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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The picture at the top perpetuates the widespread but mistaken belief that the crescent is a traditional Islamic symbol, rather than - as it historically is - a Turkish symbol of the Ottoman Empire. I suggest changing it. - Mustafaa 19:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, shouldn't some of the headings be links? Or have links under them to articles explaining them -- for example, there's a good article on Madhhab in Wikipedia.-- iFaqeer 00:31, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Also, aren't Mu'tazili and Kharijite the same kind of "thing"--whether movement or sect? And I would classify Sunni and Shia as sects. Wahhabism, if anything, is a movement.-- iFaqeer 00:34, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
from Talk:Islam
I suggest that a crescent and star motif is a bad idea; it reinforces the incorrect idea that these constitute a traditional Islamic symbol, when in fact they were introduced by the Turks. A green flag or a calligraphed shahada would be better, although both have been taken by Libya and Saudi respectively... any other replacement ideas? - Mustafaa 12:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well said Bobaa904! There are hundreds of websites for inter-religious polemics without indulging in them here. I would also add that the sly use of "jibberish" (sic) is unhelpful too. In addition to being the alphabet of the Arabic language, the script is used in modified forms for many other languages such as Persian and Urdu. The script may be incomprehensible to many but that does not make it "jibberish" - any more than my ignorance of Chinese or Japanese scripts entitles me to use the epither jibberish to describe them or any other writing system. The reason for them being incomprehensible to me is my ignorance, and not something intrinsic to their nature. Wildbe 09:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How about changing the symbol at the top to the Windows Glyph(s) for Allah:ﺍﷲ? — iFaqeer | Talk to me! 18:42, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
While I agree that Arabic is meaningless to the average English reader, I do not think that there exists a better representation of Islam, than the central creed of Islam in the sacred language of Islam. In my opinion, the image of the shahadah is to Islam as the cross is to Christianity: an iconic representation of the religion's paramount article of faith. (I would compare the star and crescent to the Chi-Rho: a later invention, or perhaps an adaptation of a pre-existing icon, which came to be adopted and recognized as a—but not the—symbol of the religion.) Certainly it could be better-explained, but I do not think it should be replaced. An encyclopedia exists to inform, not to cater to pre-conceived (and ill-informed) ideas. (I doubt those who think of the crescent as the main symbol of Islam are aware of its history.) —No-One Jones (m) 08:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"the image of the shahadah is to Islam as the cross is to Christianity: an iconic representation of the religion's paramount article of faith. (I would compare the star and crescent to the Chi-Rho: a later invention" <--- I disagree. Muhammad never used the shahadah as a symbol for his religion; he did not use any symbol, except a black flag. The use of the shahadah as a symbol is probably a more recent innovation in Islam than the use of the cresent moon as a symbol. The use of the shahadah as a symbol for Islam was really popularized by Wahabis (puritans) such Saudi Arabia and the Taliban; these are 19th and 20th century governments that rejected the more traditional cresent moon as a symbol because they percieve it as an impure innovation, and instead used the shahadah on their flags (in fact the shahada image in this template has been taken from the flag of Saudi Arabia). Wahabis are the same fringe puritanical groupa that once flattened to the ground Muhammad's tomb in Medina, because Muslims are forbidden from having gravestones or tombs (Muhammad's tomb was later rebuilt). Several Muslm countries, including Turkey, Pakistan, and Malaysia use the cresent moon as their symbol. Millions of mosques around the world also display the cresent moon on their tips of their minarets (just as most churches display the cross), while very few mosques display the shahada (similar to how chi-rho is rarely seen on Churches). Muslims everywhere recognize and identify with the cresent moon symbol. Thus I think that the cresent moon is to Islam as the cross is to Chrisitianity.
I also object to the use of the shadada has a logo because I think that the logo should have no written words on it. The shahada logo is a sentence written in caligraphy, as opposed to being an articistic geometric design like the cross, and the cresent moon, and all other religious symbols. A sentence carries a stated assertion in it; the shahada says "there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger." The symbol of the cross does not say "Jesus is God." Imagine if on the article about Christianity Wikipedia displayed a big artistic logo reading "Jesus is God." Many people, especially Jews and Muslims, would be offended but such an image because it would be seen as Wikipedia endorsing the statement countained in the logo. By some that by prominently placing an image of the shahada written in color and in large caligraphic letters, at the top of every Islam related article, these Wikipedia articles could be percieved of as endorsing the shahada itself.
For these reasons, I am changing the logo back to the cresent moon.
