Jump to content

Talk:Islam/Archive 28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30→Archive 32

Picture censorship

Demonstration against Hejab, days after Iranian revolution. After 1979 revolution in Iran, women (Muslim or non-Muslim) are obliged to have Islamic Hejab.

User:Septate has repeatedly removed a picture that he/she does not like.

He/she/their IP has also posted his/her thoughts on this at User talk:Ian.thomson#IRANIAN PROTESTORS and User talk:Ian.thomson#Dubious. Let's discuss it here.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. The edit summary "we can't afford a picture like this" is of course repugnant and it's tempting to react to that to say "keep". But, objectively it does seem a pertinent illustration of the section, if we are to have a criticism section (which is a different question). It's a "weak" keep for me in that the protesters could be protesting about the legal recognition rather than the religious injunction, I.e. a criticism of the regime rather than the religion, but I think that's probably splitting hairs. Clearly, the women are not supportive of the religious injunction too. DeCausa (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the other comments has led me to strike "weak". Whether or not the protest is in relation to a specific Iranian law, the pertinence of the picture is not diminished. The Hijab is a feature of Islam (even if its exact nature and degree of "compulsoriness" is debated). These women (from a translation of the Farsi placard) are clearly protesting about a law making a feature of Islam a mandated requirement. It is obviously a rejection and a criticism of that feature of Islam as well as of the Iranian law: they have chosen to not wear the hijab and are holding up a placard saying "With or Without Hijab we fought against the Shah; With or without Hijab we guard freedom." To make a distinction between a protest against the law and a rejection of the hijab is artificial and contrived. It would be different if they were wearing the hijab but nevertheless protesting against the law. DeCausa (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
You got it wrong. The law is against Islam and Quran. Although Quran ask women to cover their heads but Quran also says that "There is no compulsion in religion". We cannot force someone. Hence this is IRONIC that a law which most certainly is AGAINST Islam's teaching (and is not mentioned in Quran at all) is used to critise Islam. Best of my knowledge no such law is made during Prophet Muhammad era. May be more appropriate is to add critisum of laws against drinking alcohol etc which existed in Prophet era and mentioned in Quran too?? --- A. L. M. 17:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
That's just one interpretation, which you happen to share, but plenty of Muslims don't. But it's irrelevant anyway: my point is those women aren't wearing the hijab - the image isn't just about the law. Btw, you've deleted Septate's second "delete" post (and my note to it). Per WP:TPO you should not edit other people's posts in that way and you should self-revert. DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
So do you have any figures which says that how many Muslims do support that law. In my support there are only two countries which has less than 5% of the Muslim population which has this law. Furthermore, Quran do NOT have this law when it has several laws in it. I have deleted Septate vote because it was duplicate vote. It was to make sure that his vote is not counted twice. You should at least assume good fait towards me. I am not going to revert my post made with good intentions. If you want then go ahead and revert it yourself. --- A. L. M. 17:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert it - it's up to Septate. I'm just pointing out to you that deleting someone's post is taken seriously and is not permitted by WP:TPO - please read it. It's nothing to do AGF or having "good intentions". It's just not allowed. As far as your other point is concerned, as I've said several times the legal issue is not the point and is irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The deleted posts have been restored. We all make errors of judgment.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep until we're discussing this removal for reasons other than going through the motions with a socking POV pusher (which includes the IPs). If someone who hasn't been trying to censor the article using bad arguments wants to bring it up later for the reasons such as those DeCausa listed, I'll have more to say then. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete The picture has nothing to do with Islam. It presents a protest against a law made in a specific country. Although Quran says women to cover their heads but it never says to force them to do that. That law does not exist is most of the Muslim countries. As the law was not a Quranic law hence the picture misleads readers -- A. L. M. 21:01, 23 March 2014‎ (UTC)
  • Delete: Primarily per A. L. M.. In addition, this is emphatically not the same situation as the historical angel art-museum piece discussed above or other pictures which have been disputed in the past. It's a low quality photo, and the relevance is not clear to anyone reading the English Wikipedia unless they also read Farsi. Also, this discussion seems a bit backwards, per WP:BRD; it's not long-standing stable content whose removal has been reverted and disputed. It's a brand new addition (uploaded on 6 March 2014 and spammed into several articles by the uploader on 17 March). It needs a clear consensus to be kept, not a clear consensus to delete. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep : According to Sharia Law, a women has to wear Hijab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fundarise (talk • contribs) 03:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete : The image needs to be placed on article Criticism of Islam if informative, and not here, since it does not distinguish between political and religious motives.Septate (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep I appreciate you because of separation between Politics and Religion. But you know, according to Islamic rules, political issues must be according to religious norms. Conclusion: This image IS a political image, but remember, criticism of political Islam in Iran is first of all criticism of Islam because basically Islam is a political religion. Soroush90gh (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Note, the following is the second "Delete" post by Septate, who already recorded his"Delete" view above. DeCausa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete The image is of extemrly low quality, further the image is just a prolongation of criticism section, so its better that this image should be placed on criticism of Islam article per wp:burden.Septate (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Guys there are several laws mentioned in Quran. For example cutting hand of a thief or punishing someone on drinking. For which you can provide a healthy criticism and it will be valid to mentioned that in the article too. Instead you guys want to choose something that is not in Quran and many Muslim think that is unIslamic. That buffles me big time. --- A. L. M. 17:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
"Wikipedia does not publish original thought". Whilst it is a pity that European countries do not cut the hands off thieves and Saudi supermarkets do not sell wine and spirits, there are no demonstrations in favour of such things (or if there are, reliable sources do not report them). On the other hand, the wearing of head/hair coverings by Moslems are reported on unfavourably by reliable sources. In Western perception of Islam, the oppression of women by forcing them to wear head/hair coverings is very important. Ultimately, Wikipedia policy as described at Wikipedia:No original research#Neutral point of view governs why some elements of Islam are given greater prominence than others.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep, essential picture for describing one of the most popular event of Islamic world. Foggas (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, essentially NOT a picture for describing any of the events in the "Islamic" world. Equally, one could dictate similar pictures representing Christian world, merely on the basis on its location, Europe, for example. Secondly, it's a super bad image, honestly. --Peaceworld 20:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is a copyvio and cannot be included anyways. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 10:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Unfortunately Septate thinks that he has more than one ballot. He has repeated his dogmatic ideas and views times and times in different pages. I just want to add, here is Wikipedia, Islam is a cultural issue here, not a sacred religion. Protest against obliged Hijab, is a kind of criticism, So that image is necessary if we are a neutral observer. You said Iran is not whole of Islamic world, I agree, but Hijab is definitely an Islamic "rule". It's a rule and not a recommendation, If a woman doesn't wear hijab it's a sin written for her. If other countries don't oblige women, it's because of their compromise. Someone said it's a bad image, low quality, I accept. I searched for a high definition image but I didn't find. The content is valuable. A conciliatory movement, a criticism but not by terror. By talking. This image is necessary if people are eager to know whole of the story. Story of Islam and people. Soroush90gh (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The picture has been deleted (probably on 31 March or 1 April). I have no idea what the nominal reason given for deleting it was.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Spread of Islam from Afghanistan to Hindustan

Why the history section doesn't mention anything about this important event? It talks heavily about Arab areas and Ottoman empire stuff but not a single thing is mentioned about the powerful Muslims (the Ghaznavids) who first started by defending Ghazna (present-day Afghanistan) against powerful Hindu army led by Jayapala, eventually defeating the Hindus and proceeding to conquer (present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, northern India and Bangladesh) in the name of Islam. Muslims ruled that area for the next 1,000 years. The largest population of Muslims is found in this area and the only Muslim country to have nuclear bombs is Pakistan. Muslims from this area are found in very large number in the UK, North America, all over Middle East, Australia and everywhere else in the world. Their ancestors became Muslims after Ghaznavids conquests of Hindustan. In addition to all this, many famous Islamic figures are from this area.--39.41.188.248 (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Wait what? How do I do this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.37.6 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Image replacement

An Islamic depiction of archangel Gabriel from book 'The Wonders of Creation and the Oddities of Existence', 14th century.

Dear fellows, I am really sorry for what I have done to replace the image in angel section with this one through dishonest edit summary. I have realized that, in order to replace the image I need a concensus.

This image depicts angel Gabriel from Islamic perspective. I want to replace the image in angel section with this one because the image about angel|Islamic prophet Mohammed, has attracted a lot of controversy. It was the source of a lot of edit wars. It depicts Islamic prophet Mohammad and other unknown people along with an angel. The name of angel is also not mentioned. So, I believe that it will be a better move to replace the image with this one which only depicts angel Gabriel. Furthur more, its pretty nice and more clearer as compared to the other one. Please share your views. Thanks.Septate (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that "removing images of Mohammed" is not an acceptable motivation for removing images, don't you?—Kww(talk) 14:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The section is about angels not Islamic prophet Mohammad, that's why the image has resulted in a lot of edit wars. There is nothing wrong with this image. It completely describes the Islamic beliefs about angels while avoiding any controversy. So, in general you should not have any problem with this image.Septate (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your post about the edit summary. The image of Gabriel is a nice one, but what is distinctively Islamic about it? The other image has the advantage of being a picture of an agel with the Islamic prophet. QED. DeCausa (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
We don't need the image of Islamic prophet Muhammad, we only need image of angel to describe the Islamic views about angels and to avoid a lot of controversy.Septate (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
"to avoid a lot of controversy" isn't a valid Wikipedia reason. I hate to say this because it's so over used but your comment does prompt a reference to WP:NOTCENSORED. Have you read it?DeCausa (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Remove the Image of the Prophet Muhammad drawn by some obscure Ottoman painter (unknown to Islam and the Muslim World) and also remove the picture of the last so-called Ottoman Caliph whom no modern Muslim generally even recognizes as a Caliph...instead you can add the calligraphic symbol of Muhammad and the calligraphic symbol of Ali the last Rashidun Caliph of Islam.182.182.120.24 (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem with erasing from history people who are not currently in favour is that you end up living in a real life version of the book Nineteen Eighty-Four. This is not a good idea.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I am going to replace the image, since no one has raised serious concerns and I have tried my best to clear the doubts.Septate (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No. You don't have consensus to do that. Take that image out one more time and I'll make a report to WP:AN3 for edt warring. DeCausa (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
You went ahead and removed the image yet again. You've now been blocked for doing that and I've reverted your removal. DeCausa (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not only the image of the prophet Mohammed peace be upon him that must be removed. Also the picture that shows a baseless drawing of Gebril alih al salam. Both images are nothing but imaginations of a person and holds nothing true of their real look which will not serve the purpose of the article at all but will create offence to Muslims and vandalism instead. And don't replace the image with any other image showing any angle or any prophet at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah Hisham (talk • contribs) 03:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Van Gogh???

The death of Van Gogh is a Dutch problem, clearly restricted to the peoples of that country, it has nothing to do with the Muslim World.182.182.126.113 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Remove

Remove the painting of the Prophet Muhammad note: this painting is not recognized by any sect or even the Turks of Topkapi or the Ottomans or any modern Muslim...the painting has nothing to do with the Muslim World or its values...note the Painting his heavily sourced from Hadith which is not exactly clear or affirmative about Gabriel or the Prophet Muhammad or this fabled city that is being presented...this painting should be removed because it is clearly baseless...182.182.85.1 (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sultanates and Khanates

You fail to mention that Sultanates and Khanates are also among the types of Islamic governance systems like the Caliphates of the past.182.182.85.1 (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Again some obscure medieval manuscript this time of Gabriel???

Gabriel is just descriptively mentioned in the Quran and Muslims just agree upon the definitions an qualities of Gabriel...some medieval manuscript depicting Gabriel is clearly not agreed upon by any Muslim sect or school of thought and no images of Gabriel is present in any mosque or shrines of Islam and therefore no image of Gabriel should be presented on the wikipedia's official page on Islam...

the truth regarding Angels in Islam is that there is no singe proper definition of an angel according to the Hadith Angels appears as human beings upon horses during the Battle of Badr and another place it says that Gabriel had wings but what kind of wings nobody knows or can comprehend...so Islam's definition of angels is a disputed matter and is not official in any therefore Gabriel image should be removed from wikipedia page on Islam...182.182.26.177 (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

==== The page holds inappropriate content ==--

As all Muslims know it is forbidden to draw pictures of prophets or angels, and this page hold an image of the prophet Mohammed peace be upon him along with Gebril alih al salam which is totally not accepted and must be removed as fast as possible. This image also doesn't hold any truth and of no use to the article. Abdullah Hisham (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Shias versus Sunnis

There is an ongoing strife between Shias and Sunnis (killing each other) and we need to mention it in this article. Can someone help with good references?—Khabboos (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There´s a big article called Shia–Sunni relations. Perhaps it should (at least) be linked to under See Also in this article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest not to mention this in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah Hisham (talk • contribs) 03:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

According to denominations section in Islam article.

I just would like to bring your attention to that Islam when first came was only one denomination which is the true Islam that the prophet Mohammed peace be upon delivered to us and thought us. After his death peace be upon him people started to form parties and diverse from true Islam pretending to be serving it but their real purpose to create disorder in Islamic world ad weakens it since it was the strongest at that time. The conclusion is that Islam is not that religion which holds different denominations or parties with different beliefs and regulations. Islam is what prophet Mohammed peace be upon him delivered to us and thought us and what his companions carried on after his death. Abdullah Hisham (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for these statements? This link will advise you about what are considered reliable sources: WP:RS--Toddy1 (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It was mentioned in one Hadith (Prophet Mohammed's quotations) of the prophet Mohammed peace be upon him that he said to his companions: "People of the book (Christians and Jews) before separated into seventy two denominations and Islam will get separated into seventy three denominations, seventy two in hell fire and one in heaven" and he mentioned that this one is the one that follows him correctly. This Hadith was narrated by Ahmed and Abu Dawood two of the best Hadith narrators. You can check more about them here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_ibn_Hanbal and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Dawood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah Hisham (talk • contribs) 06:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Verse correction

"Whomsoever God desires to guide, He expands his breast to Islam".

