Talk:Islam/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

???

Dear Wikipedia,

Why is the article discussing "Islamic revival and Islamist movements" and why is such a bias criticism of Islam in that section. Instead that section should discuss in brief "The spread of Islam".

Replace the word god with Allah in the article

As in the theology of Islam there--70.69.183.94 (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC) is no such word as god, the correct word would be Allah.I tried to correct is by replacing Allah at the place of god. But some one did not approve it. Please do take the initiative to correct it as it reflects the Millions of Muslim's ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.57 (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

First see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Allah. Either God in Islam or God is correct. If you look at the article Allah you can see that it is just the Arabic language word for God and is used by all Arabic speaking people be they Jews, Christians, Bahá'í or Muslims. In fact it was also used by pre-Islamic pagans and is not restricted to one particular religion. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 21:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well done, clear and concise.Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Proper noun are usually not translated between languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.56 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But nouns are. "God" isn't a name, it's a noun. If you have an objection to Wikipedia's official guideline regarding Islam-related articles, please take it to the talk page of that guideline. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That is my point. God is not a name but Allah is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.53 (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Allah is not a name, it's the Arabic word for the concept of "God". Why would we refer to Jesus Christ as 'Yesu Kristo" in the Christianity article just because that's how people in Ghana, West Africa refer to Christ? This is an English article on Islam, therefore we will use English words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.1.90 (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I wander what is your name and what does it mean? Answer me if you are smart enough. What if i start calling you by the translation of you name. Few things you can not translate and should stick to original. Even in Christianity and Judaism there is nothing called god. Rest you should look for your self. My request is do not corrupt the originality. Because it is beyond just a name.

Allah is not the name of God in Islam as Names of God in Islam clearly shows. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 13:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would remind you to sign your posts and keep the tone of discussion neutral. This is not a place to insult other users Aetern142 (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Islam is gay in a good way :Allah is only the Arabic name of God, millions of Muslims are using different words, for instance, Persians are using the word KHODAA instead of Allah. So the best word for English wikipedia is GOD, not Allah.--Aliwiki (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Allah is actually a pagan moon god who was one of approximatley 360 pagan gods worshipped in Mecca at the time of the founding of Islam. He was the god that Muhammad's tribe worshiped, and when they came to power, Muhammad banned all other gods from Mecca. So in fact, all Muslims worship the moon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.39.198 (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually the meaning of God does not fit for Almighty Allah in many ways. So muslims prefer not to use it. All the muslims in the world, no matter what their language is, know the word Allah and its the only absolute term for the concept of God in Islam. So the request is reasonable. Also the word Allah is now in every English dictionary so you cant say that its not an English word.Doxtor Aeymon 00:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeymon (talk • contribs)

The word that corresponds to god in Islam is "elah"; one can say "god of moon", but can not say "Allah of moon" in the same context. On the other hand, if the word god is used instead of Allah, then, for example, the main statement of Islam "La ilaha illallah" will be translated as "There is no god except god", which will be meaningless. But if it is translated as "There is no god except Allah", then it will be clear to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.148.91 (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 122.167.125.28, 13 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

122.167.125.28 (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 10:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

such as :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.83.82 (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Erm, it is a different sect of Islam. Take it from someone who is, and lives with Sufis in a Sufi community.--SexyKick 22:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In a way, you're both right. The intro paragraphs at Sufism are fairly clear about this. As SexyKick suggests, in some communities, Sufism is lived and considered as a separate denomination or sect, although it doesn't have to be conceived of that way. /ninly_(talk) 02:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind, that for many Muslims, the idea of sects/denominations is taboo, and they will argue against called any variation of Islam, that would be called a sect/denomination if applied to Christianity, as such. Ashmoo (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, being myself a sufi and a sunnite, I can clearly say that sufism is not a denomination of Islam. For example, a shiit will say he is not a sunnite. Or a sunnite will never say that he is a shiite. But a sunnite can say he is a sufi, or a sufi can say that he is a sunnite. Saying that sufism is a denomination, is as saying that piano players' club in a university is a separate department of that university, anyone from any department may be member of the piano players club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.148.91 (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just stop using the term Denominations throughout this article, and use Schools and Branches instead (similar to the main article). Would there be any objection to that? Eid Mubarak to all. Wiqi - talk 18:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Modern times and Islamism

The 'Modern times and Islamism section' seems very poor. Most notably, it suffers from WP:RECENTism. While saying it is about the 20th century, most of the discussion is about 1970s onwards, and includes lots of minor opinions from talking heads in the last few years. It needs to present more of an historical picture. Ashmoo (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Islamic division?

The article makes Muslims seem decimated, mentioning every little minority. Also not long ago someone removed the part that said Sunnis are about 89% of Muslims and Shiaa are about 11%. This is clearly a way to mislead. Also some of the "dominations" are just schools of thought, which also needs to be explained here. If someone could please post actual NUMBERS again, and clarify the idea of school of thoughts and its difference from a so called "domination", it would be great. Although, probably, I am asking for too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.101.166 (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Usage of Arabic texts

This is an article about a religion not a special ethnic. Unfortunately lots of Arabic wording (both Arabic script or their Latinized writting) are used in this article, while less than 15 to 20% of Muslims are Arabs (Also it's necessary to consider that this article discussing Islam, not Muslims). Comparison of this article to other religions article such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddism, Hinduism and ... confirms this fact. As an example, I can mention the Persian origin word Namaaz (meaning prayer) which is used by Muslims in India, Pakistan, Central Asia, Iran, Turkey, Caucasus, Balkan, Afghanistan, and north Western china, and only Arabs and few other Muslim group are using the Arabis word Salah.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The word 'salah' is the meaning of 'prayer' in arabic which is (salah) the word used for 'prayer' in the Quran, the muslim's holy book, and not 'namaaz'.Anas chaaban (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't understand what I mean, I meant there is not need to use Arabic wording as we are talking about a religion, and we shouldn't limit it to Arabs; Salah and Namaaz was only an example.--Aliwiki (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Wisdom.n.truth.seeker, 13 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The second sentence of the second paragraph should say: "...to the prophets Abraham, Moses,Jesus and Muhammad," to be accurate, not just "...to the prophets Abraham, Moses and Jesus". Muhammad is considered the most important prophet of the Islamic faith and therefore should be mentioned.

Wisdom.n.truth.seeker (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: That sentence is talking about the faith that came before Islam. Celestra (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

anthropomorphism!

Sunni muslims do not believe in anthropomorphism of god. Some muslims do, and they are called 'mujassima' or 'hashwiyyah' but not sunni muslims. The belief of sunni muslims is that god is not comparable, but sunni muslims believe in attributes of god that god has told about himself (in quran or hadith). Please some one fix this issue in the article. Ewpfpod (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear friend, this belief exists. I give you few examples of Sahih Bukhari, which is viewed to be 100% authentic by Sunni muslims. Allah has foot, [4], [5], every night Allah is coming down [6], Allah will put all the heavens on one finger, and the Earths on one finger, and the trees on one finger, and the water and the dust on one finger, and all the other created beings on one finger [7], in thereafter, Allah will come to human beings in a shape other than they know him [8], Allah will uncover his shin in Qiyamah [9].--Aliwiki (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. The narrations you mentioned are true, however these are literal translations of the hadith's. There are many interpretation of these hadit's and you edited the article in a way that represents only one such interpretation. Sunni muslims believe in attributes of allah that he told about himself in quran or hadith. E.g. sunni muslims believe that god has 'qadam= قدم' which means 'foot' in english, but they don't say that it is like a human foot (which is called 'tashbeeh' and is forbidded). Sunni muslims believe that god is incomparable. If this issue is to be considered, the belief of the majority of sunnis must be covered and not only that which opposes shia beliefs.(Ewpfpod (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC))

You are welcome; first I would like to mention that in theology, God can have different specifications, for example he can be Transcendence and Anthropomorphic at same time. Merlin Swartz, the famous professor of Islamic studies in Harvard university has detailed works in this matter which if you are interestd, you can study. here I am quoting a sentence of him for you:"Hanbalis hold that those who reject tradition in which a leg, food, finger, palm, and so forth are predicated of God, are to be declare unbelievers."(Kitab al-Sifat,page 127)--Aliwiki (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, these are attributes of god that sunnis believe in, and must believe in as quoted by your reference. But this does not mean 'anthropomorphism', since anthropomorphism means god in 'human form'. If god declared that these properties are of his attributes according to sunnis, this does not make him god in 'human form'. Sunnis do not discuss these properties 'sifat' as if they are organs or physical bodies which eventually leads to an ' anthropomorphic' god. Ibn hanbal said that who declares that god has attributes that are like humans then he is 'mushabbih' and that this is an act of kofr (disbelief). Sunnis believe in these attributes without questioning their nature or their essence. I suggest to state the sunni beliefs concerning this issue as sunnis say it and not as others interpret it. (Ewpfpod (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC))

For further information about anthropomorphism and what is called anthropomorphism in theology, I suggest you the following book: "Anthropomorphism, intentional agents, and conceptualizing god" By Justin Leonard Barrett .--Aliwiki (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sufi muslims also do not believe in the anthropomorphism of God.--SexyKick 16:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Aliwiki, your source is a text file with no name on it, and starts with some ASCII art and ends with "Wassalam" [10]. This is not a reliable source for an encyclopedia. Read WP:RS.

There is also no space in this article for an examination of the different views about anthropomorphism with regards to the different sects, and no space to explain your peculiar definition of anthropomorphism. So I'd suggest taking this issue to the God in Islam article or a new article. It should be more relevant there.

As for the pillars paragraph, I see no point having it in the God section. The point you're adding is already covered in the first paragraph, and the pillars are discussed further below. So why bring up the same issue twice? (and mention some irrelevant Shia-Sunni quibble).

In any case, I thought the reason for having a semi-protected article is to discuss things before adding them. So stop making controversial and unsubstantiated claims (and citing unverified sources) and try to reach some consensus first. --Alwiqi (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

friend Alwiqi, first I have cited 2 references, the 1st from Michigan University. the second which you mentioned above, is Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project which has been cited by the Columbia University here (as a main reference on Islam), the British Academy here, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here, the George Mason University here, Intute here, and is archived by the Library of Congress. That article is in its Encyclopedia section and It provides good information about anthropomorphism. I found another western book which I am going to add now.

About second paragraph (God and pillar), this paragraph was existing before my edit on it but only reflecting Sunni's point of view (and unfortunately in the name of whole religion), and I added Shia's one. I believe, this paragraph is talking about Muslim belief to God and it's necessary to be there, but we can delete the expression "five Pillars".--Aliwiki (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. But your edits violate a number of wikipedia policies, both in the reliability of sources, and in not representing the views of most Sunnis (who don't believe in anthropomorphism).

For instance, WP:RS indicates that "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." So essentially, you have to re-word your paragraph as "A claims that B believes in ...", and you should also provide the opinion of the majority of Sunnis on this matter (not doing so violates WP:UNDUE). Your other source, the U Michigan paper, doesn't really state that Sunnis believe in anthropomorphism, and thus irrelevant to the discussion at hand (see also WP:FRINGE). I will delete the paragraph for violation of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Moreover, I think this discussion may require more space and more details, and it is best be dealt with (if at all) in the God in Islam article.

As for the paragraph about pillars, it just repeats the same exact information mentioned already in the first paragraph of the God section. There is nothing new in it except referring to the first pillar (which you claim to be disputed). It's better to delete this redundant paragraph, and leave the pillar discussion to the pillar section. I will go ahead and do just that. There is no justification for cluttering the article by repeating information twice. --Alwiqi (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If we want to be more specific, we must say Sunnis believe in anthropomorphism, but maybe with different extent (according to different Madhabs). I didn't understand what you mean about the Sunnis who doesn't believe in anthropomorphism. Can you tell me which of the 5 main Madhab of Sunni's rejects the 6 Sahih books? You said the source doesn't state that Sunnis believe in anthropomorphism. It seems you haven't read it. That 346-page book discuss in detail about this matter and concludes affirmation of anthropomorphism by Sunni's Muslim.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I also added another reference which confirms anthropomorphism idea of Sunnis due to a large number of Sunni's who admit Muhammad's vision of God.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It already violates a number of policies. Read this part again: WP:RS indicates that "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." So essentially, you have to re-word your paragraph as "A claims that B believes in ...". I'd say try to first develop your argument in the God in Islam article then we can summarize it in this page. Wiqi - talk 12:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The source is reliable, (pay attention it's a research which is done by Michigan Uni.). Who is A? If you mean Shia is A, you are not correct as the source is western source. If you mean A is Western author, you are correct, but rewording the sentence to say Westerns claim Sunnis ...., is agains wikipedia style of writting. Unfortunately I don't have enough time to write detail information in the article of God in Islam, but this doesn't mean I can not write here.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Further more, you didn't say who are the Sunnis that rejecting anthropomorphism evidences in their 6 major hadith books?--Aliwiki (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have the time, then I'd suggest adding that paragraph to a new section in God in Islam, plus a couple of wiki templates to expand and verify. Somebody else can then have the time and space to work on it in details, bring other sects into the picture, like the Mujassima, and add more sources to fairly represent all sides. This paragraph as it stands is incomplete and not informative. Wiqi - talk 19:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope I can expand this matter more in near future, but now I don't have enough time. Two points: 1)If you have any source that proves one or more of the five Madhhab of Sunnis (Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi'i, Maliki and Salafi-Wahabi) are rejecting anthropomorphism of God which is reported in the six major hadith books, let me know to exclude that Madhab. 2)In my opinion, the current sentence is clear enough, but if you believe it's not clear, let me know your suggestion about how to write it. you can write an example clear sentence as you believe, then we'll discuss here, and put the final sentence(s) in the main article.--Aliwiki (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

All famous sunni mathhabs, Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi'i, and Maliki, (note: Salafi-Wahabi is not a mathhab) don't believe in anthropomorphism. They all believe in the 2 books of sahih and the books of sunan (note: there is nothing like "6 Sahih books"), but not as you like to interpret them. You don't go to these books and read hadiths and interpret them as you like. You go to books of these mathhabs and find out what they believe. For all mathhabs, anthropomorphism is an act of blasphemy, it violates clear verses in the Quran that say that there is nothing comparable with Allah ليس كمثله شيء. (Ewpfpod (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC))

well, you need to study more about Sunnism, see this. Pay attention that the western authors interpreted this matter not me. It's not my fault that it's reported prophet said:I saw my lord, and he had short curly hair, was beardless, and wore a green-colored garment. and hundreds other examples. You are only claiming something which is in disagreement with neutral and western theologian experts. --Aliwiki (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't like your tone, sounds offensive. I think it is you who should study more about sunnism, especially since you are not one!!! Moreover, perhaps you should read more carefully, see this. It says ERRONEOUSLY reffered to... I'm not discussing this here since it is not the topic. Where is this hadith you mentioned at?? As far as i know, it was a dream, and its authinticity is disputed.

Read in the Quran: لا تُدْرِكُهُ الْأَبْصَارُ.

