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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 |
I'm wondering what's with this revert? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Islam&diff=654438513&oldid=654436576
Why does this article go on and on about stuff that happened hundreds, if not thousands of years ago, that's just trivial with no relevance for today, but does not mention anything about the groups following Islam right now?
If the article can go on and on about the Arab regimes of ancient times, why can't it describe the today's real world???
JoeM ( talk) 03:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Users such as User:Mr. Granger may be interested to know about this ANI thread I started. Ian.thomson ( talk) 03:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Have to agree with joeM that IS is huge It is the biggest thing to happen in Islam in the last 90 years since the fall of ottomans, to say it's not worthy of being here is ridiculous
NeilN, could you explain this revert? [3]. The content was attributed, citing Frank Gaffney, a well-known scholarly source on the Middle East plus a prominent policy maker. Thanks, JoeM ( talk) 01:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Islam is not a religion of peace. 70.31.162.83 ( talk) 15:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Recent changes have been about wife beating. Please discuss here to reach a consensus. The points to be discussed seem to be neutral text and sourcing, if someone thinks other things should be discussed for example inclusion of section, they can join too. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 09:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Get consensus here before removing what already there, when there objection for removing. Just like you can't remove the Ahmadiyya religion from here without consensus even though they are not Muslims.-- LalaResne ( talk) 20:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
This is just taking too long, and may lead to an edit war. Let us all take a chill pill and just discuss the sources first then the content. I hereby invite Dustylappss, Toddy1 and LalaResne to present the sources which they think are reliable , neutral and cover the issue. We shall just discuss the sources one by one and when a source is considered good we will take content from that source. This will be better then just saying that this source is good, that source is bad. From the previous comments here I can see that no one bothers to comment on the sources, just gives his/her view about them. So please present the sources and lets see if they are good. I already gave my objections on two main sources if you can counter those please include the counter argument in your comment. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 03:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
User:CallAng222. Please could you explain which parts of the paragraph you deleted are original research, and why you consider it so. Your edit summary said that it was original research.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, have you read the book you are citing? Pages 115-116 go very well with part of the paragraph you deleted - it says:
Compare this with part of the paragraph you deleted:
-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Slooppouts34, please explain your
removal of cited information, and cite secondary sources to support your claim. A primary source like hadith can be interpreted in incorrect ways. The studying-islam.org source you cited states that it was a hit. The relevant hadith has different translations, and
thi website translates it "...He gave me a nudge on the chest which I felt...". So, for that claim, we need a more solid source. --
Fauzan
✆ talk
✉ mail 07:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The bottom line is, provide secondary sources that support your viewpoint, wikiislam cites primary sources, so that's of no use here. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail 05:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
This [ 3] source you cited above, is the same source you previously claimed to be unreliable in the slavery debate, and I therefore removed it. You cited this source above, and this source clearly states that beating is allowed, just like all the other sources you cited above. The sources you provide don't back your view.-- Slooppouts34 ( talk) 07:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Inappropriate Sources
Citations to these two sources should be deleted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Appropriate Sources
Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles page 61 includes both the point that he is not allowed to cut or bruise her when he beats her, and that it is disputed whether he can strike her face. These two points are also made in the newspaper citations that certain users have tried to delete. I suggest that a citation to Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles could be added to the article as follows:
-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The Quran allows a husband to hit his wife (lightly) if she is disobedient to him, though he is not allowed to cut or bruise her. Early jurists have interpreted this as a symbolic use of miswak, and as a last retort after exhortation. Even this measure has been discouraged in several ahadith, and the prophet never resorted to that measure. A husband is allowed to beat young children; but not adult children; and it is disputed whether he is allowed to hit his wife's face. A minority of Islamic scholars contest this interpretation.
A wife has the legitimate right to defend herself if the husband retorts to physical violence
First, I don't think we need that paragraph, it is appropriately covered in Women in Islam and Islam and domestic violence. The paragraph should be kept a bare minimum. The UAE source states "Islamic codes" so it is applicabe. I have no access to Saeed's book so can't say any thing about it. Regarding the third point, it is obvious that self defense is allowed, so it need not be mentioned. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail 07:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
This
edit request to
Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
आज आप सभी को एक सच से अवगत करता हु । आप सभी रामायण की सभी घटनाओं को जानते हैं । रामायण में सभी राक्षसों का वध हुआ था लेकिन💥 सूर्पनखा का वध नहीं हुआ था उसका नाक और कान काट कर छोड़ दिया गया था । वह कपडे से अपने चेहरे को छुपा कर रहती थी । रावन के मर जाने के बाद वह अपने पति के साथ शुक्राचार्य के पास गयी और जंगल में उनके आश्रम में रहने लगी । राक्षसों का वंस ख़त्म न हो इसलिए शुक्राचार्य ने शिव जी की आराधना की ।शिव जी ने अपना स्वरुप शुक्राचार्य को दे कर कहा की जिस दिन कोई वैष्णव इस पर गंगा जल चढ़ा देगा उस दिन राक्षसों का नाश हो जायेगा ।उस आत्म लिंग को शुक्राचार्य ने वैष्णव मतलब हिन्दुओं से दूर रेगिस्तान में स्थापित किया जो आज अरब में मक्का मदीना में है । सूर्पनखा जो उस समय चेहरा ढक कर रहती थी वो परंपरा को उसके बच्चो ने पूरा निभाया आज भी मुस्लिम औरतें चेहरा ढकी रहती हैं । सूर्पनखा के वंसज आज मुसलमान कहलाते हैं । क्युकी शुक्राचार्य ने इनको जीवन दान दिया इस लिए ये शुक्रवार को विशेष महत्त्व देते हैं । पूरी जानकारी तथ्यों पर आधारित सच है । -------------------- -------------------- 101.62.175.219 ( talk) 10:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
CallAng222, you reverted my edit in order to state that Muhammad is the "last prophet unto mankind". I changed this to simply "prophet" because some Muslims, including Ahmadi Muslims, believe that Muhammad is not the Khatam an-Nabiyyin, or "seal of the prophets", a reference to Muhammad as being the last and final prophet unto mankind. This is not adding undue weight to the claim, since Ahmadiyya is the third largest branch of Islam, and thus represents a significant portion of Islam. Moreover, if you read the entire sentence in question, you'll see that this is the current stance of the article:
Islam is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, an Islamic holy book considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Allāh), and for the vast majority of adherents, also by the teachings, normative example and way of life (or sunnah); it also is composed of prophetic traditions (or hadith) of Muhammad ( c. 570–8 June 632 CE), considered by most of them to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim (sometimes spelled Moslem).
The need for cleanup in the lead aside (which I may do if necessary), it's obvious that this article already recognizes that Muhammad is not universally considered to be the final prophet by all Muslims.
I should also like to point out that the mention of Muhammad in this particular text was introducted by Edith Smitters in her recent edit. Previously, the mention of Muhammad was not even included in the introductory paragraph of the lead, so my change isn't in any way problematic. Rather than reverting your change, however, I'll bring the issue up here for us to discuss. ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, NeilN has reverted all these edits back to the original one by Malik Shabazz. I consider the "unto mankind" edit to be a slight improvement, but ultimately unnecessary. If you could explain why you reverted these edits, then perhaps that could settle this. Apologies for the above post; I hadn't seen your reversion until just after I posted it. ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you think this is an improvement? I think so, and the rewording may invalidate this discussion. If so, I'm glad to edit it in. If not, do you have any complaints in particular which I could address, or do you just prefer the lead's current state? ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Islam is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Quran, an Islamic holy book considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Allāh), as well as the normative example and way of life (or sunnah) for its adherents. Islam is also composed of the prophetic traditions, or hadith, of Muhammad ( c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE), considered by most Islamic adherents to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim (sometimes spelled Moslem).
Is this better? If not, do you have an alternative proposal for the leading paragraph? ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Islam is a monotheistic Abrahamic religion whose central religious text is the Quran. Its adherents consider the Quran to be the way of life (or sunnah) and a revelation from God ( Allah). Islam is also composed of the prophetic traditions, or hadith, of Muhammad ( c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE), considered by most Islamic adherents to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim (sometimes spelled Moslem).