Can someone please tell me is it Breast,Chest or heart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septate (talk • contribs)

In English, all three can be used in a metaphorical sense to mean about the same thing. "Expands his breast/chest/heart" doesn't mean much of anything. Does the original mean that God does something which makes the person more receptive to belief in Islam? That would be "opens his heart", not "expands his breast".—Kww(talk) 19:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for information. "Expands his breast" seems really odd.Septate (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahmadis

There are no exact population figures for ahmadis. Most sources claim that the vast majority of ahmadis live in Pakistan. Since Pakistan's exact religious composisition is not available therefore the number of ahmadis is also difficult to estimate. The following source which is infact ahmadiyya affiliated claims that ahmadiyya are no more than 8 million. The 20 million figure clearly seems dubious.Septate (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You have presented no sources countering the four in the article. --NeilN talk to me 16:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The article cites Campo's Encyclopedia of Islam and HRW for the 10-20m range. That seems sound to me. Also, what you (Septate) put in your post does not explain why your reverted edits sought to remove them. DeCausa (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to mention the source.http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2012/11/ahmadiyyat-true-islam/ahmadiyya-muslim-jamaat-the-fastest-growing-jamaat-in-the-fastest-growing-religion. Note this site is Ahmadi affiliated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septate (talk • contribs) 16:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The original source is World Christian Encyclopedia. "Statistics had been taken and assembled by experts during the period between 1990 and 2000." The current sources are newer. --NeilN talk to me 16:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear Septate, you said that the majority of Ahmadis live in Pakistan, yet you give a link which claims 8 million in 13 African states. Then you call the claim of 20m as dubious. However, here is an incomplete article Ahmadiyya by country which gives estimates in a few dozen countries. I hope the issue is resolved. Thanks all.--Peaceworld 07:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear User:Peaceworld11 the issue is not yet resolved. I initially don't knew about ahmadis but after a massive internet search, I found some interesting facts about them.
Most Muslim majority countries where Islam is the official religion e.g, Malaysia, Pakistan (where ahmadiyya movement itself originated) etc, don't recognize ahmadis as Muslims.
They reject the most fundament teaching of Islam i.e., Islamic prophet Mohammad is the last prophet of Islam.
They consider Mirza gulam Ahmed as a prophet of God, a concept which is alien to mainstream Islam.
They believe that Jesus survived crucifixion (mainstream Islamic belief also) but they also believe that he ran to kashmir (thousands of miles away from his homeland) , lived for 100 years and died and is buried in an unnamed tomb, a belief that contradicts the mainstream Islamic belief of his ascension.

Considering the above facts, it seems unlikely that ahmadis should be affiliated with Islam because rest of the Muslim world don't considers them as such. And their population figures should be mentioned on their respective article on wikipedia, Ahmadiyya Muslim community.Thanks.Septate (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue of Ahmadis being Muslims or not has come up a lot on many Wikipedia articles. I would suggest that it's a waste of time repeatedly discussing this issue, honestly. See for example Talk:Ahmadiyya#Suggestion for Removal of Islamic from the title. --Peaceworld 14:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, even if we stop discussing this issue, the point remains clear. Sunni and Shia are the two historical divisions of Islam. So adding the ahmadis does not make any sense. The statement that "Most" Muslims are Sunnis, Shia or Ahmadi is totally wrong. 15 million people are not a big figure when you are considering 1.6 billion people. Ahmadiyya movement is not the so called 'major sect of Islam". 1% is nothing compared to 1.2 billion Sunnis and 400 million shias. Ahmadis are already mentioned in the "Others denominations" sub-section, which is right place for them in this article. There is no need to compare it with the two historical sects of Islam. Its just like saying that most Christians are Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or Iglesia ni cristo (its a reformative movement that originated in phillipines and has followers all over the world).Septate (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Septate, it seems that you are trying your utmost to find loopholes. First you stated that Ahmadis are smaller in number than stated in the article, then you claimed that Ahmadis lie outside the fold of Islam, now you have concocted further two arguments that 1) Ahmadis have been around much less than sunnis & shias have and 2) the 1% figure is still too small for you. The latter is a subjective statement. If 15m is "nothing" compared to 240m figure of Shias (400m is a bit too much), then the number of Shias isn't too far off from being "nothing" when compared to Sunnis. I think that, the better cut-off point should be 'whole percentages': and it seems that only three denominations seem to fulfil this criteria. Indeed, denominations such as Ibadi numbers 1.45m (upper estimate) which is a tiny fraction (less than 0.1%) of the total Muslim population. NOI number between 20,000 and 50,000 which is like 500 times smaller than the Ahmadiyya sect. I suspect other sects number even less. On account of this, I do not think that the Ahmadiyya sect should even be placed in the 'Others' section. Your other case is that Ahmadiyya sect is much more recent. You give examples of Christian sects. Do remind yourself that Catholicism is 1500 years older than Protestantism. Hence, I do not see case 1) to be very relevant. Moreover, I should state that the Ahmadiyya sect isn't as unknown as you seem to put it. It is popularly known in South Asia, Indonesia, Malaysia and much of Africa. Thank You --Peaceworld 17:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh yeah! Ahmadiyya movement is extremely popular in Malaysia because it is banned there. In south Asia especially in Pakistan they are very popular because they are not allowed to call themselves Muslims. I don't know why they are popular in Indonesia where 99% of Muslims are sunni. In Africa they are popular because in every city where ahmadis establish a community centre, they start claiming that whole Muslim population of the city has suddenly adopted their brand of Islam. But in reality Sunnis Islam is not as weak as some may consider. In Tanzania where ahmadis claim that they are 14% of the population, the reality is completely different. In predominantly Muslim Zanzibar, almost 97% of population was Sunni Muslim according to the last religious census taken in 1960s. The reason why ahmadis can claim such a huge figures is that Tanzanian government does not collect data about religion and ahmadis are mainly concentrated in cities. These facts can explain why there is a huge disparity in population figures of ahmadis because these sources primarily rely on ahmadi organizations to get their self made numbers. Ahmadiyya movement is in no way comparable to protestantism because it is less then a century old. Ibadi although small in population are extremely significant because they split from rest of Islam soon after great sunni-shia schism more than 1000 years ago. They are also significant because they represent majority of the population in kingdom of Oman. On the other hand ahmadis are negligible minorities in almost all Muslim majority nations.
Dear User:Peaceworld111 you have to first distinguish between what ahmadiyya movement really means. Is it a reform movement which originated in south Asia (as claimed by ahmadis) or is a full fledged sect like Sunni, Shia or Ibadi Islam. If ahmadis believe in the supremacy of four rightly guided caliphs then they may be infact considerd as Sunnis just like followers of wahabi/salafi movement. The Islamic views of wahabis/salafis greatly differ from Sunnis but they are still considered as Sunnis because they believe in the supremacy of four rightly guided caliphs. Similarly if they believe in Ali as caliph then they may be considred as shia because some shia groups even believe that Ali is infact god which is against the whole definition of Islam as well as mainstream shia Islam but they are still considered as such due their belief in Ali as caliph.Septate (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Septate, I am certain that you are more-or-less right. Do you have reliable sources? If you do, then please could you use the reliable sources to create a paragraph explaining the above to put in the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I second that. No more walls of text, just come up with reliable sources and abide by WP:CONSENSUS WP:NPOV WP:SYN...I could go on. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear Septate, earlier you claimed that the Ahmadiyya sect is not even part of Islam and now you would like to see absorbed into Sunni or Shia Islam. Ahmadis do believe in the first 4 Caliphs of Islam, and claim to follow the "Sunnah" but for the purposes of identification, they are not regarded as "Sunni Muslims". A similar example could be given: The Bahai faith claims to believe in the founder of Islam, yet regards itself as a separate religion. Neither are the Ahmadis regarded by the literature as Sunni Muslims, nor by the Ahmadis themselves. See for example 1, 2. There are dozens more, but 2 should be enough. In each case the Ahmadiyya sect is listed as a Separate sect to Sunni Islam. Here, by the Ahmadiyya literature 3.
Much of the data collected is not by Ahmadis, but by independent organizations such as Pew, as is the case with the example you give above of Tanzania. You repeatedly portray the view that Ahmadis are negligible and give huge credit to a tiny country. There are more Ahmadis than Shias in Cameroon, Ghana, Liberia, Mali and almost on par with Shias in Tanzania. Is that negligible? Thank You--Peaceworld 15:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Following sources support my arguments.
  • 99% of indonesian Muslims are Sunni. http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-sunni-and-shia/
  • Pakistani government bans them from calling themselves Muslims.www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/12/in-pakistan-discussing-religion-is-a-punishable-offense-for-ahmadis/:
  • Their unrecognized status in Malaysia.www.salem-news.com/articles/may012009/malaysia_problems_5-1-09.php
  • Tanzania's predominantly Sunni Zanzibar means most of the Tanzanian Muslims are Sunni. www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2010/08-August/24643/
  • Ibadis are majority in Oman.https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/History_of_Oman.html*Historical significance of ibadi Islam.ibadism.ahmedsouaiaia.com/
  • Wahabis differ greatly from Sunnis, yet are recognized as Sunnis due to core beliefs.atheism.about.com/od/islamicsects/a/wahhabi.htm
  • Whoooo! At last I found a source which states that ahmadis believe in the supremacy of four rightly guided caliphs, so are they under the heading to Sunni Islam?.https://www.alislam.org/topics/khilafat/.
  • Alawis believe that Ali is the manifestation of god, a truly blasphemous belief from Islamic perspective. But they are still considred as Shia.Nonsense!www.discoveringislam.org/alawi_sect.htm
Septate (talk) 16:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

So far as the language in the lead goes, it would be fair to say "Most Muslims are Sunni". That alone would be an accurate statement, as it would cover about 75% of the Muslim population. "Most Muslims are Sunni or Shia" would get into the 90%. By the time you add a third group, we have a WP:UNDUE problem, as any third group would be dwarfed by Shia, much less the Sunni. The Ahmadiyya are clearly Muslim, but too small of a group to warrant a prominent place in the lead.

So far as not including them in the article, that's out of the question. They are just another fringe group, not much different in relationship to Islam than the Mormons are to Christianity.—Kww(talk) 17:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree they should be removed from the lead. --NeilN talk to me 17:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
@Septate It is still not for you or others who think like you to decide whether Ahmadis are Muslims or not. Some of your sources do not state Ahmadis are not Muslims: Read WP:SYN. As Kww states, they are more or less in the same vein as Mormons. Claiming Ahmadis as being not Muslims is POV and incorrect. And I also agree that they should be removed from the lead. I think that's fairly non-controversial. --Somchai Sun (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I guess we have a consensus. Septate, over to you.--Peaceworld 20:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I made the change to the lead per what appears to be a consensus here. I caution Septate that there is no apparent consensus to change anything in the body of the article.—Kww(talk) 21:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
To User:Kww, I asked for the consensus not just for lede but also for whole article. User: peaceworld added information to other sections also. For example in five pillars section he mentioned ahmadis along with Sunnis and Shia as major sect. Therefore this concensus applies to the whole article and not just the lede section.Septate (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not removing them from "Other denominations" section, which is their right place. so no need to worry.Septate (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Missing Denomination

Under the "Denominations" sections there should be a 4th section about the "Ibadi" denomination and a link to its page on Wikipedia.

While Ibadi appears to be the smallest denomination, it is a distinct 4th denomination (perhaps there are more) and should be here for completeness. It can be seen on the denomination demographics map to the right of the section, but there is no text, nor is there an appropriate link.

(This article appears to be locked from editing; if it weren't I would simply add it myself.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.198.8 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Ibadi are mentioned in the "Other denominations" section of the article, with a link to the article on them. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim. THAT is not right!

Not every adherent of Islam calls himself a Muslim. A Muslim follow the 5 pillars of Islam. Some groups and mystical branches of Islam reject these externals. They refer to themselves not as Muslims even though they are Islam belonging. Also look the mystical definition of Muslim and Muumin. An example of a group who belongs to islam but dont call themself muslim are the minority of Alevis living mainly in Turkey. Sorry for my bad english. --2.244.185.238 (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Wikipedia sticks with academic sources, which usually refer to mystical groups by their parent religion's name, barring some radical difference and seperation. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism???

What does the situation of Muslim immigrants in Europe or the West have anything to do with Islam itself.182.182.70.7 (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Caliph talk

If you want to discuss Caliphs in this article then you will have to discuss Sultans and Khans. If any image is to replace that of the so-called "Last Ottoman Caliph" it should be a calligraphic representation of Ali ibn Abi Talib.

Mansa's, Amir's, Agha's should also be mentioned.182.182.70.7 (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Comparing the quality of the current version with the former FA version

Few years ago, this article was a Featured one. Please compare the current version with this one. In some cases this article has improved but not in every cases. --Seyyed(t-c) 20:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand FAs had a lower standard then compared to now. On the other hand, the article then was a concise clearly expressed piece of encyclopedic text. Now, as the "Encyclypedia that everyone can edit", it's full of cluttered crap that's been added by every idiot with a bee in his/her bonnet that's tenacious enough to ensure their garbage gets in to the article. Wikipedia has, as we all know, problems and faults but this to my mind is the really big one. That 2008 article could have been better - it certainly isn't the epitome of what it could have been. But too often here you see articles written by a group of well-qualified well-read editors taken to an excellent level then gradually it gets turned into crap by clueless idiots who can barely write English. It really makes you want to give up and take up trainspotting instead. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. I do not mean that version is better from every aspect. But, we can compare the versions and improve this one, --Seyyed(t-c) 01:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

An angel presenting Mohammed (upper left) and his companions with a miniature city. In the Topkapi Palace Library, Istanbul.

The following image has severe copyright problems. This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies only to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years. But it does not applies to countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus more then 70 years. Some of these countries are:

The author is also not known and the image is copied from a site www.zombietimes.com. Hence, we can't afford such an image whose copyright is disputed on this extremely important and vital article.Septate (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't insult our intelligence by raising a copyright argument against a historical image, Septate.—Kww(talk) 13:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I have not insulted so called your intelligence, because I am also a part of wikipedia community. Its right that I have a particular bias for this image but that does not mean that I am making pointless argument. Just click on image and read its licensing status. You will get the answer.Septate (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, your argument is pointless. Images from the 14th century are not copyrighted in the United States. Only US copyright law applies to Wikipedia, as that is where the servers are located.—Kww(talk) 17:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Septate, Kww is of course right. But even if he weren't the copyright term for Ivory Coast is life + 99 years; for Colombia is life + 80; for St Vincent is life + 75; for Mexico is life +100. The valid copyright certificate on the image states "This work is in the public domain in the United States, and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less." A 14th century image is not an issue in any of those countries, even if it were the case that the law of Florida didn't govern this, which it does. Your deceptive editing has just got you blocked: I assume this is one of your all too obvious tricks rather than an honest mistake. DeCausa (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why this picture was made or funded by the Ottomans, this painting represents an event that never happened, no Angel came to the Prophet Muhammad with a city. If this painting is to be utilized then put it up on the page of the Ottoman Empire...this painting has nothing to do with Islam in any way...its not a dome...note a verse...not a mosque...not a page...not a map...its place in Islamic Art would even be controversial...using this picture to represent Islam is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.119.118 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014

90.201.45.229 (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC) best religion and the truth.

