Talk:Muslims/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Muslims. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Moslem vs Muslim (a real discussion)

I've always been taught that up until maybe 20 years ago the two words (Moslem and Muslim) had two distinct meanings. I understand what the article is trying to say, however just let me explain. Traditionally the word "Moslem" was used in the United States to refer to Islamists (I know, this isn't a word either...) who lived abroad or those who have emigrated to the United States from abroad. Basically, "Muslim" was coined by either African-American followers of Islam, or by those describing African-American followers of Islam - the Nation of Islam. For example: Muhammad Ali is a Muslim, Malcolm X was a Muslim - but an Islamist living in Iraq, Iran or even India was a Moslem. My grandparents (who were both very educated and knew a lot of the world) would hear news reports of "Muslims" in another country and they would go on a long speech about how the meaning of the words has changed (read: forgotten) and that the people on TV were idiots. "They aren't Muslims, they aren't even black!" Now, it didn't have anything to do with race or religion to them - both detested racism and so forth. They were just bothered because it seemed like part of the "dumbing down" of America. If anyone can shed some light on this, I sure would like to know (feel free to double post on my talk page). JoeHenzi 10:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

None of this is correct. Moslem spelling equals Muslim spelling...it's about trying to romanize a word from a completely different alphabet.

I'm fairly widely read and I've never heard that. I always understood the preference for Muslim over Moslem and Muhammad over Mohammed to be a question of the transliteration of Arabic. But this could be a distinction used by the African-American community that never made it outside that community. Would be worth noting if you can come up with any cites for the usage (like books, magazines, or newspapers). Zora 10:31, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

....EXACTLY CORRECT.

Well, actually you might want to try the Cincinnati Library. I believe you have limited look up abilities for past newspapers. I'm not sure. I would think this time was in the 1960's if I haven't already said that - which it doesn't look like I did. Maybe the 1970's, but I doubt it. I'm working on trying to pull the stories out, but it isn't easy. It will open a can of political worms that I don't want to touch. Actually the person I'd like to talk to about it is very firm on the issue and likes to change the subject. I'm working on it, for at least the discussion. (Let me add, it could be the 1950's, I'll find out)JoeHenzi 13:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

/...Cincinnati newspaper does not equal expert in the area in question. Trust me on that one.

I should say here that 'Islamist', although sometimes used as a descriptive term for Muslims, also often refers to different concepts:

Ultra-orthodoxy, often referred to as 'fundamentalism'. Islamist may be a better substitution, as Islam is intrinsically fundamental, but not intrinsically hardline. This seems to be the most common usage.
The related sense in which Malise Ruthven uses it - as an extension of the religion of Islam into a political ideology.
Scholarship of Islam.

Matthew Platts 11:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I was always tought that a Moslem was a place where Muslims worshipped. In other words, Moslem = Mosque. I see no mention of that here, was that just a giant boner?

Muslims worship at a mosque (English form of the word). You will also see the word as "masjid", which is the original Arabic. Zora 03:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct. The Arabic for mosque is "jamaa'". "Masjid" is a more general term for a place of worship. Thus a prayer room at say a school, hospital or airport (which in a Christian context would be called a chapel and not a church), is a masjid and not a jamaa'. 24.63.125.78 18:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I never heard this distinction/usage either. I think people get the word mausoleum confused. At any rate, I guess I blurred the line using "islamist", which I'm told isn't even an english word. My point/rant was more about the usage of 'moslem'. Really just wanted to run it across people. I'll try to get down to the library and find out what is going on. JoeHenzi 13:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

In general, this article seems to be overly polemical with regards to the usage of "Muslim" vs. "Moslem." A simple Google News search indicates that, while "Muslim" is far more common, "Moslem" is still widely used by many news organizations, including many English-language publications in the Middle East/Arab World. This contradicts the article which seems to suggest that the use of "Moslem" ended in the 1980s as part of a calculated shift to "Muslim." Citations of such a linguistic movement would help clarify this issue. Otherwise, the article as it stands is inaccurate. 24.63.125.78 19:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism

It is fact that there exist Muslims who are terrorists. Everytime reference to such an item is mentioned, it is consistently deleted from the article. It is apparent that the truth is being censored. Just because you don't like the history -doesn't mean you have to delete it. The Inquisition in the 1400's was a bad time, should we delete it because it gives a negative portrayal that *I* don't like? No. Because it is history. Just as it is history that there are muslim groups that kill and murder other individuals in current times in the name of the muslim religion. Jihad if you will. It is apparent that some muslims are ashamed of these muslim terrorists and don't want the truth to be shared. You are giving a sanatized version of the real muslim religion and it's byproducts of terrorism. Just because it doesn't show muslims in a favorable light doesn't mean you have to cut it from history. It is FACT that many muslims participate in Jihad in Pakistan, Sudan, Palestine, Lebanon, Indonesia, Iraq, Iran, and many other muslim countries. Why do you ignore this? Stop erasing history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.248.1 (talk) 11:47, October 6, 2006

So what? It doesn't really do good to their cause. Besides, people who read it will think bad about them. Those terrorists aren't really Muslim, they say they are.

Etymology

According to the article: The singular form of the word Muslim comes from the Arabic plural form 'Al-Muslimīn, from the tri-consonantal root SLM, also found in the words Islam and salām (peace). The plural form is instanced in the Qur'an, 22:79, Al-Hajj. I have two questions regarding this section:

(1) Why is the Arabic plural cited as the etymological source, when the Arabic singluar is exactly the same word minus the "īn"?