If 10 [1] or 20 milions of ahmady believe in another prophet, well, good for them but nearly 2 billion Muslims believe this: Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah , of all things, Knowing [2]. As far as i know, the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to report any bizarre sectarian beliefs within a religion - here in wikipedia ahmady beliefs are well represented in other, more specific pages. This is due to the fact that Ahamdy and other islamic sects are heterodoxy... ahamdy believe that Buddha was an islamic prophet, Krishna was an islamic prophet... clearly ahamady position are quite bizarre. CallAng222 ( talk) 23:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I went here some time ago but was reverted. anyway here goes. why don't we change last to "the last law bearing" prophet. All branches agree on the statement "last law bearing prophet", and i do mean all 100% muslims including ahmadiyyah and all others. there is no contention about this statement. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 04:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The jurisprudence section keeps getting messier. Last November, a ‘science’ subsection was added and recently a slavery subsection was added which is now actually the biggest subsection in the law section. The template, which I have added, contains many topics, and each does not need its own section. Instead of it being a tad undue weight that this section gets skewed for the particular interests of every new user, there should be a few broad subsections and if others want to keep new info it should be incorporated within these sections. Additionally this haphazard lede of the jurisprudence section needs a clean up, but that’s for another time. Sodicadl ( talk) 16:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
A lead on such a big topic should just include hard facts. That Islam is the primary religion in the Middle East and the second largest overall is just that. However, growth of religion is the subject of a lot of different studies, and is undue for the lead. Baylor University admit here that claims are incredibly difficult to verify, and while Islam is growing as a percentage, actual numbers are growing in Christianity. http://www.baylorisr.org/2012/11/14/the-worlds-fastest-growing-religion-by-philip-jenkins/
The sources are not suitable for an article of this quality.
This claim of fastest-growing is not even reciprocated in the Demographics section. In addition, the term "fastest-growing" does not specify whether in percentage of absolute numbers, or across what timescale, all of which are different in different studies. A lead section should give the indisputable facts on a religion. I guarantee somebody could find four sources from such varying places as the sources given here to "prove" contentious negative opinions about Islam as well. '''tAD''' ( talk) 03:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps this sentence could be changed to state something like:Islam is the second-largest religion by number of adherents and according to many sources it is the fastest-growing religion in the world.
A note could then follow, specifying that the current sources (and here you can cite those which are relevant) indicate that Islam is the fastest-growing religion by percentage, but not by total number of adherents. A succinct explanation of how this is possible could be provided (I'd like to know because I'm confused about this as well), specifying that Christianity is growing faster by number of adherents.Islam is the second-largest religion by number of adherents; according to many sources, it is also considered to be the fastest-growing religion in the world by percentage.
This
edit request to
Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As an addition to the "External Resource" section I would like to request that the five pillars of Islam should be included. The site islam.org.uk has been chosen for its simplicity. It has all five pillars and four are in a virtual book format. it also has resources to help users learn/read Quran. It is a non commercial site.
Mslatif1 ( talk) 08:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This is considered
spam, even if the site is non-commercial. If this link is to be inserted, there must be a consensus from other users first.
Gparyani (
talk) 19:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Please discuss Template talk:Caliphate#New template --Peace world 10:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
At NeilN's suggestion, I've started a new section concerning the lead and rewording its first paragraph. Thus far, the current proposal is:
Islam is a monotheistic Abrahamic religion whose central religious text is the Quran. Its adherents consider the Quran to be the way of life (or sunnah) and a revelation from God ( Allah). Islam is also composed of the prophetic traditions, or hadith, of Muhammad ( c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE), considered by most Islamic adherents to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim (sometimes spelled Moslem).
Thoughts and opinions? Do you think this is an improvement over the current text? Do you have any suggestions to improve it? Consensus would be ideal. Naturally, all the Islam pronunciation and note markup will be retained. (I'll be out for a while, so I may not respond until tomorrow.) ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
-- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail 18:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Islam is a monotheistic Abrahamic religion whose central religious text is the Quran, an Islamic holy book considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Allāh). Islam is also composed of the prophetic traditions, or hadith, of Muhammad ( c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE), whose way of life is known as the sunnah. Muhammad is considered by the vast majority of Islamic adherents to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim.
"By the 19th century the British Empire had formally ended the last Mughal dynasty in India" - this statement shows an incorrect/half-correct picture, since it was the Maratha Empire, which had significantly weakened the Mughal dynasty in the early 18th century itself [3] [4]. I would recommend it to be modified slightly. Allow me to edit. Credible evidence provided hereby
Amit20081980 ( talk) 05:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
"During this time, the Delhi Sultanate took over the Indian subcontinent." - partially correct. The Delhi Sultanate was never able to conquer southern and north-eastern India. I am editing this. Further, there isn't even a mention of Vijayanagar Empire, which vehemently opposed Delhi Sultanate and Vijayanagar acted as a bulwark against Islamic influence in southern India [1]. Credible evidence provided hereby
Amit20081980 ( talk) 05:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
If anyone is interested for input, please participate in a relevant move discussion at James the Just's talk page, to help reach a consensus for the title of that article. Khestwol ( talk) 09:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
From the article is not clear what Islam says about fresh air for praying Muslims. Does the fresh air as a necessary means? Or (Moshe) can pray behind tightly closed doors in a crowded room? Not clear from article text if the thick air and lack of oxygen to be able to the spiritual condition of the church Mogametan negative change? If, perhaps, possible an Vervolständigung. Perhaps, as a discussion about Article Islam? The opinion of the experts. Among others, with respect to "wild dancing" on Islam and about Moshe's what a lack of oxygen, thick air in Moshe lead. 81.243.205.139 ( talk) 15:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Islam means "peace through submission to will of god" Awesomenessauce ( talk) 21:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
make the article NEUTRAL. NUKE THE PEACOCKS AND WEASELS FOR GREAT JUSTICE.
compare with neutrality level of christianity and judaism page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:3010:BFFA:FACE:B00C:0:1 ( talk) 19:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first paragraph under the heading "Etymology and Meaning" reads "Islam, by its own inner logic, embraces every possible facet of existence, for God has named Himself al-Muḥīṭ, the All-Embracing." This may well be true but nothing in the preceding explanation of the etymology/meaning of "Islam" prepares the claim, much less supports it. It seems rather like this is theology; it is poetic and beautiful, and perhaps even true; nevertheless it seems to have been inserted mistakenly into what should be a rather dry section, altogether without poetry and religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbr84 ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
In the lead of Christianity article you have couple of lines about the history of that religion but not a single word about the history of Islam in the lead of this article. 164.58.68.181 ( talk) 21:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Maria De Cillis has stated that the free-will/predestination issue is "one of the most contentious topics in classical Islamic thought" ( https://books.google.ca/books?id=1YliAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA142&dq=islam+free+will&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=predestination&f=false ), and yet "predestination" has been casually promoted to the level of "article of faith" in this article, without an equal weight given to free will. Even though none of the cited sources state that predestination is an "article of faith". This sub-category should removed from this section, and be integrated in other sections (its proper place is actually in an Islamic Philosophy article.) Does anyone have an objection to this before I make the change? cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 17:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I have replaced the image of the angel with a (in my opinion) better one. My rationale is as follows.
Feel free to give your input as part of BRD. Regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 06:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The previous consensus image An angel presenting Muhammad and his companions with a miniature city. In the Topkapi Palace Library, Istanbul. |
FreeatlastChitchat's prefered image An angel, as depicted in a Persian miniature. |
---|---|
I'm sorry to start anything, but I came across: "As for the Qur'an, Muslims consider it be both the unaltered .."
Obviously it should be: > Muslims consider it to be both the .....
I don't understand how this oversight has gotten past every single editor, including the ones who have locked the page...??? Especially considering that this page will the the first source of information for many uninformed people. This seems like a potentially very embarrassing issue, but I can't edit the page myself.