Closed request: No clear change to article requested. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Very good article everyone, read through entire thing for first time. Well done to all editors who contributed. I think there's a few very tiny tweaks that may be needed:

1. Does the "s" belong after Aisha’s name here?

  • "…Aisha raised and taught her nephew Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr the grandson of Abu Bakr and the grandfather of Ja'far al-Sadiq. Aishas also taught her nephew Urwah ibn Zubayr…"

2. Should a space (_) go between the “works,” and “terrorists” here?

  • "…Jihad is the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law and may be declared against illegal works,terrorists, criminal groups, rebels, apostates, and leaders or states who oppress Muslims…"

3. In sentence below, should it read “non” believer?

4. Also, should a space (_) go between the words “Islam.” and “The”?

5. Also, does “the” belong before “Islam”? Shouldn't it read "combatants who insulted Islam?

  • "….jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against none believer/non-Muslim/Muslim combatants who insulted the Islam.The ultimate purpose…"

As said, they're only small tweaks 86.27.191.102 (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh my God, thank you! We usually don't get plainly stated requests for actual changes with good reasons behind them. I've carried out those fixes. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User Septate

A specific problem among others from Septate's edits that I would like to bring up is the issue of "fastest growing religion" in the lede. The long held consensus was to say "arguably" fastest growing major religion till it was changed recently. As already explained in a talk page section above, one of the sources cited to say Islam is the fastest growing religion actually says that the Bahá'í Faith is the fastest growing faith, so I removed it for being irrelevant. Septate keeps reverting the edits but it would be helpful if the user would explain on the talk page what the user is thinking. Septate claimed in the edit summary "Islam is the fastest growing major religion and bahai faith is fastest growing minor religion" but the user should understand we should not just have to take his system of classification. Even the source that he keeps restoring calls Bahai the fastest growing "major" religion. Sodicadl (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

'Arguably' was not removed recently, in fact it was added recently by you. Furthermore all sources except one state that Islam is the fastest growing major religion. Bahai faith may be growing with respect to percentage but Islam is growing with respect to both percentage and absolute population growth. Hence, Islam is the fastest growing religion in absolute numbers.Septate (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The history page is available for you to check. "Arguably" was maintained for a decent time, then changed to 'one of the fastest growing', which is fine as it is saying the same thing. It was changed in March this year to "fastest growing". You are repeatedly not addressing what I point out, which is frustrating. You said "you can't just remove the source to support your claim." As explained above, the source I removed was against your claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion. "All sources except one" which is another reason it is arguable. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, as you surely know, not Septate's judgement how to weigh absolute growth versus proportionate growth. I hope you make my effort to write this worth it by addressing what I say. Sodicadl (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Expand v conquest

I altered the text to refer to the Caliphate's expansion as conquest, and had the edits reverted as being NPOV. No - if a large army turns up and imposes a new political rule on my country, I have been conquered. That's what the Caliphate did; the fact that it's embarrassing to Muslims makes the reversion suspicious. Let's not mince words here. Expand covers everything from the EU's expansion to include 28 countries from its original 6 by voluntary agreement through to military conquest. 'Conquest' removes that ambiguity. It was achieved by military might; let's use words accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender's Shadow Snr (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral regarding this matter, but you edits are absolutely POV.Septate (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Muslim conquests? To try and deny Islam was not often spread by bloodshed is absurd - just as absurd as suggesting Christianity wasn't either. Stop taking history personally. Somchai Sun (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree. "expand" is a POV euphemism and "conquest" should be used. DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles surah

Why not made the articles surah Al-Qur'an? Irvanputrautama (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The article Sura deals with the individual chapters, while the article Quran deals with the whole book, and this article deals with the religion of Islam.
We write articles according to secondary sources, which would be academic discussion about primary sources. In other words, the article about the Quran cites scholarly books about the Quran. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Region's pro Ismam / Region's Now - Islam

Region <Bruxelles-Brabant> not heard of Wallonia but to Flandre. (or, move it to the real topic: Flandria, Belgium, Brussels, Wallonia Islamism, anti-Islamism, Arabism / Anti - Arabism, fascism / anti - fascism, racism / anti - racism) Iederzujnhui (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Think they're asking for a link change...not sure...--Somchai Sun (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
None of the relevant words seem to be present. He's also posted pretty much this thing at Talk:Quran. Maybe he's trying to do some sort of search indexing? I've seen that sort of text show up on sites that rely on posting the dictionary to turn up in search results. WP:CIR block, maybe? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia PROMOTING the Caliphate issue

The page on Islam has repugnant pictures of Angels and Ottoman Sultans who claimed to be Caliphs...perhaps in the future Wikipedia will post pictures of the ISIS leader and promote more extremism...shame on you people182.182.58.247 (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Your accusations are unfounded. Somchai Sun (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Accusations are unfounded to the point where I'm tempted to just blank the conversation under WP:DENY. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"Fastest growing religion"

The lede had previously maintained for a good while that Islam was 'arguably' the fastest growing religion in the world. It was recently edited to read that Islam is "the fastest growing religion in the world". I had reverted it back, but it was changed again saying that some source calls it such. One of the sources actually say that Bahai are the world's fastest growing religion. Ideally, a source concerning demographics like the report from Pew Research should be used. But no credible source meant fastest growing religion, rather if anything they meant fastest growing 'major' religion since nobody has info on every random little religion. "Arguably fastest growing major religion" is most objective. Little disappointed that statement was allowed for so long. Sodicadl (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe it states fastest growing major religion, I am not sure of numbers for Bahai but I wouldn't think they are a major religion, than again not sure what constitutes that I assume major world influence and numbers so for that reason I suppose you could argue Islam has been the fastest growing Major religion in the past X years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.172.92 (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The claim that "Islam is the fastest growing major religion" should either be removed or should be provided with accurate sources. The sources that are included currently hardly back up this claim. The first source, an article on Foreign Policy is not accessible, the user must pay to be able to read it. eventually I was able to get ahold of it and the article does not prove sources to back up it's data. The second source, on PBS, seems to me like an propaganda article, with just like the first no sources to back up their figures. The last source, an article on the US News website written by Thomas W. Lippman, was written in April 7, 2008, This source is far to outdated and the claims made in this article are not backed by sources but are merely his own personal opinion. The sources provided do not suffice and should be removed, this is very sloppy. People should cite accurate sources like The CIA World Factbook for instance. Tamazgha12 (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove the images of all personalities of Islam

Kindly remove the images of all personalities of Islam, especially of Prophet pbuh and Angel Jibrael. This thing is not known to the general public but if this matter went into the media and newspapers and the general public came to know of it, Wikipedia could seriously get banned in the majority of Muslim nations. So please remove the pictures before the damage is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.70.248 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Kindly read all the above threads that demonstrated that Wikipedia is not censored. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Please remove the images of Islamic personalities as it is against islamic religious beliefs.-- Awais ali1 (talk)
No. Wikipedia is not censored. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Topkapi image

Note: Islam does not officially recognize any images of the Prophet Muhammad, or any other prophet, it does not officially recognize any images of Angels, it does not officially recognize any images of Satan...therefore wikipedia should remove all images that do not come up to Islam's standards...furthermore any obscure painting made anywhere in the world that depicts the Prophet Muhammad or Angels or even Satan should not be recognized as official by anyone182.182.99.129 (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia content may describe but isn't dictated by religious ideology. --NeilN talk to me 17:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This has been discussed over and over and over. Wikipedia is not an Islamic encyclopedia. Should we tell readers to not eat red meat on Fridays, or to not eat beef ever, or to not worship anything? No, because this encyclopedia merely presents information instead of telling people what religion to follow. If someone is too much of a bigoted fanatic to deal with that, whatever their beliefs are, they don't have to visit this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Who ever said anything about Wikipedia being an Islamic encyclopedia...I only said that any image made anywhere in the Muslim World depicting the Prophet Muhammad or Angels should not be treated as official by anyone. I believe it is a duty to be neutral and fair about Islam, instead of advocating the rights of some obscure Topkapi paintings and the so-called last "Ottoman Caliph of Islam"...great injustice is being done and many issues that are not related with Islam are being promoted in an unfair manner.182.182.70.7 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

And who died and made you caliph? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson what dont you understand go to a nearby mosque meet Muslims talk to their leaders they will tell you that images of the Prophet Muhammad and some Angel giving him a city is nowhere to be found in "Islam" at all and are imagination of some deluded artists living centuries ago, their paintings mean nothing to contemporary Muslims at all.182.182.93.247 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

So we should only portray a historical institution as its youngest adherents? 1400 years of tradition should be excluded in the face of what only modern persons believe? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson if u are goin to put in an unfounded unknown picture of the Prophet Muhammad in thi article then you'd better put the old Gospel of Barnabas's picture in the Wikipedia's Christianity page because that too is unfounded and unknown to Christians...are we even now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.0.196 (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think this is about getting even, you should leave, per WP:BATTLEGROUND. The Gospel of Barnabas was known to Christians for centuries, as well as atheist, Jewish, and others, and all honest scholars of any religion will tell you that it borrows language from Dante, indicating that it was written after the fourteenth century -- well too late for anyone to honestly regard it as legitimate. Only someone lying for his own gain would claim that it's legitimate. If you had tried to argue that the Book of Enoch should be mentioned in the Christianity article, I wouldn't have a problem with that since it is accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. The Gospel of Barnabas was never accepted by any group Christians, while the picture of Muhammad was accepted by (at a minimum) medieval Persian and renaissance Ottoman Muslims. Do you know which Caliphate was one of the largest, the second longest lasting, and one of the most influential? The Ottomans. Whether or not any thinks they were legitimate or illegitimate doesn't matter -- they are one of the most noteworthy cultures to identify as Islamic. To not include anything of theirs would be like not including anything Roman Catholic in the Christianity article, or not including anything Tibetan in the Buddhism article, or not include anything Indian in the Hinduism article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
TL;DR version of the above - Apples and oranges >:D.--Somchai Sun (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk about Islam leave the strange picture of the prophet and forget the Ottoman Caliph...talk about Islam and how it is and how it has been in the last 1400 years...Ian.thomson...don't do injustice here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.119.118 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here for information purposes and not to make the reader follow islamic ideology. Tamazgha12 (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Forced Conversion

Since most of the growth of islam is due to forced conversion, we should have a section discussing this, both historically and in the C21. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.113.101 (talk • contribs)

And what are your sources for this statement? --NeilN talk to me 23:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

The definition given in the first paragraph of Islam is not accurate, and reflects only the opinion of Muslims, while ignoring the opinion of secular Muslims, and secular scholars of Islam. a paragraph needs to be added to describe the position of secular scholars. it should state:

"From a secular point of view, Islam is a monotheistic religion dedicated to the worship "Allah", a Pagan Arabic diety. Allah was the name of the moon (the crescent) which was worshipped as a diety in Arabia for hundreds of years prior to Islam. Subsequently, the title "Allah" was used for the star, the planet Venus, the morning star. In Islamic theology, the star had supremacy over the crescent. This is the origin of the crescent with a star on top of it, depicted on most flags of Islamic states. This concept of worshipping the one and only God, Allah, the planet Venus, is extensively asserted in the writings of the early Muslims. The idea of Allah as an invisible God, which is not a star, is later development. This concept was borrowed during the Ummayad era from Christians and Jews in Greater Syria. This concept was never present in the original thought of earlier Muslims."

Source: Islam in the light of History, 1st edition, 2004. http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Light-History-Rafat-Amari/dp/0976502402/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405708003&sr=8-1&keywords=islam+in+the+light+of+history

Ahmadabdalmaseeh (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The book you're citing is Christian fundamentalist propaganda, not what "secular Muslims" believe, or even any academic believes. It's not even common Christian doctrine, as even the Catholic Church acknowledges that they and Islam share the same deity. It's also not Muslim doctrine either. More to the point, this site sticks with secular academia, which holds that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same deity, and that Allah and Elohim both derive from the proto-Semitic *Ilu-. No one is going to carry out your request. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


I agree, this article is not accurate to what Muslims and Christians believe.
1. God (the God of the bible) and Allah (not "God" but "The God") are not the same deity. Muslims believe Allah is one, Surah 4.171: "...so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son." Christians believe God is a trinity (Three in one, The Father, The Son and Holy Spirit) 1 John 5:7-8: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Christians believe Jesus is the son of God. Muslims do not accept Jesus as the of Allah. God and Allah cannot be the same as they contradict each other. Even a small amount of research into these religions will show you this. Christians do not accept Allah as God, and Muslims definitely do not accept the God of the jews and the Christians as Allah.
2. This article continually refers to Allah with the name "God", even misquoting the Quran 112: "Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him." In the Quran it does not say "God" it says "Allah", even in English versions. This is how he is referred to in the Quran:
"YUSUFALI: Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
PICKTHAL: Say: He is Allah, the One!
SHAKIR: Say: He, Allah, is One."
This blatant misquotation of the quran, and the continual replacement of the word "Allah" is inaccurate, and is a purposeful misrepresentation of both the Islamic and Christian religions. All references to Allah should be changed from "God" to "Allah".
By the way Ian.thomson Catholics and Christians are also not the same and do not believe the same things. They are separate religions, no sound Christian denomination acknowledges Allah and God as the same being. It is inaccurate to lump them both together as the same religion (although I acknowledge they are very similar). Jgormanart (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
You don't have any reliable sources, and your original research (which we don't accept) shows a fanatic bias and is simply wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Fanatic bias? How am I a fanatic? I am not a fanatic. I was simply pointing out the differences in each religion and the way the article is written is not accurate to either religion. I used quotes from the texts these groups use, Quran and the Bible, which is accurate to what these groups believe. I was trying to bring to light falsies in the writing, so I stated what these religions believe. There's no need to attack me, that just shows me how unprofessional the editors are here. I was trying to bring it to light so SOMEONE can fix it. (Maybe I should have made a new edit request? I not very familiar how this website work, excuse me for this.) I wasn't trying to start trouble or be a fanatic, I was trying to be true the these beliefs. You may have misunderstood me, when I said that I agree that the article was inaccurate, I was agreeing that article was inaccurate (not agreeing with the "moon god" part). Please show me how I am "Simply wrong". Do you not agree that the quote used (Quran 4.171) in the article was change from "Allah" to "God". I believe that is misquoting the reference because a deliberate change was made. Jgormanart (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
First, your own interpretations of Muslim and Christian dogma is not of any interest to anyone but yourself, I'm afraid. We use reliable sources when publishing material on Wikipedia. Second, the Prophet Muhammad most certainly regarded the God of the Bible to be his God, he claimed Christianity, the Bible/Torah etc to be corruptions of the original "one true religion" aka Submission/Islam. You just need to read the reliably sourced material on this page to discover that for yourself. Third, the wording of "Allah/God" seems to be nothing more than a wording preference, many Muslims use the term "God" when describing their mystical bearded dude in the sky, in the same way Arab-speaking Christians often use Allah to describe their mystical sky-dwelling bearded dude. Allah being translated into God in English is widely accepted and used.