Hadith says that: who says Muhammad saw his god has lied (رواه البخاري (التوحيد 6832

Another hadith: Prophet said: how can i see him?? (رواه مسلم ( الإيمان 261

My suggestion is that you write about shia, and leave sunna write about themselves, instead of making wikipedia a pulpit for your faulty accusations. Sunni's can also make many accusations against shia (which I will not mention here due of respect to the readers), but this is not the place to do it, this is an encyclopedia. If some western scholars "interpreted this matter", this does not make this in accordance to sunni beliefs. Sunni's don't learn their religion from western scholars. If this is to be said, it should be like: Scholar X states "..." while sunni scholars "...".(Ewpfpod (talk) 08:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

This might also be helpful.(Ewpfpod (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC))

I am apologizing if my tone was offensive, which was not my intention. Neutrality doesn't mean neglecting the facts, for example, we have article about the flatness of Earth according to bible. If you believe the research which is done by Michigan and Cambridge universities are wrong, you can contact them and inform them.--Aliwiki (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

To user Alwiqi: As I didn't hear from you how to rewrite the sentence, I am going to add it now. If you have suggestion, post it here and we'll discuss.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We're not in a hurry, so try to give this issue some time. I have already commented on your references. None of them claim that Sunnis actually believe in anthropomorphism. Instead they claim that some Ahadith can be interpreted as giving support for anthropomorphism. In reality, such interpretations are often linked to a tiny minority that have existed throughout history and in all sects, not just amongst Sunnis, but also amongst Shia (the "Ali is God" crowd, for one example). These groups and viewpoints are often called Mujassima and Mushabiha. Since they are only a tiny minority that exist in all sects, you shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about Sunnis based on such views, and Sunnis reject their interpretations anyway. Also considering that WP:NPOV states that "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" except in articles specifically about such minorities, and therefore not general articles like this one, your paragraph should be removed from this article per wiki policy. Wiqi - talk 14:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Who are the minority and majority you are talking abut? follower of which Madhhab are those minorities? and more important, what is the source of your claim?? you write a claim here and you conclude you are right and so you are deleting a referenced sentence. I hope you stop this behavior. The provided sources confirm existence of the idea of anthropomorphism in Sunnism theology. Now if you believe they are wrong you must contact Cambridge and Michigan universities, and I am not responsible for their research. I will revert your deletion, and hope you respect.--Aliwiki (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, for a start, your source actually states the opposite of what you're adding to the article. Pages 2-3 of the Williams paper states that Sunni and Shia theologians alike would find the description of an "absolutely transcendent Deity [that] cannot be apprehended by man" as acceptable (Williams uses the term transcendence as the opposite of anthropomorphism throughout his paper). Therefore, according to Williams, both Sunni and Shia theologians (and referring to contemporary times) are in agreement about their views. Also what you're adding to the article is not about whether some traditional source has an "idea", but you're writing about what Sunnis actually believe in, as you have clearly asserted that "Sunni Muslims believe in anthropomorphism". This is a false statement according to the same source you're citing!

As for your other questions, those who believe in anthropomorphism are the tiny minority I'm speaking of. They are not confined to a particular sect or maḏhab, and some of them are Shia too. Wiqi - talk 22:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Please behave in an honest way here. That statement is related to a quotation, which later it's discussed. Totally the source of Michigan Uni. confirms anthropomorphism as more than 19 companions (Sahaba) have reported it.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Article needs a Small Edit

Someone has decided to put "OBAMA HATES MUSLIMS", or at least, it was something like that. I believe the article has slight protection on it, as I can't edit and remove this. Could someone else do it please? Thank you. ==== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.88.239 (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request, 29 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please remove the "OBAMA HATES ALLAH" comment at the beginning of the article.

152.130.14.9 (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done long since, you must be getting a cached version. I've purged the cache. Algebraist 13:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

need and edit permission

{{Edit semi-protected}} Hi, I need to make some minor changes in Islam page, especially Sunni and Shia point, I have references for the info I will put. thanks Muslim-guy (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You need to state exactly what you're going to add/change and someone will do it for you if it's deemed appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -Atmoz (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sects

Look at other major religions such as christianity, buddhism or judaism. They dont give percentages for sects because it would result in edit warfare. The lead should give a Neutral point of view and i suggest we revert it to the previous version without percentages. If you look in the archives there was a previous edit war about this and they came to the consensus that percentages shouldn't be mentioned Someone65 (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There is no exact and reliable report about this matter. Also the reported percentage ranges 75-90 for Sunni and 10-20 for Shia are very wide and not suitable for an encyclopedia.--Aliwiki (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

So we should revert it to the previous version then, i will do itSomeone65 (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Someone65. I was merely copying the style of the cited sources, to quote Britannica: "About 90% of Muslims belong to the Sunnite branch". In any case, I tend to agree with your "without percentages" reasoning. However, the current sentence is still vague and perhaps factually wrong, considering that the majority of Muslims are Sunni (according to all the cited sources). Mentioning Shia here gives it 50% of the majority, which is false, and more or less a misrepresentation of the cited sources. We should try to rephrase it a bit to make it more factual. I'll try to think of something, if no one else beats me to it. Wiqi - talk 18:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The current sentence is clear and informative. That this sentence Mentioning Shia here gives it 50% of the majority, is obviously a wrong and self-interpreted claim. As an example, if one says Majority of Muslims live in west Asia and north Africa, doesn't mean 50% of majority live in west Asia and 50% in north Africa.--Aliwiki (talk) 00:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Please look up the meaning of majority, i.e., "more than half", then compare: "The majority of Muslims are Sunni." (meaning more than 50% are Sunni). That statement is true and perfectly represents the cited sources. Now compare "The majority of Muslims are Sunni and Shia." This second statement is badly worded, since Sunnis ALONE are already the majority (i.e., more than half), and unless you're trying to be wrong or vague, there is no need to mention Shia. Thus to be informative, we should rephrase that sentence to say that the majority of Muslims are Sunni and refer to Shia as a sizable minority. Otherwise, it would be best to use the percentages. In any case, I prefer informing the readers instead of hiding information (and numbers) from them. Wiqi - talk 03:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

An alternative to the use of percentages would be something like this:

Most Muslims belong to a number of different schools and branches; the majority being Sunni Muslims and a sizable minority being Shia Muslims, in addition to a small minority belonging to other sects.

Does the above sound good? In any case, I think we must introduce branches before we refer to Shia or Sunna, i.e., before the pillars section. Wiqi - talk 18:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I re-wrote the sentence like this: "The Muslims belong to two denominations, with the majority (80-90%) being Sunni and approximately 10-20% Shi'a." This is what most sources agree upon, including Pew Research Center, World Factbook, Britannica and others. The World Factbook is not claiming Sunnis at 75% and none of these major sources mention any other sect within Islam. Let's avoid adding POVs in the lead intro.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The World Factbook clearly states "Shia Islam represents 10-20% of Muslims worldwide" [11] so obviously that leaves Sunnis at 80-90%. This is backed by all the other sources. User:Someone65 misunderstood the CIA's or the World Factbook's "Sunni Islam accounts for over 75% of the world's Muslim population".--AllahLovesYou (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism and violence in Islam

Considering the observation that an overwhelming majority of terrorists and terrorist groups identify themselves as Islamic, a section describing this phenomenon seem to be lacking. Also, a discussion of the recent cartoon issue and violent threats against things considered offensive to Islam seems appropriate. An encyclopedic article must be balanced and unbiased, and a fear of possible offense taken should not be an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.37.105.116 (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the muslims are terrorists who want to kill everyone who is not mulslim 02:06, 16 November 2010 User:69.211.18.170

in reply to 158.37 (69.211 ist trolling),

The article has a h2 section "5. History", a h3 subsection "5.6 Modern times (1918–present)" and that has a h4 subsection "Islamic revival an Islamist movements". The article has as its scope the religion and its 1400 year history. Political Islam and Islamic terrorism is a notable part of the modern Islamic society, but it is a comparatively recent development. It's a bit like demanding that the Christianity article must dedicate significant coverage to Christian fundamentalism in the United States. If you live in the US, this is the brand of Christianity you will encounter, but Christianity as an encyclopedic topic covers a much wider field, covering two millennia, and several continents. Of course we have detailed articles, and this article should link them. Islamism is the main article for this stuff.

That said, I agree that the "Culture" section is too harmless. Islamic culture doesn't just consist of art, architecture and a lunar calendar. It has other aspects, some of them less savoury, and the "Culture" section could be expanded correspondingly with one or two additional h3 sections. --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Islamic terrorism

Template:Islamic terrorism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

Books & Journals, etc

Compared to other articles, this one seems to have a very long list of books, journals and encyclopedias. Just wondering, do we really need all of them? Opticals (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Peace TV

The Claim that it is the first Channel launched in 2006 is highly dubious as ARY Qtv operating from Pakistan may more Islamic Channels round the clock are on air much before 2006 when Peace Tv was launched. It should be either mentioned that first Islamic 24 hours channel in India ,or the claim should be removed. Thanks. - Humaliwalay (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

that's incorrect, MTA International was established in 1994 as a 24 hour service.Peaceworld111 (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

None of those channels seem notable enough to be mentioned in a major article about Islam. Also, I think readers of this article wouldn't be interested in information such as the first Islamic TV channel, radio station, newspaper, etc. Perhaps this may be relevant to the histories of certain communities, but certainly not here. I think it would be best to delete such info for now. Wiqixtalk 14:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Peace TV is in English and it covers the entire world, its speakers are from every continent. The channel is about nothing else other than Islam, shown 24 hours, and its not limited to only one sect. I find this relevant to be included somewhere in this article. Readers should be informed about this, I don't see a point in keeping this a secret. I agree that non-notable local channels should not be added.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is subjective. He does not really represent every sect, does he represent distinct shia, kharajiti, salafi etc - there are fatwas against Naik. There are other English Islamic channels too such as Islam channel. and what determines a channel is notable. In the UK, the most notable Islamic channel is Islam channel, isn't it? Peace tv doesn't really stand out. Peaceworld111 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to mention a little about "Islam in media" because this is probably one of the reasons why Islam is the fastest growing religion expected to be the largest in the world soon, according to many sources such as PBS. I'm not a member of Peace TV or a fanatic who watch it all the time. It doesn't harm to put this small info in the current history section. I'm wondering why you all are so aggressively opposed to Peace TV because they never have attacked Ahmadis, Shias or anyone else. Even I didn't know that Ahmadis were the first to start an Islamic channel until you added this info recently. Now you see my point?--AllahLovesYou (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not attack Peace tv, nor do I have anything against peace tv. I just mentioned that there is nothing distinctive about peace tv as far as i'm aware - i don't have anything against it. Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Not being an Islamic scholar, I'm not going to contradict anyone. However, through my life I have read/studied a few things that do not quite match this article:

1) I have seen several translations of "Islam" into English. Single word translations include: Submission, Peace, Solidarity. Multiple word translations include: Peace among the believers, Slaves of Allah, People of God (Allah), The People.

2) I have seen a listing of Islamic sects that included: Four major entries, multiple minor, and one that was arguably a splinter political movement - for a total of 19. There were also at least two "extinct" sects.

Don't know if this is significant, but could someone please explain. I'm not planning to make any changes to the article itself.Aaaronsmith (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

All of the translations of "Islam" which you quote are either incorrect or, at best, over-simplified. As for sects, yes there are sects within Islam, but, unlike the situation within Christianity, where many owe no allegiance to either the Vatican or Buckingham Palace, the single basic split of Sunni & Shia accounts for close to 100% of the total. David Trochos (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please provide a definition of "Islam" (I'll accept one running to pages long if it does a good job), because I've apparently been mislead by over simplification.

I did a little more research on Islamic "sects". Found a lot of disingenuous listings. As near as I can figure it, the argument Islam is primarily two sects (Sunni and Shia) is only correct if you accept the idea Christianity is only three (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) and completely ignore that Christianity is really a Jewish sect. If you accept Christianity has about 6,000 sects, then by the same functional logic, Islam has at least thirty that are officially recognized by most of the world (not counting a few that are now extinct).

Somebody please explain, or give direction to where I can get definitive answers to these questions.

Thanks Aaaronsmith (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

FACEBOOK chat on Islam reveals this etymology here:

This is quite lengthy, perhaps a scholar of classical Arabic could look at this and see if this historical analyses is correct.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=174702925910958#!/topic.php?uid=14952944340&topic=13907&post=61818&notif_t=board_post_reply#post61818

Meaning of the word "Islam" is not "Submission" as you have been tought

   *
     Tarek Shalaby
     Hi guys.

     I wrote this article originally for some friends, but think it's an important concept for everyone, especially Anarchist Muslims who deal with the problematic question of submission.

     So here it is:

     So I’ve recently been perusing the site free-minds.org, and whilst it has many followers with some radical beliefs, it also has many followers with beliefs like my own. I noticed that many kept asserting that the meaning of the word ‘Islam’ is not ‘submission’ as is the general view, but ‘peacemaking’.
     I didn’t really pursue the matter for awhile as I considered it a small aside compared to the big matters in religious studies. But then someone started a new thread outlining the logic behind this belief, and I’ll do my best to write out the best of it here.

     1. Position
     2. Arguments
     a) Etymological
     b) Exegetical
     3. Repercussions

     1. Position

     That the word ‘Islam’ does not mean ‘submission to God’s will’ as is the commonly held belief, but ‘peacemaking’.

     2. Arguments

     A) ETYMOLOGICAL

     So Arabic is a root-based language, which is a very logical method of organizing languages, and which has thus engendered organization in Syria and Egypt to control the massive influx of new words into the language (mostly names of chemicals and such) and to keep them based on this root system.

     The root of the word Islam is s-l-m, and according to Project Quran List, an online project attempting to categorize all the roots used in the Quran and define their meanings, it has the following meanings:

     س ل م = Siin-Lam-Miim = safety/security/freedom/immunity, to escape, salutation/greeting/peace, deliver/acknowledge, pay in advance, submit, sincerity, humility, submission/conformance/obedience, resign/quit/relinquish, to be in sound condition, well without blemish, gentle/tender/soft/elegant. Solomon/Sulaiman.

     s-l-m has several derivatives, including the word ‘Salaam’ which means peace, and ‘Istislaam’ which means ‘Submission’.

     Now we can prove that the word Muslim comes from Salaam through the following comparison of how adjectives in Arabic work:

     husna (goodness) –> ahsana (to do good) –> muhsin (good doer)
     salih (correct) –> aslaha (to make correct) –> muslih (one who corrects)
     jaram (crime) –> ajrama (to commit crime) –> mujrim (criminal)
     salam (peace) –> aslama (to make peace) –> muslim (peacemaker)

     Submission is “istislam”, and is used only once in the Quran (37:26), and it works like this:

     istislam (submission) –> astaslama (to become submissive) –> mustaslim (one who submits)

     This makes it clear as day where ‘Islam’ and Muslim come from, and there is no dispute, amongst scholars or otherwise, that salam means peace.

     B) EXEGETICAL

     i)

     One of the attributes of God given in 59:23, is al-Salaam. Ie. The Peaceful. It is surely not “The Submissive”, as that would be a ludicrous charge.

     ii)

     37:24-26 Stop them! They are questioned, “Why do you not give each other victory?” No; today they are those who surrender. (mustaslimuun)

     These verses make perfect sense. They are relating God’s commandment to stop the wicked ones on the Last Day and collect them for their judgment. These people are mustaslimoon, surrenderers or submitters, because they spent their lives struggling against and fighting the message, and must in the end surrender. Believers, on the other hand, do not struggle and fight against God as if they were enemies, and thus do not have to surrender.
     What is interesting to note is that all of the 4 main translators of the Quran translate ‘mustaslimuuna’ in 37:26 as ‘submission’, despite the fact that they also translate occurrences of ‘muslimoona’ and ‘islam’ as submission.

     [shakir] Nay! on that day they shall be submissive.
     [pickthall] Nay, but this day they make full submission.
     [arberry] No indeed; but today they resign themselves in submission
     [yusufali] Nay, but that day they shall submit (to Judgment);

     3. Repercussions

     So one can only guess at when this distortion happened in the meaning. One possible explanation is that when the armies were spreading around the world it wouldn’t make any sense for an aggressive army to invade and occupy lands calling themselves “peacemakers” (muslimun).

     However, this does create a huge change in the way we regard the religion and its practices. It especially highlights verses 49:14 and 2:132

     49:14 The nomads say, ‘We believe.’ Say: ‘You do not believe; rather say, “We make peace”; for belief has not yet entered your hearts. If you obey God and His Messenger, He will not diminish you anything of your works. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.

     The addition of ‘has not yet entered your hearts’ indicates that peace is a prerequisite of faith, and that faith can only come after making peace.

     2.132. And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; “Oh my sons! The god has chosen the obligation for you, so do not die except while you are peaceful.” (muslimoona)

     Disclaimer:
     This article reflects my understanding of the great reading as of May 7th, 2010, and is subject to change as I try to improve my understanding of the great reading and the universe. Please verify all information within for yourself as commanded in 17:36 and 49:6
     vor etwa 9 Monaten · melden
   *
     Markus Petz
     Yep this is pretty fundamental. If a translator cannot differentiate between submit and acquiesce or in this case as you postulate - make peace, then they cannot be trusted on any of the other words in the q'ran. To get the meaning of your own religion wrong is a pretty big mistake!!

     It also explains why so much anti-islamic feeling arises. I had the feeling when reading the q'ran in translation that it was not translated so well as there were quite a few passages where the same thing was said - so I guessed that in the original it was not repetition but subtleties and nuances that were poorly expressed. I still don't know that for sure as I don't understand Arabic, but if I am wrong the book is very poorly written.
     And such poorly written material gives power to the contention "Muhammed was just a clever man who made it all up by copying Christian and Jewish traditions".
   *
     Tarek Shalaby
     Hi Markus, thanks for the reply

     Yeah I think it's a pretty big sign of a problem when translators will translate 2 different Arabic words into the same English one: submission.