-- Pename 09:34, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Please do not make major edits without consensus, and then rudely accuse those who correctly revert them of vandalism. As we've already established, the recognized logo of Hinduism is a word - corresponding to 3 Latin letters - and the crescent as a logo is not acceptable to all Muslims. The "black flag" alluded to might work - as might no logo at all. But the Shahada strikes me as artistically superior. - Mustafaa 02:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Only only one Muslim country in the world displays any kind of religious symbol on its flag. That country is:
Your "worldwide consensus" is irrelevant; by a considerably larger "consensus", we should preface every mention of Israel with qualifiers like "illegitimate" or "terrorist". Two symbols, however, that unquestionably are accepted by all Muslims - and that appear in every mosque I've ever been to - are the shahada we have right now and the calligraphed word Allah. Implausible as I find it that you actually object to having the Shahada written there in a language you can't read, I'm happy to go for "Allah". However, using the crescent merely perpetuates widespread misconceptions - and if it's "elitist" to correct these misconceptions, then go elitism! - Mustafaa 14:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lo and behold, it seems we have a rather nice Allah image already, though I think it would look better in green than purple. - Mustafaa 17:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why is Mirv deleting the link to the Wikipedia article on Jihad? -- Pename 09:23, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
The only appropriate place to add Jihad would be in the Five Pillars section of the template, since Jihad is invoked on occasion as the so-called Sixth pillar of Islam. It would need to be differentiated somehow from the actual five pillars, because obviously jihad is not canonically one of Islam's pillars. It might be possible to enter it in at the bottom saying "see also: jihad" or "related: jihad". To avoid confusion, we might include text reading "the 'sixth pillar': jihad", linking to both the sicth pillar page, and the jihad page. — thames 21:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I preferred the old color scheme. Why do you prefer the new one? — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:49, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
I looked at the template and was just floored when I couldn't find a link to Mohammed. There should really be a section for people in the template, at least there should be a link to the founder of Islam. The section sould be something like "Important people in Islam". It should include Mohammed, A link to the list of Caliphs, a link to a list of people Islam considers prophets ( Prophets of Islam) and probably the list of Imams, Abu Bakr, and Ali. -- metta, The Sunborn ☸ 15:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Interesting idea, actually. Depending on how much we expand it, I could envision something like (if no doubt shorter than):
I'm tempted to add the Ibadi imams as well (see eg Rustamids), but with only Oman and the Mzab following the sect, they really aren't notable enough. - Mustafaa 17:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Possibly the list of Imams and Caliphs is overkill, but we could at least link to the top-level articles. - Mustafaa 17:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
People |
Muhammad |
Prophets of Islam |
Caliphs Shia Imams |
Companions of Muhammad |
How about this - the shahada (la ilaha il Allah, Muhammdun rasool Allah), written in Arabic calligraphy - in the form of a crescent star. :)
Bobaa904 22:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was thinking; shouldn't we include in the template a link to a list of all the pages that link to this template? It would be easy to do:
— iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:50, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Someone has changed the entries under "People" to "Caliph" and "Shia Imam", respectively, from "Caliphs" and "Shia Imams". I know the articles are titled in the singular and are fundamentally about the title/office. But the link from here is an effort to provide a place for people to look to find out about the people who were Caliphs and Shia Imams. What say? — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:49, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
If the Nation of Islam gets a spot here, shouldn't the Five Percenters be listed too? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:18, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Can we add a link to Muslim music and or its Category:Muslim music and perhaps more about Islamic culture? Hyacinth 18:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Was there any discussion of the background before it was changed? I agree that the brown/cream one was cooler and softer--but Green is almost universally seen as the color of Islam. I am changing it back pending a discussion. — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:12, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Do the Alawis and the consider themselves a separate faith? If not, then they may belong under "Non-Mainstream Sects". I interpret that to be sects that see themselves as true Muslims or "The True Muslims", but whom the majority of other Muslims, like the Shia, the Sunni, etc., do not consider Muslims at all--The Ahmadiyya, for example.
Ditto the Druze--do they consider themselves as beyond the community of Mohammad--like the Babis and Bahais do; or the Muslims do vis-a-vis Christianity or Christians vis-a-vis Judaism? If they do, then they belong under "Related Faiths".
Am I making any sense? — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:20, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Judging by the articles, the answer is "yes" for Alawis, and ambiguous for Druze: "The Druze faith keeps its tenets secret" and "some Druze say that their religion is an Islamic one". - Mustafaa 03:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article forms part of the series Islam | |
Vocabulary of Islam | |
Five Pillars | |
Profession of faith Prayer · Alms · Fasting Pilgrimage to Mecca Jihad (See Sixth pillar of Islam) | |
People | |
Muhammad Prophets of Islam Caliph · Shia Imam Companions of Muhammad | |
Holy Cities | Events |
Mecca ·
Medina Jerusalem Najaf · Karbala Kufa · Kazimain Mashhad · Samarra |
Hijra Islamic calendar Eid ul-Fitr Eid ul-Adha Aashura Arba'in |
Buildings | Religious Roles |
Mosque ·
Minaret Mihrab · Kaaba Islamic architecture |
Muezzin ·
Imam Mullah · Mufti Ayatollah |
Texts & Law | |
Qur'an ·
Hadith ·
Sunnah Fiqh · Fatwa · Sharia | |
Sharia Schools | Kalam Schools |
Hanafi Hanbali Jafari Maliki Shafi'i |
Ash'ari Jabriyya Maturidi Murjite Mu'tazili Qadariyya |
Shi'a sects | Kharijite Sects |
Ithna Asharia Ismailiyah Zaiddiyah |
Sufri Azraqi Ibadi |
Movements | |
Sufism · Wahhabism · Salafism | |
Other Sects | Related Faiths |
Ahmadiyyah Nation of Islam Five Percenters Zikri · Druze |
Alawi Babism Bahá'í Faith Yazidi |
It seems to me that the template has grown to a quite ungainly size. I propose one of two things:
We'll need to incorporate the changes that have been made to the main Template since the proposed design was "forked" off before we use this new design. — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:55, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
I'd request that you take the current template, convert it and paste it here so we can see how it looks--just as a last minute check; I am not too comfy about some of the depth and detail that have recently been added (and which I think is very useful) being clearly visible after a conversion.
Good design you've come up with, though! I like it. — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
I have gotten pretty attached to the template. It's really handy.