(2) Can someone elaborate on the relationship bewtween the Arabic words for "submission" (Islam) and "peace" (Salam)? If not, this reference strikes me as arbitrary and misleading. 24.63.125.78 19:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC) ü

Striver's articles, refusenik

At least I think it was Striver who wrote short, stub-like articles on Munafiq, Kafir, etc. and linked them to the Muslim article. I moved them out of the See Also category, where they were incomprehensible, and translated them. However, I'm not at all sure that they're necessary or useful. That section could just be deleted, and the articles themselves folded into the List of Islamic terms article.

As for the Muslim refusenik -- it's only ONE PERSON, Irshad Manji, who uses the term, and that is really not notable enough to justify linking Refusenik (Muslim) to an article of much broader scope. Zora 12:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The reason i organized them that way is that those three words represent three parts of the same spectrum. And there is two spectrums, one for inner and one for shown belief. --Striver 16:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

But that is your OWN belief and your OWN classification, so far as I can tell. It's not necessary to import it into the Muslim article, which should really just pass people on to the Islam article. If the terms are in the List of Islamic terms, where people can find out what they mean if they run across them reading, surely that's enough. Zora 00:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Zora. It's almost totally irrelevant to include those terms in this article, as it adds nothing to understanding the meaning of the word 'Muslim'. Going to be deleted. ---Mpatel (talk) 11:01, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, maybe that deletion I just did was a little drastic, but I can justify it thus: 'Muslim' is defined at the start of the article. Those other words, 'Kafir' etc., do not really describe 'shades' or 'spectra' of being a Muslim (certainly not kafir!!!). A muslim is a muslim, period. True, there are people who claim to be muslims, but don't actually follow the religion with the correct intention - that renders them non-muslims, as we get reminded every Friday. However, their (false) claim of being muslim doesn't mean that we should change the definition of 'muslim' to accomodate such people - this argument can lead to madness, as you could easily incorporate members of sects that claim to be Islamic into the definition of 'muslim' if the argument was pushed to it's extreme. That's why I'm going to reinstate the section on misconceptions (or something similar), where these ideas can be dumped and reorganised at your leisure. ---Mpatel (talk) 11:14, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Misconceptions

Mpatel, I took out your section on Misconceptions of Muslims. That's apologetics and out of place. If you have a strong stomach and a thick skin, you might want to have a look at Criticism of Islam and defend Muslims there. Zora 11:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Zora, I think you may have got the wrong impression as regards my intentions for including the misconceptions section. I certainly wasn't trying to be apologetic; I just thought an article on 'Muslim' should include information on what is 'not a muslim'. Having said that, I realise that it's out of place - I wasn't aware of the Criticism of Islam article. ---Mpatel (talk) 13:55, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Isa, Ibrahim, Musa, etc...

Dear folks, here are my reasons for removing the unnecessary sentence of They could not accept Muhammad as a prophet, because he had not yet been born:

First of all, it doesn't make sense to the text before. Read the whole para carefully and check this fact;
Second, the text before doesn't imply necesserally what comes later (Muslims describe many Biblical figures as Muslims because they submitted completely to God is what is believed in Islam and that's why it is mentionned in WP);
Third, If you accept the sentance to be there then you automatically accept that they should not accept the Messiah, because he is not born/reborn yet.

I hope I was clear enough. Cheers -- Svest 22:40, September 10, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

But there's a logical problem. If a Muslim is anyone who submits to God, then it could be argued that many Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. who have lived since Muhammad, submitted completely to God but not to Muhammad. Muslims exclude them from the ummah. Therefore recognition of Muhammad must be a component of being a true Muslim after the seventh century. People who lived before Muhammad are not required to accept him, but those who lived afterwards are -- or at least most Muslims would so argue. That's why I put that sentence there. The para looks OK without it, and I'm not going to fight to put the sentence back, but the logical problem the sentence was intended to solve remains. I suppose there must be some Muslim theological commentary on this issue ...

It's an issue for Christians too. Zora 01:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree but I don't see any contradiction there Zora. Instead, the problem is that the definition of being a Muslim in the article is not accurate. Surrendering to God in Islam is the defintion of both saying the shahada, believing in all prophets of the people of the book, in angels, in paradise and heaven, in the day of judgment... In other beliefs, surrendering yourself to God has a different definition.

On the other hand, We all know that Islam (through the Koran) recognizes all Abrahamic prophets and as a consequence the people who followed their "unchanged" messages as Muslims. But, did those people recognize Muhammed? Yes and No. No because he was not born yet but yes because Islam believes that on the Abrahamic books, there was mentions of a comming prophet apart from the Messiah. This the point that we are missing here and that explains the logical problem. Cheers and respect -- Svest 02:15, September 11, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Postulating vanished versions of the Torah and the Gospels in order to solve theological difficulties strikes me as logically indefensible, but it's clear that logic doesn't apply here. So I'll just shut up <g>. Zora 07:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Jazzakallah FayssalF the comments at the top are my changes those who wish to corrupt the truth wrote the words that you corrected. --Courageous 06:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been called an Islamo-fascist bitch, a Bengali, and a Zionist enforcer, and now I'm a corrupter of the truth. Cool! Zora 07:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Bengali? There is 'nothing' wrong with being Bengali. This is not "cool" this is wrong --Courageous 08:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC) Nothing was missing for some reason? --80.1.103.87 16:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

New version

I am not sure if Courageous is really new to WP or not. It seems that he knows all the rules and therefore if she/he can have a look at Zora contributions she/he must understand that Zora is neither a Bengali (though nothing wrong being a Bengali) nor an Anti-islamic editor.