1. islam or musalmanon ka etqad? 2. kia islam tervorest ki taleem deta hai? islam k asasi etaqad mai sai insan dosti or jis deen ki taleem mohabbat or bashar dosti ho woh bhala tervorest ki taleem kese de sakta hai
this article has a seriously shameful hadith/sunnah authoritative bias which only serves to diminish the credibility of religion articles on wikipedia. i would suggest the active editors of this article really take the time to study the broad variability of positions within islam, particularly non-sunni interpretations The5thForce ( talk) 01:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The lede in the law section seems poorly written. Some sentences are obviously careless like "Since Jafar al-Sadiq and Zayd ibn Ali did not themselves write any books." which makes me wonder if anyone is even watching over these. There's citing of the quran alone as a primary source, which is not allowed by wiki policy. Most of its citations only have the titles of books. I think most of it should be summarized and sent to the history section since it is mostly about the development of usul ul fiqh and the contributions of individuals and the history section is supposed to be about that kind of history more than political history. I've added the first paragraph to the section's lede, which I thought brought important points. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Islam was the master of the slave trade for a thousand years. There were even slave dynasties. VictoriaGrayson Talk 19:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Many important elements of traditional Islam such as five salat prayers, the abhorrence of paintings and sculpture of living things, stoning adulterers, are mentioned in the hadith but not the Quran.
The hadith literature is based on spoken reports(hearsay) that were in circulation in society after the death of Muhammad. Unlike the Quran itself, which was compiled under the official direction of the early Islamic State in Medinah, the hadith reports were not.
The hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections during the 8th and 9th centuries, generations after the death of Muhammad.
Many critics say the hadith has radicalized islam, and the quran itself says to reject written hadiths that do not exist in the quran.
The quran says do not write down another hadith aside from the quran, only oral hadith in addition to the quran is acceptable and that a written hadith that is not contained in the quran is idolatry.
The quran says 'allah' did not approve of even muhammad's 'sinful lifestyle' (muhammad's hadith) which is why muhammad said do not record my hadith, the quran also says allah only used muhammad as the messenger of the quran and not necessarily an exemplary model himself.
http://submission.org/Corruption_of_Religion.html
http://muslimvilla.smfforfree.com/index.php?topic=789.0;wap2
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CHntEWeff2iGbrQ7YpCnCb18BjkFmbDyXrcqryOxzpE/edit
The5thForce ( talk) 21:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I asked you to review those guidelines, which you clearly haven't done. You can not quote from primary sources without backing up those views with reliable secondary sources. If this is actually important to you, then don't be lazy. Do your due diligence and make an actual effort. Imagine you're writing an undergad paper and apply the same standard.
cӨde1+6
TP 01:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
relevant developments with additional sources:
-taken from /info/en/?search=Talk:Criticism_of_Hadith#A_summary_of_this_article_should_be_included_in_the_main_Islam_article criticism of the hadith is fundamental to islam and history confirms this, excluding criticism of the hadith from the main islam article can only be described as religious bias and political pandering to the hadith hardliners, which should not be allowed to pervade any neutral presentation of a broad religion such as islam. i propose a summary of hadith criticism and its sources should be included in the main islam article's 'criticism' section.
-taken from /info/en/?search=Talk:Debate_on_the_Hadith quantifying any religion is inherently difficult as the only real empirical evidence-the only truly reliable sources are the religious texts themselves along with the historical record of who wrote those religious texts, the rest is largely at the adherents discretion and in the case of islam it's divided into 'quranists' who seek to interpret islam by directly interpreting 'the word of god through the prophet muhammad' as contained within the quran, and the other approach which is interpreting the 'word of god through the unprophetic followers of the prophet muhammad' who for simplicity i would call "hadithists", among the 'hadithists' you have sunni following one collection of hadith literature and shia following another, but its accepted by all muslims that the hadiths are not 'the word of god' and that the hadiths are highly vulnerable to fabrication- the hadiths have always been politically sorted into various hadith classifications which can be found here: Hadith terminology, these distinctions have an exceptional impact on how islam is practiced and they should be clearly emphasized by any article attempting to illustrate a thorough unbiased description of islam. i will provide another article containing a large amount of sources here: http://www.free-minds.org/does-hadith-have-solid-historical-basis and its worth pointing out that there are well respected quranist muslims who have been compiling evidence showing the hadiths fabrication for decades, such as Edip Yuksel
The5thForce ( talk) 23:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Riddle me this - why is it alright that the Wiki articles on Hinduism, Judaism and Shinto don't have "criticism" sections, and yet the Wiki articles on Christianity and Islam do have "criticism" sections. To be fair, either all articles on religions and other worldviews should have criticism sections or none of them should - and info criticizing a religion or other worldview should be relegated to a separate "Criticism of ___ " page. MagicatthemovieS ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I tried to add a "Criticism of atheism" section to the atheism page but was shot down, so I assumed adding a bunch of criticism of religions/worldviews sections would be impossible - too many people would get upset and stop me. As such, I thought it would be easier to delete the criticism sections on the articles about Islam and Christianity. MagicatthemovieS ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete theopolitical system. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.' When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is to convert the world & to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris, Sweden –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s (supposed) to be peace because now everybody is a Muslim. We know, however, that this isn’t true, is it.
Of course, that’s not the reality. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons...and they are coming to a neighborhood near you ...so keep thinking they are not going to harm you and they "accept" you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hon. Paliver ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Sodicadl: Your last two edits and this edit removed information with encyclopedic value, please revert yourself and establish consensus for removal here at the talk page. Sheriff | report | 19:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Sodicadl I have reverted your edits and restored a previous version. Please discuss what you want to add/delete/change here instead of steamrolling controversial edits when a discussion is going on. We can discuss your edits using a list form. You can tell us what you want to do and we can reach an agreement on how best to do it, then you can insert your rpoposed changes. You can ping me when you have mde the said list. Ty regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 06:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
As agreed on the talk page, there needs to be a shift away from political history and move toward religious history. The lede now has a para on its own about political history. I summarized it in one sentence not two [13]. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
As agreed on the talk page, there needs to be a shift away from political history and move toward religious history. I removed a mention about a general Abu Muslim in a battle and about Marathas and Normans from a list of territorial losses because we do not need an exhaustive list of generals and territorial losses. This is the edit [14] which also explains removing the emphasis of a particular point with the quran used as a primary source, but that is for another time. From the above discussion, Sherrifisintown agreed to the edits and I do not know if any one else has issues with it. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
For the third time, the nondenominational muslim section is eight lines and most of it is arguing over one study done by Pew. This is undue weight for an arguable classification in an article on Islam. I summarized it to four lines, "Non-denominational Muslims defend their position by pointing to the Quranic verses such as Al Imran verse 103, which asks the Muslims to stay united and not to become divided. The Pew Research Center reports that Muslims self identifying as non-denominational Muslims make up a majority of Muslims in seven countries. At least one in five Muslims in at least 22 countries identify as non-denominational Muslims. However, other sources give Sunni majorities for these countries except Azerbaijan which has been traditionally a Shi'a Muslim majority country". I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
For my suggested rewrite, UnequivocalAmbivalence only found undue weight an issue and that synthesis was not an issue any more. As you can see from the beginning of this non-denominational muslims section on the talk page, my original point was to rewrite the eight line para to four lines because I thought it was undue weight for one study by Pew. A study helping to illuminate the level of people describing themselves without denominations is at least worth mentioning, so I vote that this four line rewrite is a good compromised position. Sodicadl ( talk) 21:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Soo, does the suggested four line rewrite address the undue weight issue or not? Sodicadl ( talk) 05:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The madhabs (schools of jurisprudence) seems a pretty notable in a topic on Islam. I added a three line subsection in the Law section in this edit [16] which also explains summarizing the nondenomination section as explained above. Nothing was brought up about this. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I moved the Shia subsection ahead of the sufi subsection because Shia are more notable as a sect here, [17]. Nothing was brought up about this. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I moved the marriage section from the culture section to the family life section in the law section because it only talks about law. Nothing was brought up about this. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the last part in this section needs to be included about sexual relations "Even after marriage, there are limitations regarding sex. For example, Islam prohibits a man to have sexual intercourse with his wife while she is menstruating and during postpartum period. It is considered a great sin for a man to have anal sex with his wife.[104]" This is not suitable and no idea why its included. Children can access this information if they are searching about a faith and this is not appropriate. Please remove. Why is this page protected also? — Preceding Saffycakes comment added by Saffycakes ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The scholars section uses Islamqa which is not a reliable source and the quran as a primary source. I added the template on usul fiqh. [18] Nothing was brought up against that edit, except sheriffintown added back the quran as a source. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
A pic of the soviet union did not seem as relevant to modern times section as the flag of the OIC. There are a number of pics of mosques and there should be a reasonable limit. I reduced the number and gave the calendar section a pic, as explained here, [19]. Nothing was brought up about this. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The lede in law goes on about history and has information about hadiths in general. I shifted a para from there to the history section and the prophets section. [20] The lede there is also hard to follow so I added an intro para, defining about "fard" to "haram", which is pretty important [21] Nothing was brought up about this. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
That edit [22] put the para in more appropriate sections. And this edit made the intro to law section a little easier to read, [23]. Again, anything new to bring up about them? Sodicadl ( talk) 01:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
This is nine days without input. Nothing was brought up about this previously either. I made the proposed edit. Sodicadl ( talk) 05:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Since when are comments by a politician a RS on theology? Eperoton ( talk) 22:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
In the paragraph where you takl about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), as the last "law bearing" Prophet, please remove the words "Law bearing" because Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the Final and Last Messenger of Allah Almighty. In Islam, there is no new Prophet after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
In the table where you give the different sects of Islam, please remove the box "Ahmadis" as this movement is outside of Islam.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanas92 ( talk • contribs)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islam's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Hassan-Decline":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The awkward paintings of Muhammad and Angels are unreal and distract users from the main essences of this article therefore I propose their removal; any objections can be discussed here.-- WindWalk55555 ( talk) 15:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This sentence, "Piety appears to be deepening worldwide." is backed up by articles that are outdated and misconstrued, and therefore the sentence should be removed. All of the references are only talking about an increase in conservative Islam within the Middle East. This does not necessarily mean an increase in piety as a whole, as it is only talking about in Islam. It also clearly does not mean worldwide, because it does not talk about the world outside of the Middle East. The articles are also 8 years old now causing them to be outdated for a current standing of the piety trend in the world.
