![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 360 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This page is misleading because it says that European had a mistaken belief about Muslims, and that the term "Christian" is based on the worship of Christ. There is a source about what "some Europeans believed". Okay, I am sure that some Europeans were mistaken, just as I am sure that some Muslims were mistaken about how the English language works. The term "Christian" comes from belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and not from worship of Christ. Mohammedan and Christian are analogous to many other terms, such as Lutheran, Buddhist, Confucian, Calvinist, etc. They mean following the teachings, not worship. Some Muslims object to the term Mohammedan anyway, but this objection should not be extended to leave the reader entirely false impressions about what Europeans believed and how English works. I have made a couple of edits to partially correct the article, but they have been reverted. Please address the issues here. Roger ( talk) 22:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
"Some modern Muslims have objected to the term, saying that the term was not used by Muhammad himself or his early followers" Muhammad and his followers spoke Arabic, not English.
"Muslims believe "Mohammedan" is a misnomer, "which seem[s] to them to carry the implication of worship of Mohammed, as Christian and Christianity imply the worship of Christ."" So all the Lutherans I know are worshippers of Martin Luther?
"Also, the term al-Muḥammadīya has been used in Islam to denote several sects considered heretical." al-Muhammadiya is an Arabic word, Mohammedan is an English one. The fact that they sound alike is no more relevant than any other pair of sound alike words in two languages.
All of these "objections" seem like utterly ridiculous attempts to force one language's rules and norms onto another. How has anyone been able to raise these "objections" without having the hearer just laugh in their face?-- Khajidha ( talk) 15:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I have been restoring the picture on Mohammedan as it was removed without proper discussion however it does seem to be a fairly poor image that doesn't add much, certainly nothing essential, to the article so I thought I would ask what people think about it. Should it be removed or replaced with a different image?
Also, I have read the instructions on hiding the images which some people find offensive. They are rather complicated and limited in scope to specific images or all images on specific articles. Instead, would it be possible to provide simple tickbox based preferences for people who do not wish to see certain categories of images. It is a bit poor to tell readers to fiddle with their CSS as non-technical people may see this as an unhelpful fob off. If we could give them a simple tickbox that deals with their objections in an easy and effective way then I think that would help avoid disputes and edit wars. People on both sides of the argument could work together to get all the offensive images correctly categorised and we could turn something disruptive and divisive into something constructive that meets the needs of all readers. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who has vehemently defended the inclusion of Muhammad images in the Muhammad article, I must say that I find the lead image highly inappropriate for this article, for the following reasons:
For those reasons, I would advocate removal of the lead image. It could be replaced by one of the many images we have of Hajj Pilgrimage, such as this or this. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 16:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this and I think I may have an idea that could satisfy everybody: As this is an article about an obsolete term then maybe it would be possible to show the cover of an old book that uses the word "Mohammedan" in its title or subtitle. That would be literally illustrating the subject of the article, which is the word itself. Copyright should not be an issue if we find something old enough. If the book remains in print under a revised title then that would be perfect as we could note that to demonstrate the depreciation of the word, which is a key point the article has to convey. I have not found anything that fits this brief perfectly but I have found these two:
Also, I found some examples of the term still in use:
Maybe this is worth a mention? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mohammedan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Many adjectives have been used to describe the religion and culture of Islam:
I'm sure I can find plenty of RS to discuss the history, meaning, implications, and significance of the different terms, and I think it would be worthwhile to discuss all that in one place. So I propose to rename this article Adjectives for Islam and discuss them all here. -- Macrakis ( talk) 16:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 360 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This page is misleading because it says that European had a mistaken belief about Muslims, and that the term "Christian" is based on the worship of Christ. There is a source about what "some Europeans believed". Okay, I am sure that some Europeans were mistaken, just as I am sure that some Muslims were mistaken about how the English language works. The term "Christian" comes from belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and not from worship of Christ. Mohammedan and Christian are analogous to many other terms, such as Lutheran, Buddhist, Confucian, Calvinist, etc. They mean following the teachings, not worship. Some Muslims object to the term Mohammedan anyway, but this objection should not be extended to leave the reader entirely false impressions about what Europeans believed and how English works. I have made a couple of edits to partially correct the article, but they have been reverted. Please address the issues here. Roger ( talk) 22:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
"Some modern Muslims have objected to the term, saying that the term was not used by Muhammad himself or his early followers" Muhammad and his followers spoke Arabic, not English.
"Muslims believe "Mohammedan" is a misnomer, "which seem[s] to them to carry the implication of worship of Mohammed, as Christian and Christianity imply the worship of Christ."" So all the Lutherans I know are worshippers of Martin Luther?
"Also, the term al-Muḥammadīya has been used in Islam to denote several sects considered heretical." al-Muhammadiya is an Arabic word, Mohammedan is an English one. The fact that they sound alike is no more relevant than any other pair of sound alike words in two languages.
All of these "objections" seem like utterly ridiculous attempts to force one language's rules and norms onto another. How has anyone been able to raise these "objections" without having the hearer just laugh in their face?-- Khajidha ( talk) 15:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I have been restoring the picture on Mohammedan as it was removed without proper discussion however it does seem to be a fairly poor image that doesn't add much, certainly nothing essential, to the article so I thought I would ask what people think about it. Should it be removed or replaced with a different image?
Also, I have read the instructions on hiding the images which some people find offensive. They are rather complicated and limited in scope to specific images or all images on specific articles. Instead, would it be possible to provide simple tickbox based preferences for people who do not wish to see certain categories of images. It is a bit poor to tell readers to fiddle with their CSS as non-technical people may see this as an unhelpful fob off. If we could give them a simple tickbox that deals with their objections in an easy and effective way then I think that would help avoid disputes and edit wars. People on both sides of the argument could work together to get all the offensive images correctly categorised and we could turn something disruptive and divisive into something constructive that meets the needs of all readers. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who has vehemently defended the inclusion of Muhammad images in the Muhammad article, I must say that I find the lead image highly inappropriate for this article, for the following reasons:
For those reasons, I would advocate removal of the lead image. It could be replaced by one of the many images we have of Hajj Pilgrimage, such as this or this. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 16:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this and I think I may have an idea that could satisfy everybody: As this is an article about an obsolete term then maybe it would be possible to show the cover of an old book that uses the word "Mohammedan" in its title or subtitle. That would be literally illustrating the subject of the article, which is the word itself. Copyright should not be an issue if we find something old enough. If the book remains in print under a revised title then that would be perfect as we could note that to demonstrate the depreciation of the word, which is a key point the article has to convey. I have not found anything that fits this brief perfectly but I have found these two:
Also, I found some examples of the term still in use:
Maybe this is worth a mention? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mohammedan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Many adjectives have been used to describe the religion and culture of Islam:
I'm sure I can find plenty of RS to discuss the history, meaning, implications, and significance of the different terms, and I think it would be worthwhile to discuss all that in one place. So I propose to rename this article Adjectives for Islam and discuss them all here. -- Macrakis ( talk) 16:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)