     Coincidentally, I got into this debate last week with a non-Arabic speaking friend, and he argued that I was wrong based on the overwhelming amount of sources online saying that Islam = submission.

     He referred to this quote from wikipedia:

     "The word islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m, and is derived from the Arabic verb ’áslama, which means "to give up, to desert, to surrender (to God).""

     What is funny, is that it is not derived from aslama, as aslama itself is derived from salaam as I showed in the first post:
     salam (peace) –> aslama (to make peace) –> muslim (peacemaker)

     This whole interpretation comes from a simplistic interpretation of this:
     أَسْلَمَ وَجْهَهُ لِلّهِ
     (Aslama wajhahu lillaah) - Literally: Made peace his face to God
     This is most often interpreted as:
     He submitted his face to God, or he submitted himself to God

     The problem here is that people interpret this as "He submitted his face to God"

     However, aslama is a form 4 of the root SLM. The 4th form of the root SLM does not carry any connotations of submission/surrender.
     Form 2 of the root SLM, however, DO carry these connotations.

     So the actual interpretation should be:
     He made his outlook peaceful to God.

     To make this sentence mean what most people want it to mean, it should say:
     Sallama wajhahu lillaah
     سَلَّمَ وَجْهَهُ لِلّهِ
     Sallama instead of Aslama

     Islam is the 4th Form of the root SLM, whilst the 2nd Form of the root is the one with connotations of submission. (Taslim, musallam, musallim, yusallim, etc. Notice the double L's)

     This is really hard to explain in English, lol, but I hope I've made it clear.

     A perfect verse to express this problem is to give someone verse 4:65 to translate:

     But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but submit with the fullest submission. (yusallimuu tasleeman)

     In this verse, every translator will translate yusallimuu (with a double L) as submission. This is correct, because it is form 2 of SLM.

     However, they then often go on to translate aslama or aslimuu as submission too! Check for example 48:16:

     "you fight them or they surrender"
     This is clearly a Form 4 verb, yuslimuun (1 L). Why does it then mean the EXACT same thing as yusallimuu (2 L's) ??

     The answer is that it clearly does not mean the same thing. Anyone studying the Quran will know how precise the language is.

     We also know that the Form 4 verbs are derived from Salaam (peace), and thus it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Form 4 verbs all mean to "make peace". All references to Islam or Muslims are in Form 4.
     The translation should thus read: you fight them or they make peace

     To double check, you can these Form 4 occurrences:

     aslama vb. (4)
     perf. act. 2:112, 2:131, 3:20, 3:20, 3:20, 3:83, 4:125, 5:44, 6:14, 27:44, 37:103, 49:14, 49:17, 72:14
     impf. act. 6:71, 16:81, 31:22, 40:66, 48:16
     impv. 2:131, 22:34, 39:54
     n.vb. 3:19, 3:85, 5:3, 6:125, 9:74, 39:22, 49:17, 61:7
     pcple. act. 2:128, 2:128, 2:132, 2:133, 2:136, 3:52, 3:64, 3:67, 3:80, 3:84, 3:102, 5:111, 6:163, 7:126, 10:72, 10:84, 10:90, 11:14, 12:101, 15:2, 16:89, 16:102, 21:108, 22:78, 27:31, 27:38, 27:42, 27:81, 27:91, 28:53, 29:46, 30:53, 33:35, 33:35, 39:12, 41:33, 43:69, 46:15, 51:36, 66:5, 68:35, 72:14

     So I hope by now you can see the supreme irony of quotes like the one from wikipedia, where it says that Islam is derived from the verb "aslama", when aslama itself is derived from salaam (peace).
     As a last note I'd just add that you should always be careful with translations, or atleast not adhere to them 100%. I recently read an article about how If/Then statements are butchered in translations. The Arabic original has a complex system of "in", "idha", "Lw", "maa", "kayf", "min", "ilaa", etc. etc.
     Whereas in translations, many of these are simply rendered as "if", for example, "if they do this, then God will do so-and-so".
     This is important for the study of Free Will and Determinism, and other such complex things, which I plan on doing once I have some more free time.

     As far as the contention you speak of, personally I have a problem with Hadiths and consider many of them to be copied or imitated from Christian or Jewish traditions. The Quran is an entirely different matter in my opinion.

     Peace!

Minor Grammatical Edit

Under the section "Articles of Faith" and the subsection "God," two words, "the" and "creation" are combined. I believe a space should be added between the two words. Aacehm 17:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aacehm (talk • contribs)

 Done Wiqixtalk 06:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Very first sentence is very not NPOV.

"...a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God..." Consider whether it would be accurate for the Christianity article to say the same thing about Christians and the Bible. Of course not. Only the most extreme Christians actually believe the world was made by God in six days. Nearly a quarter of the world's population is Muslim, and some large percentage of them don't believe the Quran is all a literal transcription of God's word. Only the extremist sects follow that line. This erroneous assertion is so incorrect and unsupported that I am very surprised to see it surviving in the very first sentence of a very high profile article. It gives Wikipedia a bad name and leaves me a bit embarrassed to be such a strong supporter of Wikipedia. I can't do the edit myself because I have so rarely logged in by username in recent years that I've forgotten my password. It's normally much easier to just let my IP address be enough. Thank you for your attention to this edit request; there are nearly countless smart and committed Wikipedians and I'm sure some of you will soon fix this problem in an exemplary fashion. 69.17.65.107 (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you have confused the words "verbatim" and "literal". There is no question among Muslims as to whether the Quran is the verbatim word of God. Exactly where the Quran should be taken literally, however, is a different subject - having nothing to do with the first sentence in the article. Aquib (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please - not trying to start an argument, and this is off topic, however: The bible is NOT the book of the Christians. It was declared to be so by Martin Luther at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Before that the bible was one of many holy texts recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. It is STILL not THE book of the Catholics (although an awful lot of Catholics/Christians believe otherwise).

PS the correct percentage of world population for Muslims is not 1/4, it is 1/8.98.255.131.64 (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary it is estimated to be 23%, roughly 1/4. See this.- Shahab (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. So that was Pew's study that counted 1.57 billion Muslims. Impressive. Aquib (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Muslim Population

Muslim population estimates should be between 1.69 to 1.82 billion as of the year 2009 per islamicpopulation.com (69.22.172.64 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC))

Islam#Five Pillars

• I have corrected the section on the "Five pillars" by wording it like this: "The Five Pillars of Islam are 5 simple rules or 5 obligations that every Muslim (Sunni and Shia) must satisfy." This is backed by the Central Intelligence Agency, Encyclopedia Britannica, PBS, Washington State University, University of Calgary, BBC, and so many other academic sources.[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. However, User:Aliwiki and User:Humaliwalay (who appear to be promoting Shia Islam) opposed this edit and completely removed these sources. [18] [19] [20]
• Aliwiki and Humaliwalay replaced these major sources with a http://www.al-islam.org (a website for promoting Shia Islam) [21], which mentions that some Muslims may follow additional acts. The current verion (as of this posting) is not clear on the 5 pillars, it's very confusing to follow. It reads as if and editor is trying to make their own personal point. I also want to point out that Humaliwalay and Aliwiki are showing aggression, and I want to tell them to please stop reverting my edits. I'm a neutral editor, since Sunnis make up upto 90% it is unfair to put the Shias (10-20%) above them.
• I have reasons to believe that Aliwiki and Humalaiwalay are trying to put Sunnis below and Shias above everywhere. The 5 pillars of Islam are followed by both sects, and if some Shias or Sunnis follow additional acts then that should be explained after the 5 pillars. I think I'm being very reasonable, and I don't care what religion or sect other editors belong to, that's their choice in life. My concern here is this article, which should avoid biased or misleading information that I have pointed out here.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Islam so it must reflect ideas of both sects. Pay attention we are discussing a theology, and theology is not based on the numbers of people who accept or deny it, so majority or minority of population who follows that theology won't affect it. As an example, you can compare Muslims and Jews population (over 1.5 billion vs less than 15 million). About priority of names, alphabetical ordering makes it necessary that Shia comes before Sunni, like all other religions article.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm paying close attention but you're not making any sense. Read my wording very carefully: "The Five Pillars of Islam are 5 simple rules or 5 obligations that every Muslim (Sunni and Shia) must satisfy." [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] It includes both, the Sunnis and the Shias.[28] Alphabetical ordering has nothing to do with this. You stated in the article that Shias follow their own 5 pillars and that Sunnis follow their own 5 pillars, which is totally wrong. None of these mentioned sources that you totally removed from the article say this.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

AllahLovesYou, so long as a person can produce sound references to support a statement, you cannot suppress their information in the article. Not even if you got your information from the CIA. Aquib (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Aquib, thanks for your advice but I'm not suppressing, I don't know where you got that from. As I explained that Users Aliwiki and Humaliwalay are completely removing all the major academic sources from the "Five Pillars" section as well as falsifying the information by doing their own original research in which they assert that Shias have a different set of 5 Pillars than the Sunnis do. To back this up they used a weak link (http://www.al-islam.or) and it doesn't even agree with their OR. None of the selected academic sources that I've used in the article mention about Shias and Sunnis having different sets of 5 pillars, and now you're trying to show support for their falsification. Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources and academic sources likes mines are more preferable.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User Allahlovesyou, I discused reliability of the source before on ANI but seems you are following the policy WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Once more see reliability of the source here. Try to respect all ideas an dlet the article reflect both sects beliefs, as I and user Humaliwalay do. Islam and its articles don't belong to you or Sunnis.--Aliwiki (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is another idea. Let us not refer to sects in this section. I would rather see a generic list of common practices shared between all Muslims, like Hajj, Sawm, Salah, Amr-b-Ma'roof, etc, and be done with it. We can then use the "main article" feature to provide two additional articles, one for five pillars and another for acts of worship. The spelling-sort idea is also unexpected in this context, and it's not being applied everywhere. For example, in Shia articles "Twelver" usually comes before "Ismaili", etc. Wiqixtalk 00:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are constructive suggestions and comments, Wiqi55. In addition, I would like to see some academic sources published by university presses and written by acknowledged experts in the field. There are lots of great websites, tertiary sources and news sites being used and discussed here, but I think we need expertise. Too easy for other sites to generalize or slip up. Even when they are totally accurate, it's too easy for someone to challenge them on the basis of bias. While I'm at it, why not use page numbers in all the citations as well? I saw a reference to Lane's Lexicon used recently without a page number. Perhaps someone who speaks Arabic might not know how long it would take me to look up a word in Lane's Lexicon without a page number. Hours. -Aquib (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I see, this has been going on at least since November 1. Gotta wonder how much damage has been done and when this is going to stop.... Aquib (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Aquib, about sources, I think other Islam-specific encyclopedias should provide plenty of information. For instance, Brill's Encyclopaedia of Islam (2nd and 1st editions) and their Encyclopaedia of Quran will almost always contain something useful (maybe even a short bibliography on each pillar). I also agree that page numbers and perhaps even quotes are sometimes essential. I'd suggest that whenever you find a missing page number, try to add it yourself or use the following tags: {{page number}}, and for quotes {{request quote}}. Wiqixtalk 06:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Aliwiki, you're more concerned about me instead of your W:OR edits which are the bases of this discussion. First, you made a wrong conclusion in the article that Shias and Sunnis follow different sets of 5 pillars because no sources say this. Your OR contradicts all the major sources that I presented and probably because of this you keep removing them. Second, Al-islam.org is considered "unreliable" in Wikipedia on many grounds and I'm not going to argue that here right now. For starters, you can read this... Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

this dispute is extremely lame. Perhaps you should refrain from editing a topic if you have personal views on it. Religionist editors are welcome to edit, but only if they can leave their sectarian biases at the door. Otherwise Wikipedia is not for you. --dab (𒁳) 13:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Although I'm Muslim, I edit Islamic articles from a non-Muslim point of view. Majority of the non-Muslim editors are neutral when it comes to Sunni/Shia/Ahmadi and their edits are more reliable or trusted. I find some of these editors trying to attack the majority Sunni sect with their POVs. I suggest that such identified bashers should be indef blocked or at least warned with that and you'll see how fast they start behaving. Since religion is an extremely touchy subject, especially when different sects are involved, it is appropriate to indef block someone that has long been engaged in attacking other religions or sects with poorly sourced POV edits, especially the editors who are using Shiaism promoting websites to illustrate an anti-Sunni point in Wikipedia articles. We have to respect Sunnis as a majority group, and there's no need to try to ignore their majority status because that is accepted everywhere.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with user DAb that there shouldn't be any personal view. Reading page 38 of this book [29] can clear this matter. Thanks. I'd like to add Shia and Sunni pillars are in agreement of each other and no pillar of one side, is against idea of the other side; There is no disrespect toward any group and if all users accept there is an idea in addition to their idea, there won't be any dispute.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The google book link you provided, which has no author info, states that Sunni Islam (Sunnism) has 5 pillars and that Shia Islam (Shiaism) has 10 pillars. Wikipedia need to present it the same way, per this... Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I endorse Dbachmann's position right down the line. In fact, I personally think locking the page would be a good idea. I have reverted to Dbachmann's last edit. Apologize for stepping on any constructive work. Aquib (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Aquib, do you have a problem with my latest edits? If so please explain, and I also supported Dab's version but I only did minor changes to his work. You're latest action was disruptive because not only you disrepected my excellent quality editing, by calling it sloppy, you also have deleted about 6 or 7 major academic sources that were used as back up references for readers to verify. You should first discuss the problem and then make appropriate changes so that other editors don't get frustrated. You don't own this article so be patient with others, who have the same rights as you do.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

To put an end to this useless discussion I am proposing the followinh suggestion and I kindly ask all involved users make a comment about it. This article is about a religion and it has millions visitors per day; I don't see it nice to split its topics in sectarian point of view. Saying on behalf of myself I don't want to defeat a group and be winner, instead we can reach a winner-winner agreement. I suggest to do the followinh changes in this article, and discuss all details including sectarian views in the article of Pillars of Islam.

• Write a clean paragraph to inform readers that there are some practices that Muslims should perform such as praying, fasting, etc without mentioning a specific number for it and remove the word five.
• Change the templete Main article:five Pillars of Islam to See also:Pillars of Islam.

Thanks to all in advance.--Aliwiki (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting and constructive suggestion. Can we discuss this in more detail? Would you create a new article titled "Pillars of Islam", and leave the "Five Pillars of Islam" article unchanged? Or do you suggest renaming the "Five Pillars" article? Aquib (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Islam article gets "millions visitors per day"? That's ridiculous, I think only few people visit per day. Most people who want to read about Islam have many better places to visit, Wikipedia would be a last resort for them since they know that many liars are involved editing this site. I had re-named the section as "Pillars of Islam" [30] but Aquib reverted this. If you come here with an agenda "to defeat a group and be winner" as you stated then you're just admitting that you're here for disruptive activities. Besides getting blocked by an admin and being laughed at by other editors, you'll also be just adding bad deeds to your life which will be used against you in the future. I suggest you learn to accept all people regardless of their religion, sect, race, nationality or place of residency.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a point of fact. According to article statistics there were 459143 visits to the Islam article in November 2010, which gives an average of roughly 15304 visits per day. So its not millions of visitors and not a few visitors, but something in the middle.-Shahab (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. In a general sense 15,304 is considered few when comparing it with millions. I based my numbers on the fact that most Muslims use other languages instead of English and the roughly 75% non-Muslim population of the world don't find interest in Islam because they have their own beliefs. So, it only leaves smaller number and out those many don't consider Wikipedia as a reliable source to read about a religion, especially Islam since it is being attacked by many in the media. So I believe that I was right, and 15,304 wouldn't be considered anywhere near the middle.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We can and should by all means present topics along sectarian lines if and only if we have decent references to base this on. Ideally, in a large topic like Islam, tertiary sources. But decent secondary sources will also be ok. What is not ok is urls like "al-islam.org", or naked google books links. this is not a quotable source, never mind its being on google books. I want to see an academic monograph on Islam, with author, year and page. Once we have that, we can use it to make a point. I don't see why this is even an issue as long as no decent reference has been presented.