Also, this sentence "Perhaps as a result of these efforts, most experts agree that Islam is growing faster than any other faith in East and West Africa" seems quite unfounded with little to no correlation being proven with the rise of the electronic media. There are also many other factors that can and do contribute to the choice of turning to Islam. Therefore, you should remove the "Perhaps as a result of these efforts" clause.
All in all, I would request that the entire paragraph between these sentences be looked at for modification and/or removal.
Thank you! Accuracycounts1 ( talk) 22:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Accuracycounts1 ( talk) 22:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
B E C K Y S A Y L E S 07:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)The use of "most of them" in the line of the first paragraph reading "...considered by most of them to be the last prophet of God." sounds biased and excluding. "considered by most followers to be..." or "considered by most muslims..." would be less excluding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:112A:408D:A476:11F0:6623:BDE9 ( talk) 20:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Christianity has an 'Apologetics' section; Why not Islam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:C501:3083:84E3:1E83:35AD:B513 ( talk) 02:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Not very important? It is really.-- Thelawlollol ( talk) 13:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I noticed a lot of inconsistent spellings of "Quran" on this page, and decided to make the article uniform. Based on Quran, the discussion of said article's name in its archives, and not finding anything in the archives of this page, I have settled on "Quran" rather than the variants "Qur'an" or "Koran." Of course "Qu'ran" is an obvious typo. If a consensus is reached to instead change the spelling back to "Qu'ran" for whatever reason, despite the acceptance of the spelling "Quran," I'm alright with that. Sennsationalist ( talk) 20:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I could not get much attention from WP:WikiProject Islam (apart from the Shia task force), so I am putting a notification here about a merger discussion regarding Demolition of al-Baqi→ Al-Baqi'. The discussion takes place at Talk:Al-Baqi'#Merger of Demolition. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 11:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Reverted lead? Metaphysicswar said,"Standardized with other major religions articles like Christianity & Hinduism. Second lead should be more facts based rather than cramming it with details that can possibly go on forever."
What do you guys think about the metaphysicswar lead? To me, it looks fine.
..................Metaphysicswar lead begin: (update.7)..................
Islam ( /ˈɪslɑːm/; [note 1] Arabic: الإسلام, al-ʾIslām IPA: [alʔisˈlaːm] ⓘ; [note 2] is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion articulated by the Quran, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Allāh), and, for the vast majority of adherents, by the teachings and normative example (called the sunnah, composed of accounts called hadith) of Muhammad ( c. 570–8 June 632 CE). It is the world's second-largest religion [3] and the fastest-growing major religion in the world, [4] [5] [6] with over 1.7 billion followers [7] or 23% of the global population, [8] known as Muslims. [9] Muslims also believe that Islam is the original, complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. [10] [11]
Islam upholds that God is one and incomparable [12] and that the purpose of existence is to worship God. [13] Muslims consider Muhammad to be the last prophet of God. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] As for the Quran, Muslims consider it to be both the unaltered and the final revelation of God. [20] Religious concepts and practices include the five pillars of Islam, which are obligatory acts of worship, and following Islamic law, which touches on virtually every aspect of life and society, from banking and welfare to the status of women and the environment. [21] [22]
Islam began in the early 7th century. Originating in Mecca, it quickly spread in the Arabian peninsula and by the 8th century the Islamic empire was extended from Iberia in the west to the Indus river in the east. The Islamic Golden Age refers to the period traditionally dated from the 8th century to the 13th century when much of the historically Islamic world was experiencing a scientific, economic and cultural flourishing. [23] [24] [25] The expansion of the Muslim world involved various caliphates and empires, traders and conversion to Islam by missionary activities. [26]
Most Muslims are of one of two denominations: [27] [28] Sunni (75–90%) [29] or Shia (10–20%). [30] About 13% of Muslims live in Indonesia, [31] the largest Muslim-majority country, 32% in South Asia, [32] 20% in the Middle East, [33] and 15% in Sub-Saharan Africa. [34] Sizable Muslim communities are also found in Europe, China, Russia, and the Americas. Converts and immigrant communities are found in almost every part of the world.
......................Lead end (update.7)...................... 001blondjamie ( talk) 16:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
References
Islam is the youngest, the fastest growing, and in many ways the least complicated of the world's great monotheistic faiths. It is a unique religion based on its own holy book, but it is also a direct descendant of Judaism and Christianity, incorporating some of the teachings of those religions—modifying some and rejecting others.
For Muslims, God is unique and without equal.
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Sunni-eb
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Shia
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).mgmpPRC
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This
edit request to
Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the first appearance of the following string
</ref> is the
should be replaced with
</ref>) is the
(i.e. it missing a ")")
Bianjiang ( talk) 01:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
This To Do list item states that "The section should cover the fact that sharia law is only a personal law b/t someone and God (not a political or non-Muslim law).." as well as some other "facts". I do not believe however that this is a fact..., but rather the opinion of the writer.
There are examples in history where the sharia (literally 'law') was imposed on all the people in the land, and non-muslims had to pay a specific tax (the
jizya, in accordance with the sharia !.
I therefore feel that this item on the To Do list has to be rewritten / reconsidered.
GTvehicle (
talk) 12:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Many of the citations on this page are superfluous. For example, the content about Sunnis being 75-90% of Muslims cites 15 sources. WP:OVERCITE recommends using a few good citations over quantity. Right now, those fifteen are there as artifacts of past edit wars. Most of them are not anything to do with demographics but mention numbers in passing and so one may not just stop at fifteen and could continue ad nauseam. I suggest keeping the source from the Pew Research center since it is the most reliable there on demographics and the one by the CIA factbook since that is also credible on demographics and it cites the lower end of 75%. Sodicadl ( talk) 02:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Indonesia islam Panji0916 ( talk) 22:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Considering MOS:BEGIN. The word God is repeated 4 times in the first paragraph in the lead which is too specific. So can we remove some of the mention of God which is repeated too many times and broadened the subject of the first paragraph in the lead. 000meow ( talk) 05:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
A link to the apostasy in Islam page ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam) should be provided. The Hadith mentions killing apostates. That fact should not be ignored. Cinn4v4g ( talk) 19:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong !!!! This hadith states that people who then fight against you should be killed and not just apostase STOP ISLAMOPHOBIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrk786 ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Laya sub ( talk) 12:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
DRAGON BOOSTER
★ 12:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)The Shia section contains the possessive form Shia's, when the sentence structure requires the nominative plural Shias.
2.25.149.66 (
talk) 18:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 |
I'm wondering what's with this revert? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Islam&diff=654438513&oldid=654436576
Why does this article go on and on about stuff that happened hundreds, if not thousands of years ago, that's just trivial with no relevance for today, but does not mention anything about the groups following Islam right now?