If we do make it smaller, I would request moving the current form to a Islam Quick Reference article--maybe that would also solve the other question I was asking about putting this into an article. And that article could be linked from the template...thinking as I go here. — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Isn't that a Sufi Tariqa rather than a school of theology? Or am I confused? — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Isn't that a little too complicated a title? I know it might be technically the most accurate term, but by not just "theology"? Or just "Schools of Thought". Most everyday Muslims would call them madhhabs anyway. And recognize them as very practical schools of religious practice that they follow, not just purely scholastic phenomena... — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 08:08, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
I've added Marja to Functional Religious Roles. It is a concept very fundamental to Shia Islam and increasingly something readers of the news need to know about, — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:13, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
I recently had reason to refer folks on a mailing list to the Template as a quick guide on Islamic topics and terminology. What would folks think about creating a page in the main namespage (as opposed to the Template: one) with just this template on it--or just text introducing it? — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:27, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
I guess so. But in the situation above, I wanted to provide a Quick Reference list. The whole article would be distracting in that situation...maybe it is something we could do as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam or Wikipedia:WikiPortal/Muslim World — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:50, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the title Sharia School should be changed to Madhab which is far less cumbersome. Using this does not make the article any more convoluted because it is no more ratiocinative than "Kalam schools". Also, I am not sure that having the four Sunni schools mixed with the twelvers. There is often times in literature I have found an emphasis that one should choose one of those four schools (granted it is modern day conservative literature I think... but this is besides the point) and they are bundled into a group. Also, considering under that section it links to the Twelver's page and not a page directly on the jurisprudence I think it almost makes itself irrelevant now with redundant links gren 17:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What is the criterion for "* = status disputed"? Is it just within a group, or more generally in Islam? If the answer is the latter then I would think at least Jihad as the " Sixth pillar of Islam" and the Nation of Islam and The Nation of Gods and Earths would also be considered "disputed".-- Pharos 04:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's a fair approach. I changed "status disputed" to "self-identification unclear" to try to clarify things more on the template. Does this fit the methodology better?-- Pharos 00:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Added a link to Liberal movements within Islam under "Movements". — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Heading lines are "cut" by this infobox. How do we resolve this issue? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Shouldnt sufism have its own heading , like mysticism , rather then under movement heading ? Farhansher 9 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)
... is more accurate/relevant than "Five Pillars," inasmuch as Shia do not consider them "pillars" at all. BrandonYusufToropov 19:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, but the Jihad link has to go. It's not one of the Five Pillars of Islam, nor is it a "fundamental principle." I'd say to maybe put Five Pillars in parenthesis, just because it's most commonly known that way, and referred to as such by the majority of Muslims. mr100percent 04:51, 26 July 2005 (EST)
When did this happen....how....why . Farhansher 17:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic, this is the most ridiculous edit I've seen you make [7] recently. If you want to demonstrate that you're editing in good faith please don't continue to make edits like this. Heraclius 15:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
As I recall, there have been previous go-rounds on the question of what symbol, if any, to use in the Islam template. For a while they had an Arabic version of the Shahada, but then that was replaced by the word Islam. In my research on symbols, flags, and banners, I found a number of flag pages that asserted unequivocally that the star and crescent were Ottoman symbols, and not used before then. Dunno why Pakistan and Malaysia have adopted them. Myself, I think a nice calligraphy version of Allahu would probably be acceptable to everyone. I'll bet that there are versions arranged as roundels that would look nice. That would probably be acceptable to everyone. Zora 23:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The new darker colors ar reall ugly.... gren グレン 22:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
How about Saudi Green, and a light tan sand color? Klonimus 05:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I've added back Jihad to the list of fundmental principles with the explanitory note, that some muslims feel that it is fundamental principle.
This is I think a good compromise. Klonimus 06:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Zeno, above you implied that you agreed with me that Jihad should not be listed as one of the five pillars ("...the rationale that you gave for not including Jihad was that it was listed under "Five Pillars of Islam" with a link to Sixth Pillar of Islam. Yes, we all know that only a minority formally views Jihad as the sixth pillar, because there is a cannonical hadith that lists the "five pillars."), but argued that it should be under "Fundamental Principles". From that, I took that to mean that "Fundamental Principles" were different than "Five Pillars". However, the link goes straight to Five Pillars of Islam. Therefore, it's pointless to say that we now have a different situation than the one that existed when the section was entitled "Five Pillars." Later, you say that "...Shiah muslims consider "jihad" to be part of the "pillars"," and suggest that people read the article. The article doesn't back you up, however. The article mentions the 7th century Khawarij sect believed jihad to be a pillar, and the Shiah's believe it to be one of ten practices, along with paying the tax on profit and hating the enemies of the Ahl-ul-Bayt, to mention a couple other of their practices which did not make it to the template. "Jihad" doesn't belong in a section who's link goes to "Five Pillars", and doesn't belong as a "Fundamantal Principle" as the only other "principle" to be included other than the big five. — Asbestos | Talk 15:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that Jihad is of such importance in current discussions of Islam that it would be a grave error to exclude it. — thames 17:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I deleted Jihad from the five pillars. To add Jihad on the template, I was going to make the last section titled "see also" and list Jihad there, along with anything else that has no place. Other templates follow that model. Cunado19 01:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I think everyone should visit http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa060401a.htm This webpage discusses the origins of the symbol, and also has a poll addressing this very same issue. After nearly 5000 votes, the majority position is that the cresent moon should be used as a symbol of Islam.
It is true that the symbol was first used by the Ottoman Islamic Empire, and not the Arab Islamic Empire. But Islam is a lot more than the early Arab empire. The following nations use the cresent moon on their flags:
Most of the above countries were either never under Ottoman control or were, before their independance, trying to become independant of the Ottomans Empire. Most people from these countries are proud of their flags, and they believe that their flags symbolize their unity with the Muslim ummah. When hundreds of millions of Muslims proudly wave the cresent symbol, in the belief that it symbolizes their faith, it is extremely POV to tell them that this symbol is "un-Islamic" and will therefore not be used on Wikipedia.
The cresent moon symbol is used in Islam's holiest mosque, in Mecca [10]. The same symbol is used in mosques all over the world. If there is a mosque near you, I recommend that you go look at it. Chances are that you will find the cresent symbol somewhere on the mosque.
Not long ago, I was visiting a Middle Eastern country, and was walking inside a modern shopping mall. Every once in a while, I would see some signs hanging from the ceiling of the mall, with symbols such as a payphone symbol, men's and women's washroom symbols, etc., and arrows pointing to where these facilities can be found (of course, these sorts of signs are found in modern malls all over the world). But these signs also had one more symbol: a cresent moon symbol, indicating where a mosque/prayer area can be found in the mall. The cresent moon symbol is ubiquitous to the Muslim world.
The cresent moon symbol is also the symbol of the International Red Cresent Society, the Muslim counter-part of the International Red Cross Society.