Aliwiki, so far you fail completely in respecting WP:RS. No evidence of any "ten pillars of Shiaism" has been presented. Googling for "ten pillars of Shia Islam" gives me one single hit on all of the internet, i.e. your edit to the Islam article. "the ten pillars of Islam" gives me eight hits on the entire internet, zero hits on google books. Please see WP:REDFLAG. The burden is on you to establish who exactly came up with this "ten pillars" thing, and that it is in any way WP:DUE to mention any of it on Wikipedia, let alone the main Islam article. If you ask me, this "ten pillars" thing seems to have generated on the internet, ca. 2008, by some crackpot millennialist Muslim splinter group. It isn't even reflected in anything in print, other than a publication by "The Monotheist Group", apparently some heretic outfit which happens to argue that all of these pillars are a violation of Scripture anyway. This is fringecruft. A fad. Muslim theological tradition spans 1,400 years. We will not give pride of place to some idea that was cooked up in a yahoo group last year. --dab (𒁳) 12:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a good quality source at hand that speaks directly to this subject, such as a comparative work on the articles of faith in Islam. But I am picking up on two or three variations of the "pillars" among the major Muslim groups. Of course there is consensus around the five acts that constitute the five pillars, but it looks like there's more to it than that for some Muslims.

I have a research library nearby, I'll do some checking around over the weekend. If we can nail down an authoritative source, then we have options.

Aquib (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't care to debate it without an authoritative source in my hand. But, using round numbers, if there are a billion Muslims in the world and twenty percent have different variations on their articles of faith, then we are talking about the beliefs of 200 million people. That would justify inclusion.

Aquib (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

These are available at my library, among others, according to the online catalog:

• Islamic theology and philosophy : studies in honor of George F. Hourani / edited by Michael E. Marmura. Albany : State University of New York Press, c1984.

• an oldie republished 1981, commentary by Lewis: Introduction to Islamic theology and law / by Ignaz Goldziher ; translated by Andras and Ruth Hamori ; with an introd. and additional notes by Bernard Lewis - Goldziher, Ignác, 1850-1921. Vorlesungen über den Islam. English

• Islamic philosophical theology / edited by Parviz Morewedge. Albany, State University of New York Press, c1979.

• Islamic philosophy and theology, (by) W. Montgomery Watt. Watt, W. Montgomery (William Montgomery). Edinburgh, University Press [1962]

Aquib (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I did some searching (online) and it seems that the five "pillars" of Shia are known as Usul al-din (i.e. assets of faith). It's a very general Islamic term, perhaps even used by Sunnis in other contexts. The other 10 "pillars" are called Aspects of the Religion (i.e. Furoo ul-Din -- google it for some sources, although not many). See also Seven pillars of Ismailism, Sixth Pillar of Islam. Wiqixtalk 20:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's consistent with my general understanding. Hopefully this won't get too complicated when we get down to the nitty gritty. -Aquib (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Aquib, thank you; I meant removing the word five from both articles. I said The aim of this paragraph is to inform reader that Muslims should practice some duties such as fasting and prayer and It would be better not to mention any sect name. I don't know where did I said th expression ten pillars of Shiism to be included here!--Aliwiki (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Reminding all that according to all academic sources (including the media, historians, experts, and government reports, etc, etc, etc.) there are only 5 pillars in Islam [31] (got 1.7 million hits). If Shias have or believe in 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 (additional pillars) that should be added to the main Shia Islam, that's what that article was created for. So far I don't see it in there. After reading this "User:Aliwiki:... This article is about a religion and it has millions visitors per day", I now understand the reason why some of these editors (i.e. Aliwiki/علی ویکی) are wanting to add the 6-10 Shia pillars to this article, because they want to promote the Shia sect of Islam to more readers this way. I'm not here to hurt people's feelings by saying this but 80-90% Islam rejects more than 5 pillars, and so do all the sources I mentioned. The only option we have is to create a separate article for the 6-10 Shia pillars and link that with the pillars section in this article.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The title of the article is Islam, so it should include all Muslim viewpoints. I suggest we take a three-step approach.

• The first thing we can to do is determine exactly what those viewpoints are, using agreed sources. This step is simply gathering well documented facts from reliable sources, I'm working on that. If anyone would like to suggest a source, please be my guest, but it needs to be world class academic material.
• Next we can compare the material we have collected with what we have in the articles. Wiqi55 has started this by finding some related Wikipedia articles. Just glancing at them, it seems we may have gaps, overlaps, missing citations and maybe some accidental issues with objectivity, weight etc.
• Once we have done these things, perhaps reaching a solution acceptable to most or all of us may not be as difficult as it seems now. Maybe part of our problem is misunderstandings caused by problems in the articles or the facts we are working with.

Aquib (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Went to the library today. Looked up the references I had listed above. Too detailed, off topic or both. Started going through the stacks, and finally ended up in the reference section working my way through the The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World. I was unable to find a single reference that had the articles of faith arranged in a way they can be easily pulled out. I expect it's in that library somewhere, I am just having trouble locating it.

Then on my way out, I checked the library schedule. They are closed this weekend, open during the day Monday and Tuesday, then closed until January third.

I did find something important while I was there. I was thumbing through an old monogram of H A R Gibb's: Mohammedanism: an Historical Survey. I might not use him in an article, he strikes me as coarse and insensitive, but he has the academic credentials. At any rate, on page 85 he states there are some points in the Five Pillars that are objectionable to some Muslims, and have been for a long time. They might seem to be minor points to some people, but not to everyone.

So, to recap:

• We still need an authoritative source for the creeds, practices, and articles of faith for all the sects.
• And strictly speaking, the Five Pillars cannot be said to be accepted by all Muslims. The article and the reference are not inaccurate, but reading the wording closely, one can see there is a little bit of generalization in the statement. I am assuming this is where Ali's concern is coming from.

Aquib (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Aquip, I appreciate your works and I am really thankful. My concern is to delete the word five; If there be consensus on this, it wikk be good, else it's not important. The current article of Islam has many other important problems which we must pay attention and this case is just a minor one. Thank you again.--Aliwiki (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. The "Islam" article would be more accurate if we removed the word "Five" from the "Pillars" section of the main article. Sub-articles should be used to describe the doctrines of each Muslim sect, including the "Five Pillars". -Aquib (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Support - I echo User Dabs comments that there are very few sources found for 10 pillars of Islam and then few people claim it 5, few 10, few some additional acts. I agree with User Aquib and User Aliwiki to eliminate the word FIVE till the time we reach consensus on this. This will put an end to Edit warring and distortion of article. Thanks. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"Rise of the caliphate and civil war (632–750)"

From the article "Islam": "When Umar was assassinated in 644, the election of Uthman as successor was met with increasing opposition." The correction that needs to be made here is that Umar was not assassinated. And that's not a piece of information that there is any argument about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.62.88 (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

His own article says he was assassinated, and that seems to have been stable. Obviously it is accepted that he was assassinated. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Tagged Disputed translation

The translator of the entire name of Sunni branch is trying to push his/her POV so far translation is concerned of the name. The Editor translated the word Jamaah as Majority which is not correct the correct translation of Majority in Arabic is mentioned below :

أغلبية *

  أكثرية *

  سن الرشد *

 حزب الأكثرية *

الأ غلبية* 

None of the above mentioned translations of Majority mention the Word Jamaah. Humaliwalay (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have used Google Translate to translate "Majority" (English) to (Arabic). Unless if you are a Native Arabic speaker who holds a degree in Arabic Literature, you do not have any credentials to back up your allegations. Relying on a machine translator is of little credibility too. Thank you (74.198.87.14 (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC))

That doesn't make the comment wrong- "majority" is indeed PoV, and "union" might be a better translation. David Trochos (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually , the other user was correct. I am a native Arabic speaker (my native tongue and first language is Arabic). The word "Jamaah" means " a group" or "union" .. the word majority is correctly translated to "aghlabiyya" أغلبية ... if the context was 'majority' as in 'the age of majority' the translation would be "sinn arrushd", however it is not. "Majority" in this context is ..well, the majority... the opposite of 'minority" and أغلبية (aghlabiyya) is correct.

Whether the other user utilized an electronic translator or not, I do not know, however, I do not need to; the translation comes instantly to me. "Jamaah" translated to mean "majority" is just simply wrong. The ONLY way "Jamaah" can be used in the context of representing the word "majority" would be by saying "Al Jamaah al Kubra" or "Al Jamaah al akthar kubran", literally meaning "the bigger group".

Also, even though I realize this is not a forum, I must point out that whoever replied to that user saying "you have no basis to make that claim on unless you have a degree in Arabic"... well, as a native speaker of the Arabic language, I confirm that regardless of whether that user holds a degree in the field or not, he was (and is) correct.

Claiming to hold a degree in a field does not automatically make you always right, and clearly, in this case, the degree did not benefit you. When it comes to languages specifically, I would MUCH sooner trust and take the word of a translation given by a person who has spoken the language natively as a mother tongue since learning how to speak over someone who only holds a degree in the language (maybe not necessarily in literature matters but certainly in simple translation and interpretation), as the native speaker's knowledge of it is part of his/her nature/makeup. Not to mention, as he/she pointed out, just because information came from someone who (might) or might not hold a degree doesn't change the validity/correctness of it. Correct information is correct information regardless of the source; as there IS such a thing as even a person who holds a degree in a subject could be mistaken. 70.26.13.208 (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC) (70.26.13.208 (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

translation continued...

Actually , the other user was correct. I am a native Arabic speaker (my native tongue and first language is Arabic). The word "Jamaah" means " a group" .. the word majority is correctly translated to "aghlabiyya" أغلبية ... if the context was 'majority' as in 'the age of majority' the translation would be "sinn arrushd", however it is not. "Majority" in this context is ..well, the majority... the opposite of 'minority" and أغلبية (aghlabiyya) is correct. Whether the other user utilized an electronic translator or not, I do not know, however, I do not need to; the translation comes instantly to me. "Jamaah" is just simply wrong. The ONLY way "Jamaah" can be used in the context of representing the word "majority" would be by saying "Al Jamaah al Kubra" or "Al Jamaah al akbarr", literally meaning "the bigger group". Also, even though I realize this is not a forum, I must point that whoever replied to that user saying "you have no basis to make that claim on unless you have a degree in Arabic"... well, as a native speaker of the Arabic language, I confirm that regardless of whether that user holds a degree in the field or not, he was (and is) correct. Claiming to hold a degree in a field does not automatically make you always right, and clearly, in this case, the degree did not benefit you. When it comes to languages specifically, I would MUCH sooner trust and take the word of a translation given by a person who has spoken the language natively as a mother tongue since learning how to speak over someone who only holds a degree in the language (maybe not necessarily in literature matters but certainly in simple translation and interpretation), as the native speaker's knowledge of it is part of his/her nature/makeup. Not to mention, as he/she pointed out, just because information came from someone who (might) or might not hold a degree doesn't change the validity/correctness of it. Correct information is correct information regardless of the source; as there IS such a thing as even a person who holds a degree in a subject could be mistaken. 70.26.13.208 (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC) (70.26.13.208 (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

Edit request from DrAtiya1, 18 January 2011

Islam is probably the only religion in this day and age which has not been amended from its formation. The Holy Quran still contains the exact words and vocabulary as it was revealed in. This is an extremely important point to note as the reliability can be trusted in comparison to other religions which have had huge masses of amendments.DrAtiya1 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's already there in the second paragraph. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Islam (religion) and Islam (political entity)

"Islam is the monotheistic religion articulated by..."

This is a great article on the religion of Islam. Indeed, for a large number of Muslims, Islam is just a religion. In overwhelming parts of the Muslim world, however, Islam is also undeniably a transnational political entity and legal system, if we have to use modern English words to describe it (i.e. the language of English Wikipedia). To make the assumption that Islam is only the religious parts and nothing else is biased and a naive oversimplification.

Rather than "hijacking" the word Islam to only mean the religion or to only mean the politics, may I propose a more neutral point of view by splitting the Islam namespace into?

• Islam (religion): the current article
• Islam (political entity): merging Islamic state, Islamism and Political aspects of Islam

I realize that no discussion of Islam is without controversy. And I believe that this is exactly proof the word "Islam" is both a religion and a political entity. Both sides claim the name.

I would welcome other creative suggestions to address this problem. --Sonjaaa (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Then we have Islam the civilization consisting of many Islamic cultures. We have Islam as the lands of Islam; ie Islamdom as to Christendom. Also, the Islamicate society, inclusive of the other religions and cultures it contains; ie Islamic science as inclusive of Christian, Jewish and other scientists. Hodgson coined words to describe other aspects of Islam. Lewis discusses these issues at length, as do most experts trying to communicate a more comprehensive picture of the various subjects.

I believe we need more words. Islamic law is Sharia. Islamism is a much abused and misunderstood term for Islamic political thought and discourse. All this to say, English needs to acquire these various words in order to facilitate communication and the elaboration of underlying concepts. If we differentiate the word Islam as Islam/politics, Islam/society, Islam/law etc we are taking a step back. We are avoiding the issue.

This is not to say I am right and you are wrong. You have a point as well. To raise the issue and discuss alternatives is to increase awareness of this dangerous shortcoming in perceptions. We simply cannot discuss what we do not perceive. And we can hardly perceive that for which we have no name.

Aquib (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Importance of the Sunnah

Consider Christian positions on things like abortion, drinking, going to the Saturday dances, smoking, petting, driving Hummers, using technology, or bathing. There are or have been varying groups within Christianity who have disagreed, and there is/was no Christian consensus on these issues as the Bible says nothing, is vague, and/or contradictory. I'm sure Muslims faced similar problems with the Qur'an (or for that matter, Mormons in regards to the Book of Mormon). All Muslims, presumably, must obey the Qur'an, but can they differ on the Sunnah? I understand Shiites don't, while Sunnis do. Hence for the latter, the Sunnah might be as important as the Quran, and certainly indispensible to the faith (much like the D & C is with Mormons  ;-)  . Are there any other books or "hadiths"?Civic Cat (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Shiites do follow other books of hadith. These books have different authors. For ALL Muslims, the Quran is the first, primary source of guidance. The books of hadith even (Sahih Hadith) are known to not be 100% accurate accounts of the Muhammad's words, and so much less authority is given to them than to the Quran. Rangerunseen (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Srahmadi, 2 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Hello, Salam, what is the meaning of "the last prophet of Islam"?! Islam just has one prophet. suggestions: the last prophet the last prophet of God the prophet of Islam

Srahmadi (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

comment - please provide reliable sources to implement your suggestion. However the linked article's heading Prophets of Islam runs contrary to your claim. Maybe its best to discuss in its talk page. The introduction of the article suggests that previous prophets brought sharia which had the same basic idea of Islam. Maybe that's why the article heading is termed as Prophets of Islam.Peaceworld111 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The point of 4 marriages In Islam.

It is famously known that Men in Islam are permitted to marry upto 4 women, but this topic is almost never fully explained. Polygamy for a man is permitted only and only if he can avoid theses: 1. Case “A”: spending less time with the wife might be because of other factors too. For instance, the husband’s job is based on overtime or even it requires lots traveling per year. So, do we say that he is not allowed to get married because there is certain time he is not sharing it with his wife or his children. Therefore, if a person is rich enough, rather than spending his time at work and traveling from one country to another, he can spends that time with another wife in a more aptly and equally controlled way. Keep in mind that, if a husband has more than one wife, he has to spend his time with his wives coequally.

2. Case “B”: Less attention to the wife might occur because of other reasons too. If the husband is so much occupied by his job, business, or studying for sure his wife will not get adequate attention. And if she does get some attention and caring it will not meet her expectations. In this matter, Should we tell those kinds of husbands to divorce their wives or not to get married if there have not been married yet. Nevertheless, the wife should understand her husband circumstances. She should bare with him the side affect of marrying another wife since she did not from the beginning had objected about the idea of polygamy and made a condition in her marriage contract.

3. Case “C”: That is right and the emotion of woman and her interest should be highly considered by the husband. However, if the conditions of polygamy are satisfied and the husband’s desire is above normal then what would be the solution. Should he just go a head and cheat on his wife with women that usually hang out with any guy. And by that he will be transferring diseases, committing adultery, and threatening the family stability. Especially when cheating on the wife becomes habitual with any lady that clicks on his emotion.

4. Case “D”: Family malfunctioning is a wide general problem and is not exclusively a result of polygamy. Moreover, it is because of unwise decisions and acts regardless of the size of the family. A person might find a disordered family though it just consists of: husband, wife, and one child. But, all of its members are conveniently ignorant and irresponsible.