If the article can go on and on about the Arab regimes of ancient times, why can't it describe the today's real world???
JoeM ( talk) 03:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Users such as User:Mr. Granger may be interested to know about this ANI thread I started. Ian.thomson ( talk) 03:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Have to agree with joeM that IS is huge It is the biggest thing to happen in Islam in the last 90 years since the fall of ottomans, to say it's not worthy of being here is ridiculous
NeilN, could you explain this revert? [3]. The content was attributed, citing Frank Gaffney, a well-known scholarly source on the Middle East plus a prominent policy maker. Thanks, JoeM ( talk) 01:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Islam is not a religion of peace. 70.31.162.83 ( talk) 15:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Recent changes have been about wife beating. Please discuss here to reach a consensus. The points to be discussed seem to be neutral text and sourcing, if someone thinks other things should be discussed for example inclusion of section, they can join too. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 09:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Get consensus here before removing what already there, when there objection for removing. Just like you can't remove the Ahmadiyya religion from here without consensus even though they are not Muslims.-- LalaResne ( talk) 20:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
This is just taking too long, and may lead to an edit war. Let us all take a chill pill and just discuss the sources first then the content. I hereby invite Dustylappss, Toddy1 and LalaResne to present the sources which they think are reliable , neutral and cover the issue. We shall just discuss the sources one by one and when a source is considered good we will take content from that source. This will be better then just saying that this source is good, that source is bad. From the previous comments here I can see that no one bothers to comment on the sources, just gives his/her view about them. So please present the sources and lets see if they are good. I already gave my objections on two main sources if you can counter those please include the counter argument in your comment. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 03:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
User:CallAng222. Please could you explain which parts of the paragraph you deleted are original research, and why you consider it so. Your edit summary said that it was original research.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, have you read the book you are citing? Pages 115-116 go very well with part of the paragraph you deleted - it says:
Compare this with part of the paragraph you deleted:
-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Slooppouts34, please explain your
removal of cited information, and cite secondary sources to support your claim. A primary source like hadith can be interpreted in incorrect ways. The studying-islam.org source you cited states that it was a hit. The relevant hadith has different translations, and
thi website translates it "...He gave me a nudge on the chest which I felt...". So, for that claim, we need a more solid source. --
Fauzan
✆ talk
✉ mail 07:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The bottom line is, provide secondary sources that support your viewpoint, wikiislam cites primary sources, so that's of no use here. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail 05:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
This [ 3] source you cited above, is the same source you previously claimed to be unreliable in the slavery debate, and I therefore removed it. You cited this source above, and this source clearly states that beating is allowed, just like all the other sources you cited above. The sources you provide don't back your view.-- Slooppouts34 ( talk) 07:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Inappropriate Sources
Citations to these two sources should be deleted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Appropriate Sources
Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles page 61 includes both the point that he is not allowed to cut or bruise her when he beats her, and that it is disputed whether he can strike her face. These two points are also made in the newspaper citations that certain users have tried to delete. I suggest that a citation to Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles could be added to the article as follows:
-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The Quran allows a husband to hit his wife (lightly) if she is disobedient to him, though he is not allowed to cut or bruise her. Early jurists have interpreted this as a symbolic use of miswak, and as a last retort after exhortation. Even this measure has been discouraged in several ahadith, and the prophet never resorted to that measure. A husband is allowed to beat young children; but not adult children; and it is disputed whether he is allowed to hit his wife's face. A minority of Islamic scholars contest this interpretation.
A wife has the legitimate right to defend herself if the husband retorts to physical violence
First, I don't think we need that paragraph, it is appropriately covered in Women in Islam and Islam and domestic violence. The paragraph should be kept a bare minimum. The UAE source states "Islamic codes" so it is applicabe. I have no access to Saeed's book so can't say any thing about it. Regarding the third point, it is obvious that self defense is allowed, so it need not be mentioned. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail 07:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help)
This
edit request to
Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
आज आप सभी को एक सच से अवगत करता हु । आप सभी रामायण की सभी घटनाओं को जानते हैं । रामायण में सभी राक्षसों का वध हुआ था लेकिन💥 सूर्पनखा का वध नहीं हुआ था उसका नाक और कान काट कर छोड़ दिया गया था । वह कपडे से अपने चेहरे को छुपा कर रहती थी । रावन के मर जाने के बाद वह अपने पति के साथ शुक्राचार्य के पास गयी और जंगल में उनके आश्रम में रहने लगी । राक्षसों का वंस ख़त्म न हो इसलिए शुक्राचार्य ने शिव जी की आराधना की ।शिव जी ने अपना स्वरुप शुक्राचार्य को दे कर कहा की जिस दिन कोई वैष्णव इस पर गंगा जल चढ़ा देगा उस दिन राक्षसों का नाश हो जायेगा ।उस आत्म लिंग को शुक्राचार्य ने वैष्णव मतलब हिन्दुओं से दूर रेगिस्तान में स्थापित किया जो आज अरब में मक्का मदीना में है । सूर्पनखा जो उस समय चेहरा ढक कर रहती थी वो परंपरा को उसके बच्चो ने पूरा निभाया आज भी मुस्लिम औरतें चेहरा ढकी रहती हैं । सूर्पनखा के वंसज आज मुसलमान कहलाते हैं । क्युकी शुक्राचार्य ने इनको जीवन दान दिया इस लिए ये शुक्रवार को विशेष महत्त्व देते हैं । पूरी जानकारी तथ्यों पर आधारित सच है । -------------------- -------------------- 101.62.175.219 ( talk) 10:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
CallAng222, you reverted my edit in order to state that Muhammad is the "last prophet unto mankind". I changed this to simply "prophet" because some Muslims, including Ahmadi Muslims, believe that Muhammad is not the Khatam an-Nabiyyin, or "seal of the prophets", a reference to Muhammad as being the last and final prophet unto mankind. This is not adding undue weight to the claim, since Ahmadiyya is the third largest branch of Islam, and thus represents a significant portion of Islam. Moreover, if you read the entire sentence in question, you'll see that this is the current stance of the article:
Islam is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, an Islamic holy book considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Allāh), and for the vast majority of adherents, also by the teachings, normative example and way of life (or sunnah); it also is composed of prophetic traditions (or hadith) of Muhammad ( c. 570–8 June 632 CE), considered by most of them to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim (sometimes spelled Moslem).
The need for cleanup in the lead aside (which I may do if necessary), it's obvious that this article already recognizes that Muhammad is not universally considered to be the final prophet by all Muslims.
I should also like to point out that the mention of Muhammad in this particular text was introducted by Edith Smitters in her recent edit. Previously, the mention of Muhammad was not even included in the introductory paragraph of the lead, so my change isn't in any way problematic. Rather than reverting your change, however, I'll bring the issue up here for us to discuss. ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, NeilN has reverted all these edits back to the original one by Malik Shabazz. I consider the "unto mankind" edit to be a slight improvement, but ultimately unnecessary. If you could explain why you reverted these edits, then perhaps that could settle this. Apologies for the above post; I hadn't seen your reversion until just after I posted it. ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you think this is an improvement? I think so, and the rewording may invalidate this discussion. If so, I'm glad to edit it in. If not, do you have any complaints in particular which I could address, or do you just prefer the lead's current state? ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Islam is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Quran, an Islamic holy book considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Allāh), as well as the normative example and way of life (or sunnah) for its adherents. Islam is also composed of the prophetic traditions, or hadith, of Muhammad ( c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE), considered by most Islamic adherents to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim (sometimes spelled Moslem).
Is this better? If not, do you have an alternative proposal for the leading paragraph? ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Islam is a monotheistic Abrahamic religion whose central religious text is the Quran. Its adherents consider the Quran to be the way of life (or sunnah) and a revelation from God ( Allah). Islam is also composed of the prophetic traditions, or hadith, of Muhammad ( c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE), considered by most Islamic adherents to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim (sometimes spelled Moslem).