Did Muhammad invent the Red Cresent symbol? No? Does that mean that fundamentalists oppose the symbol because Muhammad didnt use it? Yes. Does that mean that most Muslims oppose the symbol? No, most Muslims gladly use this symbol.
Was the crescent moon symbol first used by the Ottomans? Yes, the founder of the Ottomans used this symbol after capturing Constantinople, which used to use the symbol before the Ottomans. Does that make the crescent moon symbol exclusively the symbol of the Ottoman Empire? Of course not, not anymore than it makes the crescent moon symbol exclusively the symbol of Christian Constantinople. Symbols are very similar to words. All words have etymological origins. But it is an important principal in linguistics that etymology is different from semantics. A simple example is the word barbarian; this word has Greek origins. The ancient Greeks used to call non-Greeks "barbarians" because when they heard non-Greeks languages it sounded like "bar bar bar ..." - back then, the sound "bar bar bar ..." was thought of like how we today think of the sound "blah blah blah ..." So non-Greeks came to be called "barbarians," in ancient Greek society. Does this mean that, today, the word "barbarian" means "non-Greek?" Obviously not. The etymological origins of a word need not have anything to do with its contemporary semantic meaning, and the same holds true for symbols (indeed, the study of symbols is a part of linguistics).
The overwhelming Muslim majority opinion is that the cresent moon symbol is the symbol of Islam. There are small groups of Muslims who don't like this, and wish to go back to the days when Islam didn't have a symbol. While their opinion should be noted in an article about the Cresent Moon Symbol, it should not lead to suppression of the symbol just to satisfy the deviant opinions of a small minority.
I think most of the opposition against the cresent moon, on this template, is comming from the recent hoax at Allah and the mention of Hubal. Please note that I do not think that Allah is a moon-god - such suggestions are absolutely ridiculous. Nor does the Cresent Moon symbol have anything to do with Hubal. I was just having a laugh, no academic believes that Isla's cresent moon symbol has anything to do with moon worship. -- Zeno of Elea 20:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Who were Mughals ?
Who were the first people who invented Urdu
Who was the first poet of Urdu
What is the meaning of Urdu
From where were the sufis send to Malaysia
When you know the answers you will understand what I am saying . As before read some books before discussions . Sites arnt very good source . I know because you dont even know the basics . If you even read the books tought in Elementary schools , they will tell you about turks Farhansher 05:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
[11] Comentary and poll can be found here if intrested.-- Tznkai 03:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Why is the template green? Can anyone explain? I think the template colors should be like Template:Christianity - it should use the WIkipedia Table of Contents color scheme. -- Zeno of Elea 21:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Zeno, you have just broken the 3RR yet again. As a gesture of good faith, I won't report you for it. But please stop reverting this template. Heraclius 23:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Uhhh, you know purple is a very Christian (besides being noble) color. Catholics on Easter use purple... and I believe that is why the Christianity/Jesus templates use it... it is not because of any standard... so I fail to see why the Islam one is using it... it's not like the wiki album project where orange means studio recorded and darkgreen means compiliation.... there is no standard for this as I can tell... and using purple for this template is just using what the Christian colors are.... gren グレン 17:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Zeno's behaviour on this and related talk pages is becoming increasingly unacceptable. This is saddening, since orignially I perceived him as an intelligent and knowledgeable critic of Islam. Now he is basically just trolling. Of course a calligraphy of the name of God will be appropriate on this template (hello? the topic of this template is Islam, how is it not going to be Islam-centric??), likewise for the green colour: One may argue against it on grounds of graphical taste, but to denounce it from anti-Islamic motives is ridiculous. Zeno, if your behaviour continues to deteriorate like this, you may find yourself wound up in the formal aspects of Wikipedia:dispute resolution soon. dab (ᛏ) 13:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I am taking a week long leave from this article at the suggestion of various admins, especially user:kmccoy. Before I do so, I will leave my opinions, observations, as my standing "vote" while I'm off.
Template colors: Keep it uniform with the rest of Wikipedia. Who cares if its "ugly?" Its functional, and readable, and ignorable if people don't want to read the rest of the series.
Template Size: Too big. Taking up more space than other Templates, doesn't need too. Cut it down to the essentials and shrink.
Inclusion of Jihad: Its probably roughly as important as the doctrine of grace in Christianity. Or possibly its just a new word for a common religious concept. At any rate, a Jihad is a theological concept, justifying and extoling certain actions under certain conditions. This is parallel to the theological doctrines of Works, Grace, Salvation, etc.
Symbol: So far, the strongest consensus seems to exist with going with no symbol. To paraphrase user:geogre: "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR ULTIMATE TRUTH" it is a place for the summarization, collation, and reporting of observed facts about other person's observations, analysis in published works. In otherwords, Notability is important, as is Consensus and Compromise. So play nice please kids.
Other issues: anyone considering an RFC to get the opinions of the wider wikipedian community? By its nature, religious articles attract those who have strong POVs for or against.