I think it was Zereshk (or was it Southern Comfort?) who accused me of being Bengali. Accordiing to the accuser, I should stick to editing Indian film articles and stay out of any Iran-related articles. I thought being taken for a Bengali was absolutely wonderful! I'd just like to have the sarees and the gold jewelry appropriate for a Bengali mom of a certain age ... Zora 00:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, You should not shut up Zora. If the problem is about logic then we have to discuss it and fix it. And I think this is why I had to find a logical and real version of the facts. I therefore invite everybody to check the actual version of the article now. Cheers -- Svest 16:41, September 11, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Where is the link proving that Muslim is also a name for concentration camp inmates? And where is the link to prove that " Muslim also means weak or vulnerable state, especially female Jews." This is an openly insulting comment and should be removed. The Muslim article in wikipedia has a long history of abuse and this is one of them. As I previously mentioned, and has been proved by reliable sources Jews against zionism and Norman Finkelstein, Zionists use the Holocaust incorrectly to gain sympathy for the state of Israel. These Zionists hate Muslims to the core, how difficult is it to believe they would write and support such a lie? The Word nothing was removed from my comments above. This has also been removed. (Unsigned comment by 80.1.103.87)

I have found many sources of course. However, most of them are Jewish references like jewishvirtuallibrary.org, www.holocaustcenterbuff.com. Cheers -- Svest 17:15, September 11, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

I am reverting that back. Reason? Simply it was used as a slang in the concentration camps. Svest 22:17, September 11, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

(159) "Among the people of Moses there is a party who guide others in the way of the truth and establish justice in its light.

(162) Then the wrong-doers among them substituted another word in place of the one told them. So We sent upon them a scourge from the heaven as a punishment for their wrong-doing." Quoting Surah Al A’raf (The Heights) 7: from the Quran --Courageous 17:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes Courageous. What's your point? -- Svest 17:15, September 11, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Qur'an cite

Why is it necessary to have a Qur'an cite for Muslim? As I understand it (and I'm not an Arabic speaker), Muslim is just a regular formation from the root SLM (salaam, peace, Islam, submission) and means those who submit. You certainly don't need a Qur'an reference for every Arabic word you use. If you're going to have it, you could just put it as a reference, instead of repeating the whole verse. It gives an air of piety to the article, which, IMHO, is not encyclopedic.

Some of the problems we're having editing the Islam-related articles is that the Muslim editors are used to a certain style of discourse (lots of pious interjections and praise names, liberal use of Qur'an and hadith quotes) that seems over-the-top to anyone who doesn't come from that milieu. I don't think that style belongs in Wikipedia -- any more than the same kind of behavior by Christians (Praise the Lord and Bible quotations) belongs here.

I'm reading a fascinating book by Ziauddin Sardar, Desperately Seeking Paradise, about his life as a Pakistani-English Muslim. Ziauddin is just dead-on funny and sarcastic about Muslims he knew who spoke by rote. Once you subtracted all the formulas, there was nothing left. He doesn't spare ANYONE ... Tablighi Jamaat, Qutbis, Salafis, Sufis. But he's serious about wanting to be a good Muslim. I'm only 1/4 done and looking forward to the rest of the book. Zora 01:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Zora. A simple link to surat Al-Hajj would be sufficient to link to the source of the first usage of the word in history. Svest 20:16, September 12, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Usages of the word Musselman

Though the word Musselman got nothing to do with Mussulman, some editors edited that the Musselman is a Nazi slang for Muslim used to describe female jews prisoners in their bad state. I was not sure about that but after checking and rechecking I found no reference to that Musselman refered to Muslim! The only relationship was the spelling (indeed Mussleman is not Mussulman). Nonetheless, I just left things as they are and added other usages of the word. I hope this would make the controversy clear if not worse as the article would look like a list of the word Musselman instead of being an article about Muslim! It's up to you guys. -- Svest 20:12, September 12, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Rewrite

I removed the reference to the belief section in Islam. Let's NOT go there. As soon as we start using this article to expand on who is a Muslim and who isn't, it's going to start mushrooming again.

I removed all the extra references to Musselman because they were clearly derived from the use of Musselman as a last name. I don't have access to a German municipal or New York City phone book right now <g> but I suspect that there would large contingents of Musselmans in any such phone book. But I did bury the reference to concentration camp prisoners in a discussion of other words used for Muslim, which makes it clear that the origin of the concentration camp slang is obscure. Zora 21:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

First, I thought that Wikipedia is right! But than I was like maybe not. And not supprisingly found no reference to a relationship between Mussleman and Muslim in the NAZI dictionary. Instead of being rude removing that in bullk, I tried to be an incluonist. I truly believe that it looks 90% fine now. Only some adjustments are needed for the intro. Cheers -- ^{Wiki me up}

The Etymology section was the key than. I prefer this version. Thanx Zora. Cheers -- Svest 22:16, September 12, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Spelling

Svest, it's consonant rather than consonent, and consonantal rather than consonental. Plus, I don't think the red link to an as-yet-nonexistent page for tri-consonantal root should be deleted, since it's a crucial concept in the study of Semitic languages, not just Arabic. Zora 01:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the mistake. As for tri-consonantal root, I think that for good editing, it's better to remove [[]] for red links until they exist. I just wonder why you think I removed them because I thought it was smthg related only to Arabic!! If you ever have visited my User page you'd have read that I am a Citizen of the world speaking a couple of languages. Cheers -- Svest 01:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Concentration camp usage