If 10 [1] or 20 milions of ahmady believe in another prophet, well, good for them but nearly 2 billion Muslims believe this: Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men, but [he is] the Messenger of Allah and last of the prophets. And ever is Allah , of all things, Knowing [2]. As far as i know, the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to report any bizarre sectarian beliefs within a religion - here in wikipedia ahmady beliefs are well represented in other, more specific pages. This is due to the fact that Ahamdy and other islamic sects are heterodoxy... ahamdy believe that Buddha was an islamic prophet, Krishna was an islamic prophet... clearly ahamady position are quite bizarre. CallAng222 ( talk) 23:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I went here some time ago but was reverted. anyway here goes. why don't we change last to "the last law bearing" prophet. All branches agree on the statement "last law bearing prophet", and i do mean all 100% muslims including ahmadiyyah and all others. there is no contention about this statement. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 04:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The jurisprudence section keeps getting messier. Last November, a ‘science’ subsection was added and recently a slavery subsection was added which is now actually the biggest subsection in the law section. The template, which I have added, contains many topics, and each does not need its own section. Instead of it being a tad undue weight that this section gets skewed for the particular interests of every new user, there should be a few broad subsections and if others want to keep new info it should be incorporated within these sections. Additionally this haphazard lede of the jurisprudence section needs a clean up, but that’s for another time. Sodicadl ( talk) 16:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
A lead on such a big topic should just include hard facts. That Islam is the primary religion in the Middle East and the second largest overall is just that. However, growth of religion is the subject of a lot of different studies, and is undue for the lead. Baylor University admit here that claims are incredibly difficult to verify, and while Islam is growing as a percentage, actual numbers are growing in Christianity. http://www.baylorisr.org/2012/11/14/the-worlds-fastest-growing-religion-by-philip-jenkins/
The sources are not suitable for an article of this quality.
This claim of fastest-growing is not even reciprocated in the Demographics section. In addition, the term "fastest-growing" does not specify whether in percentage of absolute numbers, or across what timescale, all of which are different in different studies. A lead section should give the indisputable facts on a religion. I guarantee somebody could find four sources from such varying places as the sources given here to "prove" contentious negative opinions about Islam as well. '''tAD''' ( talk) 03:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps this sentence could be changed to state something like:Islam is the second-largest religion by number of adherents and according to many sources it is the fastest-growing religion in the world.
A note could then follow, specifying that the current sources (and here you can cite those which are relevant) indicate that Islam is the fastest-growing religion by percentage, but not by total number of adherents. A succinct explanation of how this is possible could be provided (I'd like to know because I'm confused about this as well), specifying that Christianity is growing faster by number of adherents.Islam is the second-largest religion by number of adherents; according to many sources, it is also considered to be the fastest-growing religion in the world by percentage.
This
edit request to
Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As an addition to the "External Resource" section I would like to request that the five pillars of Islam should be included. The site islam.org.uk has been chosen for its simplicity. It has all five pillars and four are in a virtual book format. it also has resources to help users learn/read Quran. It is a non commercial site.
Mslatif1 ( talk) 08:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. This is considered
spam, even if the site is non-commercial. If this link is to be inserted, there must be a consensus from other users first.
Gparyani (
talk) 19:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Please discuss Template talk:Caliphate#New template --Peace world 10:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
At NeilN's suggestion, I've started a new section concerning the lead and rewording its first paragraph. Thus far, the current proposal is:
Islam is a monotheistic Abrahamic religion whose central religious text is the Quran. Its adherents consider the Quran to be the way of life (or sunnah) and a revelation from God ( Allah). Islam is also composed of the prophetic traditions, or hadith, of Muhammad ( c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE), considered by most Islamic adherents to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim (sometimes spelled Moslem).
Thoughts and opinions? Do you think this is an improvement over the current text? Do you have any suggestions to improve it? Consensus would be ideal. Naturally, all the Islam pronunciation and note markup will be retained. (I'll be out for a while, so I may not respond until tomorrow.) ― Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 15:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
-- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail 18:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Islam is a monotheistic Abrahamic religion whose central religious text is the Quran, an Islamic holy book considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Allāh). Islam is also composed of the prophetic traditions, or hadith, of Muhammad ( c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE), whose way of life is known as the sunnah. Muhammad is considered by the vast majority of Islamic adherents to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim.
"By the 19th century the British Empire had formally ended the last Mughal dynasty in India" - this statement shows an incorrect/half-correct picture, since it was the Maratha Empire, which had significantly weakened the Mughal dynasty in the early 18th century itself [3] [4]. I would recommend it to be modified slightly. Allow me to edit. Credible evidence provided hereby
Amit20081980 ( talk) 05:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
"During this time, the Delhi Sultanate took over the Indian subcontinent." - partially correct. The Delhi Sultanate was never able to conquer southern and north-eastern India. I am editing this. Further, there isn't even a mention of Vijayanagar Empire, which vehemently opposed Delhi Sultanate and Vijayanagar acted as a bulwark against Islamic influence in southern India [1]. Credible evidence provided hereby
Amit20081980 ( talk) 05:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
If anyone is interested for input, please participate in a relevant move discussion at James the Just's talk page, to help reach a consensus for the title of that article. Khestwol ( talk) 09:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
From the article is not clear what Islam says about fresh air for praying Muslims. Does the fresh air as a necessary means? Or (Moshe) can pray behind tightly closed doors in a crowded room? Not clear from article text if the thick air and lack of oxygen to be able to the spiritual condition of the church Mogametan negative change? If, perhaps, possible an Vervolständigung. Perhaps, as a discussion about Article Islam? The opinion of the experts. Among others, with respect to "wild dancing" on Islam and about Moshe's what a lack of oxygen, thick air in Moshe lead. 81.243.205.139 ( talk) 15:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Islam means "peace through submission to will of god" Awesomenessauce ( talk) 21:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
make the article NEUTRAL. NUKE THE PEACOCKS AND WEASELS FOR GREAT JUSTICE.
compare with neutrality level of christianity and judaism page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:3010:BFFA:FACE:B00C:0:1 ( talk) 19:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
The last sentence of the first paragraph under the heading "Etymology and Meaning" reads "Islam, by its own inner logic, embraces every possible facet of existence, for God has named Himself al-Muḥīṭ, the All-Embracing." This may well be true but nothing in the preceding explanation of the etymology/meaning of "Islam" prepares the claim, much less supports it. It seems rather like this is theology; it is poetic and beautiful, and perhaps even true; nevertheless it seems to have been inserted mistakenly into what should be a rather dry section, altogether without poetry and religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbr84 ( talk • contribs) 11:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
In the lead of Christianity article you have couple of lines about the history of that religion but not a single word about the history of Islam in the lead of this article. 164.58.68.181 ( talk) 21:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Maria De Cillis has stated that the free-will/predestination issue is "one of the most contentious topics in classical Islamic thought" ( https://books.google.ca/books?id=1YliAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA142&dq=islam+free+will&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=predestination&f=false ), and yet "predestination" has been casually promoted to the level of "article of faith" in this article, without an equal weight given to free will. Even though none of the cited sources state that predestination is an "article of faith". This sub-category should removed from this section, and be integrated in other sections (its proper place is actually in an Islamic Philosophy article.) Does anyone have an objection to this before I make the change? cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 17:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I have replaced the image of the angel with a (in my opinion) better one. My rationale is as follows.
Feel free to give your input as part of BRD. Regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 06:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The previous consensus image An angel presenting Muhammad and his companions with a miniature city. In the Topkapi Palace Library, Istanbul. |
FreeatlastChitchat's prefered image An angel, as depicted in a Persian miniature. |
---|---|
I'm sorry to start anything, but I came across: "As for the Qur'an, Muslims consider it be both the unaltered .."
Obviously it should be: > Muslims consider it to be both the .....
I don't understand how this oversight has gotten past every single editor, including the ones who have locked the page...??? Especially considering that this page will the the first source of information for many uninformed people. This seems like a potentially very embarrassing issue, but I can't edit the page myself.
