Talk:Islamic Society of North America

Accusations

These are unfounded allegations. This article by Umbreen Shah is created with bad intentions and full of distortions if not falsehood. --JuanMuslim 23:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Progressives and others don't like ISNA -- it's not dubious it's an opinion. I think your response to the criticism is warranted. Others have levelled the same criticism of not really criticizing, or even accepting to an extent, Osama bin Laden. ISNA's a mix of members and has a variety of sellers from more or less progressives to more or less wahhabbis. I'm not making a value judgment on ISNA, I'm writing a criticism. You can't just say it's false, because some aspects of ISNA have been associated with such claims, the question is, "is the problem endemic in ISNA, or marginal and they deal with it". You can add responses and the claims may be trumped up and political, but they are not dubious in the sense of not being able to be quoted in this article. gren グレン 23:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Your comments show how much you don't know about ISNA. --JuanMuslim 23:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for not offering a longer response. Since you will be writing criticism about ISNA, please offer criticism by various types of Muslims. I think that ISNA get worse criticism from Muslims who don't consider themselves "Progressive." --JuanMuslim 23:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure how my comments show how much I do not know about ISNA but that is neither here nor there. I wrote criticism because I stumbled across that article on MWU! at the same time I found the ISNA page here. Elements related ISNA have been criticized for September 11 attacks Muslim involvement denial. This article mentions other criticism of ISNA, especially support for Qaradawi whom is controversial. ISNA is controversial in several ways, the issue is whether you believe those matters are ISNA itself or are just problems in the Muslim community being attached to ISNA because it is so large. We are not here to decide that for viewers, but to present the controversy.

Since you seem to have brought this to a semi-personal-opinions level I will tell you what I think. First and foremost I don't know. I think because it is so large it has different sides to it and so part of it is being called liberal while part is being called conservative. It is trying to enfranchise a lot of Muslims with different views and that is hard. Black Muslims are probably a hard case because how many are Nation of Islam related and should ISNA say that those things are acceptable? I think that some vendors at ISNNA probably have/do sell material glorifying/accepting acts the US deems as terrorism as lot more than the U.S. government at least would like. Is this the view of ISNA itself? I wouldn't really think so -- but still, I don't think everyone int he leadership has the same view. So, help my try to improve this article, not just mention some silly thing about my comments showing I don't know much about ISNA. Or convince me of The Truth. ~_~ --gren グレン 23:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, one of the problems is that many groups claim that all Muslim orgs state things like this but then the groups don't offer any proof. That particular article by MuslimWakeup was an opinion piece - a very dubious source - and makes all sorts of claims without offering any proof. It's totally one sided, for example, ISNA, etc all supported Bush in his first election bid. And, soon after 9-11, all these Muslim orgs condemned those responsible for the attacks, etc. And this year, ISNA supported a fatwa against terrorism.

From Article:

American Muslims Working to Root Out Terror from Within (Illinois): So this year at the [Islamic Society of North America's] annual convention, which starts Friday in Chicago and is expected to draw 40,000 people, organizers will mount a new campaign against terrorism and extremism, with posters and pamphlets designed for use in mosques and Islamic schools. The materials, Dr. Syeed said, will provide a theological rebuttal to Muslim extremists who cite the Koran and Islamic texts to justify violence." --JuanMuslim 05:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, here are various quotes by various Muslim orgs, primarily CAIR but also by various people associated with ISNA, condemning 9-11, etc. 911statements. Also check out these articles and this one too. --JuanMuslim 05:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record: there is still no evidence to link Osama bin Laden or his group or any Muslims to 9/11. There are speculations, and a few conveniently in tact passports and other documents found at the scene. No proof. In fact, the proof is quite convincing on the contrary. So for any Muslim organisation to deny the link of 9/11 to any Muslims - is perfectly acceptable.