5. Case “E”: Applying that case in the family is a disaster. And, its argument is so weak because what if there is a big family. Or, what if that family consists of more than 5 or 6 members does. Should the wife start aborting lives to control the budget of the family? Even in the case of using lawful birth control ways, it would be forbidden in Islam if they are used because of the fear of poverty. The Muslim, above all, has to rely on God, in any aspect of life , because God is the one that bestowed upon him/her before any one else, and because of His bestowing and wisdom you have the tools and abilities to make money: “Kill not your children for fear of want (poverty): We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin” Quran 17:31.Therefore, that case is a big deal for those who really weigh things based on money and materialism but it is not so with pious people if the money where coequally and wisely shared. Nevertheless, money is not everything. The husband who is rich now might be poor tomorrow. And the husband whose job is very good today might be jobless one day. But Moreover, the Muslim, above all, has to rely on God, when he is involved in any thing, because God is the one that bestowed upon him/her before any one else, and because of His bestowing and wisdom you have the tools and ability to make money: “Kill not your children for fear of want (poverty): We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin” Quran 17:31.

6. Case “F”: That argument could be used in any big family even if it falls under the Monogamy practice. Organizing the population is fine with Islam as long as no abortion is involved even in the early the development phases when the fetus still in like fertilized egg or zygote. So, a husband who has two families with acceptable number of kids rather than having big family with numerous numbers of children will not threat population.

7. Case “G”: That might sound a fair complain and objection but if we research it and analyze it, it would not be that valid and practical. It is just a utopian objection that is driven by emotional reaction. First, because Islam considers the husband as the main supervisor in the family though the wife has it important supervisory role: “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Quran 4. 34” It is the husband’s responsibility to find a job, work hard, make money, make the life of his wife and family comfortable and if the wife is working, the money that she makes will be her exclusively and has the full right not to spend it on the husband. Also, while men emotionally -and even physiologically- more rigid and they are more prepared for hard circumstances and environment women usually are more emotional, benign, and sensitive. Such factors, in addition to some others, make the husband more reliable to be in the charge of supervisory. Second, the wife is more toward one-to-one exclusive loving relation. Her complex emotions make her more comfortable in being dedicated to one person i.e. one husband; especially if she feels that her husband is the person that can offer her protection, love, honesty, and tranquility. And that might me the explanation why usually women are more jealous than men. They, generally speaking, go crazy if they feel or even see the husband looking or talking kindly to another woman.

Third and as described above, the wife-in general-considers emotion as a priority, and if she is getting full attention and love from the husband side, she will not feel comfortable in sharing her emotion with another man nor giving him her body since any physical contact should first pass through the gate of honest, valid emotion. However, some women might not be that way, but as mentioned before the law goes with majority. If there are some special cases then they have to be reviewed by an Islamic Court for proper Islamic solution. On the other hand, the husband, especially in the long run of marriage, might give emotion less attention. He, in general, would be more attracted and attached to physical beauty than emotion; since he sees in that attraction an ultimate satisfaction for his desire. That physiological behavior, which widely seen in men, becomes a threat on the relation with wife if it starts growing or becomes uncontrolled. Since, it will push the husband to have unlawful hidden affairs with other women causing less attention and caring on the wife side. In that situation, when the husband’s sexual desire can not be saturated by just one woman - especially when his wife has pregnancy or menstrual related issues or not emotionally ready when he needs her, what would be the solution? Fourth, assume the following the husband marries more than one wife and those wives each one of them marries additional husband then what about the children to whom they belong or to whom they listen. And if the husband wants to apply his supervisory role, the wife of two husbands might end up of two contradicted statement .Also, who is going to spend on the family? Overall, a family, like any other healthy organization, can not have two principals or supervisors. Can a person imagine a country directed by two presidents? So theoretically it might sound good for the wife to have more than one husband, but since Islam considers the husband as the main supervisor of the family it would not be practical at all.

Also, In Islam, a Women can take Divorce from her husband If she has a serious issue and is unhappy. This is called KHULA or to ope up or to free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadeemkasmani (talk • contribs) 11:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Islam, which began with Adam

This article, I feel, should put more emphasis on the history of Islam, with minor landmarks, from the Creation of Adam, the times of Noah, the people of Abraham, Abraham's sons, the Exodus, the reigns of David and Solomon, through to later prophets such as Elijah, right to Jesus and then to Muhammad. It will also emphasize upon the Qur'anic belief that Islam began not with Muhammad but Adam.Imadjafar (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. But don't jump straight to the lead, which has been stable for a while. I'd say elaborate on this idea in a separate section first (while avoiding WP:OR, citing new sources, etc), then we can devote a whole paragraph for it in the lead. This article also needs a section for Islam as a philosophical/theological concept, i.e., something similar to the last sentence in the "Etymology" section. Wiqixtalk 16:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, for the simple reason that it isn't true. Islam began with Muhammad. The article already mentions that Islam claims otherwise, and that's enough. ðarkuncoll 17:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thark, whether it is true or not, 'Truth' isn't a criteria for insertion in WP. Having well respected and authoritative sources is. The problem here is that if we take the Qu'ran as the authoritative source on the origins of Islam that trumps all other sources, then what is also to stop us taking the Christian bible as the authoritative source on evolution and many other matters, or indeed the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or any other religions' texts? Each of these texts would regard the claim that Adam was the first Moslem differently, what criteria can we use to decide which is true? As humans we cannot. 'Truth' is a matter for personal reflection and religious, philosophical or scientific exploration, something gained in interaction with the external, internal and revealed worlds. An encyclopedia however is merely a collection of human knowledge and cannot claim 'truth' in the same way that a religious or philosophical text does. If we understand the difference between the human knowledge contained in an encyclopedia entry, and the possibly divinely revealed truth in a religious tract, then we will be able to try to represent what humans know about each topic in an encyclopedic way, a much lower task than trying to discover 'the truth', but still difficult and worthwhile. Riversider (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

UNDUE

This article is about the faith of 1.2 billion (+) people, constituting 20% to 25% of all mankind. Everyone who edits this article must remember that.

As such, non-notable opinions, such as that of Ibn Warraq, should be kept out of here (though they may be presented in criticism of Islam) per WP:UNDUE. Also, please take a look at Christianity and Judaism to see how much "criticism" is appropriate in such general articles.

That said, there is vigorous debate in Islam over the role of women, freedom and democracy. That should be reflected.VR _talk 06:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why are the opinions of Dawkins and Hitchens in this article at all, given that they are wholly absent from Christianity and Judaism? Certainly both men have as strong opinions on those religions as they do on Islam.
• A debate on Islamic terrorism should be reflected in this article. However, Pipes' attacks on what he calls "lawful Islamism" is quite ambiguous, and certainly doesn't reflect the reality. The reality is that the Muslim world continues to cope and fight with terrorism, very few are concerned about "lawful Islamism".
• While non-Muslim criticisms are elaborated, Muslim responses are totally ignored (Fazlur Rahman Malik, Syed Ameer Ali, Ahmed Deedat and Yusuf Estes are only mentioned, no indication of what their response is).

VR _talk 06:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Good points VR. -Aquib (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please also check this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam#Does_Islam_means_peace.3F_word_mixing

given undue weight to the word salam, and linking the word salam with islam is also giving undue weight(do you agree?)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sects or Schools of thought

The best understanding for the meaning of Islam you will get if you read a good book on Islam, written for a Western audience in mind, like "Ideals and Realities of Islam" by Hossein Nasr. The meaning of what you are terming as "sects" are not really so like you are thinking in terms of Christianity (which doesnt have religious law to the same level Islam has and where theology accounts for the main difference). A better way would be to use the term "schools of thought" instead of sect. The Shia tradition and the Sunni folds are two basic divisions, but there are a myriad of ideas existing within them which combine together in many ways. Like a Sunni Muslim can take his fiqh or jurisprudence from a particular school of thought, take his theology from another school of thought, his spiritual practices (if any) from a particular Sufi school of thought (or Sufi order). For example, one might be a Sunni, with fiqh from the Hanfi school, theology from Ibn Taymiyaa, spiritual practices from the Chishti order. Another Muslim may take his jurisprudence from the same school as the previous Muslim but his spiritual practices from another school. In this way, there are many combinations, some more probable then others. I hope the situation is a little clearer.-Shahab (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "Islam" is to "Salaam" as "unapologetic" is to "apologetic." Same root, but not relevant to mention as if Islam means Peace.Cutugno (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Does Islam means peace? word mixing

Why does the article say "Another word derived from the same root is salaam (سلام) which means 'Peace'."

The root s-l-m makes up hundreds of words, not just salam, so why only mention that. I see this as giving undue weight

Other words with root s-l-m:

• Aslam, which means submit
• Taslam/Taslim, which means safe
• Saleema which means ‘to be saved or to escape from danger
• Musalam, which means undisputed
• (Derivation of) Salama: implies stinging of a snake

Muslim scholar Ibn Taymiyyah who is popular among islamic fundmentalists in saudi arabia. said:

“ Islam is to surrender to God, submit to him, worship him, and serve him.....

The difference arises from the fact that Islam is a Din Submission. Din is the iffinitve of ddna, yadinu, which means to submit or to surrender.

The religion of Islam which god has ordained and promulgated through his prophets is to submit to him alone. It is nothing but submission, worship and service to God and him alone.Ibn Taymiyah Expounds Islam', pg. 316, Islamic University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, Washington, U.S.A., 2000.

”

Discussion

Both Islām and peace share the same trilateral root, sa-li-ma, using the same vocalization. On the other hand, some of the words on your list do not make this distinction, i.e., they belong to the same basic trilateral root but with a different vocalization (for one example, sa-la-ma). In addition to belonging to the exact same root, early Arabic scholars often considered peace (al-silm and al-salāma) to be one sense of meaning of islām (the other two senses being "surrender to God" and "ikhlāṣ"). For example, see the 12th-century scholar Fakhr al-Din al-Razi in his al-Tafsir al-Kabir. Furthermore, the quote you cite is related to the theological meaning of islām, but the other two senses are also possible in other contexts. And all three should be mentioned in the etymology and meaning section, there is no WP:DUE issue here. Wiqixtalk 19:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Where did you learn that the word islam came from the word "saleema"/"salima"? Islam derives from the Arabic triconsonantal root sīn-lām-mīm (S-L-M [ س ل م ]). Many words are created from this root word by inserting different vowels between the three consonants. The word you claim islam comes from (salima) has the Derivation of "snake sting". Does islam mean "snake stinging"?

Lissan al-Arab, one of the most authoritative lexicons of the Arabic language, mentions that the word 'Islam' is derived from the root verb istaslama (استسلاما); which means 'to submit' or 'give in' or 'surrender', while the term salam (سلام) means peace, a truce, or a non-warring state.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qgnYAAAAMAAJ&q=He+further+quotes+the+exposition+of+Ibn+al-Athir+saying+that&dq=He+further+quotes+the+exposition+of+Ibn+al-Athir+saying+that&hl=en&ei=drF2Tb6pApCyhAfpw7SBBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA

Here are some quotes from Muhammad. Which gives us idea of what Muhammad thought of the meaning of islam

“ By Allah! I consider him a believer." The Prophet said, "Or merely a Muslim (Who surrender to Allah)."

Sahih Bukhari 1:4:247

”

“ A lady asked to the prophet: "What is Islam?" Allah's Apostle replied, "To worship Allah Alone and none else, to offer prayers perfectly to pay the compulsory charity (Zakat) and to observe fasts during the month of Ramadan."

Sahih Bukhari 1:2:47

”

“ "O assembly of Jews! Surrender to Allah (embrace Islam) and you will be safe!" Sahih Bukhari 9:92:447 ”

Clearly Muhammad thought islam was to surrender to god?

Ok, lets say you were right, then what about all the words that have the same root you are talking about. shouldnt we mention all those other words with the same roots as islam also? why single out and mention the word "salam".

You said "On the other hand, some of the words on your list do not make this distinction, i.e., they belong to the same basic trilateral root but with a different vocalization (for one example, sa-la-ma)"

Sorry, but what are you talking about here? your talking about vocalization of islam, if so does the word Aslam (submit) sound more like Islam. or the word "Salam"

Say it yourself "Islam, Aslam", then say "Islam,Salam" which is closer?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sa-Li-Ma is just S-L-M+Vocalization. Most Arabic dictionaries I've seen, for instance, al-Munjid, categorize each group of words and senses based on what vocalization is given to the root. This is done to determine which words are closely related to one another. In this case, both Islam and Peace are categorized in one category, Sa-Li-Ma, while some of the other words in your list, like the one about the snake, fall under a different category. This discussion is also moot, considering that Fakhr al-Din al-Razi clearly states that the term "al-islām" is derived from one of three words: "Surrender", "Devotion", or "Peace" (al-silm and al-salāma). I agree with you though, that the most common theological meaning of Islam is "Surrender to God", and this article gives this meaning more space (and mentions it in the lead). But other theories about the origin of the word are also important, especially in an etymology section. Wiqixtalk 23:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many scholars who say different things than what you claim Fakhr al-Din al-Razi says about the meaning of islam. So why give his opinion undue weight.

Lissan al Arab is a much more famous book on the arabic language, by Ibn Manzur. He clearly said islam comes from the word istaslama (استسلاما); which means 'to submit' or 'give in' or 'surrender', NOT "Salam"

Either way, lets say you are right, and that islam and salam have a common root (which i dont disagree with), what about all the other 1000+ words that has common root as islam and common vocalization, and common whatever you were talking about? Why mention salam as the only word related to islam?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, i have another question, how can you claim the word Aslam and Musalam, does not have the same root (s-l-m) as islam? That is just an abosulte nonsense. while you claim "Salam" does share same root as islam (fact is their are loads of words which contain the letters S-L-M, not just SALAM).e--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What has happened here, is that because the word islam contain the letters S-L-M and so does the word "Salam", people are saying they are related.

Thats like saying "Love" and "Loveless" and "Lava" are related, because the contain the letters L-V--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Misconceptions2, please follow rules for indentation as a courtesy to the readers as well as other editors. Thank you. -Aquib (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

According to The Dictionary of the Holy Quran, the word Islam comes from the Quranic root Salima - but this is not to be confused with inferring its meaning from the trilateral root. The trilateral root is not always a clear indication of the meaning.

The word means peace, way to peace, submission. Of course, it also refers to the religion.

Aquib (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think it is fair to change the line:

"Another word derived from the same root is salaam (سلام) which means 'Peace'"

to

"There are another 1000+ words derived from the same root as Islam, one of which is salaam (سلام) which means 'Peace'"

This is much much fairer (i hope you can see my point, and why i think the word "Salam" is given undue weight)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Not 1000 words, probably only four or five, and only two of which (peace and surrender) have been linked to Islam. The other words you keep mentioning are not relevant, because they were never linked to Islam, and mostly belong to an entirely different sense of s-l-m (at least according to the categorization used in Al-Munjid). Also, Al-Razi is only one example out of many scholars across all Islamic schools who mention or adopt the theory that Islam is derived from Peace ("al-silm to mean al-salāma"). Even Ibn Manẓūr mentions an account that links the word Muslim to al-salāma, which states that a Muslim is one who enters the state of al-salāma. His definition of al-salāma is either a synonym for al-salām or its singular form. Another scholar, Al-Mawardī (in his tafsīr), puts it more succinctly: وفي أصل الإسلام قولان : أحدهما : أن أصله مأخوذ من السلام وهو السلامة , ... . Translation: "There are two theories on the origin of al-islām: One of which is that it is derived from al-salām, which is al-salāma". He mentions taslīm (surrender) to God as the second origin. This theory is also present in other works, like those of al-ʿIzz ibn ʿAbd al-Salām (d. 660 AH), al-Qummī al-Naysābūrī (d. 728 AH), al-Istarʾābādī (d. 891 AH), and Ibn Abī Ḥadīd (this one is even found in an account by Imam Ali), and others. Wiqixtalk 17:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'd suggest something like: "Among other words derived from the same root are salaam (سلام; peace) and 'taslīm' (surrender), both of which have been suggested by scholars as connected to the origin of al-islām." - with appropriate references. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

About being "last prophet"

"Islam (Arabic: الإسلام‎ al-’islām, pronounced [ʔɪsˈlæːm] ( listen)[note 1]) is the monotheistic religion articulated by the Qur’an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God (Arabic: الله‎, Allah), and the teachings and normative example (called the Sunnah and Hadith) of Muhammad, often considered as the last Prophet of Islam." is written in the text.