1. islam or musalmanon ka etqad? 2. kia islam tervorest ki taleem deta hai? islam k asasi etaqad mai sai insan dosti or jis deen ki taleem mohabbat or bashar dosti ho woh bhala tervorest ki taleem kese de sakta hai
this article has a seriously shameful hadith/sunnah authoritative bias which only serves to diminish the credibility of religion articles on wikipedia. i would suggest the active editors of this article really take the time to study the broad variability of positions within islam, particularly non-sunni interpretations The5thForce ( talk) 01:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The lede in the law section seems poorly written. Some sentences are obviously careless like "Since Jafar al-Sadiq and Zayd ibn Ali did not themselves write any books." which makes me wonder if anyone is even watching over these. There's citing of the quran alone as a primary source, which is not allowed by wiki policy. Most of its citations only have the titles of books. I think most of it should be summarized and sent to the history section since it is mostly about the development of usul ul fiqh and the contributions of individuals and the history section is supposed to be about that kind of history more than political history. I've added the first paragraph to the section's lede, which I thought brought important points. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Islam was the master of the slave trade for a thousand years. There were even slave dynasties. VictoriaGrayson Talk 19:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Many important elements of traditional Islam such as five salat prayers, the abhorrence of paintings and sculpture of living things, stoning adulterers, are mentioned in the hadith but not the Quran.
The hadith literature is based on spoken reports(hearsay) that were in circulation in society after the death of Muhammad. Unlike the Quran itself, which was compiled under the official direction of the early Islamic State in Medinah, the hadith reports were not.
The hadith were evaluated and gathered into large collections during the 8th and 9th centuries, generations after the death of Muhammad.
Many critics say the hadith has radicalized islam, and the quran itself says to reject written hadiths that do not exist in the quran.
The quran says do not write down another hadith aside from the quran, only oral hadith in addition to the quran is acceptable and that a written hadith that is not contained in the quran is idolatry.
The quran says 'allah' did not approve of even muhammad's 'sinful lifestyle' (muhammad's hadith) which is why muhammad said do not record my hadith, the quran also says allah only used muhammad as the messenger of the quran and not necessarily an exemplary model himself.
http://submission.org/Corruption_of_Religion.html
http://muslimvilla.smfforfree.com/index.php?topic=789.0;wap2
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CHntEWeff2iGbrQ7YpCnCb18BjkFmbDyXrcqryOxzpE/edit
The5thForce ( talk) 21:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I asked you to review those guidelines, which you clearly haven't done. You can not quote from primary sources without backing up those views with reliable secondary sources. If this is actually important to you, then don't be lazy. Do your due diligence and make an actual effort. Imagine you're writing an undergad paper and apply the same standard.
cӨde1+6
TP 01:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
relevant developments with additional sources:
-taken from /info/en/?search=Talk:Criticism_of_Hadith#A_summary_of_this_article_should_be_included_in_the_main_Islam_article criticism of the hadith is fundamental to islam and history confirms this, excluding criticism of the hadith from the main islam article can only be described as religious bias and political pandering to the hadith hardliners, which should not be allowed to pervade any neutral presentation of a broad religion such as islam. i propose a summary of hadith criticism and its sources should be included in the main islam article's 'criticism' section.
-taken from /info/en/?search=Talk:Debate_on_the_Hadith quantifying any religion is inherently difficult as the only real empirical evidence-the only truly reliable sources are the religious texts themselves along with the historical record of who wrote those religious texts, the rest is largely at the adherents discretion and in the case of islam it's divided into 'quranists' who seek to interpret islam by directly interpreting 'the word of god through the prophet muhammad' as contained within the quran, and the other approach which is interpreting the 'word of god through the unprophetic followers of the prophet muhammad' who for simplicity i would call "hadithists", among the 'hadithists' you have sunni following one collection of hadith literature and shia following another, but its accepted by all muslims that the hadiths are not 'the word of god' and that the hadiths are highly vulnerable to fabrication- the hadiths have always been politically sorted into various hadith classifications which can be found here: Hadith terminology, these distinctions have an exceptional impact on how islam is practiced and they should be clearly emphasized by any article attempting to illustrate a thorough unbiased description of islam. i will provide another article containing a large amount of sources here: http://www.free-minds.org/does-hadith-have-solid-historical-basis and its worth pointing out that there are well respected quranist muslims who have been compiling evidence showing the hadiths fabrication for decades, such as Edip Yuksel
The5thForce ( talk) 23:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Riddle me this - why is it alright that the Wiki articles on Hinduism, Judaism and Shinto don't have "criticism" sections, and yet the Wiki articles on Christianity and Islam do have "criticism" sections. To be fair, either all articles on religions and other worldviews should have criticism sections or none of them should - and info criticizing a religion or other worldview should be relegated to a separate "Criticism of ___ " page. MagicatthemovieS ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I tried to add a "Criticism of atheism" section to the atheism page but was shot down, so I assumed adding a bunch of criticism of religions/worldviews sections would be impossible - too many people would get upset and stop me. As such, I thought it would be easier to delete the criticism sections on the articles about Islam and Christianity. MagicatthemovieS ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete theopolitical system. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.' When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is to convert the world & to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris, Sweden –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s (supposed) to be peace because now everybody is a Muslim. We know, however, that this isn’t true, is it.
Of course, that’s not the reality. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons...and they are coming to a neighborhood near you ...so keep thinking they are not going to harm you and they "accept" you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hon. Paliver ( talk • contribs) 07:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Sodicadl: Your last two edits and this edit removed information with encyclopedic value, please revert yourself and establish consensus for removal here at the talk page. Sheriff | report | 19:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Sodicadl I have reverted your edits and restored a previous version. Please discuss what you want to add/delete/change here instead of steamrolling controversial edits when a discussion is going on. We can discuss your edits using a list form. You can tell us what you want to do and we can reach an agreement on how best to do it, then you can insert your rpoposed changes. You can ping me when you have mde the said list. Ty regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 06:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
As agreed on the talk page, there needs to be a shift away from political history and move toward religious history. The lede now has a para on its own about political history. I summarized it in one sentence not two [13]. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
As agreed on the talk page, there needs to be a shift away from political history and move toward religious history. I removed a mention about a general Abu Muslim in a battle and about Marathas and Normans from a list of territorial losses because we do not need an exhaustive list of generals and territorial losses. This is the edit [14] which also explains removing the emphasis of a particular point with the quran used as a primary source, but that is for another time. From the above discussion, Sherrifisintown agreed to the edits and I do not know if any one else has issues with it. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
For the third time, the nondenominational muslim section is eight lines and most of it is arguing over one study done by Pew. This is undue weight for an arguable classification in an article on Islam. I summarized it to four lines, "Non-denominational Muslims defend their position by pointing to the Quranic verses such as Al Imran verse 103, which asks the Muslims to stay united and not to become divided. The Pew Research Center reports that Muslims self identifying as non-denominational Muslims make up a majority of Muslims in seven countries. At least one in five Muslims in at least 22 countries identify as non-denominational Muslims. However, other sources give Sunni majorities for these countries except Azerbaijan which has been traditionally a Shi'a Muslim majority country". I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
For my suggested rewrite, UnequivocalAmbivalence only found undue weight an issue and that synthesis was not an issue any more. As you can see from the beginning of this non-denominational muslims section on the talk page, my original point was to rewrite the eight line para to four lines because I thought it was undue weight for one study by Pew. A study helping to illuminate the level of people describing themselves without denominations is at least worth mentioning, so I vote that this four line rewrite is a good compromised position. Sodicadl ( talk) 21:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Soo, does the suggested four line rewrite address the undue weight issue or not? Sodicadl ( talk) 05:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The madhabs (schools of jurisprudence) seems a pretty notable in a topic on Islam. I added a three line subsection in the Law section in this edit [16] which also explains summarizing the nondenomination section as explained above. Nothing was brought up about this. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I moved the Shia subsection ahead of the sufi subsection because Shia are more notable as a sect here, [17]. Nothing was brought up about this. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I moved the marriage section from the culture section to the family life section in the law section because it only talks about law. Nothing was brought up about this. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the last part in this section needs to be included about sexual relations "Even after marriage, there are limitations regarding sex. For example, Islam prohibits a man to have sexual intercourse with his wife while she is menstruating and during postpartum period. It is considered a great sin for a man to have anal sex with his wife.[104]" This is not suitable and no idea why its included. Children can access this information if they are searching about a faith and this is not appropriate. Please remove. Why is this page protected also? — Preceding Saffycakes comment added by Saffycakes ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The scholars section uses Islamqa which is not a reliable source and the quran as a primary source. I added the template on usul fiqh. [18] Nothing was brought up against that edit, except sheriffintown added back the quran as a source. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
A pic of the soviet union did not seem as relevant to modern times section as the flag of the OIC. There are a number of pics of mosques and there should be a reasonable limit. I reduced the number and gave the calendar section a pic, as explained here, [19]. Nothing was brought up about this. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
regards FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 07:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The lede in law goes on about history and has information about hadiths in general. I shifted a para from there to the history section and the prophets section. [20] The lede there is also hard to follow so I added an intro para, defining about "fard" to "haram", which is pretty important [21] Nothing was brought up about this. I was told agreement by others is needed before each edit, so state your case now. Sodicadl ( talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
That edit [22] put the para in more appropriate sections. And this edit made the intro to law section a little easier to read, [23]. Again, anything new to bring up about them? Sodicadl ( talk) 01:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
This is nine days without input. Nothing was brought up about this previously either. I made the proposed edit. Sodicadl ( talk) 05:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Since when are comments by a politician a RS on theology? Eperoton ( talk) 22:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
In the paragraph where you takl about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), as the last "law bearing" Prophet, please remove the words "Law bearing" because Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the Final and Last Messenger of Allah Almighty. In Islam, there is no new Prophet after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
In the table where you give the different sects of Islam, please remove the box "Ahmadis" as this movement is outside of Islam.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanas92 ( talk • contribs)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islam's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Hassan-Decline":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The awkward paintings of Muhammad and Angels are unreal and distract users from the main essences of this article therefore I propose their removal; any objections can be discussed here.-- WindWalk55555 ( talk) 15:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This sentence, "Piety appears to be deepening worldwide." is backed up by articles that are outdated and misconstrued, and therefore the sentence should be removed. All of the references are only talking about an increase in conservative Islam within the Middle East. This does not necessarily mean an increase in piety as a whole, as it is only talking about in Islam. It also clearly does not mean worldwide, because it does not talk about the world outside of the Middle East. The articles are also 8 years old now causing them to be outdated for a current standing of the piety trend in the world.