See you in 7 days unless something extraordinarly stupid happens here.-- Tznkai 15:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I just committed the sin of editing a page without glancing at the talk page. I was about to change the list of sects, movements, and related faiths. Most people honestly don't care about every division. I'm not too familiar with the Islam pages, is there a page for Islamic divisions? If not, we should make a page that lists all the sects, divisions, schools, and related faiths with links. We could replace all of them on the template with one single link. Cunado19 01:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I tried reading the talk page to see about a picture, but it's brain deadening. It seems obvious to me that the star and crescent should be used, but since there seems to be people set on not using it, can we take a poll? The options would be: use the crescent, use the calligraphy of Allah, don't use any picture. I'll leave it up to someone who knows what they're doing to set up the voting. Cunado19 02:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Image:Shahada crescent.png has been mentioned as a possible compromise, but there might be a copyright issue with that, that'll properly need to get solved. -- Karl Meier 06:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
The picture at the top perpetuates the widespread but mistaken belief that the crescent is a traditional Islamic symbol, rather than - as it historically is - a Turkish symbol of the Ottoman Empire. I suggest changing it. - Mustafaa 19:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Also, shouldn't some of the headings be links? Or have links under them to articles explaining them -- for example, there's a good article on Madhhab in Wikipedia.-- iFaqeer 00:31, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
Also, aren't Mu'tazili and Kharijite the same kind of "thing"--whether movement or sect? And I would classify Sunni and Shia as sects. Wahhabism, if anything, is a movement.-- iFaqeer 00:34, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
from Talk:Islam
I suggest that a crescent and star motif is a bad idea; it reinforces the incorrect idea that these constitute a traditional Islamic symbol, when in fact they were introduced by the Turks. A green flag or a calligraphed shahada would be better, although both have been taken by Libya and Saudi respectively... any other replacement ideas? - Mustafaa 12:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well said Bobaa904! There are hundreds of websites for inter-religious polemics without indulging in them here. I would also add that the sly use of "jibberish" (sic) is unhelpful too. In addition to being the alphabet of the Arabic language, the script is used in modified forms for many other languages such as Persian and Urdu. The script may be incomprehensible to many but that does not make it "jibberish" - any more than my ignorance of Chinese or Japanese scripts entitles me to use the epither jibberish to describe them or any other writing system. The reason for them being incomprehensible to me is my ignorance, and not something intrinsic to their nature. Wildbe 09:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How about changing the symbol at the top to the Windows Glyph(s) for Allah:ﺍﷲ? — iFaqeer | Talk to me! 18:42, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
While I agree that Arabic is meaningless to the average English reader, I do not think that there exists a better representation of Islam, than the central creed of Islam in the sacred language of Islam. In my opinion, the image of the shahadah is to Islam as the cross is to Christianity: an iconic representation of the religion's paramount article of faith. (I would compare the star and crescent to the Chi-Rho: a later invention, or perhaps an adaptation of a pre-existing icon, which came to be adopted and recognized as a—but not the—symbol of the religion.) Certainly it could be better-explained, but I do not think it should be replaced. An encyclopedia exists to inform, not to cater to pre-conceived (and ill-informed) ideas. (I doubt those who think of the crescent as the main symbol of Islam are aware of its history.) —No-One Jones (m) 08:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"the image of the shahadah is to Islam as the cross is to Christianity: an iconic representation of the religion's paramount article of faith. (I would compare the star and crescent to the Chi-Rho: a later invention" <--- I disagree. Muhammad never used the shahadah as a symbol for his religion; he did not use any symbol, except a black flag. The use of the shahadah as a symbol is probably a more recent innovation in Islam than the use of the cresent moon as a symbol. The use of the shahadah as a symbol for Islam was really popularized by Wahabis (puritans) such Saudi Arabia and the Taliban; these are 19th and 20th century governments that rejected the more traditional cresent moon as a symbol because they percieve it as an impure innovation, and instead used the shahadah on their flags (in fact the shahada image in this template has been taken from the flag of Saudi Arabia). Wahabis are the same fringe puritanical groupa that once flattened to the ground Muhammad's tomb in Medina, because Muslims are forbidden from having gravestones or tombs (Muhammad's tomb was later rebuilt). Several Muslm countries, including Turkey, Pakistan, and Malaysia use the cresent moon as their symbol. Millions of mosques around the world also display the cresent moon on their tips of their minarets (just as most churches display the cross), while very few mosques display the shahada (similar to how chi-rho is rarely seen on Churches). Muslims everywhere recognize and identify with the cresent moon symbol. Thus I think that the cresent moon is to Islam as the cross is to Chrisitianity.
I also object to the use of the shadada has a logo because I think that the logo should have no written words on it. The shahada logo is a sentence written in caligraphy, as opposed to being an articistic geometric design like the cross, and the cresent moon, and all other religious symbols. A sentence carries a stated assertion in it; the shahada says "there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger." The symbol of the cross does not say "Jesus is God." Imagine if on the article about Christianity Wikipedia displayed a big artistic logo reading "Jesus is God." Many people, especially Jews and Muslims, would be offended but such an image because it would be seen as Wikipedia endorsing the statement countained in the logo. By some that by prominently placing an image of the shahada written in color and in large caligraphic letters, at the top of every Islam related article, these Wikipedia articles could be percieved of as endorsing the shahada itself.
For these reasons, I am changing the logo back to the cresent moon.