I rewrote the few sentences dealing with the concentration camps, AGAIN. Someone, sometime, had written that there was absolutely no connection between the term as meaning "follower of Islam" and the slang usage. I do not think that this negative has been demonstrated, or can be demonstrated. Myself, I can come up with a folk etymology, off the top of my head, that makes sense to me. One aspect of the stereotype of the Muslim, in European eyes, is that the Muslim believes that everything is written in the book of fate, that it is all the will of Allah, therefore there is no point in striving or struggling. Ergo, someone who stops striving is a Muslim/Musselman. I wouldn't put that in the article, since it's speculative, but it's a possible origin for the slang. Logically, all we can claim is that the origin of the slang term is obscure. We can't definitely say that there is no hsitorical connection between the two uses of the word. Zora 18:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zora. I am neither with nor against having that included in the article. As a reader, I'd not consider that offensive just because it relates Jews, Holocaust, Nazis, Muslims, etc... However, I thought someone would come up with a source stating the realtionship between the slang term and being a Muslim, since the source (The Jewish library) doesn't explain the origin. I am aware that you are a very good editor and a very experienced wikipedian. I am wondering now that since you believe it is a speculative and possible origin of the term, than why include it? It is just like speculating that someone called John Musulmann had Muslim roots, or Mussulmann Hotel chains belonged once to a rich Muslim family! Cheers -- Svest 18:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Very experienced ... not really. I think I'm a good editor, but that's probably vanity.

Thinking over what other Wikipedia articles have done, it would be possible to move that entry out of the main article and into its own little space below a rule, as in the article on Laundry. I don't want to drop it entirely, because someone might run across the term in something relating to the Holocaust, and look it up in Wikipedia. Zora 19:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that is a kind of vanity. You are not saying that. I am saying that.

Your idea sounds fine to me. However, there are some points worth discussing:

In the Laundry article, the section added at the bottom is like the sections that I added a while ago about Mussulmann Hotel, John Mussulmann, Mussulmann Canyon, etc... So if we have to add something, we need to add the later also.
I don't agree about that someone would look up the word in Wikipedia just to find it in Muslim article. That suggests simply that really there's a connection and a relationship, which isn't sure for the moment. Following your logic, the section should be included in the Holocaust article instead. As I told you, maybe the word comes from a name of a Jew who was detained in one of the camps! There are a lot of maybes surrounding that and one of them is what we say in the article. Cheers -- Svest 19:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Latest tweaks

I changed the first para slightly -- I don't think it changed the meaning, it's just an attempt at less pompous and circuitous wording. I said "Most Muslims" because the Kharijites wanted being a Muslim to include much much more than just saying the Shahada. One could reasonably argue that contemporary Salafis and jihadis also require much more of Muslims than just saying the Shahada, since they're willing to kill Muslims whom they believe to be infidels or hypocrites. We don't need to go into that, but "Most Muslims" seems more accurate.

As for the use of the word "Musselmaun" in WWII German concentration camps -- this is not something that can be disputed. I've run across it numerous places. I'm starting to get the impression that using the word for JEWS is upsetting (which is anti-Semitism) and that using it as slang is NOT OK. Well, folks play with words and do weird and upsetting things with them. For an analogous case, take the current US teen use of "gay" to mean inferior, stupid, bogus, etc. I think that's homophobic, and I wouldn't use the term that way. But other people do, and I can't scold or punish them all. I imagine that this bit of slang will die and be a historical curiosity some day. Now, imagine anti-homophobic activists declaring that this slang use of "gay" had never really existed, it was all made up, there were very few attestions of its use ... they would be trying to whitewash history. Those of you trying to remove or deny the concentration camp usage of "Musselmaun" are doing the same thing. Just accept that people play with words and they're not always nice. That's a fact. Zora 20:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the use of "musselman" in concentration camps, any explanation must acknowledge popular misconceptions and stereotypes. “Musselman” is an acceptable German variant for "Muslim." The emaciated camp inmate who had lost the will to survive, who belonged to the living dead, who moved like a zombie, reminded other inmates of the emaciated holy men whose pictures they had seen in books and newspapers. These figures were loosely associated with the mystic East, the Orient, the Holy Land, the Crusades, Palestine, the Levant and Lebanon, dervishes, fanatical followers of the Mahdi (circa 1884), unwrapped mummies, India, beds of nails, dancing cobras, gurus, fakirs, and Ghandi. All were lumped together in the popular imagination as “Muslim,” for which the totem was a gaunt wasted body, mere skin and bones, with all the fat cooked out of it by heat, sun, drought, fasting, hunger, deprivation, and devotion. This was the plump European view that naturally led camp inmates to nickname the bony hollow-eyed victim a “musselman,” even while they were becoming no different themselves.

George Park

Pronuciation

"Muz-lim" is

How do you know that the dictionary is wrong? Any sources that explain this? Bayerischermann 02:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have witnessed endless online brawls over pronunciation, among writers and copyeditors who care very much about words. What usually emerges is that the homogeneity of the written English language hides the immense variety of spoken dialects. If a linguist were to study this issue, he/she might find that Muslim is preferred in the area where AE lives, and that Muzlim is used in other areas, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Let's drop the pronunciation guide and leave it to the vagaries of spoken English to determine how the written word is said. Zora 03:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Mirriam-Webster (the source you cited) says that it is pronounced two ways. Mus-lim is the first way; Muz-lim is the second. You were arguing that Muz-lim is the only one that is correct. However I still believe that Muz-lim is the wrong pronounciation as مسلم (MuS-lim) is the original translation from Arabic. I suggest we keep that one only because that is the original from that language; we should always keep original. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 10:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

No, English doesn't always keep the original. We say Pair-iss (Paris) not Paree, as the French do. We say Japan instead of Nihon, as the Japanese themselves do. When words move from one language to another, they change. If a reputable English dictionary says that both pronunciations are OK, it's not up to us to rule them wrong.