Also, this sentence "Perhaps as a result of these efforts, most experts agree that Islam is growing faster than any other faith in East and West Africa" seems quite unfounded with little to no correlation being proven with the rise of the electronic media. There are also many other factors that can and do contribute to the choice of turning to Islam. Therefore, you should remove the "Perhaps as a result of these efforts" clause.
All in all, I would request that the entire paragraph between these sentences be looked at for modification and/or removal.
Thank you! Accuracycounts1 ( talk) 22:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC) Accuracycounts1 ( talk) 22:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
B E C K Y S A Y L E S 07:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)The use of "most of them" in the line of the first paragraph reading "...considered by most of them to be the last prophet of God." sounds biased and excluding. "considered by most followers to be..." or "considered by most muslims..." would be less excluding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:112A:408D:A476:11F0:6623:BDE9 ( talk) 20:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Christianity has an 'Apologetics' section; Why not Islam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:C501:3083:84E3:1E83:35AD:B513 ( talk) 02:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Not very important? It is really.-- Thelawlollol ( talk) 13:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I noticed a lot of inconsistent spellings of "Quran" on this page, and decided to make the article uniform. Based on Quran, the discussion of said article's name in its archives, and not finding anything in the archives of this page, I have settled on "Quran" rather than the variants "Qur'an" or "Koran." Of course "Qu'ran" is an obvious typo. If a consensus is reached to instead change the spelling back to "Qu'ran" for whatever reason, despite the acceptance of the spelling "Quran," I'm alright with that. Sennsationalist ( talk) 20:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I could not get much attention from WP:WikiProject Islam (apart from the Shia task force), so I am putting a notification here about a merger discussion regarding Demolition of al-Baqi→ Al-Baqi'. The discussion takes place at Talk:Al-Baqi'#Merger of Demolition. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 11:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Reverted lead? Metaphysicswar said,"Standardized with other major religions articles like Christianity & Hinduism. Second lead should be more facts based rather than cramming it with details that can possibly go on forever."
What do you guys think about the metaphysicswar lead? To me, it looks fine.
..................Metaphysicswar lead begin: (update.7)..................
Islam ( /ˈɪslɑːm/; [note 1] Arabic: الإسلام, al-ʾIslām IPA: [alʔisˈlaːm] ⓘ; [note 2] is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion articulated by the Quran, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Allāh), and, for the vast majority of adherents, by the teachings and normative example (called the sunnah, composed of accounts called hadith) of Muhammad ( c. 570–8 June 632 CE). It is the world's second-largest religion [3] and the fastest-growing major religion in the world, [4] [5] [6] with over 1.7 billion followers [7] or 23% of the global population, [8] known as Muslims. [9] Muslims also believe that Islam is the original, complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. [10] [11]
Islam upholds that God is one and incomparable [12] and that the purpose of existence is to worship God. [13] Muslims consider Muhammad to be the last prophet of God. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] As for the Quran, Muslims consider it to be both the unaltered and the final revelation of God. [20] Religious concepts and practices include the five pillars of Islam, which are obligatory acts of worship, and following Islamic law, which touches on virtually every aspect of life and society, from banking and welfare to the status of women and the environment. [21] [22]
Islam began in the early 7th century. Originating in Mecca, it quickly spread in the Arabian peninsula and by the 8th century the Islamic empire was extended from Iberia in the west to the Indus river in the east. The Islamic Golden Age refers to the period traditionally dated from the 8th century to the 13th century when much of the historically Islamic world was experiencing a scientific, economic and cultural flourishing. [23] [24] [25] The expansion of the Muslim world involved various caliphates and empires, traders and conversion to Islam by missionary activities. [26]
Most Muslims are of one of two denominations: [27] [28] Sunni (75–90%) [29] or Shia (10–20%). [30] About 13% of Muslims live in Indonesia, [31] the largest Muslim-majority country, 32% in South Asia, [32] 20% in the Middle East, [33] and 15% in Sub-Saharan Africa. [34] Sizable Muslim communities are also found in Europe, China, Russia, and the Americas. Converts and immigrant communities are found in almost every part of the world.
......................Lead end (update.7)...................... 001blondjamie ( talk) 16:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
References
Islam is the youngest, the fastest growing, and in many ways the least complicated of the world's great monotheistic faiths. It is a unique religion based on its own holy book, but it is also a direct descendant of Judaism and Christianity, incorporating some of the teachings of those religions—modifying some and rejecting others.
For Muslims, God is unique and without equal.
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Sunni-eb
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Shia
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).mgmpPRC
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This
edit request to
Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the first appearance of the following string
</ref> is the
should be replaced with
</ref>) is the
(i.e. it missing a ")")
Bianjiang ( talk) 01:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
This To Do list item states that "The section should cover the fact that sharia law is only a personal law b/t someone and God (not a political or non-Muslim law).." as well as some other "facts". I do not believe however that this is a fact..., but rather the opinion of the writer.
There are examples in history where the sharia (literally 'law') was imposed on all the people in the land, and non-muslims had to pay a specific tax (the
jizya, in accordance with the sharia !.
I therefore feel that this item on the To Do list has to be rewritten / reconsidered.
GTvehicle (
talk) 12:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Many of the citations on this page are superfluous. For example, the content about Sunnis being 75-90% of Muslims cites 15 sources. WP:OVERCITE recommends using a few good citations over quantity. Right now, those fifteen are there as artifacts of past edit wars. Most of them are not anything to do with demographics but mention numbers in passing and so one may not just stop at fifteen and could continue ad nauseam. I suggest keeping the source from the Pew Research center since it is the most reliable there on demographics and the one by the CIA factbook since that is also credible on demographics and it cites the lower end of 75%. Sodicadl ( talk) 02:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Indonesia islam Panji0916 ( talk) 22:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Considering MOS:BEGIN. The word God is repeated 4 times in the first paragraph in the lead which is too specific. So can we remove some of the mention of God which is repeated too many times and broadened the subject of the first paragraph in the lead. 000meow ( talk) 05:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
A link to the apostasy in Islam page ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam) should be provided. The Hadith mentions killing apostates. That fact should not be ignored. Cinn4v4g ( talk) 19:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong !!!! This hadith states that people who then fight against you should be killed and not just apostase STOP ISLAMOPHOBIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrk786 ( talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Laya sub ( talk) 12:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
DRAGON BOOSTER
★ 12:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)The Shia section contains the possessive form Shia's, when the sentence structure requires the nominative plural Shias.
2.25.149.66 (
talk) 18:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).