And four, nobody was attacking you, rather critiquing your commentary. If you're going to make fallacious claims such as "Catholics are not Christians" (they most certainly are) and "Allah is not the God of the Bible" (This is not the article on Christian views of Islam) then prepare for some strong responses. FYI, I don't think you're a troll, but personal commentary is not really welcome here. I have some views on Black Holes, yet I seriously doubt they'll ever make it into main-stream academia :P --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify, Catholicism And Evangelic Christianity are not the same religion. According to BBC "Catholicism, however, is distinct from other Christian churches in both its organisation and its teaching." It is separate. Yes, people refer to many different beliefs under the term "Christian" but they are different. Similar yes, but different beliefs, different doctrines. That is not my opinion, nor my commentary, that is just how it is. But anyway, that's not the main point here.
Allah is his name. That is what Muslims believe. I am not trying to show a christian view of Islam, or a PERSONAL view or opinion, so stop reprimanding me, I am advocating for a more accurate view of Islam. When a person embraces Islam, he say: "I bare witness that there is no GOD but Allah, and Muhammad is His Servant and Messenger." The "no GOD but Allah" means that Allah is the supreme GOD. The word Allah comes from the Arabic word “ilâh” meaning “deity, god, divine being” combined with the definite article “al”. Put together, they make “al-Ilâh” or literally “the God” which was then brought together as “Allah”. The name therefore, literally means "the One and Only God".
Referring to Allah simply as God, I think confuses the two religions. I was suggesting changing the wording from God to Allah because I believe it to be more accurate to the Islam, since in the Quran that is how he refers to himself.(Personal note: I have know many Muslims, and have even had Muslim roommates, and have never heard them refer to Allah with the english word god.) You still cannot deny that the quotation from the Quran is inaccurate because it was misquoted. Isn't that a personal preference of the writer to change the quotation from "Allah" to "God"? It is confusing, I am saying Allah should be referred to his his name, Allah.
Yeah telling someone they have a fanatic bias IS a personal attack and highly unprofessional. The only reason I have for comment is to promote a more accurate article of Islam, no to push a personal agenda, I apologize if it came across that way. I was using the text because that is that these religions are based on. Jgormanart (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgormanart (talk • contribs) 19:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You are speaking from ignorance of both Islam and Christianity and also of the English language. This is just your half-baked ill-informed point of view that is based on nothing but your own quite childish analysis. Your personal views have no interest for Wikipedia. We only report what reliable sources say. Millions of muslims across the globe, when they speak English translate Allah as God. Look at this Saudi government website. You will see that the Shahada is translated by the Saudi government (whatever else one may think about them, they are not known as supporters of shirk) as "there is no god but God...." etc. DeCausa (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Again a personal attack on me, all's I was doing was suggesting an edit. Since Allah is the name of the god of Islam, and there was a clear misquotation of the Quran. When I pointed out the the misquote, the only respond I got said it was a preference. I find that a shallow defense, since you all are accusing me of pushing a preference. It was only my intention to clear things up. Apparently, that doesn't matter around here and you get attacked for it, and you can only respond by offering generalizations and calling me crazy. When common people hear the word "God" they naturally associate it with the christian beliefs. I was simply trying to clarify when referencing Allah as to avoid contusing him with to how the Christians view their God. To attack me is completely uncalled for, and highly unprofessional. I cannot believe that is the atmosphere Wikipedia would want to promote. Yeah, I'm not that great at English and grammar, I never said I was, that's why I was making a SUGGESTION. I didn't see any rule that said you have to be a scholar to participate. For being so against opinions, you people sure have no problem expressing your opinions about me. Whatever, if that's the atmosphere around here then I'm done with this place. I will not recommend with website to anyone.
P.S. Everything I stated about Allah and Catholicism in my comment from 31 July 2014 I read directly from Muslim and Catholic sources, so to call what I said half-baked, ill-informed and childish, is to call the religions of Islam and Catholicism half-baked, ill-informed and childish. I didn't cite them, because I wanted to see how people would respond if they thought I was coming up with this on my own. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgormanart (talk • contribs) 16:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC), modified 18:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2014

Under the section titled "Jihad", the part which says "and the "lesser jihad", defined as warfare" is not exactly correct. Lesser Jihad is to fight against tyranny/oppression with the hand if possible, if not then to fight by speaking and educating the people about it, if not even that, then at least knowing in the heart that tyranny/oppression are not acceptable. This is from a hadith reported in Sahih Muslim, which says (translated): "If one of you sees something wrong, let him change it with his hand; if he cannot, then with his tongue; if he cannot, then with his heart and this is the weakest faith." The hadith in Arabic says: "عن أبي سعيد الخدري رضي الله عنه قال : سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول : ( من رأى منكم منكرا فليغيره بيده ، فإن لم يستطع فبلسانه ، فإن لم يستطع فبقلبه ، وذلك أضعف الإيمان ) رواه مسلم" TeamEncyclopaedia (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. needs a reliable source that says this explicitly and when you find such a source you need to build consensus that the source you find is better than the one already cited in the article. Out of scope for a simple edit request Cannolis (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2014

With about 1.6 billion followers or 23% of change to 2.08 billion followers or 28.26% of the world. Change it to second largest religion to 1st largest religion (http://www.muslimpopulation.com/World/)

99.227.96.224 (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done That source source cites Wikipedia and has an obvious bias. We'll stick to academic and government sources, thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Too much Caliphate mentioned in this article

The word Caliphate is being written too many times in this articles...the classification of Islamic history can be improved drastically considering the vast history of the Muslims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 468SM (talk • contribs) 22:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Caliphate ERROR

Muslims do not agree upon a single Sharia or a single legitimate Caliphate (this must noted by Wikipedia administrators and editors).468SM (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

ERROR

Firstly imposing the Ottoman or Abbasid caliphate issues on wikipedia's Islam page is wrong, Secondly wikipedia already has an article called the History of Islam that should be noted and utilized here in this article, Thirdly Muhammad is not the only Prophet in Islam, Forthly the definition of Sufism has already been provided in the article. Fifthly a painting in Topkapi does not represent the overwhelming majority of views Muslims have about angels.468SM (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

These are just your assertions. Please read the threads in the archive om the angels painting. This has been discused multiple times and the consensus is to keep it. If you continue to edit war you may end up blocked. DeCausa (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

3 Caliphates in 1 period

The Umayyads of Spain, Fatimids of North Africa and Abbasids of Baghdad existed during the same period by naming the Abbasids as a milestone in the History of Islam a great error is being made.

What most historians have realized is that these 3 Caliphates were actually city states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 468SM (talk • contribs) 08:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Nicopolis and the Ottoman "Caliph"

Both Nicopolis and the last Ottoman caliph have certain influences on their respected regions but the Muslim World and Islam in particular have very little to do with these two Ottoman issues.468SM (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Therefore this article should not be confused with or made in contrast with the article about the Ottoman Empire.

Headings of the Abbasid caliphate twice in the History of Islam section

Like most Buddhists do not recognize theauthority of the Dalai Lama, a vast majority of Muslims do not recognize the Abbasid or the Ottoman so-called "Caliphates" as milestones in the History of Islam.468SM (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The Abbasid and Ottoman caliphates no longer exist, that's the key difference between them and the Dalai Lama. I don't see anywhere in this article which suggests these former caliphates (one which ended 500+ years ago in reality) held complete domination over all Muslims of the era they existed. If you think they are being over-represented in the article, please highly specific texts for scrutiny. As for them being "milestones", sorry - but they were whether you like it or not...they were highly prominent Islamic empires. You may not agree with what these caliphates stood for, but they are historically important to Islams history. Remember, it was the Ottomans who ruled over the two most sacred places in Islam, sacked Constantinople and launched Jihad's into mainland Europe... --Somchai Sun (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate that they are being presented as the only milestones worth the headings in the History of Islam section, which needs to be broadened and explained properly.468SM (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

NO ANGEL

Never did any angel present Muhammad with a city why don't you ask someone who knows Muhammad's biography very well. A big mistake is being made regarding the way this image is being presented here. The painting is delusional and does not reflect upon the beliefs of a Muslim living anywhere away form Topkapi. Please take notice.468SM (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the image in question is being used to demonstrate Islamic artistry, and not trying to to depict an actual (alleged) event in Muhammad's life. It's not our fault most Islamic art of this era comes from the Ottoman Empire era! --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

then your statement totally legitimizes the notion that this picture should be used to represent Islam. if u really want to put Angels find something else for example the calligraphic names of the angles. Anything else can be utilized but not this picture,468SM (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I said Islamic art, of which the image in question is an example of. And why? What exactly is so wrong with this image? Because it depicts Muhammad? Sorry, but Wikipedia is not censored. --Somchai Sun (talk) 09:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is not about Islamic Art or the Angels made in Topkapi, make no mistake, its about presenting the Islamic faith correctly for the whole world.468SM (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The image angel presenting Mohammed with a town is what's being questioned, I think it's because it's presented in the forefront of the article, if you consider telling truths only in an article so you should also consider putting it somewhere in the art section and not beside the angels subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmwz4y (talk • contribs) 22:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
If the article is about the Islamic faith for the whole world, that would include Topaki just as much as sects that require censorship. The painting represents a view on angels held by a significant number of Muslims throughout history. Recent attempts at fundamentalism do not change that. Whether or not removal of images is the correct practice of Islam doesn't matter -- censorship is not the correct practice of Wikipedia.
The picture depicts an angel, it was created by someone who identified as a Muslim, for an audience that identified as Muslim, and preserved by cultures that identified as Muslim. This culture was not a small or recent group either, it was one of the larger and longer-lasting majority-Muslim cultures. It is therefore relevant to understanding the totality of Islam, not merely how a few modern day persons practice it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Golden Age

There is a article in Wikipedia called the Islamic Golden Age which in fact did exist and led directly to the renaissance period, there fore highlighting a paragraph in this article about the Islamic Golden Age is correct.468SM (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

When most people think of the Renaissance they think of Michelangelo's David: A nude sculpture. Very Islamic. The Renaissance came from learned Greeks fleeing Constantinople from Muslims. Please don't edit pseudohistory about your religion '''tAD''' (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, additionally there is zero evidence to support the notion that the "Golden age of Islam" came from Islamic teachings (or directly influenced by such) - they just happened to be Muslims. The Quran is riddled with Scientific errors as we all know. The whole "Golden Age" thing is a complete farce, and the article on the subject (and here) has a very lop-sided PoV already in my mind. But hey, what I would add couldn't exactly be construed as neutral either! --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
A book on pseudohistory. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 04:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Period confusion

Pre-Modern period (1258–1924) has been introduced.468SM (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Titles like "Muhammad" and "Caliphate and civil war" works better in the beginning of Islamic history but after that Islam around the world had very different stories such that having a title to categorize time periods is messy. It could possibly with "modern times" and that is why it was probably there. Since sections have to be made for readability, for the rest of the titles it had been decided to have titular or nominal titles like Abbasid caliphate (750-1258), which actually coincide with the dates given rather than "Classical era". I cannot see what is "classical" about that time and I doubt it is citeable. Sodicadl (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Science section

If the science section has to be in the article, what is the reasoning behind it being under the culture section? I would suggest it be in the jurisprudence section, just like "economy" or "diet" it is about the Islamic attitude towards something, which is about knowledge in this case. Sodicadl (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2014

كل انسان له خطايا ،البعض منهم يستغفر الله ويرجو المغفرة ويمشي في طريق الصلاح، يتغلب على وساوس الشيطان ، يدعو خالق الكون ان يجعل له مكانا في الجنةوتبكي عيناه من خشية الله لا اله الا هو الحي القيوم الذي لا يموت يحيي ويميت وهو رب العرش العظيم . بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم(( الله لا اله الا هو الحي القيوم لا تأخذه سنة ولا نوم له ما في السموات والارض من ذا الذي يشفع عنده الا باذنه يعلم ما بين ايديهم وما خلفهم ولا يحيطون بشيء من علمه الا بما شاء وسع كرسيه السموات والارض ولا يؤوده حفظهما وهو العلي العظيم)) صدق الله العظيم . والبعض الاخر يتكبر الى ابعد الحدود ويمشي في طريق الشر ويدعو مع الشيطان فحينها يكون ضميره نائم لا نعلم متى يصحو من سباته العميق، فقد تغلب الشيطان عليه وتحجر قلبه ان من يريد المشي الى جانب الشر فقد ظلم نفسه وسيدخل نار جهنم التي وقودها الناس والحجارة ومن يكفر ويدعو مع الله اله اخر فان له عذاب عظيم سيدخل نار جهنم في الحياة الاخرة . واما من يريد ان يصلح حاله برغم انه يمشي في طريق الشر ويريد ان يتغلب على هذا الشر ويتغلب على وساوس الشيطان ويريد طريق الهدى والحق من كل قلبه والله يعلم ما في قلوبنا جميعا، فليتحرك ساكنا ويعمل عملا صالحا يدخل بسببه الى الجنة باذن الله ، والاكثار من الاستغفار والصلاة فالصلاة هي عمود الدين والدين الحق هو الاسلام ، والاسلام يدعو الى الالفة والمحبة وعمل الخير والامر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر .والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته أ_م_ح Every man has his sins, some of them ask forgiveness of God and hopes for forgiveness and walk in the path of righteousness, overcomes the whispers of Satan, calls the creator of the universe that makes him a place in Ganhotbeka his eyes from the fear of God is not God but is the neighborhood Gayoom, who does not die salutes and Yamit, a Lord of the Great Throne. The name of God the Merciful ((God is not God but is the neighborhood Gayoom does not take one year and not sleep him what in the heavens and the earth, Who intercedes for him without his permission knows what is before them and behind them and surround some of his knowledge, but as he wishes extended his chair of the heavens and the earth, nor Aúdh He saved Almighty)) the truth of God Almighty. And others flaunts beyond the border and walk in the way of evil and calls with the devil then the conscience be asleep We do not know when to wake up from a deep slumber, Satan has overcome it and muzzle his heart Who wants to walk to the side of evil, injustice has been the same and will enter hell fire whose fuel is people and stones and atone calls God, the God with him, the last great punishment will enter the fire of hell in the afterlife. But who wants to fit unchanged although he walks in the way of evil and wants to overcome this evil and overcomes the whispers of Satan and wants through the guidance and the right of every heart, and God knows what is in all our hearts, Flethrk finger and runs a good work enters because of it to heaven, God willing, and the multiplication of ask God for forgiveness and pray the prayer is religion and religion the right column is Islam, and Islam calls for harmony, love and charity, and the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice .owalslam and God's mercy and blessings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.201.134 (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to add random passages of text. --NeilN talk to me 14:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

Recently, I made this edit adding a section named "Islamic terrorism" to the article. I think the edit summary explained my intentions fairly well, but to expand, a 2012 GA review of this article failed partially because a reviewer felt that GA criteria 3a was not met because "A major issue (Islamic terrorism) has been completely omitted." I agree and feel that a summary-style section linking to Islamic terrorism would be a big improvement to the article; currently, the word "terrorists" is used solely to describe a group one may declare jihad against, and "terrorism" only appears in the title of a reference, although Islamic terrorism is one of many, many links in the "Islam topics" template at the bottom of the page (under the sub-template "Islamic studies"). So I boldly made the changes myself, using Islamic terrorism and Islamophobia as reference points and citing anything I thought might be challenged.