But Hz. Muhammed is not the last prophet of Islam. He is the last prophet of Allah(GOD) and the unique prophet of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArzumKalfa (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this has been suggested before and this time i've changed it to Last prophet of God giving a link to Prophets of Islam. I understand where you are coming. The reason why it was placed there as last prophet of Islam was probably because of the existence of the article Prophets of Islam. ThanksPeaceworld 20:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Demographics of Islam article

There has been a LOT written about the demographics of Islam and its predicted growth. Would anyone else agree that this deserves its own article? It would discuss:

• Current numbers, including how many of each sect
• Growth that has occured by region
• Predicted growth
• Discussion of methodologies, etc.
• Summarize various opinions on this growth (the different views such as Eurabia would still have their own articles where they'd discuss most of it)

I think the paragraphs in this article are good, but it deserves its own article. As I understand it, it's standard practice to create an entire article for a big subject, to branch off of ones like this.. Also, I feel that similar articles like Demographics of Judaism and Demographics of Christianity would be warranted. Thoughts?--Babank (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Islam by country is a specific demographics of islam article, though it doesn't address issues such as predicted growth etc. --Peaceworld 20:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, and being a List, it is unfit to be an article which discusses things in depth.--Babank (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

yeah, I don't think your proposal is bad. A comprehensive article could be developed. Here I think though the article Claims to be the fastest-growing religion is quite relevant. --Peaceworld 20:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - Introductory section

Hello, Given that this article is meant to be educational and informative, like the rest of Wikipedia, and not a religious tract, I have a request for an edit.

In the Introductory section, between the first and second paragraphs, is the following statement: "Mostly people think that Islam was founded by Muhammad. But it is not true Islam exists since the formation of the World and Muhammad Developed and spread the Islam like other Prophets of Islam."

This appears to be a statement of faith or belief by an adherent of Islam. While indicating what adherents believe has a place in such an article, it should be included in the sections outlining the faith and beliefs of the religion. Alternatively, if included in the second paragraph and prefaced by "Muslims believe..." it would be more appropriate.

In any other article, this type of statement would be flagged by someone immediately. Wisemoon (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It *was* flagged by someone immediately - you. It was only just added, and I have now reverted it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that according to the MOS, the section heading Minor Denominations should be written as Minor denominations with a lower case d. Hope someone will correct it. Thanks. 188.65.179.18 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I took care of it. Opticals (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.68.23.25, 26 April 2011

Can we get the pornographic image removed from the top of this article? Not only does it have nothing to do with Islam, it's also quite offensive. No one wanting to learn something about Islam ought to have to see that. 66.68.23.25 (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

See my answer below. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 41.233.177.11, 26 April 2011

Dear Sir/Madam,

The change I request is not about a text but a picture. This page begins by a picture that has nothing to do with the topic, and is totally offensive. It is obviously intended to put off visitors from reading about Islam. Kindly, find out how it got there and remove it. If this is not possible, allow me to spread the word that Wikipedia is by no means a reliable source for information but is rather an arena to attack religions and ethnic groups on no solid grounds. This is not meant to be a threat or anything, but everybody has the right to request to be accurately presented on a world-wide spot such as Wikipedia, and it is a fact that you cannot help losing your credibility if you allow this fault to persist.

Thank you 41.233.177.11 (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your request. Please accept our apologies for the presence of the obviously inappropriate image. The image has been removed, the user(s) responsible for adding it have been blocked from editing, and the template protected. The image should soon be on a list of restricted, or "bad" images, preventing its display on this page again. If you still see the image, bypass your browser's cache as described here, and it should go away. If it still shows up after that, then please make another request and someone will try and find the problem. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Denominations section gap

There's nothing about the Ibadhi subgroup of Islam. Seeing as it's the most popular form of Islam in Oman and Zanzibar, I think it should at least get a shout-out. ☠ QuackOfaThousandSuns (Talk) ☠ 21:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Need to mention the three dimensions of Islam

The religion of Islam is broken into 3 independent but integrated dimensions: islam (Submission), iman (faith), and ihsan (doing what is beautiful). All three are intentionally lower case. This is especially important to distinguish Islam from islam. The 5 pillars are the acts of submission and a Muslim's fulfillment of islam. The articles of faith are right beliefs and a Muslim's fulfillment of iman. Not to be confused with imam, which is a teacher much like a rabbi is in Judiasm. ihsan is not really mentioned in the article at all. It is about performing acts as if God is watching you for if you do not see Him, always know He is standing next to you. I feel that ihsan is an important aspect of Islam to cover as it focuses on what is in the heart of a person and compels the believer to treat all living beings with respect. Foodstock is prayed over and killed in the most humane way possible. In battle a Muslim must only fight those who fight back and give mercy to those who run away. Indiscriminate killing is not to be done by a practicing Muslim as ordered by the Prophet. This is all written in Hadith of Gabriel. More information about ihsan can be pulled from Murata, Sachiko, and William C. Chittick. Vision of Islam: Reflecting on the Hadith of Gabriel. New York, NY: Paragon House, 1994. Print. Chaos986 (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There is already a brief mention of Ihsan in the last line of the Etymology section (too brief). It would be great if you can expand that sentence and start a new section for the general meaning of islam. This should also serve as a general introduction to the Articles and Pillars concepts. So Just be bold and start editing the article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 06:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to be bold on 4 other pages and wait 10 days first. I was just writing a final paper for my Islam class and noticed this understatement of my favorite part of Islam as a Christian learning about it from Muslims.

Maybe someone verified can edit and insert the following: "The religion of Islam has a component of belief called ihsan. Roughly translated in English, it means to do things beautifully. The origins of ihsan can be traced to the second hadith of the Prophet Mohammad. In this hadith, the archangel Gabriel asks Mohammad “Then tell me about ihsan." Mohammad replies, "It is to worship Allah as though you are seeing Him, and while you see Him not yet truly He sees you". Under the principals of ihsan, Muslims are instructed to always behave as if Allah is with them. A good example is a speed trap on a highway. If you know where the trap is, you slow down for it then speed back up when you are safely past. Under ihsan, you always assume the car behind you is a police car and you are never safely past the speed trap. Even killing foodstock must be done as if PETA is judgeing you and be done with respect for that animal and respect that no other creatures of it's kind sees or hears the killing less they might be disturbed. In battle a Muslim must only fight those who fight back and give mercy to those who run away.Always in everything you do you should do it the most respectful, most humane, most peaceful way you can imagine it to be done. That is how one acts beautifully before God. "

Chaos986 (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I will add that in three dimensional prism islam is concerned with the formal law and the jurists, iman with articles of faith theology and ihsan with spirituality. All three are to be integrated together in the Islamic way of life.-Shahab (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please add the fifth and sixth beliefs

1. Allah 2. Prophets 3. Holy Books 4. Angels 5. The Judgement Day 6. The Destiny (Qada and Qadar)

Im Indonesian muslim, i learn that six beliefs in my school. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunarta (talk • contribs) 07:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, they have been all listed see Islam#Articles of faith. --Peaceworld 09:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Gunarta (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I see. However people cant find in the left green sidebar

 Done Thanks. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 09:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of life?

Wiqi55, for some reason, insists that "purpose of life" is intolerable, and it must read "purpose of existence", citing "Wording is per the cited source". 3 sources are cited. The first says nothing on this point. Ditto the second, but interestingly refers to the "Koran"; I look forward to Wiqi55 changing his vote. The third indeed says "existence", but can hardly be considered authoritative; "existence" and "life" in this context are interchangeable. That text, too, spells Quran in a way that Wiqi55 will disapprove of, so he cannot possibly consider that text authoritative William M. Connolley (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Other editors have objected to "life" in the past William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example [32]. I also think it is important to follow the styles and wording of the source cited, mostly to avoid making exceptional or wrong claims. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're tying yourself into knots here. That edit you refer to doesn't complain about "life" instead of "existence"; instead, it objects that The purpose of life in Islam is not to only worship God. Rather, Islam is a complete way of life that involves religion, morals, law, etc. Whether that is true or not, I've no idea William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Virus of the mind

Richard Dawkins forwarded a viruses of the mind theory in 1991 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viruses_of_the_Mind) i feel this should be mentioned somewhere in this article and all other articles describing religion. Religion is an interesting psychological phenomena, and theories on how religions spread certainly deserves mention, if only as a link under see also heading. I am unsure about other theories of why religions spread, but any serious ones should be included as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natit (talk • contribs) 17:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't belong here, it looks more like a general view about religion, not specifically about Islam. Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest it should be added to all religion articles, i added the same suggestion to Christianity, if you look up for example the common cold it has an entire chapter devoted to how its spread, yet religion it has not even mentioned the theory that says it is a virus on the mind. Meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme_theory) as a word is fairly accepted, a google search returns 182 million hits for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natit (talk • contribs) 21:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Islam Is More than a religion it is a form of Government, Where the Imam can be considered a Fascist leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.85.55.207 (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You could suggest it at religion, but it does not belong here or at Christianity. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I do believe that the actual spread of a virus(as the theory states) or bacteria does belong in the article about the disease. While i agree it does belong in religion as well, it certainly belongs on the articles regarding the actual "strain". If people are wondering about the cause of Christianity or Islam the natural article wouldn't be to visit the religion page. Many different diseases spread the same way, but you don't have to visit the Medicine article to learn how an actual virus spread Natit (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You're making an assumption here - that it is commonly accepted that religions are spread by particular 'pathogens'. With reference to Medicine, of course different diseases need to state the causes, simply because different diseases have different causes.Peaceworld111 (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I hold no illusions, i know it is far from commonly accepted, if it was it should deserve far more than a footnote =). What i do claim is that something that affects 3-6 billion people (belief in a personal god), deserves mention of the different causal effects of such beliefs. Such as the Viruses of the Mind theory or how Freud describes why we believe: "Firstly because our primal ancestors already believed them; secondly, because we possess proofs which have been handed down to us from antiquity, and thirdly because it is forbidden to raise the question of their authenticity at all." in The Future of an Illusion. There are many theories and the should at the very least have a mention in See also section Natit (talk) 10:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems the discussion in Christianity also suggests adding it to Religion article, if this is what other people feel is right i suppose i can accept that. I still feel as it should be stated as causal effect on each article, but one step at a time i suppose. How do i go about haveing it added to Religion? do i create the same discussion there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natit (talk • contribs) 10:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Does the theory describe different causal effects for each particular faiths?Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The theory describes different vectors, though it does not go into detail about what vectors belong to what faith as much as it describes how the different vectors work. It would probably be original research to attempt to bind vector types to faiths, but maybe someone other than me knows more on that subject, it has been over a year since i read it, but i can try to find time tomorrow to read it again, i have a headache today =( Natit (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, just go to the talk page for Religion and start the same thread there, and tell them that your going there was suggested here and at Talk:Christianity. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually after reading more closely it is mentioned on the religion page under Evolutionary theory and religion as meme which viruses of the mind would be an subset of Natit (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And make a link to human under every article about a person. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that Richard Dawkins exists. 216.150.131.207 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Denfine monotheistic

Religions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.75.119.92 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I honestly couldn't realize why and what does this section mean?!AdvertAdam ^talk 06:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What? It means a Belief in one god, one sole deity. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.224.62.120, 2 July 2011

please change Muhammad to Muhammad, peace be upon him.

117.224.62.120 (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

What you ask is not recommended by Wikipedia's Manual of style. You may propose a revision of this policy here though after reading through the arguments already present on that page-Shahab (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Jihad

I am astounded that there is absolutely nothing on this article. Quit frankly it's pathetic that Wikipedians are so bias that they would completely omit this entire section of history from this article while people freak out if we don't put something on the dark ages and the crusades on a Christian page.--69.130.100.152 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Check again. Section 4.5, titled 'Military', is entirely about Jihad. 64.180.40.100 (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it was conveniently well hidden, probably as a result of the PR people who do damage control on this article 24/7. Reading the hidden section on Jihad, it is just a haphazard explanation of Jihad is. What about the history of Jihad which is a major part of Muslim history and has great significance? There must be some reason why the only justifiable military aggression approved by Muslims has no history according to this article.--69.130.100.152 (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Way to go Wikipedia, thanks for informing me about the Jihad. NPOV my ass.--69.130.100.152 (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is an overview of a huge topic that doesn't really deal with anything in detail. All notable ideas, people, events, etc., related to Islam, including jihad, have their own articles. There are additional articles on defensive jihad and offensive jihad. So there is plenty more information about jihad on Wikipedia if you need it. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Does "Islam" mean peace?

In the article lead it is stated that Islam means 'peace' and 'way to peace.' But is this just referring to the same triconsonantal root 'salaam' that means peace, but which is quite different from the other form 'Islam'? It seems to be a new usage of the word, maybe an apologetic intention. One of the great historians of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, who also knows many languages from that region, flatly denies this meaning (video here in 01:45). He also says that 'Salaam' in many Islamic contexts is not used in the same way as peace in English or other languages, but that it means peace within Islam.[33] - Davidelah (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right - the exact translation for Islam is "surrender/submission". The trilateral root s-l-m is used for many words - Islam, Salam, Silm, Aslama, Sallama, etc. (even Sulayman - the name of the Prophet Solomon is from the same root). The thing to note, though, is that there is semantic correlation between the Arabic words for "peace" and "submission" but we should use the exact meaning here, and Arabic semantics can have its own article sometime. Shaad lko (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

See this discussion from the archive. Many medieval linguists/exegetes have made the link between islām and peace. The same is also true for words like muslim, aslim/aslam (i.e., to become peaceful; sign a treaty, etc). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That still has not been changed. I said in that past discussion that the following (should be changed):

"Another word derived from the same root is salaam (سلام) which means 'Peace'"

to

"There are another 1000+ words derived from the same root as Islam, one of which is salaam (سلام) which means 'Peace'"

Can somone pelase do that and change it. as it is clear that more than 1000+ words derived from the same root, no reason to single out the word Salam, which apologetic Muslims in the west, like to do. This issue has been going on for a while, i think it should be brought to the attention of admins and all evidence presented, or there will be no change--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The root of the problem may well be that "Salaam" has shifted its meaning. Comparing it to Latin rather than English equivalents, it is not related to "pax" (peace) but to "salus" (good health, soundness, wellbeing) and, more precisely, to its imperative verb form "salve" which was also used as a greeting. What we need, unfortunately, is a Reliable Source... David Trochos (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

David Elah has explained the problem. Bernard Lewis has said that Salam is much more different than the peace westerners know. Salam is more like a greeting. Like when the King of Saudi Arabia declared war against yemen through a letter, he ended his letter with the words "Peace be upon you", according to Lewis. Or when Muhammad sent a letter to the chrsitian King of Alia (according to William Muir, Life Of Mahomet, pg 457, footnote 1), he said "peace be upon you" at the start of the letter, but then went on to threaten him with death if he did not pay the Jizyah. So i think the misleading phrase that makes people believe Islam means peace, needs to be looked at. There are enough academic who agree with DavidElah's psoition--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems there is agreement that 'Islam' means surrender/submission but that some scholars have associated it with 'being safe' or 'peace,' by surrendering/submitting. But the literal meaning is not peace, based on Bernard Lewis' explanation, and I think if one looks in most dictionaries that is the predominant view, for example here. - Davidelah (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the following (or some variant of it) would be a fair statement (refs to be added/kept) :

In addition to referring to the religion itself, the word Islam means 'submission/surrender (to God)'. The Arabic word for peace also comes from the same trilateral root s-l-m, which has led some scholars to conclude that Islam also means attaining peace through submitting to the Will of God.