Fair use rationale for Image:INSA small.gif

Image:INSA small.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations/plagiarism

I've removed several paragraphs from this article that were plagiarized from a 2006 Associated Press article (a reprint is available at http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2006Aug28/0,4675,AmericanMuslimsWomen,00.html). The information is encyclopedic and it should be included, however, it must be rewritten and properly sourced. It is NOT acceptable to copy other people's work. GabrielF 06:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Indiana

Why is the location of their headquarters in Indiana? Does Indiana have a sizeable Muslims population? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahassan05 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Indiana does not have a large Muslim population, and Plainfield, Indiana (a small town several miles southwest of Indianapolis) had a Muslim population near zero prior to ISNA building there. However, Plainfield was founded by Quakers and has a relatively large body of Quakers today; all the school sports teams are nicknamed "Quakers". The Friends church in the US is dominated by the American Friends Service Committee, which is sympathetic to Communism. IN Plainfield this meant that the Quakers were willing to accommodate the ISNA - a red/green alliance as they call it. This is why the ISNA is headquartered in a bucolic area south of a sleepy all-white Quaker town in the midwest US.

Another red/green alliance in Indiana that involved ISNA is the Peace House, part of the Plowshares Project, which is far left of center. One of the original board members of Plowshares was ISNA’s co-founder, Sayyid Syeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.15.34 (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Investigative Project on Terrorism

I dont think this website/org. should be used as a reference. It is clearly biased, and although some of it might/might not be true, it (references/links) should be removed.

Specious accusations

Most of the accusations that claim ISNA is connected to "terrorism" or "Wahhabiasm" are specious at best, fear-mongering at worst, or the citations are in no way suggesting what the author is claiming. SiberioS (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Moreover, the claimed citations from a book called Infiltration, are themselves unsourced or merely repeating hearsay quotes that ISNA "has been accused of ties to terrorism". Such hearsay attributions are not acceptable in a Wikipedia article, for the obvious reasons. SiberioS (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert, because the citations still aren't properly sources to anything amounting to a first hand source. Or are we going to start posting statements from hearsay all over the place? Maybe we should start recording what "friends" and "anonymous sources" have also stated? SiberioS (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

These are properly sourced. You can't delete because of your pov. It is sourced to RSs. It is not tantamount to what your friends have to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well there are lot more "specious allegations" here: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-NUsafi_07pro.ART1.State.Edition2.4be96ce.html. Good luck to anyone who has the chutzpah to incorporate that into this article. Bachcell (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there's sufficient evidence to the contrary of the general allegation made by Sen. John Kyl at the top of the section "Legal Issues" to erase the validity of this claim. I believe this comment needs to come out. I believe a general statement, "As the largest organization of Muslims in America, the ISNA has been a frequent and popular target for Conservative commentary and attack." should be put into it's place to make a more general statement about the nature of this criticism. To that, Senator Kyl's comments and a host of other political figures and pundits can be documented to that statement. And I certainly believe it's more true than the current (discredited) statement that sits there now. It's source is Paul Sperry's diatribe "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington", anyway. A second hand source that is removed from any specific context within the paragraph in which the author presents it, and used to discredit a 3rd party's validity in his attack against them. I do not believe it merits a place here. Can we agree to convert this statement to a more general statement on nature of the criticism itself, rather than trying to make it sound like it's a criticism that "stuck" and has factual merit (as in it's detailing a specific criminal conviction or ongoing/pending criminal litigation)?Meurdrac (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Excessive accusations

Half this article is about accusations of collaboration with terrorist or extremist groups. These accusations have never been substantiated. I came to read to an article with a well-rounded picture of ISNA's activities. Most of the content about accusations should be moved to a separate page. This is undue weight. K. the Surveyor (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A review of the literature indicates it reflects the weight of coverage in the RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This is maybe the largest and most mainstream US Muslim group. The US domestic media may often repeat accusations, but unless substantiated, they are secondary to real activities. What has been proven doesn't merit half the article. K. the Surveyor (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not trying them. We don't assess (if they are the largest) what that means. We don't assess the reporting by the reliable sources. We simply reflect what the RSs say. That is the very well established approach that wikipedia takes.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't cherry pick sources to play up unsubstantiated accusations. K. the Surveyor (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't. We do reflect what the RSs say. The RSs are replete with what the article reflects. If you feel there is more material that should be reflected with regard to ISNA's activities, that is reflected in RSs, please feel free to add it. Having read a substantial amount of what is out there, I can say this reflects the reporting in the press. I understand that you dislike what the press has had to say, but that is what we work with -- the press (or, more accurately, the press and books and articles that wikipedia views as being "reliable sources").--Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If the allegation is not substantiated, the source is not reliable for that piece of information. In fact the source will often admit this. Even a majority can represent cherry picking if it is not a reliable majority. I say some of this unreliable material should be put on a separate page. K. the Surveyor (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