In this revision, Sodicadl moved the section to a "Warfare" section (renamed from "Jihad"), which I would agree is a better way to format the information. The edit summary contained the somewhat begrudging phrase "If this section has to be here", but seemed to at least condone the section.

However, the section was removed by AcidSnow in this edit, with the summary "Things like this need to be taken to the talk page before it's added". This isn't explicit disagreement, but fine — I'm happy to discuss things.

Does anyone disagree with the addition of an Islamic terrorism section? Does anyone disagree specifically with the text in the section I added? Does anyone support the changes I made? Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There have been many attempts to add "terrorism" to the article. However, all of them have failed to reach consensus such as the most recent one. Even now, I am sure many people would disagree for it to be added to the article in the form that you did it in, such as users Ian.thomson, Dougweller, CambridgeBayWeather, and Riversider2008. The current version explains the consent of "jihad" very well though. AcidSnow (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
On the one hand, less than 1% of Muslims can reasonably be called terrorists (WP:UNDUE). On the other hand, Western media pays way too much attention (possibly WP:DUE if wrong). Mentioning the peaceful interpretation of jihad is a nice touch if (if) we're going to discuss terrorism here, but I'm thinking we should probably determine due weight using academic sources focused on the whole of Islam (like some sort of "Encyclopedia of Islam," rather than specific articles such as, say, a journal article about the sociological factors that produce terrorists) rather than journalistic or governmental sources. I'll also note that note that the articles on Buddhism, Christianity, and Communism don't particularly discuss violence associated with those movements, and even the violence implied in Marxism–Leninism could be read as anyone's fault.
It might seem a bit soapbox-y, but I'd be OK with including a bit that discusses how the majority of Muslims are not terrorists despite a heavy focus on Islamic terrorism in western media. I will not push for that, however, and think it'd probably be easiest to just not include anything on it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
But people don't necessarily associate violence with Buddhism or Christianity. Islam is a religion many people associate with terrorism — whether that's the fault of the media, because of prejudices or because Muslims do commit more acts of terrorism than average. I think something discussing at least preconceptions of Islamic violence in the west is needed in the article, but I would try to be careful to avoid sounding like I was violating WP:SOAPBOX — I am well aware that my own opinion on the subject is irrelevant. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 08:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I do think a sentence or two about modern Islamic terrorism/extremism belongs in the article. I would say that the current wave of Islamic terrorism needs to be contextualized as a relatively recent and brief phenomenon (about 1980s to present, compared to the 1400 year history of Islam), so I'd say it belongs in the modern history section.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think that's an interesting place to put it, and contextualization is probably a good thing, since you're right — Islamic terrorism is only a very recent thing in Islam's long history. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 08:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't necessarily object to making another brief mention of Islamic terrorism in the jihad section but in my mind that section should be restricted to more general discussion of beliefs and philosophical issues (violent vs. non-violent jihad; Islamic law regarding non-combatants; Ibn Taymiyya, who's probably as important as Augustine of Hippo to Christianity in the same context). If we're talking about specific groups and attacks, I feel like that's more the historical aspect. How about this for a very rough draft? I just want to fire off some early ideas even if they're not based on a ton of research.

Since the 1980s, a number of groups such as al-Qa'ida have combined violent tactics like suicide attacks and aircraft hijackings with extremist Islamic ideology, resulting in Islamic terrorism. A number of Islamic terrorist attacks have occurred around the globe focusing on issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; American military presence in the Middle East; separatism in Chechnya, Kashmir, and elsewhere; and the desire to create Islamic states.

—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
That looks fairly good, actually. Although al-Qa'ida isn't wrong, stylizing as al-Qaeda is probably best as that spelling is the main title of the article. And somehow, in the context of a {{Main}} template or something, I'd like a more prominent link to Islamic terrorism. Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Bump. No-one's posted for a while. I don't want the subject to just trail off — discussion has been neglected ever since the failed GA review and I want to determine some consensus here. Does anyone object to Neil P. Quinn's suggested draft of a historical section discussing Islamic terrorism above? Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 19:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014

There is a missing closing parenthesis under section 3.5 "Pilgrimage," here: "The pilgrimage, called the ḥajj (Arabic: حج‎, has to ..." Please change it to "The pilgrimage, called the ḥajj (Arabic: حج‎), has to ..." Thank you. Honnogakusha (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 01:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Images of the Prophet

Do a study or follow the Pew Research Forum, hold a referendum...you will know that a vast majority of Muslims do not recognize the image of the the Prophet Muhammad or any Angels...furthermore its a contentious issue and such images should be discussed in a separate article where images of the Prophet Muhammad and even statues such as the one in the U.S. supreme court can be mentioned.

It should be very clear that all Muslims do not use images of Angles or that of the Prophet Muhammad in their mosques or places of worship, such images are nowhere to be seen in the Muslim World. Therefore the editors of the article Islam should have a contemporary approach not the one promoting conflicts about some obscure paintings made centuries ago in the Muslim World that have no real importance or recognition by Muslims today.182.182.93.247 (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

See previous discussions on this. Personally, and along with the beliefs of much of the community here at large, the images do have value here on this encyclopedia, and we do not pander to one particular set of beliefs. A Muslims opinion on these images is no less or more valid than a non-Muslims view. Furthermore, Wikipedia or its editors are not promoting conflict. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
182, there is such an article, Depictions of Muhammad. It mentions the U.S. supreme court, as well as pictures used by muslims today (Iran). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
It is against the islamic rules to draw the pic of Hazrat Muhammad(S.A.W.) and of Angels. There is no any picture available in Quran or in valid Hadith books. To draw pics is forbidden in islam. If someone have make pic that is fake. It is right of each person to protect his religious belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awais ali1 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
i agree with you. the image must be deleted or hided--Sghaier mohamed (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC).
@Sghaier mohamed: See WP:NOTCENSORED. --NeilN talk to me 19:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015

Teaspoon67 (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC) http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/home/ is the new correct link for http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/home/ located in the external lnks section

Done Cannolis (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

where is islamic terrorisim

i believe section for islamic terrorism and/or jihad must be added. kazekagetr 15:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is already a section on Jihad in the article. JZCL 17:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

For some sects...

Slooppouts34,

  • Per WP:LEAD, The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.
  • Per MOS:INTRO, The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article...
  • Per WP:FRNG, To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.

The notability and significance of people who reject Sunnah is negligible and the minority viewpoint is covered in the body of the article appropriately with a single sentence. The lead should give proper weight and exclude fringe ideas. Can you self revert yourself until consensus can be demonstrated that such a sentence should be included in the lead? --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 04:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "for some sects" should not be included; there are certainly people calling themselves Muslims who will not agree with Sunnah, as there are those who will disagree with just about any definition of Muslim you could try to write, but the number of people is going to be very, very, very small. Islam itself is a summary-style article; the lead is only a brief summary of the article so "for some sects" is IMO a waste of words where things need to be concise. It also violates WP:UNDUE by the implication that large numbers of Muslims reject Sunnah. — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 16:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The Quranists are a big enough sect to be notable. You simply just can't have false staements on the lead of the article. If balancing weight is the issue, then balance it by saying that "majority" do follow hadith. But the bottom line is: you can't put inaccurate statement.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Fauzan's policy references (above) do not support his position. The quotes from WP:LEAD and MOS:INTRO would be reasons not to have a whole sentence on the Quranists in the lead (for instance) but they do not justify incorrectly stating that all Muslims folow hadith. Also WP:FRINGE is not relevant because that is about fringe scholarly views. It is not a fringe scholarly view that Quaranists exist. That is undisputed. My only challenge on Slooppouts34's edit (here) is that simply saying "a majority" suggests that the Quaranists are a larger number than they are, and would prefer something like "vast majority" as more reflective of the position - and have added that qualification. DeCausa (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If that was the case, then all the articles would be have been awash with "most of" or "majority of" in every sentence. Now, any person walking on the street can claim to be a "Muslim", and his way "correct", yet we are not going to include so fringe an idea in the lead, at least. There is always going to be disagreement between people regarding who is a "Muslim", in such a case Wikipedia should parallel the most widespread view, Wikipedia is not a place to establish the truthfulness of any statement. The bottom line is WP:N. Read the first post again. Do the (mainstream) Muslims regard Quranists as Muslim? Are Quranists notable enough? Provide references to WP:RS, do not make unsupported claims.

Regarding consensus, you have to establish consensus to change the lead since there is objection. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 09:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong on two counts. Firstly, in Wikipedia we do not determine who are Muslims by "mainstream" Muslim opinions. It is long-established on numerous articles that it is by self-declaration. For example, the Ahmadiyya are referred to as muslims despite frequent objections of those editing from a mainstream muslim POV. Secondly, many articles do have the "most of" qualification. For example, the second sentence of Muhammad states "Muhammad is almost universally considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God to mankind", the "almost" to take account of Ahmadiyya. With regard to policy, as I sated above, you are using the quotes incorrectly. DeCausa (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The lead of Evolution doesn't say Evolution is the (possibly non-existent) change in the inherited phenotypic traits (characteristics) of biological populations over successive generations, which is claimed to occur by scientists (but not all scientists) and disputed by many creationists, and some people other than creationists, although some creationists "believe in" evolution. You can generalise things to concisely represent the vast majority. Something may be notable for its own topic — intelligent design is incredibly notable — but not notable enough to be mentioned in the lead of the main-topic article ("creationism", "intelligent design" etc. do not appear in the lead of evolution). Quranists may deserve their own article, but not be big enough to be discussed in Islam.
Having said that, I know nothing about Quranists: what percentage of Muslims are Quranists / reject hadith? I also don't object to adding "vast majority" (which is currently what's written) or another short phrase that makes it clear that the number of Muslims that follow hadith is far greater than the number who don't. — Bilorv (talk)(contribs) 10:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
That's a false analogy with Evolution. A better comparison is the current , lead in Chistianity: "Most Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God...". Anyway, since you don't object to "vast majority" we are in agreement! DeCausa (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm ok with "vast majority" in the sentence. However, I would like to note that Sunni,Shia and other sects have very different hadiths. (http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/2741/why-do-the-shia-have-different-hadiths)

--Slooppouts34 (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Quran and Sunnah are not the only sources of Islamic teaching. Spiritual leaders or "Imams" have also played a significant role in the history of Islam especially Shia Islam and Sufi Islam. I think we should add this to the lead section as well. (Their teachings are no on par with the Quran though). And also, Quran is considered "revelation from God" not "verbatim word of God".Kiatdd (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Just passing by this talk page, I would like to say that most Muslims believe the Quran is the verbatim word of God. Mbcap (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
the doctrine is called "wahy" which precisely means revelation (see page wahy), it is a well-known doctrine in Islamic theology.Kiatdd (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have just reverted Slooppouts34's edit. That is too much weight given to an extremely tiny subgroup. Please discuss why you wish to have it included because you have provided no tangible policy based reasons. A search on google scholar, books and news showed this many results for "quranism or quranist"; 

         As opposed to 1,940,000 results for search term "islam" @ http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=islam&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

         As opposed to 16,800,000 results for search term "islam" @ https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=google&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=SgqqVJGzPOnY7AaVgIHgDg&ved=0CAwQ_AUoAQ#tbm=bks&q=islam

         As opposed to 18,500,000 results for Islam

Search results on scholar, books and news as percentage of total for "quranism or quranist" (I know this is OR but I am putting it here to show how extremely microscopic this fringe view is:

  • Google scholar --- 0.002%
  • Google books ----- 0.001%
  • Google news ------ 0.0003%

The comparison to the christianity page is not suitable for this discussion as nontrinitarians constitute a significant minority which itself consists of numerous different denominations. This is undue weight and also extremely fringe view that is too microscopic to consider. Editors should be reminded WP:FRINGE states; "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.". By making this edit which I have reverted Slooppouts34, you have given extreme weight to quranist opinion relative to its prominence in reliable sources. Mbcap (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa, reiterate and revert. Thanks--Slooppouts34 (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I welcome any policy based objections, otherwise the article stays the way it is. Mbcap (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
You've completely misunderstood policy and WP:FRINGE on this. That is all about conflicting scholarly (and not so scholarly) theories on a subject: there was no moon landing, the CIA did 9/11, the earth is flat. This is different. This is describing a religious belief and reporting the facts on what is believed. The only way WP:FRINGE would play here is if scholars disputed whether Quranists exist. WP:FRINGE, in an article about a religion, should concern fringe sources/theories about the religion rather than fringe sects of that religion. Grateful for other inputs. I'v opened a thread at the Fringe noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Islam DeCausa (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Slooppouts34: what are you trying to say? Are you saying that a faction of Muslims do not follow Muhammad? we need more clarification here! Kiatdd (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you DeCausa for pointing that out. Yes, WP:FRINGE deos not apply here as it is not a scientific issue but a religious one. Even still due to the absolute insignificance of this group and the very little that is available in the way of sources, would mean it would not merit consideration for the lead per WP:UNDUE. Mbcap (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree they are no way significant enough to be referred to in the lead. The point here is different, however. It is factually incorrect for the lead to say, in effect, all Muslims follow hadith/Sunnah. It's just wrong. It needs to be qualified in some way: just as the lead to Muhammad says that muslims "almost universally" regard him to be the last prophet. It needs the equivalent of "almost all". DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I see what you are saying but it still does not make a difference, because even mentioning, "that almost all muslims follow hadith" would give undue weight to quranists. Mbcap (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Even if there is one Muslim who identifies himself/herself as Quranist, then stating that "all Muslims follow hadith" becomes false. There are millions of Quranists, and they are heavy suppressed by extremists everywhere (e.g https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/islamofallah/4F86FUk8nhs) just as the case for Ahmadiyya, Bahá'í Faith and many other sects in Islam. I've no problem with supression though, if you believe that should be the case on Wikipedia also--Slooppouts34 (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


Slooppouts34 what you just attempted on the article page constituted vandalism. The introduction was destroyed and I immediately reverted. Please bear in mind that if you repeat this again, you will receive a level 3 warning. If you would like to make any changes to the lead please raise them here first with your sources. Mbcap (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslem

Please change MOSLEM to MUSLIM in the first line — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.94.18 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 12:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Family Life

Under Family Life section, isn't sex with unconsenting female captives, really rape? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.107.150 (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course. Thepigdog (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, in islam, no http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Rape Specifically see the fatwa from islamqa, the largest islamic ruling site on the Internet (33597)

There is no such thing as rape of a wife or slavegirl in islam, since neither has the right to refuse their husband/master

Slavery and genocide

I would like to add the following links

Thepigdog (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Where? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015

Article states that currently, no government follows Islamic law, as all deal in "usury or government bonds". What is wrong with government bonds? Article seems to equate them with usury ("no risk"). 5.51.49.70 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

See Usury#Islam. Islam forbids charging interest, as did Christianity at the time (and for quite a while after). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

Ahmadis are Muslims. Pakistan is the only state to have officially declared the Ahmadis to be non-Muslims as they do not regard the Prophet Muhammad to be the final prophet.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I don't understand the problem. Ahmadiyya is listed in the article as a denomination of Islam, under Islam#Other denominations. — Bilorv(talk)(c) 09:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Your edits were reverted. Have you looked at WP:UNDUE? Ahmadiyya, while a branch of Islam, should not be mentioned all over the article - this gives the impression that they are more significant than they are. Any details which are not important enough to be mentioned in Islam (see WP:SUMMARY) should be listed at Ahmadiyya, as details about Pakistan currently are. — Bilorv(talk)(c) 09:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Ahmadiyya are a sect with at least 30 million followers, and they do not regard the Prophet Muhammad to be the final prophet. As such, the lead of the article should not say that all Muslims regard Prophet Muhammad to be the final prophet as that would be incorrect.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
DeCausa (talk), please comment.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Normal Islam and guns

I've heard that normal Muslims aren't allowed to own guns according to their teachings, but I can't find it in this article. Shouldn't it be in there?--98.217.232.155 (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Where have you heard this? I imagine many (most?) Muslims will object to guns, but Wikipedia only accepts information backed up by reliable sources, so everything said in its articles can be proved to be true. Additionally, Wikipedia has a lot of pages (about 7000) relating to Islam — this article has nowhere near enough room to contain all the information on the subject. If there are Islamic rules and teachings about guns, they might be included in another, more specific article on Wikipedia. — Bilorv(talk)(c) 18:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Guns didn't exist during Muhammad's time. So definitely not found in Hadith/Sunnah or Quran.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in islam to say muslims cannot own guns Saudi Arabia is the most conservative muslim nation and civilians owning guns is common Owning guns is 100% halal :)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

Under the "family life" section, relations with captives/slaves are only allowed after marriage. Jkslfkjsdklj32o (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll need to provide a source for that. DeCausa (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married --Slooppouts34 (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Slavery in Islam

After I've read this article about Islam that was posted in Wikipedia. I have to bring up this statement that was part of the article.