How about saying something like, "The word is pronounced Muslim in Arabic, but English dictionaries allow both Muslim and Muzlim." If readers want to use the Arabic pronunciation, that's up to them. Zora 11:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay I have fixed this in the article.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it some more <g>, removing the editorializing re the "correct" pronunciation. Zora 22:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the use of "musselman" in concentration camps, any explanation must acknowledge popular misconceptions and stereotypes. “Musselman” is an acceptable German variant for "Muslim." The emaciated camp inmate who had lost the will to survive, who belonged to the living dead, who moved like a zombie, reminded other inmates of the emaciated holy men whose pictures they had seen in books and newspapers. These figures were loosely associated with the mystic East, the Orient, the Holy Land, the Crusades, Palestine, the Levant and Lebanon, dervishes, fanatical followers of the Mahdi (circa 1884), unwrapped mummies, India, beds of nails, dancing cobras, gurus, fakirs, and Ghandi. All were lumped together in the popular imagination as “Muslim,” for which the totem was a gaunt wasted body, mere skin and bones, with all the fat cooked out of it by heat, sun, drought, fasting, hunger, deprivation, and devotion. This was the plump European view that naturally led camp inmates to nickname the bony hollow-eyed victim a “musselman,” even while they were becoming no different themselves.

George Park

Zeenhasan's edits

The addition of the "Disputes" section on the surface seems like a good idea, and the material that Zeenhasan added is well-written, balanced, and useful, but .... I'm worried that this is going to open the door for another inflation of the article. At one point this article had turned into another version of Islam, just less well-policed. I trimmed the article down RADICALLY, to just a discussion of the word. If we open the article up to a discussion of who's a Muslim and who's not, then it could balloon. I'll wait and see what happens before I say "I told you so". I could be wrong (what a shock!). Zora 18:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure enough, someone just reverted away my edits. However, I've added a cultural Muslim article and linked to it, which will hopefully prevent a revert war.--Zeeshanhasan 12:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Classifications

Striver keeps adding his classification scheme to this article. It's his own little hobbyhorse. There is no evidence that any other Muslims accept or use this schema; there are no references supporting it. It's just that Striver seems to love classifying and listing things. Please leave it OFF. Zora 08:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, stop it, it just says that Muslims can be called different things. What is your problem with that? --Striver 11:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Zora, I do agree that Striver is clearly obsessed with classification. But I must admit that the links Striver added are obviously relevant in this instance. What I do have a problem with is its presentation. Above the links it says "Muslims inward can be described as:". How exactly can Muslims (which means, as it says in the opening paragraph, one who submits to God) be classified as a fasiq (shameless sinner), munaqif (hypocrite), and kafir (a complete disbeliever). Obviously none of those terms describe Muslims. And how about the term "Muslim" being used to describe Muslims? That sounds like circular logic. I believes those links should instead be moved into the "See also" section under a different heading. joturner 18:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you did not know it, but a Muslim is a Muslim even if he does not belive in it, it is enough to say the Shahada. A Muslim is not someone who submits to God, but somone that says the Shahada and does a few things. What he believes in or not is none of our concern.

A Muslim could be pure hypocrits, not beliving a word of it, but as long as they pretend, they are Muslims what conserns us. We can call them munaqif, but not Aposate or Kafir.

A Muslim could also be someone that agrees with alcohol being Haram, but still drinks in public, that does no make him non-Muslim, it makes him a Muslim alcoholist, a fasiq.

The quran it self distincts between a Muslim and a beliver :)

--Striver 05:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Distinction between a believer and a Muslim

Striver, I've read one academic essay that suggests that that medieval Muslims were much more concerned with faith (iman) than Islam, and would describe themselves as believers rather than as Muslims. I'm not sure that the Qur'an verse can necessarily be interpreted in the fashion you describe. Since I don't think we have any editors who could deal with this matter, it should be dropped. I've removed it. Zora 09:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"medieval Muslims"? The verse addreses Muhammads contemporaries. "would describe themselves as believers rather than as Muslims" suggest the same thing as the verse, that there is a distinction between Islam and belief. Its not going to be removed, the verse is as clear cut as it gets, there is no alternative way at looking at it. --Striver 10:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing Striver's edits again

Striver, there's no need for that Qur'an cite. It really doesn't explain anything. Nor is there any need to link to all those lists you created, which are empty, pointless vanity articles. There is a List of Muslims, that's enough.

I put back the concentration camp cite just because someone MIGHT look for it here. (I've read material re the camps that used the word Muslim.) It's off at the bottom of the page, all by itself, it's clearly indicated that there's no documented link to Islam, and it doesn't hurt anything or anyone. Reaally. Zora 11:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Qur'an quote

Is that the only Qur'an quote to use the word Muslim? I don't think we need the quote, but a reference to any verses that use the word Muslim might be useful to readers. Like this:

"The term Muslim is used in the Qur'an in these verses: XXXXXXX."

Zora 01:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That verse is presented to show that the Qur'an makes a distinction between Muslim and beliver, "since the heart is not pentrated with belief". --Striver 04:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Without any framing or interpretation, the quote doesn't make sense. If you do frame or interpret, then you're presenting your own personal version of Islam. If you quote various tafsir, then the article balloons.