The discussion on meaning of Salam is superfluous for the purpose of this article. How many words can be formed from s-l-m is also immaterial because peace is the word which has been wittingly or unwittingly associated with Islam by some scholars. Shaad lko (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Can anybody think of a phrasing to clarify that this is not just "submission/surrender" in the sense of losing a battle, but in the sense of accepting an ongoing, mutually beneficial relationship with a master and protector? David Trochos (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

yes, actually it is : "submission/surrender of the personal will to the Will of God" - one ref is here: Lewis, Barnard; Churchill, Buntzie Ellis. Islam: The Religion and The People. Wharton School Publishing. 2009. pp. 8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaad lko (talk • contribs) 15:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit circular; "to the Will of God" is understood as part of the meaning only because "Islam" is the name of a religion. "Submission to a higher power" might be a more accurate definition of the word as a word (but that still misses the sense that you are submitting for your own good). David Trochos (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I don't know if we can get to a definition that clarifies "for our own good". The current wikilink is nice, btw. I'm just giving a thought^{(not even a proposal)} for this article, regarding the English usage of commandments. Do you guys think that "submission/surrender to God's commandments" is appropriate, or is it too silly? IDK, maybe "to" or "toward God's will". I'm stuck also. I avoided changes to this sentence in my recent edit. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So is there a consensus in removing the the undue weight given to the claim that the words Islam and peace come from the same root? I think it should be fixed and say "Islam comes from theroot S-L-M, there are more than 1000+ words which are made up using this root, one of which is Salam (peace)"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe expand the middle of the sentence, something like "... this root, mostly relating to concepts of well-being, one of which ..."? Alternatively, can we express the idea "Islam is a religion on the basic momotheistic plan designed to appeal to (and unite) members of a tribal culture, in which members owe loyalty to the leader and in return, the leader does whatever it takes to ensure the welfare of the tribe."? David Trochos (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that a sociological reading of Islamic history and of monotheism in general? While Islam (or any other faith, for that matter) claims that it represents reality. If we go purely by Arabic linguistics, Islam only means surrender/submission ("to God/ a higher power" is the implicit meaning). Shaad lko (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I also think it's taking the sentence out of its purposed meaning. Can we say "the word islam means 'submission/surrender to God', coming from the same root of 'peace', with a literal definition of 'peace through submission to the will of God'," or is it confusing? It's all already referenced in the article (plus one from me), but I'm trying to make sense out of it. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sir, haven't your comment been answered in the previous discussion here. You added it again here two times, while the roots are already explained in the body. We're looking for a brief statement for the lead. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

@AdamRce, what exactly was answered there? I did not bring this up again. It was fellow wiki user, David Elah who brought it up again--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Does anyone support changing the sentence

islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m, and is derived from the Arabic verb ’áslama, which means "to give up, to desert, to surrender (to God)."Another word derived from the same root is salaam (سلام) which means 'Peace'.

to

islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m, and is derived from the Arabic verb ’áslama, which means "to give up, to desert, to surrender (to God).There are many words derived using the root s-l-m, one of which is salaam (سلام) which means 'Peace'

Does anyone support or object this change ,or of similar wording/idea(given i can find a source for it). I think the change is badly needed, as the word Salam is given undue weight when there are many words derived from S-L-M. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As long as it is not claimed that 'Islam' means 'peace' but 'submission' (or some variant to the same effect) and that the "to God-part" is implicit and not the literal translation. I don't see why it's necessary to mention that the root is SLM and salaam has the same root - unless it would be to clarify why some people say Islam translates to peace. - Davidelah (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the above, but at least I think I now know why I'm not happy: we haven't considered "istislam"- which I think is at the heart of my niggles above. "Istislam" means something more like "surrender in a military sense" and we need to convey the clear distinction between that and "Islam". David Trochos (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean something like voluntary submission as opposed to forced surrender or resignation - I think that would definitely be more accurate.. - Shaad lko (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Good catch bro David. Definitely, surrender really is a direct definition to "istislam" not "islam". I guess that's why some books use "surrender" as "or" not "and". Sorry, I was only focusing on the second half of the sentence. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all. So how about using the S-L-M concept to supply more of the background, which I think means we don't have to highlight the specific example of "peace" at all- for example:

Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, completion and bonding/joining. In a religious context it means "voluntary submission to God".

I like the above edit, please change it to that. whoever added it, but it must be sourced properly--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Better sources

Here are a couple of reliable sources that either mention the link between islām and peace (based on the authority of medieval exegetes -- first source) or go into details of the different theories concerning the meaning of islām (the second source). We need to rewrite the etymology section based on such sources, as to claim that islām is derived from the trilateral root does not seem to convey any information on the etymology and development of the word itself (except perhaps that it's an Arabic word).

• Smith, Jane I. (1975). An historical and semantic study of the term "islām" as seen in a sequence of Qurʼān commentaries. Published by Scholars Press for Harvard Theological Review.

• Fazlur Rahman (1983). "Some Key Ethical Concepts of the Qur'an". The Journal of Religious Ethics. 11 (2).

Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(The triliteral root info is intrinsically interesting, and very satisfying for those who don't speak Arabic but had wondered about the relationship between the words "Muslim" and "Islam." -- Jo3sampl (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC))

The sources put forward by Wiqi are reliable. Also, the current phrase triliteral root s-l-m which forms a large class of words is somewhat misleading, since potentially many roots form large classes of words - there is nothing extraordinarily special about s-l-m which this might convey. Shaad lko (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd

This [34] is odd William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Should be removed. So should the claim which mixes up the words "peace" and "Islam", to suggest islam means peace--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The recent change by Adamrce can be kept in the Etymology section instead of the lede. Shaad lko (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me, to keep the LEAD smooth. Done ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

lede  :) Shaad lko (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an unreasoned removal-suggestion very useful in a discussion. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this entry because Jainism and Sikhism do not have a name based on race, location or a person. So this entry is unencyclopedic, untrue and has no WP:SECONDARY sources. Pass a Method talk 23:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I just removed that now, but i was in an edit conflict with PassaMethod. Anyway, there is consensus to remove the "un interesting" information AdamRCe added--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not when you say so, but with what the end of the discussion concludes! ~ AdvertAdam ^talk

Sir, it said "most major religions", and never claimed all! Also, the page-number is correct, and it's not my duty to give you the book to verify (as you asked on your talkpage). It is not a primary source and properly cited. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 00:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesnt matter wether its a primary source or not, your edit is the equivalent of saying something like "Islam is not Christianity", WHO CARES ! Your edit does not improve the article in anyway what so ever(please get a third opinion from an admin, if you disagree). Your edit is too unusual for most users i think--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I was replying to the upper concern. You said so, it's your opinion. I fixed the concern here anyways. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 01:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've taken this out again [35]. Why do we want to tell people what Islam isn't? It isn't an awful lot of things William M. Connolley (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with william. We should say what islam is (according to rs) ,not what islam isnt. Dear AdamRce, please give a good reason why the edit should be mentioned? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

The essence of Islam according to every major sect, every major scholar, both Muslim or otherwise has been the shahadah or the declaration that "There is no god but God and Muhammad is His Messenger".

We on the same page? So the Ahmadiyya do not believe Muhammad is the Messenger anymore. They believe he was superseded by Ghulam Mirza Ahmed who is their last Messenger. They are to Muhammad as Muslims are to Jesus or Moses. Muslims acknowledge Moses as much a prophet and lawgiver from the God of Abraham as the Jews do but we don't call Jews Muslims do we? Muslims believe in Jesus as a prophet of God, born of immaculate conception, miracles as a baby, raising the dead, walking on water, his second coming, all of it. But that doesn't make Muslims a sect of Christians, does it? Ergo, Ahmadiyya do not belong on this list as a denomination. There should be a section for "offshoots" for Bahai-ism and Ahmadiyya.

If you tried to assert the Ahmadiyya were a sect of Muslims in a university setting, like say in a doctoral thesis, you would have it thrown back in your face at any higher institution of learning anywhere in the world. It's just wrong. Within Ahmadiyya there are divisions however and I believe some have tried to advocate a return to being a "sect" of Muslims but until they gain a distinct voice and name, they should be left for the Ahmadiyya page and not generalized onto the whole of that separate religious tradition.

What's more ironic is that the Ahmadiyya believe Ghulam Mirza was the "embodiment" of Jesus Christ. So their prophet is actually a Kashmiri "reincarnation" of Jesus. That is their current and followed prophet. They're therefore more Christian than Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.19.107 (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We have RSs which regard them as Muslims. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Its called "self identity", just because they are considered heretical or non muslims according to the majority of Islamic scholars (it seems). It does not mean we can not describe them as Muslims on wikipedia. But it may also be appropriate that this sect is considered heretical or non-muslims according to the majority of Muslim scholars (if there is an RS for that). --Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of pronouns referring to God

With reference to the recent edits by Bloodofox, do we have a consensus on whether or not to capitalize pronouns used for God?

It seems to be the practice followed in the English language. Shaad lko (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I think the answer is here Shaad lko (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Apostasy section missing?

This article has no section about apostasy in Islam, I think it should be at least briefly mentioned and then there ought to be a wiki-link to the main article. AadaamS (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan

Some maps need to be updated to reflect the existence of South Sudan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.30.38.178 (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes by User:Opticals

I think we need to discuss the last edit by Opticals where he has modified text at different places, while specifying only a generic edit summary : "Moving away from political history". One cannot read his mind, and understand the rationale for these changes. Besides much other stuff, the edit involves odd things like putting Golden Age in double quotes, and removing history about the Timurid Muslim dynasties. I have invited him for a discussion though the sane way seems to be to undo his edit, given that it is a mix of desired and undesired changes. Shaad lko (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Shaad Iko, I removed the Timurid dynasty because the to do list of this talk page requests a move away from political history. Why would the dynasty be more important than the numerous other states not mentioned? I thought putting golden age in quotes would suggest that it isn't an absolutely established term. For example, later in the history section, the eastern Islamic world was also mentioned to experience a 'golden age' centuries later. You could take that out, or anything else either, if they don't work. Opticals (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit

I think the "this article is part of a series on Islam" should be placed above the photo of Mecca. it looks better that way. 98.209.221.2 (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Or as there's already an image/video of "The Kaaba during Hajj" accompanying the Pilgrimage section, maybe the top Kaaba image can be removed altogether. David Trochos (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction

In the Law and jurisprudence section, it says ". . . the Sunnah (actions and sayings of Muhammad). . .". It would be more accurate to say the Hadith. 150.212.66.201 (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sunnah is usually deduced from Hadith - I have changed the text accordingly. Shaad lko (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 29 October 2011

Asslamualaikun, i just wanted to add a subject in this artical with has another group of muslims

Tehe474855 (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

1.5 billion

The Pew forum reference says 1.57 billion Muslims. The CIA world factbook, which does not give a percentage, states that 22.43% of the world's 6,928,198,253 population is Muslim. This comes out to 1.5 billion. These references (which are more current than 2007) are the ones being used for the number, the other references (such as PBS) are being used for the claim that it is one of the fastest growing religions. Even then, Adherents.com gives 1.5 billion. The two news sources really are more acceptable for the fastest-growing claim, but the Pew and CIA sources should trump them when it comes to numbers (as those should be their sources). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The 1.2 billion that PBS has on its website is from the 1990s, I have that documentary on DVD called Islam: Empire of Faith, it was released in 2000. In fact, it (PBS) states "one quarter of the world's population" now that would come to 1.7 billion today if we follow PBS.--NorthernPashtun (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Violence?

Some historians assert that Muhammad proclaims a religion of violence, only shrouded by poetry and otherwise holy actions. I'll let you guys make that decision for yourself. If you want to edit the Wikipedia page to reflect this alternate perspective, go ahead do so, but my hand will have no play in that. I'm only providing the alternate perspective. After all, this is the "Discussion" page. Do with the info as you wish. Farewell.
COice6 (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

1.8 Billion?

http://www.religiouspopulation.com iS THIS SOURCE RELIABLE WHICH STATES MUSLIMS ARE 1.8 BILLION.ive included it in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mranderson56 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

TURN OFF TOUR CAPSLOCK. Typing in all caps is the internet equivilent of shouting. The website you linked to said that they used Wikipedia as a source, so we cannot use them or we get cyclical sourcing (which is not good). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

purpose of existence is to worship God

Muslim does not believe that purpose of existence is to worship (in a sense of offering prayer) God, although it is compulsory for Muslims but not the purpose of existence. In verses referred it is more in sense of obedience (this is also not exact translation), this line can create confusion. It will be better if you eliminate this line or place Arabic word as used in this verse along with word worship. 39.48.12.243 (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of "Islam"

Why does this article not explain the true meaning of Islam. Islam means "peace". Peace through submission — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.120.224 (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't --Nutthida (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The word Islam, actually means "submission." It comes from the root Arabic word "taslim". In Arabic, the word for peace is only "solh". You can find a website that discusses that here. Be warned, though: that website presents a very critical perspective on Islams and its teachings of violence and intolerance toward unbelievers... That website elucidates many statements of the Qur`an such as:
"Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers" --Surah 48:29.
"Kill the Mushrikun (unbelievers) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush..." --Surah 9:5.

In order to unerstand the true meaning of Islam , it is very necessary to read and fully understand the Book of God i.e. The Quran.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtsayyed (talk • contribs)

There is already a wiki article on the meaning of the word Islam. The root word of Islam is only three letters and you can make many different words by inserting vowels, such as, peace, submission, surrender etc.Xareen (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

An Addition to the Denomination Section of this Article.

Even though there are many different divisions, Islam encourages the people to be and live as “One Ummah” or “One People”. These divisions are not encouraged. In Islam you should not only be one people but should call yourself ‘Muslims’ and not anything else. Since all divisions in the end believe in one God (Allah) and the Last Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) - as long as we have the same belief we are all brothers and sisters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.82.205.232 (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

yeah, in theory you may have a point, but regardless of that Muslims do have several denominations. Or do you mean to imply there is a group of Muslims who would identify themselves as Non-denominational Muslims.. Shaad lko (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong percentage given for Sunnis

The User:PassaMethod changed 80-90% Sunnis to 75-90% everywhere [36] but all sources say that Sunnis are 80-90%.

• Pew Research Center - "Of the total Muslim population, 10-13% are Shia Muslims and 87-90% are Sunni Muslims" [37]
• Encyclopædia Britannica - Sunni Islam = "... nine-tenths of all the adherents of Islām. "[38] / Shi'a Islam = "Shīʿites have come to account for roughly one-tenth of the Muslim population worldwide." [39]
• Library of Congress Country Studies - "Sunni constitute 85 percent of the world's Muslims; Shia about 15 percent." [40]
• Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs - "Shi’a Islam is the second largest branch of the tradition, with up to 200 million followers who comprise around 15% of all Muslims worldwide..." [41]
• Vali Nasr - "Shias are about 10-to-15 percent of the entire Muslim world" [42]

It's not only quantity but also quality. There are many more which agree with the above highly respected sources but no one claims Sunnis at 75% minimum so this should be changed back because it is false and misleading. The article should give the same figures as given by the leading experts which is 80-90%.--Kiftaan (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

After making my point clear on this User:PassaMethod again changed Sunnis from 80% minimum to 75% minimum and used the CIA Factbook as a reference.[43] This guy seems to not understand English or he is deliberatly trying to falsify information. The CIA states "Shia Islam represents 10-20%" and "Sunnis account for over 75% of all muslims". [44] CIA doesn't mention any other Islamic sect so how do you figure that Sunnis are "75-90%"? Even a 10 yr-old-kid can tell you that since Shias are 10-20% that means Sunnis are 80-90%.--Kiftaan (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Images

There may be a contention as to which images to use in this article, particularly the history section. I have a few comments in this regard.

Mosques seem like a good choice of images as they often represent both culture (given their style and architecture) and political power (given who built them). They can be used to represent different periods in Islamic history, including different parts of the Muslim world in contemporary times.

On that note, images should reflect the breadth and diversity of the Muslim world, not just that of the Middle East. The majority of the world's Muslims live outside the Middle East: south and southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.VR _talk 07:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right and I agree. There are many things to consider before putting images in an article.

• The pic about the city of Herat and Ghurids is very significant because that city was often called the "pearl of Khorasan", which played a major role during the Islamic golden age, it was the 2nd major learning center (after Baghdad) in the Muslim world, and the Ghorids played a positive role in the advancement of Islam before the Mongol invasion. Islam was constantly at war with non-Muslims in this eastern part, especially the Indian subcontinent, where the majority of Muslims today live. There was not much happening in the sub-Saharan African region or in the Arab world from the 7th century until the 20th century when oil discovery turned that regions rich and popular.
• The image showing the surrender of the Shi'a Safavid dynasty in 1638 is also very signficant for the section because 1.) that's where the powerful Sunni Mughals and Shia Persians drew their line. The Safavid dynasty were attempting to spread Shiaism to Mughal territory in the east but were stopped by the Sunnis, and 2.) the image itself dates back to the 1600s and this makes the history section look more professional.
• The image about Kazan, Russia, is to help readers know that Islam is not only practiced by non-whites. Since Russia has white Muslims and mosques so does the United States or Europe and it (West) is where Islam is a hot issue today, so I think that these 2 are very appropriate and make sense.
• The images about Malaysia and Nigeria are fine I believe, one shows a far away place from the Middle East and the other is in Africa where 50% is Islam and 50% Christian. There already is one image that covers the sub-Saharan African and the people of that region are Arabs just like in the Middle East so we don't need to much of that.