What allegations are not substantiated as allegations? They need not be substantiated as fact -- only verifiable as allegations, and reflected as such. WP is about verifiability, not "truth". There is no need to move them to another page unless one's goal were to censor the dissemination of information.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The section "Alleged link to Hamas" contains a lot of sources that have a clear ax to grind. Center for Security Policy, John Kyl, Fox News, Center for Islamic Pluralism (run by a Muslim neoconservative who opposes Park51) and so on. Expert testimony gets the highest priority, but some of this is not as notable or reliable. Also, I think your characterization of the literature may be outdated at best. Most news articles mentioning ISNA today are about Park51 or about questions of Islam's place in America.

I think more information is needed about ISNA's day to day activities and their statements related to Park51. I will try to add this myself at some point. However in lieu of major additions I think most of the above section should be moved. K. the Surveyor (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree; this is entirely unacceptable. For comparison's sake, I went to the Roman Catholic Church page to look at the way criticism is handled there. In that page, it's not even referred to as "controversy", but as "Contemporary Issues". Yet from even within the ISNA's title section, the statement "It has been a subject of controversy and criticism" was injected. I think that demonstrates that contributors to this page are injecting a prejudice against the organization into this page. I believe this is unacceptable from an editorial standpoint, and a dangerous precedent that could ruin the validity and objectivity contained within Wikipedia's purpose. it's important not to allow detractors of an organization to hijack a wikipedia page for their personal crusade against it. The ISNA is certainly an organization that plays an important role in the American Muslim Community, and the cause for detraction should not be so sensationalized and inappropriately scaled within the article in order as to unduly prejudice a reader into believing that it's some kind of sinister society. The ISNA is certainly no less evil than the Roman Catholic Church is (I don't mean to pick on the Roman Catholics, here, but fairness is my key point). If we allow this to happen, these short-sighted individuals start to send us down the slippery slope where every group and organization will find themselves vulnerable to heavy handed criticism that will destroy the value of wikipedia to the readership. If IBM is allowed to do this to the HP page, and vice-versa, there won't be anything that remains in either of those Wikipedia pages that is of value. I urge those who have engaged in this sort of behavior to recognize the unjustness and the purpose of your criticism. This discussion is intended to improve this page. Not provide a soap box for a larger hatred of Islam. I think this page needs to be held up as an example, and those who have hijacked it's contents need to have their feet "held to the fire" (Inquisition Style would seem to be appropriate) by Wikipedia's staff. Fair, documented instances of criticism certainly have room in this and any other article, but they do not define the organization and what it is and what it does from an organization and practical standpoint. They are noted within the article to provide perspective. Meurdrac (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The following don't seem like reliable sources:

• Cancer In America: The Enemy Within – The Latent Islamic Invasion Into The New World And Its Adverse Affect On America, by John U. Hanna
• Leadership Paradigms in Chaplaincy, by Joel Curtis Graves

Doing a search on the authors did not reveal any information that would qualify them as reliable. As a result I'm removing them. If someone has more information, please feel free to add.VR _talk 23:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sunni or Shia?

Which branches does ISNA represent? Is it inclusive of all branches, or limited to one or the other? --Zfish118 (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a Sunni organization. Snuish2 (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

ISNA Canada

A recent version of this page contained the following paragraph:

An audit of the separately run but loosely-affiliated ISNA Canada, from 2007–2009, found that only a quarter of the funds donated to the organization went to help the poor. Charity donations were mostly spent on the administration of the center or misdirected to private businesses. On September 21, 2013, the Canada Revenue Agency revoked the registration of ISNA Development Foundation, a defunct-charity that operated out of ISNA Canada's headquarters, due to the disbursement of funds to private businesses, including an organization linked to the Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist group. ISNA Canada was not affected by this move, and still has its charitable status, as can be found on the Canada Revenue Agency's website.

Of the six listed sources, only one mentioned ISNA-US. The Toronto Sun only had this:

The ISNA’s American parent organization referred the Toronto Sun to a statement released earlier this year, which distances it from the Canadian branch. “There has been no links of authority or responsibility between the United States and Canadian organizations for a few decades, despite similarity of names,” the statement said.

I have removed the paragraph as a result of WP:PROPORTION but added a link to ISNA Canada to the See also section. Snuish2 (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)