Striver, this article has had to be continually cut down, because it should just be about the term "Muslim". It is not a place to expound on who is really a Muslim, or what Islam means. That should be in the main Islam article. Zora 05:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Musselman Reference

The reference to the world musselman during the Holocaust keeps re-appearing at the bottom of the article. Not only is there no source stating that the word relates to the alternative word for Muslim, but it's also in the incorrect place. Based on the Talk page from September, it seems like no one believes the mention is relevant. Therefore, I'm taking it off until someone proves otherwise. joturner 21:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

See Muzulman. `'mikka (t) 05:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Added to last section

Since the last para is proving to be controversial, as I feared, I'm making an attempt to make it less provocative. It is indeed true that religious squabbles often ended in declarations of takfir. Hence it's not just the Ahmedi or the Shi'a who are the targets -- it seems like every group of Muslims is regarded as unbelievers by another group of Muslims. Zora 08:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I looked at Anonymous Editor's edits and then thought a bit and rephrased that last section rather thoroughly. Judging a group deviant by the "principles of Islam" -- or some such wording -- implies that the writer knows what the principles of Islam are, and can judge others by these principles. However, since every group believes that it alone knows the true principles of Islam, this is not really a good yardstick. All you can say is that some groups accept or reject other groups as fellow-Muslims. Zora 20:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I am okay with the change, however, I believe that section shouldn't exist at all. This article was better when it was just simple and factual and not argumentative. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The section is vital, in terms of pointing out that there isn't a concensus on the concept of who is a muslim. This page deals with the concept Muslim, not Islam, and there role of the last passage is not to judge who is a Muslim or not, but to point out that there are diverging views. --Soman 23:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Shi'a and Sunni

again, i am editing !!! from where have you brought this falsified statment (Many Sunni regard the Shia and the Allawi sects as non-Muslim.), if this is right, the percente of those who do this not more than 5 % of unknowledged people ... please insert in encylcopedia NO PROPAGANDA !! any one will understand this .. stop attacking others !! and accusing them!!—the preceding unsigned comment is by 84.138.119.119 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure if I understand you, but specifics regarding Shi'a and Sunni relations is covered in Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations Ohnoitsjamie 02:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

He is saying, let's not make up facts to aid what ever crusade people think they are on. --Yas121

Pigs

What is it about pigs that muslims don't like. I don't get it. User:slamdac

Eating pigs is wrong in Islam and it is also in Judaism. I could explain why but instead here's a good article about this [1]. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Muslims "keep kosher" to a certain extent. Animals must be slaughtered in a certain way if the meat is be "halal", and some animals, such as pigs, are entirely off limits. Zora 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected this article to thwart an annoyingly persistent vandal with a rotating IP address. Feel free to de-protect when he has gotten bored. DJ Clayworth 22:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Muslim

Zeenhassan, please don't try to widen the definition of Muslim to include "cultural Muslim". It's inherently argumentative, as it seems to claim that you can be a "Muslim" without any religious belief whatsoever.

It's not news that there are many many people who are formally adherents of various religions but who take their religious obligations very lightly. These may be "Christians" who go to church once a year, on Easter, or Muslims who never do salat or go on Fridays, but keep Ramadan because everyone else in their family does. There are people whose religious affiliation is so merely formal that they may participate only when dead -- as they get a Christian or Muslim funeral.

However, the existence of such folks doesn't mean that they should be accepted as the standard by which being a Christian or a Muslim (or a Buddhist or a Hindu or whatever) should be defined. Zora 17:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zora,

Regarding your first paragraph, from my perspective it is possible to be Muslim without any religious belief whatsoever. In much of the world, religions define communities as much as personal beliefs. Those communities are often distinguished by language (for example in India, where Muslims spoke Urdu more frequently than Hindi) and a host of other cultural factors. Perhaps your different perspective simply reflects a more Western location where people primarily have a European or American cultural/national identity, and religion is only relevant to personal beliefs.

Regarding your last paragraph, Is it the business of an encyclopedia to decide who gets to be Muslim and who doesn't? NPOV requires that if people exist who consider themselves culturally Muslim, then we should use terminology and language to fairly describe their perspective. --Zeeshanhasan 07:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You say, "from my perspective" ... that seems like prima facie evidence of consulting ONLY your own opinions. You have no references! Is there anyone besides Zeeshanhasan who believes in "cultural Muslims"? Unobservant Muslims, yes, but cultural? I have never heard the term, and I read a lot (books, journals, newspapers -- even European and Indian newspapers). Show that this is a notable opinion (held by a significant number of people) and then of course we'll include it. Zora 08:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at the list of links attesting to usage of the term "cutural Muslim" on the cultural Muslim article. --Zeeshanhasan 11:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for help on Forgiveness article

I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Islam heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Islam's view on forgiveness? Any help would be appreciated. --speet 04:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Religion of submitting to God

AE, Timothy is right -- that second sentence you added is unnecessary and quite awkward. If you MUST have something in there about about Islam, just say that previous prophets submitted to God, which is Islam, and that they were therefore Muslims. You can do that with three words rather than a duplicate sentence. I'm going to wait a bit and if there are no objections, change it. Zora 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't add it, it was already there and I don't agree with what Timothy did by removing it completely. I thought it repeated too so I shortened it later. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"Therefore, Muslims also believe that Islam existed long before Muhammad."