-- Pename 09:34, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Please do not make major edits without consensus, and then rudely accuse those who correctly revert them of vandalism. As we've already established, the recognized logo of Hinduism is a word - corresponding to 3 Latin letters - and the crescent as a logo is not acceptable to all Muslims. The "black flag" alluded to might work - as might no logo at all. But the Shahada strikes me as artistically superior. - Mustafaa 02:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Only only one Muslim country in the world displays any kind of religious symbol on its flag. That country is:
Your "worldwide consensus" is irrelevant; by a considerably larger "consensus", we should preface every mention of Israel with qualifiers like "illegitimate" or "terrorist". Two symbols, however, that unquestionably are accepted by all Muslims - and that appear in every mosque I've ever been to - are the shahada we have right now and the calligraphed word Allah. Implausible as I find it that you actually object to having the Shahada written there in a language you can't read, I'm happy to go for "Allah". However, using the crescent merely perpetuates widespread misconceptions - and if it's "elitist" to correct these misconceptions, then go elitism! - Mustafaa 14:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lo and behold, it seems we have a rather nice Allah image already, though I think it would look better in green than purple. - Mustafaa 17:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why is Mirv deleting the link to the Wikipedia article on Jihad? -- Pename 09:23, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
The only appropriate place to add Jihad would be in the Five Pillars section of the template, since Jihad is invoked on occasion as the so-called Sixth pillar of Islam. It would need to be differentiated somehow from the actual five pillars, because obviously jihad is not canonically one of Islam's pillars. It might be possible to enter it in at the bottom saying "see also: jihad" or "related: jihad". To avoid confusion, we might include text reading "the 'sixth pillar': jihad", linking to both the sicth pillar page, and the jihad page. — thames 21:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I preferred the old color scheme. Why do you prefer the new one? — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:49, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
I looked at the template and was just floored when I couldn't find a link to Mohammed. There should really be a section for people in the template, at least there should be a link to the founder of Islam. The section sould be something like "Important people in Islam". It should include Mohammed, A link to the list of Caliphs, a link to a list of people Islam considers prophets ( Prophets of Islam) and probably the list of Imams, Abu Bakr, and Ali. -- metta, The Sunborn ☸ 15:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Interesting idea, actually. Depending on how much we expand it, I could envision something like (if no doubt shorter than):
I'm tempted to add the Ibadi imams as well (see eg Rustamids), but with only Oman and the Mzab following the sect, they really aren't notable enough. - Mustafaa 17:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Possibly the list of Imams and Caliphs is overkill, but we could at least link to the top-level articles. - Mustafaa 17:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
People |
Muhammad |
Prophets of Islam |
Caliphs Shia Imams |
Companions of Muhammad |
How about this - the shahada (la ilaha il Allah, Muhammdun rasool Allah), written in Arabic calligraphy - in the form of a crescent star. :)
Bobaa904 22:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I was thinking; shouldn't we include in the template a link to a list of all the pages that link to this template? It would be easy to do:
— iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:50, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Someone has changed the entries under "People" to "Caliph" and "Shia Imam", respectively, from "Caliphs" and "Shia Imams". I know the articles are titled in the singular and are fundamentally about the title/office. But the link from here is an effort to provide a place for people to look to find out about the people who were Caliphs and Shia Imams. What say? — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:49, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
If the Nation of Islam gets a spot here, shouldn't the Five Percenters be listed too? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:18, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Can we add a link to Muslim music and or its Category:Muslim music and perhaps more about Islamic culture? Hyacinth 18:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Was there any discussion of the background before it was changed? I agree that the brown/cream one was cooler and softer--but Green is almost universally seen as the color of Islam. I am changing it back pending a discussion. — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:12, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Do the Alawis and the consider themselves a separate faith? If not, then they may belong under "Non-Mainstream Sects". I interpret that to be sects that see themselves as true Muslims or "The True Muslims", but whom the majority of other Muslims, like the Shia, the Sunni, etc., do not consider Muslims at all--The Ahmadiyya, for example.
Ditto the Druze--do they consider themselves as beyond the community of Mohammad--like the Babis and Bahais do; or the Muslims do vis-a-vis Christianity or Christians vis-a-vis Judaism? If they do, then they belong under "Related Faiths".
Am I making any sense? — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:20, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
Judging by the articles, the answer is "yes" for Alawis, and ambiguous for Druze: "The Druze faith keeps its tenets secret" and "some Druze say that their religion is an Islamic one". - Mustafaa 03:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article forms part of the series Islam | |
Vocabulary of Islam | |
Five Pillars | |
Profession of faith Prayer · Alms · Fasting Pilgrimage to Mecca Jihad (See Sixth pillar of Islam) | |
People | |
Muhammad Prophets of Islam Caliph · Shia Imam Companions of Muhammad | |
Holy Cities | Events |
Mecca ·
Medina Jerusalem Najaf · Karbala Kufa · Kazimain Mashhad · Samarra |
Hijra Islamic calendar Eid ul-Fitr Eid ul-Adha Aashura Arba'in |
Buildings | Religious Roles |
Mosque ·
Minaret Mihrab · Kaaba Islamic architecture |
Muezzin ·
Imam Mullah · Mufti Ayatollah |
Texts & Law | |
Qur'an ·
Hadith ·
Sunnah Fiqh · Fatwa · Sharia | |
Sharia Schools | Kalam Schools |
Hanafi Hanbali Jafari Maliki Shafi'i |
Ash'ari Jabriyya Maturidi Murjite Mu'tazili Qadariyya |
Shi'a sects | Kharijite Sects |
Ithna Asharia Ismailiyah Zaiddiyah |
Sufri Azraqi Ibadi |
Movements | |
Sufism · Wahhabism · Salafism | |
Other Sects | Related Faiths |
Ahmadiyyah Nation of Islam Five Percenters Zikri · Druze |
Alawi Babism Bahá'í Faith Yazidi |
It seems to me that the template has grown to a quite ungainly size. I propose one of two things:
We'll need to incorporate the changes that have been made to the main Template since the proposed design was "forked" off before we use this new design. — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:55, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
I'd request that you take the current template, convert it and paste it here so we can see how it looks--just as a last minute check; I am not too comfy about some of the depth and detail that have recently been added (and which I think is very useful) being clearly visible after a conversion.
Good design you've come up with, though! I like it. — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
I have gotten pretty attached to the template. It's really handy.