"According to Islam, it is lawful for male masters to have sexual relations with female captives and slaves,[112] regardless of whether the slave woman gives her consent".[113]

There is no evidence stating that male masters are allowed let alone 'lawful' to have sexual relations with female captives and slaves regardless of whether the slave woman gives her consent. in Quran, Hadiths or Sunnah. That act is considered fornication or rape and it is heinous and sinful to have sex other than your wife. Unless you have find evidence that is stated in Quran, then by all means, I can't argue with facts.

What stated above is untrue and will mislead readers who are looking for information about Islam. Please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.185.215 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In the quotes above you can see "[112]" and "[113]". Displayed in the article like this: [112], these are references supporting the statements made. Unless you have reliable sources which say otherwise (and your personal analysis of the Quran doesn't count), the statements support what the sources say and should remain within the article. Not all Muslims agree on... well, just about anything, but Wikipedia reflects what is stated in sources, even if you personally disagree. — Bilorv(talk)(c) 09:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The sources do not establish significance or weight. I mean which reliable source includes details about slavery in a short summary about "Family Life" in Islam? I'm not aware of any other than this article. Additionally, one of the sources was being misrepresented (Islamqa.com), as it clearly explains at the end that there are "valid reasons" for a slave women to refuse her master's requests. Wiqi(55) 19:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Then, why not add more detail from Islamqa.info/. That site has quite a lot of detail on what you can and cannot do with your slave girls; for example: "The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them."[1]-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Women in Islam has its own article, so try not to go into too much detail, but a bit more than just the single sentence there would be fine. I would say that coming under the heading of "Family life" does not make it original research, but have little opinion on whether the contested text should be included or not. — Bilorv(talk)(c) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Adding more details would veer into historical and disputed information (not really suitable for a general section on Family life). Nowadays, Muslim countries forbid slavery. Also, the distinct form of slavery allowed in Islam is temporary, limited to wartime and the presence of POWs. It is off topic for normal everyday Family life. Wiqi(55) 20:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It is? Do you have reliable sources for that? Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not on an editor's opinions.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hazrat Ali had 17 slave girls and Hazrat Umar also had many.
Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married.
A slave woman with whom a man has intercourse is known as a sariyyah (concubine) from the word sirr, which means marriage.
This is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and this was done by the Prophets. Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) took Haajar as a concubine and she bore him Ismaa’eel (may peace be upon them all).
Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also did that, as did the Sahaabah, the righteous and the scholars. The scholars are unanimously agreed on that and it is not permissible for anyone to regard it as haraam or to forbid it. Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars.[1]
Maria al-Qibtiyya was one of the concubines/sex slaves of Islamic prophet Muhammad.
List of Muhammad's Wives and Concubines: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Muhammads_Wives_and_Concubines
Also see "Islamic State issues guidelines for sex slavery": http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-issues-guidelines-for-sex-slavery/
--Slooppouts34 (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://islamqa.info/en/10382
It is a wartime practice because its sources were limited to POWs and those born while both their parents are POWs. Here is a quote from a reliable source: "The classical shari'a reduced the means by which one could be lawfully enslaved to just two: birth from two lawfully enslaved parents or capture as a prisoner in a lawful jihad. All other forms of enslavement were abolished."(The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, 2012, p.514). Moreover, most slaves were POWs as "those born into slavery formed a relatively small proportion of the slave population" (Transformation in Slavery, Lovejoy, 2011, p.16)[2]. It was also non-permanent: "Thus the slave in Muslim society was not condemned to live permanently in servitude; he had a chance of obtaining liberty in his life time in an age when the rule was more rigid outside the World of Islam." (Khadduri, War and Peace in Islam, 2010, p.132)[3]. More recent sources suggest that not freeing a slave after the war is over should be considered a later development: "The Qur'an seems to establish a rule that at the time of the revelation only captives taken in a just war could be enslaved. [...] The Qur'an recommends actually freeing the captives after the war is over."(p. 45 onwards, Black Morocco: A History of Slavery, Race, and Islam, Chouki El Hamel, 2012)[4]. Clearly slavery in Islam (at least for the abiding Muslim) is inextricably linked with POWs and war practices.
But I don't see [Toddy1]'s reply on how the Islamqa.com source is being misrepresented? It clearly states that a female slave could have a "valid excuse" for rejecting her master's requests (see last paragraph). Also, your recent addition is not accurate, and suffers from the same problem of citing one-sided or poor quality sources. In fact, a wife can stipulate in her marriage contract that her husband does not marry anyone else: "Granting the wife the right to stipulate that her husband not marry additional wives or take a concubine was a source of great power for the woman. It differed from the historical practice of the husband granting his wife the option of requesting a divorce in such a case, a practice known as tamlik ..." (Wahhabi Islam, Natan J. Delong-Bas, 2004)[5]. Wiqi(55) 16:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
A few comments:
  • IsIslamQA.info a WP:RS? That seems doubtful to me.
  • I don't see any grounds for saying this topic should not be under the heading "Family life".
  • Nothing Wiqi55 has said justifies removing the topic altogether - only grounds (perhaps) for amending the text. If the sources say there are circmstances when the wife or the concubine can object (I haven't checked) then that should be incorporated - not simply remove the whole thing.
  • I fail to see that slavery is only a "wartime practice" is a reason to remove it either. Firstly, there are enough wars around not to make it irrelevant - see Toddy1's addition for instance. Modern slavery is widespread including in Muslim countries, whatever the law of a country formally says. Secondly, it's not just POWs but also those born into slavery to whom this applies. There's a reasonably well-sourced summary here
DeCausa (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It would be more suitable under "Jihad" or "Warfare". Probably "Family life during wartime". It is not a common practice in Islam today. Those born into slavery were a small proportion only, and usually become free whenever their parents (POWs) become free. Wiqi(55) 00:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"Copyvio of <http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/015-slavery.htm> removed by 117.203.124.93 (talk)" --Slooppouts34 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this page on my watchlist, it is clear that the section on concubines and slavery is being argued over. One editor removes a section, only for another to revert. Please discuss the issue first on the talk page and once consensus is reached then edit the page accordingly. Slooppouts34 you do raise good points but you have to reference reliable sources. Last time I checked wikislam was not a reliable source. I also do not think we should remove the section all together as this issue has been discussed by classical scholars. DeCausa has raised some sensible questions just above this post which once explored may help all those concerned here to move forward. A balance could be reached here and I am going off of what DeCausa has said, that the relevant section could be amended to better reflect reliable sources. I just had an edit conflict when posting this and I see Slooppouts34 that you have quoted a plethora of sources. These constitute primary sources and on wikipedia we try to use secondary sources. Mbcap (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Slooppouts34: that's a weird point of view!, the sources available to me say that Islam (the Islam understood by Muhammad) admonishes slavery. Muhammad freed slaves by various means, he was not rich, a rich person named "abu bakr" ransomed them. Apparently after Muhammad, some people, or Muslims, or whatever you’d like to call them, returned to practicing slavery until slavery was abolished in the 19th century. There was an army of slaves in ottoman army, they were called mamluks.Kiatdd (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, stating that information under #Family Life and linking the two together is definitely OR. Encyclopædia Britannica does not make any mention on slavery in its section on family life. The article is good as it stands. If correct, it may be addressed adequately in the article on slavery, giving proper weight. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 16:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kiatdd: you are quite wrong. See Islamic views on slavery and Muhammad's views on slavery. The Qu'ran and the Sunnah regulated the institution of slavery, but neither prohibited it. DeCausa (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Fauzan: Wikipedia is not paper: we can and do go into much more detail than the Encyclopedia Britannica. However, if you still maintain including the information under "Family Life" is original research, then do you have an alternative title (assuming, just for a second, that the information is going to be included)? As a separate point can Islamic views on slavery be linked under the "See also" hatnote if the slavery text is added back? — Bilorv(talk)(c) 17:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
That website is in no way a WP:RS for Islam. --NeilN talk to me 19:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a problem of sources i think. In modern family life slavery has no place, first of all because is illegal in every country of the world. And again, and most important, Islam main page needs to be as representative as possible: is slavery preminent in the islamic families? If yes, show some sources, evidence, etc and we can discuss the fact; if not, slavery topics don't have the reason to be placed in “family life” section. It's simple as that. Even the Bible rule issues about slavery, but nowdays christian and hebrew family don't take slaves in their homes, nor they are allowed to do that by local or international laws. CallAng222 (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Bilorv, The link I provided was to the online Encyclopædia Britannica artice, which is around 30 pages (355 kB). Their section on Family life spans five paragraphs, quite longer than our articles 2 (or 3). If the topic is related, it is expected that the Britannica article mentions it. This was only an example; I am unable to find RS which link the two areas. If the information is anyway going to be included, it can be linked directly in the text rather than using a hatnote. As for another title, I don't have any hybrid in my mind, but again, we need something solid to base such a section on. In the meantime, Islamic views on slavery can be added to #See also. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 18:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, found this, and only this. I am unable to ascertain now whether this is a widespread viewpoint or a fringe one, as this is the only source that talks about it in such a manner. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 18:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you serious? It's covered in many sources including this and the IslamQ&A.Info source already in the article. DeCausa (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Here is another. DeCausa (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
But the sources are irrelevant as to whether it should be in this section or another section. The organisation of an article does not need to be sourced. That is just editorial judgment. If it were otherwise then we would have to follow the organisational treatment of other encyclopedias. That is patently not the case. There are only two questions that need answering: 1. Do we have reliable sources supporting the proposition that Islam allows a man to have sex with his female slave. The answer is clearly yes, and in fact there is no reliable source that refutes that. 2. Is it related to family life? I can't believe anyone can question that. It relates to who within a man's household he may have sex with. To put it beyond doubt, the source I cited above explicitly says that the slave is considered a member of the family. DeCausa (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa:, actually the npov policy does mention the need to balance our take on a subject based on reliable sources, see WP:BALASPS. Moreover, while Islam allows men and women to own slaves, the only context where this is permissible is wartime, specifically Jihad (just war or holy war - as I quoted above). A short summary on family life is too general for such a specific context. It would also confuse people to use the word "slave" without explaining that Islam actually abolished most forms of slavery, including the most notorious natural slavery. Wiqi(55) 21:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
BALASPS is a different point: the question is whether it should be under "Family life". The claim is that there is a need for RS to link it to family life which is not a BALASPS issue. As far as BALASPS is concerned this is a matter of Islamic jurisprudence which is often discussed in RS eg as i've cited above. It is a current topic of debate as to whether Islamic State's treatment of women prisoners is permissable under Sharia. Furthermore it is incorrect to say it is "only" permissible in wartime. It may be only permissible to enslave people in wartime, but they may remain slaves after the end of any war and their descendants may remain slaves in perpetuity. Finally, there is no need to qualify ghe word slave. A slave is still a slave even if she is only one ategory if slave. DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:BALASPS is exactly the point. If other sources do not mention slavery in a brief description of family life then this is a good indication that we're giving it more weight then necessary, and may end up confusing readers. Also, slaves in Muslim society do not usually remain slaves in perpetuity, as the RS I quoted above explains: "Thus the slave in Muslim society was not condemned to live permanently in servitude; he had a chance of obtaining liberty in his life time ...". Wiqi(55) 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
According to Islam, a slave remains slave, and her new born children remain slaves unless her master, or her new master who bought her/them let her/them go free.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
You need to support your claims by reliable sources, as I did. There were plenty of situations were obligatory manumission happened. And those born into slavery were a "small proportion" anyway. See the quotes above. Wiqi(55) 23:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Muslims are told to live in the way of Muhammad by Sunnah and hadith. Muhammad was a slave owner and trader. Muhammad captured slaves in battle. Muhammad had sex with his slaves (One such example is Maria al-Qibtiyya ). Muhammad instructed his men to do the same as he did regarding female slaves. List of Muhammad's Wives and Concubines: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Muhammads_Wives_and_Concubines The Quran and hadith have many verses that make sure that Muslim men know they can keep female sex slaves: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/015-slavery.htm --Slooppouts34 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, this is not a reliable source and anyone who thinks so is pushing an Islamophobic agenda or is not competent enough to properly judge sources. --NeilN talk to me 19:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
And you second source is an open wiki. Have you read WP:RS at all? --NeilN talk to me 19:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The website has the verses with number, so it can easily be looked up in the Quran itself. The Website is not WP:RS and I'm not telling to cite it or pay attention to it's interpretations. The verses in Quran are quite clear regarding female sex slaves, & Muhammad's actual deeds (hadiths) are even more. The second source is also not an WP:RS and I know that very well. The second source is another open Wiki with cited sources in itself. --Slooppouts34 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
C'mon, it's ridiculous. What is: Family Life (100yrs ago version)? There is no place in the world where slavery is still legal, so the discussion itself makes no sense. only emphasizing a vision really, really fondamentalistic and minoritary could fit with edit like this. Next stept what will be? We will go in the jewish and christian page writing what jews and christian coul do with slaves? C'mon guys seriously. CallAng222 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
There are places in the world where slavery is still legal. Many of them are poor countries, many Muslim countries and also some rich Arab countries among others. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (claimed as terrorists by most) captured territories and they allow slavery. See: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-issues-guidelines-for-sex-slavery/--Slooppouts34 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
And this article is about Islam as it is, not how you would prefer it to be.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
No, this article is about a fondamentalist and outdated view of the religion. Like writing in Judaism page that a hebrew have the right to sold his daughter[1]Or in christianity that a christian has the right to beat his slave[2]Its accetable only following an islamophobic agenda that ignores the fact that muslim families (as for Christians and Hebrews) around the world are not the result of slavery, and that slavery itself is illegal in every country of the world, despite isis, lord liberation army and the mafia. CallAng222 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ 7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. Exodus 21:7-11
  2. ^ :And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. Luke 12,47