This, too, is redundant - the only information the reader might glean from this at this point is that Moses lived long before Muhammad.Timothy Usher 22:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Then fix it. I'll be fine with it you can find a better way of adding that, because Muslims believe that the same message was preached by all the prophets, that Islam existed long before Muhammad. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this implicit when one says that Moses was a Muslim? Perhaps adding Adam, Noah and Abraham to the list of prophets would achieve the same effect?Timothy Usher 22:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No it won't. The difference is between the belief that they were all Muslims and that of saying that the religion existed long before. Not all readers will understand if it means the same thing. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that is better. Thanks for your work on this.

Should you be so inclined, I invite you review my numerous edits of Christianity over the past few days, most of which involved simplification of awkward passages and deletion of superfluous text, off-topic points of doctrine, etc. and were met with no protest whatsoever. In other articles, every little shred is fought over tooth and nail, as if wikipedia were itself sacred text.Timothy Usher 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

1.5 billion muslims

Although it may be true, there really should be a source stated for this number. Travelbird 20:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Council on American-Islamic relations [2] put the numer at 1.2 billion. I'll change the fifure acrodingly. If anyone has better figuers, he/she is welcome to correct this (put please only with stated source)

Travelbird 20:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

User from IP Adress 193.164.126.17 lacks self-respect and has vandalised the page. If this user has any issue about the page, let him please address them respectfully in the discussion page. All religions should be respected.

Arabic ≠ "Islamic"

In his edit summary, AE wrote, "not when referring to the specific perspective; Islamic in Islamic article." We must emphasize yet again that these words are Arabic not "Islamic". English-speaking Muslims often use English terms, just as Arabic-speaking Christians use Arabic terms.Timothy Usher 05:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly and it's mostly the "Arabic" - related perspective that Muslims take, not the "Biblical" or what the "english" one. It's a matter of putting Jesus first makes it pov and incorrect; Muslims don't accept Jesus as "Jesus" in biblical belief. That's why both perspectives were given, but the one that's closer to the Islamic one (Musa) is given first. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor, the biblical Jesus is the same as Isa. Please show me one verse in the Bible in which Jesus says "I am God". It is christianity Jesus that differs from Isa. --Aminz 07:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, you wrote in your edit summary, "the point there is that it isn't the Biblical "english" interpretation that's accepted in this article, but the Qur'anic interpretation."

No part of the Bible was written in English. It is incorrect for you to assert yet again ([3], [4], [5], [6]) that the motivation for translation into English is Christianity.Timothy Usher 05:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't said or meant. The point here is that the "Arabic name" interpretation is closer to the Islamic belief. The English name is commonly connected to the Biblical belief. I don't like it either but that's what it is. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added diffs above to illustrate how one might arrive at this impression of what you meant.Timothy Usher 05:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue about what you think I believe. Please stop wasting talk pages with arguments and concentrate on the issue or leave it alone. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. "The English name is commonly connected to the Biblical belief." So what? It doesn't mean these aren't the established English terms. We shouldn't be using foreign words in order to broadly correct misinterpretations readers might bring to Wikipedia, and indeed by preventing translation through constant reverts, you're contributing to the problem you've identified.Timothy Usher 06:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

On wikipedia as I've said before, we keep all titles, dates, etc that are closest to the perspectives. For example, using AD/BC in Christian articles and CE in non-Christian articles or linking the article with most about Islamic interpretation first in Islamic article. I agree that there is a problem with English-speakers not being able to figure it out but this will not make them more aware of it. Sorry but the English name is still connected to the Biblical belief. If you can go change all the Biblical name articles by making them not about the Christian figure as is commonly agreed then I can accept it but we know that won't happen. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anybody explain to me why "The Biblical version " of Jesus is different from the Qur'anic one. --Aminz 07:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Because of the difference in beliefs. The biblical perspective is of course that of Christianity that considers Jesus as part of the trinity. Islamic belief is that he was a prophet along with many other differences. It's not versions, it's perspectives. And that's why we need the correct perspective linked in the context of the religion the article is related to. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 08:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for using the word "version". My English is not good and don't know what I am saying. But it is not the Biblical perspective, it is the Christian perspective. I understand why you want to use two words. As I was guessing you want to make sure that people do not look at the Islamic concepts from their own (e.g. Christian) perspective. I guess you believe that having different words helps the readers to distinguish between the concepts (or beliefs) and clear up their minds for new information. Well, I think this is a sincere argument. Of course using the English word has both advantages and disadvantages. Using the same word on the other hand has some advantages that we discussed before. We just do not agree that which one is better. I have an argument to prove that using the English word is better. Here is my own thought that may not be true. At the time of Muhammad, Pagans were worshipping many gods. They were using the word “Allah” to refer to their highest God (Although Arab Jews and Christians were also using this term in addition to the Hebrew terms for God I think). Qur’an could have used another word for God by the same argument as you said, BUT it took the same word that was familiar to people and people had some ideas about it and then redefined it for people. I think our situation is the same. There is a trade-off here. I personally think using English words is better. Thanks --Aminz 08:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"And that's why we need the correct perspective linked in the context of the religion the article is related to." - If the goal here is to preserve the links, there's an easy solution: [[Jesus in Islam|Jesus]]. Better still, let's see what we can do to bring Muslim editors to articles such as Jesus, God, etc., such that we could link to Jesus without qualification. The idea of a division between "Christian" and "Muslim" articles is un-wikipedian, misguided and the very essence of a POV fork. Deficiencies in other articles are reasons to change them, not reasons to compromise the comprehensibility of this one.Timothy Usher 08:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"No all articles connect to the name in English too anyways." - what do you mean by this?
"On wikipedia as I've said before, we keep all titles, dates, etc that are closest to the perspectives." - and this? I thought we were supposed to aim for neutrality.
"For example, using AD/BC in Christian articles..." - there is no such thing - or shouldn't be, at least - as a "Christian article", only articles about Christianity from a neutral point of view.Timothy Usher 06:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"I though we were supposed to aim for neutrality" - That's exactly why the accepted perspective of the religion is used first instead of that of another religion. This isn't the place to make new policies about what exactly English names refer to. If you can go change all the "English" name articles by making them not mostly about the Biblical/Christian perspective, as is agreed, then I can accept it but we know it won't happen. I don't see your problem here, since both names were linked anyways. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"This isn't the place to make new policies about what exactly English names refer to." - The English names don't refer to religious concepts, but to individuals around whom religious concepts have arisen. For example, the statement, "Jesus was only a teacher" is perfectly comprehensible, and stated often by non-Christians who are favorable to his teachings. "Jesus was a Muslim prophet" is similarly comprehensible - in fact, far more so than "Isa was a Muslim Prophet", because at least English-speaking readers will understand what we're saying.Timothy Usher 06:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"The English names don't refer to religious concepts, but to individuals around whom religious concepts have arisen." I agree with that but that's not the case on wikipedia. But we aren't just talking about the names here, but the article and therefore the perspective that is being linked first. And it's clear that the "English name" articles in this case mostly concern the biblical perspective. This is not all about names, but which perspective is linked. If you can go change all the "English" name articles by making them not mostly about the Biblical/Christian perspective, as is agreed, then I can accept it but we know it won't happen. I don't see your problem here, since both names were linked anyways. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Butting in, but y'all needed at least one more opinion... I'm nobody and not an expert ...