If we do make it smaller, I would request moving the current form to a Islam Quick Reference article--maybe that would also solve the other question I was asking about putting this into an article. And that article could be linked from the template...thinking as I go here. — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Isn't that a Sufi Tariqa rather than a school of theology? Or am I confused? — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Isn't that a little too complicated a title? I know it might be technically the most accurate term, but by not just "theology"? Or just "Schools of Thought". Most everyday Muslims would call them madhhabs anyway. And recognize them as very practical schools of religious practice that they follow, not just purely scholastic phenomena... — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 08:08, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
I've added Marja to Functional Religious Roles. It is a concept very fundamental to Shia Islam and increasingly something readers of the news need to know about, — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:13, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
I recently had reason to refer folks on a mailing list to the Template as a quick guide on Islamic topics and terminology. What would folks think about creating a page in the main namespage (as opposed to the Template: one) with just this template on it--or just text introducing it? — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:27, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
I guess so. But in the situation above, I wanted to provide a Quick Reference list. The whole article would be distracting in that situation...maybe it is something we could do as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam or Wikipedia:WikiPortal/Muslim World — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:50, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the title Sharia School should be changed to Madhab which is far less cumbersome. Using this does not make the article any more convoluted because it is no more ratiocinative than "Kalam schools". Also, I am not sure that having the four Sunni schools mixed with the twelvers. There is often times in literature I have found an emphasis that one should choose one of those four schools (granted it is modern day conservative literature I think... but this is besides the point) and they are bundled into a group. Also, considering under that section it links to the Twelver's page and not a page directly on the jurisprudence I think it almost makes itself irrelevant now with redundant links gren 17:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What is the criterion for "* = status disputed"? Is it just within a group, or more generally in Islam? If the answer is the latter then I would think at least Jihad as the " Sixth pillar of Islam" and the Nation of Islam and The Nation of Gods and Earths would also be considered "disputed".-- Pharos 04:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's a fair approach. I changed "status disputed" to "self-identification unclear" to try to clarify things more on the template. Does this fit the methodology better?-- Pharos 00:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Added a link to Liberal movements within Islam under "Movements". — iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
Heading lines are "cut" by this infobox. How do we resolve this issue? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Shouldnt sufism have its own heading , like mysticism , rather then under movement heading ? Farhansher 9 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)
... is more accurate/relevant than "Five Pillars," inasmuch as Shia do not consider them "pillars" at all. BrandonYusufToropov 19:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, but the Jihad link has to go. It's not one of the Five Pillars of Islam, nor is it a "fundamental principle." I'd say to maybe put Five Pillars in parenthesis, just because it's most commonly known that way, and referred to as such by the majority of Muslims. mr100percent 04:51, 26 July 2005 (EST)
When did this happen....how....why . Farhansher 17:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic, this is the most ridiculous edit I've seen you make [7] recently. If you want to demonstrate that you're editing in good faith please don't continue to make edits like this. Heraclius 15:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
As I recall, there have been previous go-rounds on the question of what symbol, if any, to use in the Islam template. For a while they had an Arabic version of the Shahada, but then that was replaced by the word Islam. In my research on symbols, flags, and banners, I found a number of flag pages that asserted unequivocally that the star and crescent were Ottoman symbols, and not used before then. Dunno why Pakistan and Malaysia have adopted them. Myself, I think a nice calligraphy version of Allahu would probably be acceptable to everyone. I'll bet that there are versions arranged as roundels that would look nice. That would probably be acceptable to everyone. Zora 23:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The new darker colors ar reall ugly.... gren グレン 22:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
How about Saudi Green, and a light tan sand color? Klonimus 05:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I've added back Jihad to the list of fundmental principles with the explanitory note, that some muslims feel that it is fundamental principle.
This is I think a good compromise. Klonimus 06:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Zeno, above you implied that you agreed with me that Jihad should not be listed as one of the five pillars ("...the rationale that you gave for not including Jihad was that it was listed under "Five Pillars of Islam" with a link to Sixth Pillar of Islam. Yes, we all know that only a minority formally views Jihad as the sixth pillar, because there is a cannonical hadith that lists the "five pillars."), but argued that it should be under "Fundamental Principles". From that, I took that to mean that "Fundamental Principles" were different than "Five Pillars". However, the link goes straight to Five Pillars of Islam. Therefore, it's pointless to say that we now have a different situation than the one that existed when the section was entitled "Five Pillars." Later, you say that "...Shiah muslims consider "jihad" to be part of the "pillars"," and suggest that people read the article. The article doesn't back you up, however. The article mentions the 7th century Khawarij sect believed jihad to be a pillar, and the Shiah's believe it to be one of ten practices, along with paying the tax on profit and hating the enemies of the Ahl-ul-Bayt, to mention a couple other of their practices which did not make it to the template. "Jihad" doesn't belong in a section who's link goes to "Five Pillars", and doesn't belong as a "Fundamantal Principle" as the only other "principle" to be included other than the big five. — Asbestos | Talk 15:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that Jihad is of such importance in current discussions of Islam that it would be a grave error to exclude it. — thames 17:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I deleted Jihad from the five pillars. To add Jihad on the template, I was going to make the last section titled "see also" and list Jihad there, along with anything else that has no place. Other templates follow that model. Cunado19 01:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I think everyone should visit http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa060401a.htm This webpage discusses the origins of the symbol, and also has a poll addressing this very same issue. After nearly 5000 votes, the majority position is that the cresent moon should be used as a symbol of Islam.
It is true that the symbol was first used by the Ottoman Islamic Empire, and not the Arab Islamic Empire. But Islam is a lot more than the early Arab empire. The following nations use the cresent moon on their flags:
Most of the above countries were either never under Ottoman control or were, before their independance, trying to become independant of the Ottomans Empire. Most people from these countries are proud of their flags, and they believe that their flags symbolize their unity with the Muslim ummah. When hundreds of millions of Muslims proudly wave the cresent symbol, in the belief that it symbolizes their faith, it is extremely POV to tell them that this symbol is "un-Islamic" and will therefore not be used on Wikipedia.
The cresent moon symbol is used in Islam's holiest mosque, in Mecca [10]. The same symbol is used in mosques all over the world. If there is a mosque near you, I recommend that you go look at it. Chances are that you will find the cresent symbol somewhere on the mosque.
Not long ago, I was visiting a Middle Eastern country, and was walking inside a modern shopping mall. Every once in a while, I would see some signs hanging from the ceiling of the mall, with symbols such as a payphone symbol, men's and women's washroom symbols, etc., and arrows pointing to where these facilities can be found (of course, these sorts of signs are found in modern malls all over the world). But these signs also had one more symbol: a cresent moon symbol, indicating where a mosque/prayer area can be found in the mall. The cresent moon symbol is ubiquitous to the Muslim world.