In Iran, all women including nonmuslims, must dress like the ones on the right lower side.[1] It would be very inappropriate to add them in Islam if they turn out to be Zoroastrians, Bahá'ís, Christians, or other. Also, How can we be sure that the 2 Indian women [2] are Muslims and not Sikhs, Hindus or other? According to where they are from (Jaipur), 83% of the population are nonmuslims (78% Hindu, 4% Jains, 0.5% Sikhs, 0.5% Christian). [3].

Non-muslim women but they dress and look just like Muslim women

I think these are good choices because I didn't just add them for own pleasure or just randomly. We could add one more into the section Abbasid dynasty (750–1258) but it should be something very much related to that era. Anything more than that will look bad.--Kiftaan (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This article should not allow images of people that can be easily recognized, I removed the image of women because it's controversial in a way that it may be used for anything other than educational purposes, and not all Muslim women dress like that, and at the same time, many non-Muslim women dress exactly like that except the one with the all black burqa which is mostly worn by radicals or extremists. If you see Sikh, Hindu, and some Buddhist women they usually dress exactly like South Asian Muslim women. The non-Muslims and Muslims also usually dress very similar in the Middle East and in Central Asia.--Kiftaan (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Instead of putting pics about clothes which is the least thing that deals with Islam, an image relating Halal foods would be great for the section Etiquette and diet. Even a sign marked on food product with "Halal" written on it would be very nice.--Kiftaan (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Herat and Kandahar are both cities from Afghanistan, so I think only one picture should stay.

Secondly, women's dress has a lot to do with Islam and how its perceived. I've restored the image noting that Muslim women wear a variety of things.

Sure, an image illustrating Muslim dietary concerns would be a good idea.VR _talk 21:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I believe the importance of the Mughal Empire (as illustrated by the Taj Mahal) has been far greater than that of Ghurids.VR _talk 21:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Herat was histoically Persia and part of the Persian Shi'a Safavids, it served as the 2nd most important Islamic center during Islam's golden age. This city played a major role in Islam's history and the mosque in the image was built by the Ghorids, who also played an important role in Islam's history.
• The other image is important because it is very old, showing something very imporant in Islam's history (i.e. Shia Safavids vs. Sunni Mughals). The city that is shown is less important.
• Why we have 2 images relating to Afghanistan? Afghanistan is very important in Islam's history because so many notable Muslims originate from there or have roots there (i.e. Al-Biruni, Ibn Sina, Rumi, and many others), so many Islamic empires were based there or originate from there (i.e. Saffarids, Ghaznavids, Ghorids, Khiljis, Timurids, Mughals, Durranis, etc.). From Afghanistan, they invaded Hindustan (land of Hindus) and Kafiristan (land of kafirs), converting Hindus and Kafirs to become Muslims. Mughals didn't spread Islam, they defeated the Afghan Lodi dynasty (Muslims) and took over their territory. Yes the Mughals built wonderful places but many other Muslim rulers did the same. The Mughals were more known for constantly being at war with other Muslims and we have a perfectly suitable image in the history showing that. The Taj Mahal is just one building, the Afghan Suri dynasty, for example, who defeated the Mughals, introduced the Rupee (currency of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc.), built the main road network in Pakistan-India with guarded rest areas for travellers, introduced tax collection, built buildings and etc.
• How people dress today has nothing to do with Islam. I know about South Asia and the 2 Indian women in the lower left are most likely Hindu or Jains.--Kiftaan (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Third party intervention re Sunni numbers

Totalling the sources:

• The CIA factbook (2011) says over %75
• Pew research center says %87-90
• Berkley infers not more than %85
• Jewish virtual library says 87-90, but it cites Wikipedia. Please remove this source from the article.
• Brittanica gives roughly %90.
• Library of Congress Country Studies says %85
• Vali Nasr indirectly gives %85-90.

The majority of sources go for figures around %85-90. The CIA factbook is an often cited reliable source though. I propose going with:

"Most estimates of hold that 85-90% of Muslims are Sunni (with a few estimates as low as %75), while 10-20% are Shia."

Ian.thomson (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has ever used "as low as 75%" for Sunnis until Wikipedia editor User:PassaMethod recently decided to. [45] The CIA states: Shia Islam represents 10-20% ... Sunnis account for over 75% of all muslims. [46] CIA doesn't mention any other Islamic sect so how do you figure that Sunnis are 75% minimum? Even a 10 yr-old-kid can tell you that since Shias are 10-20% the remaining Sunnis would be 80-90%, which is backed by all the sources. I had already made my point above at Talk:Islam#Wrong percentage given for Sunnis.--Kiftaan (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

See Islamic_schools_and_branches#Other_groups_and_movements. Although Sunni and Shia are the largest groups, that are certainly not the only ones. And in all fairness, some of the sources (Berkley, Nasr) don't actually give figures for Sunni Islam, they just give the figure for Shia Islam. Does this mean these sources do not acknowledge the existence of Sunni Muslims? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That my friend is a different topic and has nothing to do with this one. We are here trying to figure out the number of Sunnis, what experts say. About a year ago a number of admins had decided to keep the numbers as 80-90% for Sunnis and 10-20% for Shias but I wonder where that discussion is now. Btw, don't use another Wikipedia article as a reference.--Kiftaan (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The argument "Even a 10 yr-old-kid can tell you that since Shias are 10-20% the remaining Sunnis would be 80-90%" is based on the assumption that the Sunni and Shia figures must add up to %100, which is an incorrect conclusion that ignores the presence of other sects. I was only pointing out that other sects exist, not citing the Wikipedia article as a reference for the article. Reliable source for the existence of those groups are already cited, or else we wouldn't have articles about them. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You said "The CIA factbook is an often cited reliable source though." That is only if its information is current and it doesn't mean that the CIA is error-free. Here is an example of how wrong the CIA can some times be. In regards to Afghanistan, in 1991 it stated: "Religion: 74% Sunni Muslim, 15% Shia Muslim, 11% other... Language: 50% Pashtu, 35% Afghan Persian (Dari), 11% Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen), 4%... Ethnic divisions: 50% Pashtun, 25% Tajik, 9% Uzbek, 12-15% Hazara..."[47] but then a year or 2 later it stated: "Religions: Sunni Muslim 84%, Shi`a Muslim 15%, other 1%... Languages: Pashtu 35%, Afghan Persian (Dari) 50%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%; much bilingualism... Ethnic divisions: Pashtun 38%, Tajik 25%, Uzbek 6%, Hazara 19%; minor ethnic groups include Chahar Aimaks, Turkmen, Baloch, and others..."[48] and then several years later it comes up with something different.[49] If you compare these percentage on religions, ethnic groups and languages for Afghanistan, then you'll notice the huge errors and you should agree that the CIA is not a superior source as you think it is. If you say oh well that's not a big deal it is old record, then how about as recent as 2008 it (CIA) stated that Afghanistan's population was 32 million [50] but the Afghan government conducted a recent nationwide census and it turned out that the population is only 26 million.[51] I'm using this as just one example of how wrong the CIA can be and I'm very sure if you investigate you'll find 1,000s of other major errors. The Pew Research Center (PRC) has already did this work for us, it summed it by stating:[52]

The Pew Forum's estimate of the Shia population (10-13%) is in keeping with previous estimates, which generally have been in the range of 10-15%. Some previous estimates, however, have placed the number of Shias at nearly 20% of the world's Muslim population.

I'm sure that where it mentions "Some previous estimates, have placed the number of Shias at nearly 20%" is refering to the CIA's dubious 10-20% estimate that you are trying to use here in Wikipedia. Before 2009, the CIA doesn't report the total percentage of Sunnis and Shias of the world.[53]--Kiftaan (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we write it like this: "Most estimates show that 85-90% of Muslims are Sunni (CIA states over 75%), while 10-20% are Shia." CIA says over 75% and that is not the same as saying as low as 75%.--Kiftaan (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Many books sources give 80% as the Sunni figure. i.e. [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]; or lower [61], [62], [63]. The current wording is more neutral, and i removed CIA from the text.

Pass a Method talk 12:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Your wording was unencyclopedic for an article like this one. Did you bothered to find out when these books at google.com were written or published and by whom? One was pubished in 1991 and another in 2002. When it comes important stuff like this we have to consider who the author of each book is and where he/she gets the percentages from. These books are older sources and the Pew Research Center (PRC) explains:[64]

The Pew Forum's estimate of the Shia population (10-13%) is in keeping with previous estimates, which generally have been in the range of 10-15%. Some previous estimates, however, have placed the number of Shias at nearly 20% of the world's Muslim population.

You have just provided those older previous estimates. There is no reason to oppose PRC unless you can find a source more credible. Also, I suggest that you let a 3rd party decide because it seems that you are looking for strange ways to lower the Sunni and raise the Shia percentages.--Kiftaan (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Older books are not a problem for an issue like this, because sects dont drastically change within the space of a few years. Its not the same as corporations who's numbers can fluctuate easily. Pass a Method talk 11:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree with your opinion, older books are a problem in regards to this. In addition to that, some of these books are not about Islam but politics and other things. Nobody else has a problem with the Sunni percentage but it's just you alone dismissing scholar Vali Nasr and religious experts such as Pew Research Center and Berkley as well as highly credible sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica. When all of these claim that Sunnis are 85-90% why do you refuse to accept? By you being the only one refusing this it clearly demonstrates that you have an agenda. There is no need for me and you to keep repeating the same thing over and over, there are many others who will examine the information presented here and decide what is the best wording. Thanks.--Kiftaan (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

All references (except for one) are from the 21st century. The other is from the 90s, so your "too-old" argument makes no sense. Pass a Method talk 23:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing to see you being the only person opposing all the listed experts on Islam. It's like them saying the sky is blue but you're saying no the sky is green.--Kiftaan (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The CIA is a reliable source, hence used all over the wikipedia. If you disagree with CIA's reliability, go to WP:RSN Pass a Method talk 08:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not rejecting the CIA (Factbook). The problem is that you're misinterpreting the CIA's figures. It gives 20% for Shias and obviously the other 80% would be Sunnis because they don't mention any other sect, but you put this in Wikipedia as 20% Shias and 75% Sunnis which only adds to 95%. Where does the other 5% go? Percentages are suppose to add up to 100.--Kiftaan (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your wording "Estimates vary from over 75-90% of all Muslims being Sunni, and approximately 10-20% are Shia." is unencyclopedic and difficult to understand.--Kiftaan (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wording for denomination in the intro

1. Islam is divided into two sects, with Sunnis being the majority and the Shias make up 10-20%.
2. There are two sects within Islam, the Sunnis who make up the majority and the Shias who are 10-20%.
3. The largest denomination in Islam is Sunni Islam, which makes up over 75% to 90% of all Muslims, and the remaining 10-20% are Shias.
4. Two sects form Islam, the Sunnis (over 75% to 90%) and the Shias (10-20%).

I like to change the wording "Estimates vary from over 75-90% of all Muslims being Sunni, and approximately 10-20% are Shia." to something like the listed 4 above because the current sentence is not formed well and confuses the readers. Thanks.--Kiftaan (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

All your proposals assert there are only two sects within Islam, which is false. There are dozens of sects. Therefore all your proposals are invalid. I wouldn't mind if you reworded it to make it clear Sunni and Shia are not the only two sects. Maybe something like "the two largst sects ..." or something. Pass a Method talk 13:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

To verify that "Islam is divided into two sects" is incorrect:

• Diane Morgan's Essential Islam discusses Ahmadiyya Islam.
• Additional sources for Ahmadiyya Islam: 1, 2
• Source on Mahdavia Islam, which rejected prior interpretation of the Qur'an by Hadiths or Imams in favor of the interpretations of their current leaders.
• Source on the beliefs of the Nation of Islam, who believe that W. Fard Muhammad was the Mahdi and God incarnate.
• Website for United Submitters International, a reformist group started by Rashad Khalifa.
• Source on Ibadi, the dominant form of Islam in Oman and Zanzibar.
• The website for Ahl AlQuran, a group which rejects the authority of Hadiths and Imams.
• One source and another source discussing Quranists around the world.

Can you provide any anthropological or sociological, non-sectarian explanation for why these groups should not to be considered Muslim by this encyclopedia?

"The majority of Muslims are Sunni, being at least %75, with most figures typically between %80-90. The second largest sect, Shia Islam, makes up %10-20." gives accurate figures, doesn't give undue weight to the additional sects, but does not deny their existence. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

These groups are part of the Sunni sect and their numbers are so tiny that they all put together would not even come near 1% of Islam. Shia's were formed as a political party, which believes that Ali was the rightful successor of Muhammad. Any Muslim who rejects this view is naturally considered a Sunni. All movements you listed are Sunnis, that includes Ahmadiyyas, Nation of Islam (NOI), and all others who are not affiliated with Shia Islam. Again, the CIA does NOT use "at least 75%", it states over 75% Sunnis and 20% Shias. Let's not keep misinterpreting this. Where does the other 5% go? If I'm not mistaken 5% of 1.57 billion is about 78.5 million. Even if you argue and argue and argue that these movements you listed are not Sunnis, which is completely wrong, add the numbers of Ahmadiyya (whom there may be 4 million [65] and maximum 100,000 in India [66]), the maximum 50,000 NOI Muslims and all the others, you can see that they don't come near 1% (15,700,000) of total Islam (1.57 billion).--Kiftaan (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, your analysis is wrong. Some Sufis are not Sunni. Ahmadiyyas are not Sunni. Ibadis are not Sunni. Quranists are not Sunni. Nation of Islam is not Sunni. Secondly, you need to provide a reference that they "would not even come near 1% of Islam". Pass a Method talk 09:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Some Sufis are not Sunnis" is irrelevant because I never claimed them to be all Sunnis. Yes, some are Shias and some are Sunnis. The Shia Sufis are counted with the Shia population. Learn what Sunni Islam really is before you start calling Ibadis, Quranists, and Nation of Islam not being Sunni. Like I said even if you argue for weeks or months and I end up agreeing with you, these groups do not even come near 1% of Islam.--Kiftaan (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, PassaMethod, you're the one supposed to bring a source suggesting that these tiny minorities constitute more than 1%. In any case, most sources are using 85% for Sunni. The CIA numbers are a minority here and should not be given more weight than other sources. Also, the CIA is more or less a partisan source when it comes to Muslim populations. I suggest that their numbers should be ignored and our preference should be given to neutral academic sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 10:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the CIA is using indeterminate percentage numbers. I have also pointed out above that the CIA makes many errors. The CIA is not an expert on religion. It is a site that provides general information on different countries, and before 2009 it never reported the total percentages of religions.--Kiftaan (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have never said that "minorities constitute more than 1%". Why should i provide a source for something i did not say? Also, if you disagree with CIA's reliability, go to WP:RSN. Pass a Method talk 11:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I meant if most sources ignore these groups, either by considering them tiny minorities or counting them as Shia/Sunni, then we should ignore them too. And regardless of CIA reliability, your wording gives a minority view held by 1 source more weight than a view held by 6 other sources. Instead, we should try to reflect which numbers are more common (which seems to be 85-90% from the list above). Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look at my first comment above, you will see several refs with differing figures from your estimate. Estimates vary widely, which is why i worded it that way. Pass a Method talk 13:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless we can find sources specifically countering and discrediting the CIA factbook, opinions against it are original research, so it should be included. The issue of due weight is an issue, but something to the effect of 'The majority of Muslims are Sunni, being at least %75, with most figures typically between %85-90. The second largest sect, Shia Islam, makes up %10-20' deals with that. All the sources agree with at least %75 (and there is no difference in "at least" and "over"), and the most in "most sources" places more emphasis on the %85-90 figures. The existence of minority sects is not being brought up to suggest their figures for the article, but to counter the argument that the Sunni and Shia figures have to add up to %100 because they're supposedly the only sects. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I took the issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Percentage of Sunnis and Shias in Islam--Kiftaan (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)