Wikipedia has thousands of pages dedicated to history; something being "outdated" is not necessarily relevant. Look at the lengthy history section in this very article that no-one seems to be complaining about. Saying that Judaism/Christianity is similar is irrelevant — "they don't do this in that other article" is not a valid argument and in fact, WP does have pages titled Christian views on slavery and Jewish views on slavery. Also, something being illegal is not equivalent to it not existing: I wouldn't imagine anyone here would nominate Illegal drug trade for deletion. — Bilorv(talk)(c) 22:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

-I have nothing against Islam. I'm a Muslim myself. Portraying Islam in a way that is not factual is both an insult to Islam itself, and also against rules of Wikipedia. Islamic terrorist groups (some labeled as terrorists by all nations while others are by some nations) such as Boko Haram, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, Jaish ul-Adl, Al-Qaeda, al-Nusra Front ..... and the list goes on, do hold a lot of territories.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
-Bilorv you said:"Also, something being illegal is not equivalent to it not existing". I agree, but this is something that must be proved. As I said: is slavery preminent in islamic families? If yes, show some sources, evidence, etc and we can discuss the matter. Otherwise we must stick to the facts.CallAng222 (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
-Muslim families vary greatly from country to country, and from family to family! For example, most Muslim families in Turkey vary greatly from the ones in Saudi Arabia. This article is about Islam as explained by Quran and Sunnah/Hadith (Muhammad' ways of life).--Slooppouts34 (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
-Yes but but on one thing they are all the same: they can not have slaves. Then your statements are not only placed beyond space and time, but also illegal in muslim countries, despite what Q&A web page can say. A speech like yours placed in the "family life" context so it is misleading and false. CallAng222 (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
-You would be suprised to know in how many Muslim countries slavery still exists. But that has nothing to do here. what you don't understand is that this article is about what is Islam's stance regarding slavery. It's not about what most Muslims choose to do. Most Muslims choose to disregard Islamic banking laws, hijab and many things--Slooppouts34 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Slooppouts34: If Shaykh al-Munajjid (Islamic q&a website) thinks that it is okay to have a slave he should...By Islam I suppose we mean the Islam understood and presented by Muhammad, after all he started off everything...let British broadcasting company glorify Shaykh's viewpoints. I have cited two sources,please review books by Tamara Sonn, Reza Aslan, Karen Armstrong, Angelika Neuwirth, Hussein Nasr, etc, etc and please review the comments by NeilN, Wiqqi, CallAng, Bilorv, DeCausa everyone here is trying to collaborate, you make it very difficult to work on this article.Kiatdd (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
We must be very cautious when we are dealing with online preachers like Shaykh al-Munajjid that are close to extremistic positions. Even if their's point of views are minoritary in muslim world - when not directly illegal, like the slavery thing - they use the web for theirs solitary preaching. This Shaykh in particular expressed appeals to loyalty to Isis, a terrorist organization. So, again, he express extremist point of views that are illegal not only in muslim world, but in every country of the world, and his close to terrorist organization. We must be very cautions about emphasing theirs point of views, because is extremistic, outside the modern muslim world, related to terrorist organization, and illegale in some cases.CallAng222 (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, Al-Jazeera with many staff joining from the BBC, declares the cyberShaykh as "one of most respected scholars". Look at his wikipedia page.Kiatdd (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Break

  1. Is it verifiable? The Q&A site and BBC say it is, but Kiatdd has sources which say otherwise.
  2. Is it related to Family life? Probably yes per DeCausa's sources. However, this may or may not be a mainstream viewpoint. It is however, definitely related to and can be included under Slavery.
  3. Is it due weight to present this here? Probably no. Most of sources (like the online Britannica entry I linked about) do not discuss it with family life. It is better to present it under slavery, as Bilorv hinted above.
  4. Is it relevant to this era? Might not be, but I think we ought to give weight to it as per RS. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 15:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
-The questions were thoroughly answered! move the online preacher's opinion to his own page.Kiatdd (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
-I think that even the "It is lawful for male masters..." part should be removed too, because slavery is illegal in modern muslim world, condemned - in every form, sexual or not - by relevant islamic authority; so, in fact, it is not permissible, as it is not lawful for a hebrew to sold his daughter or for a christian to inflict severe beatings to his slaves.CallAng222 (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Muslims are told to live in the ways of Muhammad, which are Sunnah and Hadith. Muhammad was a slave owner and trader, Muhammad captured slaves in battle and Muhammad had sex with his slaves (such as Maria al-Qibtiyya, Rayhana bint Zayd ibn Amr, Al-Jariya, Tukana al-Quraziya ....). Most Muslims choose to disregard Islamic banking laws, hijab and many things. We have to portray Islam as it was portrayed/narrated by Muhammad (PBUH).--Slooppouts34 (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Even the Quranists who disregard Sunnah and Hadith know that male masters can have sex with female slaves, as it's written even in the Quran verses, such as Quran (33:50), Quran (23:5-6), Quran (4:24), Quran (8:69), Quran (24:32), Quran (2:178), Quran (16:75).--Slooppouts34 (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

An online extremist preacher that is ideologically related to tettorist organization represents only himself and his ideas; if Slooppouts34 want to follow his teachings, as he sais, literally with respect to slavery and human rights, then he has a serius problem and could even be dangerous. Modern day Islam is not related to slavery:

Address of Mohamed Ahmed El-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar

CEREMONY FOR THE SIGNING OF THE JOINT DECLARATION OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS AGAINST SLAVERY http://www.globalfreedomnetwork.org/grandimam2014/

Islam is not a monolithic entity placed outside space and time. Laws and jurisprudence have changed with time, and schools of thought; only an extremist and very stupid view of religion could try to turn back time - and not surprisingly seek the path of terrorism and violence. But Wikipeda can not follow their ideology and place it over modern day laws in muslim world. It would be a crime against human rights and humanity himsef. We should not help the spread of their ideas that are bloodying the world. CallAng222 (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Dustylappss, it would be helpful if you could show that most mainstream sources choose to include it under family life rather than slavery. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 04:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Having sex can produce babies, who would be part of family. A sentence or two about it on the main page are warranted. For the same reason why we are keeping the information about marriage on the main page and not moving it over to Women in Islam article.--Dustylappss (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Dustylappss, that is your own personal assessment about the topic. The information about marriage is on the main page since it is directly related to Islam, and is in accordance with reliable sources. The information about lawfulness of male masters is related to slavery as per sources, and per WP:SYNTH belongs to slavery, not to family life.

Again, you have not cited sources to support your viewpoint. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 06:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

i agree with Fauzan. CallAng222 (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Fauzan, this is what DeCausa told you when you asked him the same exact question above: "Are you serious? It's covered in many sources including this and the IslamQ&A.Info source already in the article. Here is another. Is it related to family life? I can't believe anyone can question that. It relates to who within a man's household he may have sex with. To put it beyond doubt, the source I cited above explicitly says that the slave is considered a member of the family." I totally agree with DeCausa.--Dustylappss (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Slavery is illegal in modern muslim world, then the whole argument does not make much sense. All religions have rules about slavery, but being something of the past, it is spoken in the historical sections related to this ancient practice now fallen into disuse.CallAng222 (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Slavery is illegal in modern good muslim world. Bad muslims like Pakistanis commited enslaving of Bengalis in Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971 and still enslave bengalis in Pakistan (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2858775/Paying-debts-brick-brick-Pakistani-modern-day-slaves-trapped-lifetime-hardship.html), Boko Haram in Nigeria sells school girls into slavery (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/08/girls-held-by-boko-haram-face-auction-life-as-sex-slaves-if-rescue-fails/), Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant commits enslaving in Iraq, Syria and levant(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30573385). Saddam enslaved Kuwaitis during gulf war, and there are many Islamic countries where slavery is still widespread. In Islamic Republic of Mauritania, there's slavery openly even today (http://thinkafricapress.com/mauritania/alive-and-well-mauritania-slavery-and-its-stubborn-vestiges) and there are countless Arab countries where slavery continues and will continue. What we can do here on this article is: seperate good secualr muslims such as Bangladeshis, Turkish, Malaysians, Indian muslims, from the bad ones such as Pakistanis, Arabs and most other muslims--Thankcocoa (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS: cherry-picking and omiting all the bad parts from Quran and Hadith, and reflect Islam in the best way possible here.--Thankcocoa (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Dustylappss, DeCausa did point out sources, but mainstream sources do not cover discuss slavery under family life. That point is covered under slavery. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 14:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Fauzan, your personal analysis of what is considered a mainstream source doesn't count. There are reliable sources that explicitly states that slaves are part of family, as pointed out by Dustylappss and DeCausa. Now some sources may choose to even not cover the fact that Muslim men can marry up to four wives, and even more if the wives happen to die.You cannot do cherrypicking here to make Islam look more Westernized.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
That slaves are part of modern family life must be tried; even because one of the sources clearly states the fact that slaves and concubine we're part of the family in premodern times - agreeing with the mainstream sources. If this is not proven, that part will be removed and placed in the historical context to which it belongs.CallAng222 (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Since the Quran, Sunnah and Hadiths allows sex slaves, it's part of Islam regardless of whether it was practiced in the past or present. And as proven above, it is highly prevalent in Islam in modern times. Although it's common sense that if a master has a child with a slave, that child is considered a part of the master's family, there are also reliable sources that explicitly states that slaves are part of the family. We just cannot censor the Quran, Sunnah and Hadith. Because if we do, then we are not representing Islam here fully.--Dustylappss (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The BBC source, which you cited in support of the statement that slavery is part of currently accepted Muslim practice, says the following: "[S]lavery is effectively illegal in modern Islam. Muslim countries also use secular law to prohibit slavery. News stories do continue to report occasional instances of slavery in a few Muslim countries, but these are usually denied by the authorities concerned." Seems to me that this contradicts the point it is being cited for. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The BBC source clearly says "Islamic sharia law accepted (and accepts) sex slavery" It's not practiced widely just like marring four wives is not practiced widely.http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml#h2 --Dustylappss (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad last law bearing prophet of God or last prophet of God?

User FreeatlastChitchat changed Muhammad's status and replaced "considered last Prophet by most" with "last law bearing prophet" [6]. Now it seems as if all Muslims consider Muhammad to be "last law bearing prophet" only, but that's not true, vast majority of Muslims consider Muhammad to be the last prophet and don't consider Ahmadiyya to be Muslims. They are not even allowed to perform Hajj by Saudi law.--LalaResne (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Good example of personal animosity, bigotry and cheap shots lol.I take you to task in the discussion above and you try to question my edits. Good work boy. Anyways. I changed the wording because all muslims consider the Holy Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him to be the last law bearing Prophet, there are no naysayers in this; some may consider him more than that but no one considers him less, but saying last prophet will create edit disputes and long talkpage debates. As my goal is to take Islam back to Featured status I want the article to be stable and without daily wars. therefore I changed this.(my edit summary shows this also if you bother to read it). You are free to dispute this change if you want. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I figured that only Ahmadiyya consider Muhammad (PBUH) to be "last law bearing prophet," and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be the last prophet.--LalaResne (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
You figured wrong. This is wikipedia , an encyclopedia, so you should not "figure" something and then start a debate. Try to read about something before just coming on with your personal views, especially given your recent contribution to discussion. ALL muslims consider the Holy Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him to be the last law bearing Prophet. Ahmadiyyah included. Also you are wrong on the second count too. Ahmadiyya do not consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be the last prophet, they consider him to be a deputy prophet to the Holy Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm always supporting my claims with reliables sources. You are mostly using personal analysis, bias and personal attacks throughout. Ghulam Ahmad is regarded by mainstream Muslims as a heretic, for claiming to be a non-law-bearing (or deputy) prophet after Muhammad, whom mainstream Muslims believe to be the final prophet sent to guide mankind.[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8711026.stm] ISIL, BokoHaram, Alqaeda etc are considered rogue Muslims by many. But Ahmadiyyah are not considered Muslims by the vast majority of mainstream Muslims, and therefore are not allowed to do the Hajj pilgrimage.--LalaResne (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Good try at hijacking the discussion. YOU created this section, YOU created the title of this section. now LOOK at the title of the section which YOU created and tell me how in the name of all that if holy does your most recent comment add anything to it. If you want to talk about the inclusion of Ahmadiyya then feel free to make a new section or add to one that is already created. This section, which YOU created is about the rank of the Holy Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. I already made my reasons clear, negate them or agree with them if you want and then tell me what are your reasons for doing so. DO NOT hijack the discussion. tbh why are you even trying to troll? You tried to cheapshot, I caught you, go back to your life? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Majority of reliable sources state that Muhammad is considered the last prophet by Muslims. The current sentence will be rectified with immediate haste. Please discuss here, together with your list of reliable sources as to why it should be changed. Mbcap (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Muslims believe that Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses (Judaism), and Jesus (Christianity). However Judaism, Christianity and Islam are very different. God (Allah) reserves the right to change his decision and send as many prophets as he wants. Ghulam Ahmad is the last well-known prophet of Islam yet, and there may be more to come. Maybe there were more prophets before and after Ghulam Ahmad as this one, but they were slaughtered by Muslims.--Cleatword (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

False Statement

Please fix this line: " Muhammad (c. 570–8 June 632 CE), considered by most of them to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim."

The Qu'ran openly states that Muhammad is the final & last prophet of God. "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things. (Qu'ran, 33:40)" Therefore, all Muslims must consider him to be the last prophet, otherwise, they're not Muslims by definitions and their beliefs would contradict the Qu'ran. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.91.171.246 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya are a Muslim sect with millions of followers, and they do not regard the prophet Muhammad to be the final prophet. They believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the last prophet--Slooppouts34 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyone could self-identify themselves as "Muslims" and believe in whatever, however, it does not mean anything as the Qu'ran itself and being the central text of Islam, clearly states that Muhammad is the final & the seal of the prophets. Reading the above line may give someone with no prior knowledge of Islam an ambiguous message. At least, it should be clearly mentioned that the Qu'ran considers Muhammad to be the final prophet of God, regardless of whatever group believes in. (23.91.171.246 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC))
As Christians will be familiar with, differences over the interpretation of holy texts does not invalidate your membership to the general religious group. You may disagree with them, but they are still Muslims. Wikipedia is not a place to settle internal religious conflicts. 184.175.41.10 (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"New" slavery section

FreeatlastChitchat created a "new" slavery section, which was copied and pasted from the Islamic views on slavery article. I think there is merit in having a paragraph or two, but rewritten, condensed, and pointing out relevance to the present day.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Slavery and "Family Life" -- request for comments

Closing per an AN request. There is no consensus for the inclusion of the proposed text. Because of the confusing discussion with lots of tangents, unclearly expressed opinions, offtopic commentary and walls of texts, that's about all that can be said here.  Sandstein  12:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "Family life" subsection of this article include the statement "It is lawful for male masters to have sexual relations with wartime female captives and slaves.", or should that information be given elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as in Islamic views on slavery?