The cresent moon symbol is also the symbol of the International Red Cresent Society, the Muslim counter-part of the International Red Cross Society.
Did Muhammad invent the Red Cresent symbol? No? Does that mean that fundamentalists oppose the symbol because Muhammad didnt use it? Yes. Does that mean that most Muslims oppose the symbol? No, most Muslims gladly use this symbol.
Was the crescent moon symbol first used by the Ottomans? Yes, the founder of the Ottomans used this symbol after capturing Constantinople, which used to use the symbol before the Ottomans. Does that make the crescent moon symbol exclusively the symbol of the Ottoman Empire? Of course not, not anymore than it makes the crescent moon symbol exclusively the symbol of Christian Constantinople. Symbols are very similar to words. All words have etymological origins. But it is an important principal in linguistics that etymology is different from semantics. A simple example is the word barbarian; this word has Greek origins. The ancient Greeks used to call non-Greeks "barbarians" because when they heard non-Greeks languages it sounded like "bar bar bar ..." - back then, the sound "bar bar bar ..." was thought of like how we today think of the sound "blah blah blah ..." So non-Greeks came to be called "barbarians," in ancient Greek society. Does this mean that, today, the word "barbarian" means "non-Greek?" Obviously not. The etymological origins of a word need not have anything to do with its contemporary semantic meaning, and the same holds true for symbols (indeed, the study of symbols is a part of linguistics).
The overwhelming Muslim majority opinion is that the cresent moon symbol is the symbol of Islam. There are small groups of Muslims who don't like this, and wish to go back to the days when Islam didn't have a symbol. While their opinion should be noted in an article about the Cresent Moon Symbol, it should not lead to suppression of the symbol just to satisfy the deviant opinions of a small minority.
I think most of the opposition against the cresent moon, on this template, is comming from the recent hoax at Allah and the mention of Hubal. Please note that I do not think that Allah is a moon-god - such suggestions are absolutely ridiculous. Nor does the Cresent Moon symbol have anything to do with Hubal. I was just having a laugh, no academic believes that Isla's cresent moon symbol has anything to do with moon worship. -- Zeno of Elea 20:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Who were Mughals ?
Who were the first people who invented Urdu
Who was the first poet of Urdu
What is the meaning of Urdu
From where were the sufis send to Malaysia
When you know the answers you will understand what I am saying . As before read some books before discussions . Sites arnt very good source . I know because you dont even know the basics . If you even read the books tought in Elementary schools , they will tell you about turks Farhansher 05:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
[11] Comentary and poll can be found here if intrested.-- Tznkai 03:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Why is the template green? Can anyone explain? I think the template colors should be like Template:Christianity - it should use the WIkipedia Table of Contents color scheme. -- Zeno of Elea 21:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Zeno, you have just broken the 3RR yet again. As a gesture of good faith, I won't report you for it. But please stop reverting this template. Heraclius 23:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Uhhh, you know purple is a very Christian (besides being noble) color. Catholics on Easter use purple... and I believe that is why the Christianity/Jesus templates use it... it is not because of any standard... so I fail to see why the Islam one is using it... it's not like the wiki album project where orange means studio recorded and darkgreen means compiliation.... there is no standard for this as I can tell... and using purple for this template is just using what the Christian colors are.... gren グレン 17:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Zeno's behaviour on this and related talk pages is becoming increasingly unacceptable. This is saddening, since orignially I perceived him as an intelligent and knowledgeable critic of Islam. Now he is basically just trolling. Of course a calligraphy of the name of God will be appropriate on this template (hello? the topic of this template is Islam, how is it not going to be Islam-centric??), likewise for the green colour: One may argue against it on grounds of graphical taste, but to denounce it from anti-Islamic motives is ridiculous. Zeno, if your behaviour continues to deteriorate like this, you may find yourself wound up in the formal aspects of Wikipedia:dispute resolution soon. dab (ᛏ) 13:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I am taking a week long leave from this article at the suggestion of various admins, especially user:kmccoy. Before I do so, I will leave my opinions, observations, as my standing "vote" while I'm off.
Template colors: Keep it uniform with the rest of Wikipedia. Who cares if its "ugly?" Its functional, and readable, and ignorable if people don't want to read the rest of the series.
Template Size: Too big. Taking up more space than other Templates, doesn't need too. Cut it down to the essentials and shrink.
Inclusion of Jihad: Its probably roughly as important as the doctrine of grace in Christianity. Or possibly its just a new word for a common religious concept. At any rate, a Jihad is a theological concept, justifying and extoling certain actions under certain conditions. This is parallel to the theological doctrines of Works, Grace, Salvation, etc.
Symbol: So far, the strongest consensus seems to exist with going with no symbol. To paraphrase user:geogre: "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR ULTIMATE TRUTH" it is a place for the summarization, collation, and reporting of observed facts about other person's observations, analysis in published works. In otherwords, Notability is important, as is Consensus and Compromise. So play nice please kids.
Other issues: anyone considering an RFC to get the opinions of the wider wikipedian community? By its nature, religious articles attract those who have strong POVs for or against.
See you in 7 days unless something extraordinarly stupid happens here.-- Tznkai 15:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I just committed the sin of editing a page without glancing at the talk page. I was about to change the list of sects, movements, and related faiths. Most people honestly don't care about every division. I'm not too familiar with the Islam pages, is there a page for Islamic divisions? If not, we should make a page that lists all the sects, divisions, schools, and related faiths with links. We could replace all of them on the template with one single link. Cunado19 01:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I tried reading the talk page to see about a picture, but it's brain deadening. It seems obvious to me that the star and crescent should be used, but since there seems to be people set on not using it, can we take a poll? The options would be: use the crescent, use the calligraphy of Allah, don't use any picture. I'll leave it up to someone who knows what they're doing to set up the voting. Cunado19 02:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Image:Shahada crescent.png has been mentioned as a possible compromise, but there might be a copyright issue with that, that'll properly need to get solved. -- Karl Meier 06:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)