourselves to His will". — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Samiaqel (
talk •
contribs) 09:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There is too much Ottoman pictures in this article, Topkapi palace, the last so-called Caliph, Nicopolis and finally the Anti-Hijab picture is going to flare up Islamophobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.8.220 ( talk) 15:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Most Muslims will completely agree that the last Caliph of Islam was Ali ibn Abi Talib not the Ottoman Sultan..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.22.101 ( talk) 15:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
This article needs more information on Islamic Theology and Sufism..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.8.220 ( talk) 15:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please Remove the image depicting the angel and MOHAMMED(Peace be upon him) in Articles of faith -God section.
Drawing pictures of MOHAMMED(Peace be upon him) is unacceptable by all the Muslim world and we strictly condemn it. Khadeer4u786 ( talk) 09:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Not done: see WP:NOTCENSORED. Cannolis ( talk) 09:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Septate attempted to remove the Muahammad/angel image yet again with this edit. Aside from the edit warring and clearly having no consensus to do this (per earlier talk page thread), please note that this was done with the dishonest edit summary that he "moved image to the right section". I have reinstated the image, but Septate's edit summaries need to be treated with caution. DeCausa ( talk) 20:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)