*Islam is defined by Quran, and also by the teachings, normative example and way of life of Muhammad which are Sunnah and Hadith. Muhammad was a slave owner and trader, Muhammad captured slaves in battle and Muhammad (like many other Islam's prophets[7]) had sex with his slaves (such as Maria al-Qibtiyya, Rayhana bint Zayd ibn Amr, Al-Jariya, Tukana al-Quraziya and many others [8]). Both Quran (verses such as Quran (33:50), Quran (23:5-6), Quran (4:24), Quran (8:69), Quran (24:32), Quran (2:178), Quran (16:75)) and hadith[9] allow male masters to have sex with female slaves. Islamic sharia law accepted (and accepts) sex slavery [10] In modern times, most Muslims choose to disregard Islamic banking laws, hijab, praying 5 times a day, having 4 wives, and many things. And though it's common sense that if you have children with slaves, they are part of your family. There are many reliable sources such as this: [11], that explicitly state that sex slaves are considered part of family according to Islam. 1 or 2 sentences about it are warranted in the "Family life" subsection of this main article. We ought represent Islam as it is. Slavery is widespread in present time in Muslim world, as evidenced by the acts of ISIL[12], BOKO Haram[13], Taliban[14], Pakistan[15] and many others. In Islamic Republic of Mauritania, there's slavery openly even today [16]. Prominent Saudi religious authority recently called for slavery to be re-legalized there as it's explicitly permitted in the Quran[17]. Egypt, Indonesia, Sudan and Yemen are some other Muslim countries where slavery still exists today[18]--Dustylappss (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Mohamed Ahmed El-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar CEREMONY FOR THE SIGNING OF THE JOINT DECLARATION OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS AGAINST SLAVERY http://www.globalfreedomnetwork.org/grandimam2014/
  • Professor Bernard Freamon teaches courses on modern-day slavery and human trafficking at Seton Hall University School of Law in New Jersey and also specializes in Islamic Legal History:...Rather, the verses(of the Qur'an ndr) contemplate the advent of a slavery-free society through the vehicle of emancipation. ISIS says Islam justifies slavery - what does Islamic law say?
  • Muslim leaders and Scholars worldwide in their Open Letter to Baghdadi (regarding slavery and other things), point 12: The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.Open Letter to Al-Baghdadi.
  • Most traditional sources do not include slavery in normal family life of Muslims.
  • Slavery is illegal in every mouslim country.

(small summary, sorry NawlinWiki :-D ) CallAng222 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would want to see what reliable secondary sources say first. If Fox News says something about Boko Haram, I wouldn't extrapolate that to Islam more generally. Distinguishing fanatical Islam from mainstream Islam may be a way to get some of material in with appropriate weight. Dicklyon (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you would want to consider countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Turkey, all of who are incredibly progressive Islamic countries as opposed to just considering Muslim 'extremists'. To use these points on slavery and sex slavery in the context of Islam as a whole is WP:FRINGE, while if want to make some small corner and point out that this is in existence amongst modern Islamist extremist, who justify these beliefs through parts of the Quran, then perhaps it could work. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Responding to this request for comment. I don't agree with putting it into this article. I think it's WP:FRINGE at best. Especially since you're naming ISIL, Boko Haram, other fanatical groups as your sources. Those are not Islam, those are actually all assaults on Islam. You are forwarding their radical / oxymoron style Islam. I think CallAng222 provided clearer sources, and isn't focusing on terrorist or other sources that are committing genocide against their own people. If you actually read about Muhammad, you see that he preached against slavery, and worked towards abolishing it. Arabia was a very different place back then. Are we going to say female circumcision is an Islamic practice too? Because that was also, along with slavery, something Muhammad preached against and tried to put a stop to. It is not Islam.--SexyKick 23:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad had some 30 wives and plenty of sex slaves. Islam looks be very bad if it's defined by his way of life which are Sunnah & Hadith. So please remove Sunnah & Hadith from the first paragraph of this article.--LalaResne (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad's military career was painfully very similar to ISIL. He beheaded his opponents just like ISIL. For example see Battle of Badr. Furthermore more than 50% of the Muslim world is led by extremists. I sugest what Prasangika37 suggested, that we mention that Islamic laws allows sex slavery [19][20] and that sex slaves are considered part of family [21]. But it's rare in incredibly progressive Islamic countries as Prasangika37 pointed out.--LalaResne (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
LalaResne should be ignored. No contributions to anything. Account seems to be created by someone just to badmouth Islam. I am a muslim and I agree that criticism is everyone's right but this kind of comments are pretty underhand and borderline trolling. myths about 30 wives, beheadings in Badr and all that. Pretty bad try at hijacking the decision. On the topic under discussion I would like to say that Islamic "slavery" should not be mentioned in Family life as such. We should create a separate section for it and explain the concept using the page already created for slavery. This will allow some perspective. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Can I ask if this article is about Islam as written about in the canonical texts and teachings of the faith or is the article about the "ideal" version of Islam. This would help us to decide which way to go. If the article is about most people's ideal version of Islam then I agree this section has no place in the article. However, if the article is about the former reason, then yes it will have to be included. Islam's canonical texts sanction the act of intercourse with whatever one's right hand possesses. This was put into practice by the early Muslims up until the dissolution of the Ottoman empire. Sexy your point regarding Female circumcision hold some truth. There is definitely a strong voice against it at the moment in the west and some Muslim majority countries. However, it has to be said that female circumcision is a strong part of Islam. Muhammad never discouraged its use but on the contrary either made it obligatory or recommended, depending on which school of Islamic Jurisprudence you follow. Majority of the worlds Muslims are Sunnis. They take their learning from either one of four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, them being; Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafii. The Hanafi and Shafii school deem female circumcision as obligatory, whereas the Hanafi and Maliki school views it as recommended. Of course if the article is about people's ideal version of Islam, then there is a point to be made regarding the discounting of these views. Mbcap (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, refrain from making personal attacks. Being a Muslim, I know that most Muslims are taught from a very young age to never question their religion, and be blindfolded bigots. That said, in battle of Badr, two captives – Nadr bin Harith and ‘Uqbah ibn Abū Mu‘ayṭ were beheaded by Ali (the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad) on Muhammad's order.[22]

Now some of Muhammad's sex partners!:

Some Muhammad's Wives:

  • 1. Khadija
  • 2. Sawda
  • 3. Aesha
  • 4. Omm Salama
  • 5. Halsa
  • 6. Zaynab (of Jahsh)
  • 7. Jowayriyi
  • 8. Omm Habiba
  • 9. Safiya
  • 10. Maymuna (of Hareth)
  • 11. Fatema
  • 12. Hend
  • 13. Asma (of Saba)
  • 14. Zaynab (of Khozayma)
  • 15. Habla
  • 16. Asma (of Noman)

Some of Muhammad's concubines/slaves:

  • Mary (the Christian)
  • Rayhana

Muhammad's 4 devoted followers who who "gave" themselves to satisfy Muhammad's sexual desires.

  • Omm Sharik
  • Maymuna
  • Zaynab (a third one)
  • Khawla

Zaynab of Jahsh was originally Muhammad's adopted son Zaid's wife. The fact that Muhammad took her for himself has been problematic to many people, Muslims included. (God does not break His Own Word and He never changes His mind. Now read Sura 33:36-38).

Aesha was only eight or nine years old when Muhammad took her to his bed. According to Hadith, she was still playing with her dolls. This facet of Muhammad's sexual appetite is particularly distressing to Westerners.--LalaResne (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

LalaResne is again trying level best to hijack this discussion. I have made no "personal" attack. I merely pointed out the trend in your edits and account info which is there for all to see. You however have made the so called personal attack, but even then I don't mind. The discussion is about slavery and what kind of content should be created here. your tirade has NO VALUE and your input is ZERO to the issue. All you are trying to do is hijack this discussion. I would like to call you a troll but I will do that after three or more of your unsound disturbances. Please read the very first line of talk page. It says that is not a forum to debate the issue. This is a talk page to generate content. And as your edits show that you are only trolling and giving no input(even negative input or criticism is good as it allows editors to form an opinion) I am pretty sure you are ignorable when it comes to making a decision. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
FreeatlastChitchat, I don't want to dignify your desperate comment by replying to it. Mbcap, I agree with you.--LalaResne (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
LalaResne does seem to have a serious axe to grind and agenda, making it a little hard to even listen to. At the very least any mention of this stuff should be maybe 1 sentence at best. 'There was a precedent of slavery within aspects of the Quran, but is not represented in Islamic culture as a whole'. We don't want to draw a false equivalency here between Islam and slavery, or even worse Islam and sex-slavery. Its fringe stuff. We don't spend paragraphs talking about the one-off comments in Deuteronomy about stoning women and so on in an article about Christianity. Prasangika37 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Prasangika37 All I'm try to say is what I said in my first comment: Islam looks be very bad if it's defined by the way of life of Muhammad, which are Sunnah & Hadith. So remove Sunnah & Hadith from the first paragraph of this article and problem is solved. Quran's verses such as this clearly states that man can have sex with wives and sex slaves. As Mbcap pointed out, sex slavery used to be a part of Islamic Culture until Ottoman Empire. Sex with female slaves is allowed in the canonical texts and teachings of Islam [23] It's nolonger part of Islamic culture because slavery is banned almost everywhere in the world.--LalaResne (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
To imply that to practice Islam means that one either supports or is associated with sex-slavery is WP:FRINGE though and its generally just bad scholarship. If you looked at common encylcopedia articles on Islam, the 'family' in Islam, and books on the subject, would we find that sex-slavery was a main thing talked about?? Perhaps what you can do is find a good, reliable source on the subject and provide a small quote from there? Prasangika37 (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Prasangika37 "Outside of the institutions of marriage and concubinage, however, the Qur'an views all other sexual relationships as illicit." [24] lol.--LalaResne (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess, last comment I'm going to make here on the RFC because, while I assumed good faith with LalaResne at first, I agree with FreeAtLastChitChat that he's really just trolling and here to propagate. This is what I read about FGM. The evidence is truly that FGM and Slavery were pagan Arab practices, that Muhammad made strides and efforts against. Muslims do not take slaves, Muslims do not consider women to be slaves, and ISIL is not Islam. They are murdering a significant, unknown number of Muslims, and committing genocide. Islamic scholars and Imam's are condemning their actions. ISIS and Al Qaeda Are FAKE Muslims, Obama's speech, and the destroying of Sufi's and this on Shiites should be read. Any face of Islam that stands against them is the most important priority for them. Anyone who believes in God instead of them = bad. But LalaResne, I think we can just play some Super Smash Bros on the Nintendo Wii U and, if I win, you can put down the stick and back away from the horse. ;p SexyKick 15:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Both male and female circumcision/genital mutilation are nowhere to be found in Quran or hadith and therefore are not part of Islam. Sex slavery is clearly allowed in many verses such as Quran verse 23:5-6 in the Quran itself! Hadiths are the deeds of Muhammad (PBUH) and therefore have sexual slavery. Muhammad had many sex slaves, such as Maria al-Qibtiyya, Rayhana bint Zayd, Al-Jariya, Tukana al-Quraziya ... Muhammad did execute his opponents & traitors by beheading[25], that's why it's in Islamic Sharia laws and this practice continues to date in many parts of the Muslim world such Saudi Arabia which justifies beheading by Islamic law (See Capital punishment in Saudi Arabia). Slavery is banned in most parts of the Muslim world today, and therefore you are expected to marry the sex slaves before having sex with them. In every Islamic country, there is at least one extremist group and therefore they make up a large chunk of the Muslim world (See List of designated terrorist organizations). Muhammad (PBUH) did free many male slaves after they converted to Islam, many of those slaves remained slaves of Muhammad willingly afterwards and went to battles with Muhammad.--LalaResne (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
LalaResne you are seen as a user with agenda so you won't get much weight during the decision. feel free to quote as much of your POV agenda as you want. I am quite sure that this discussion will serve as a pointer if you try to insert your POV into other Islam related topics from now on. Thank you for making your intentions clear btw. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Sexual slavery is in the Quran, and hence is part of Islam. Until a new prohet alters those parts of the Quran because of new messages of God (Allah), or claims that Muhammad made mistakes/typos in writing down the Quran. Salmaan Taseer, governor of Punjab, was assassinated by his own security guard Mumtaz Qadri, who disagreed with Taseer's opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy law. The killer claimed afterwards “I am a slave of the Prophet and the punishment for one who commits blasphemy is death.” While he was being taken to court, thousands of people, including lawyers in large numbers, showered bags full of rose petals on him and raised slogans in his favour.[26] I think we should ignore hadith (deeds of prophet Muhammad) and not use it to justify sexual slavery in Islam, because who really is Islam's last prophet is highly disputed. Millions believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is the last prophet of Islam, and his Ahmadiyya sect is the fastest growing sect of Islam yet --Cleatword (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There has never been consensus on these entries in Family life, as we can see from here 19:36, 4 October 2014‎ Helpwoks starting from this insertion then there has always been an edit war. Some of the users that pushed those entries are now banned for being multiple accounts or POV pushers. CallAng222 (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC) I have deleted the content about slavery from family life and created a new section about slavery, the content has been taken from wikipedia article about slaveryFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Slooppouts34, your reason for this revert is unclear. The discussion first, does not have any consensus, and second, is not related to where the information hould be kept, it is related to whether the information should be kept. I will move to the proper section, if you do not have any valid objection. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 07:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sandstein, FYI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slooppouts34 --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 14:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015

http://unsheathed.weebly.com/whose-side-are-you-on.html

50.77.247.209 (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The science of Qur'anic commentary and exegesis is known as tafsir.

The sentence

The science of Qur'anic commentary and exegesis is known as tafsir.

under the section Revelations is not incorrect. It is incorrect to use the word "science" when discussing matters of literary interpretation. Such endeavors do not rise, nor can they rise to the necessary level of objectiveness that characterize the term and definition of "science". This is also true to the extent that such exegesis does not follow and cannot follow the scientific method, no matter how much scholars may strive to do so. A less misleading way to state the sentence would be to say:

"The practice of Qur'anic commentary and exegesis is known as tafsir."

Dale Tisdale erthona@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erthona (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam/Archive_28&oldid=1092050574"