To equate the "English name" necessarily as being "Christian biblical" is rather strained for me. But then, the order of two versions of a name, Arabic and 'English', being a large matter is more strained for me.

The name pairs do need to be side-by-side, and I'm glad that each of the pairs are linked (though 'Musa' needs a direct link). And being side-by-side, and in the context of the paragraph, having the Arabic name first seems quite appropriate to me.

Shenme 06:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Shenme. Yes it fits into the context of the article and that's my point here. And they're both linked anyways. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a.n.o.n.y.m ^t--Ķĩřβȳ Ťįɱé Ø 07:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirbytime. Timothy once again started reverting without even checking the discussion on the talk page [7]. Timothy, disagreement on the talk page should mean that you stop reverting and you've seen what happens if you continue. Respect the agreement by other editors even if its against your version. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 07:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

“Timothy once again started reverting without even checking the discussion on the talk page.” - ~~Anonymous editor, you are, um, saying inaccurate things again.~~ There was no discussion besides you and me when I’d revertedfrom your revert. You are the one who began reverting.

I see your diff now. Okay. I'd missed Shenme's comment. However, let the record show that you'd reverted twice in the absence of any consensus beyond your own.Timothy Usher 07:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Kirbytime, I'm interested to hear more about your opinion so we can discuss it, and edit the article accordingly. Would you be willing to address the points we've both made above?Timothy Usher 07:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Timothy I see Shenme, Kirbytime's and my comments on this talk page all disagreeing with your version. You just reverted again [8]. Reverting without checking a discussion you're involved in and the diff is here to prove it. You should have known better since you already know what happens when you act this way. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 07:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for editing the article without reading the talk page. I am new here can somebody please let me know if my edit against the agreement here? Thanks --Aminz 07:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure an agreement had been agreed yet. I came here from recent changes patrol. It looked to me like another instance of the old "but this is the English Wikipedia" problem. And so one view is that the name most commonly used/recognized by English speakers should necessarily come first, if two versions of a name are mentioned. While I understand the need for English here (see my silly whinging over at Talk:Indian_highways), I try to also ask "what is 'best' for explaining the subject." Here the subject is "what is a muslim" and/or "who is thought to be a muslim". And while I don't have to agree or understand, in Islamic belief there is asserted a continuity back to figures such as Adam and Moses. And it seems to be a reasonable thing to emphasize the assertion in that paragraph by putting the Islamic traditional name first. Simply because it is a different ordering from usual, it helps the reader understand the statement the paragraph is making. So as I was saying above, to me the "Musa (Moses)" ordering best serves the article's subject. Shenme 08:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Shenme, I agree that the most important point is that the reader understand what is being said, and that is precisely the reason why I advocated the established English-language names in text. Readers know what is meant by Moses and Jesus. If you are in a primarily English-speaking country, try this: select people at random and ask, "what do you think of Isa?" Then try, "what do you think of Jesus?" The results will be indicative of the level of understanding we achieve by using the Arabic names.

In fact, I dislike the parentheses as well. It's not necessary to provide translations for every word in an article; usually the main one is enough. The only reason these are necessary is because these articles have POV forks labelled by their translated names (rather than "Jesus in Islam", etc.), and we want to preserve both links. It's just an artifact of the dispute, and visually, an ugly one. Readers don't actually need to know in this article (as opposed to in the Moses article) that Moses is called "Musa" in Arabic. Saying Muslims consider him a prophet ought be enough for our purposes here.Timothy Usher 08:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you guys think about the compromise of using "Moses (Musa)"? Musa is stressed and Moses has come first. Thanks --Aminz 08:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an old discussion, but Timothy asked for a response, so I will give one. Most people identify with the English names of the persons cited. So therefore, it should come first. Then, the clarification (Arabic name) should come second. This is also the standard for Jewish names of the Hebrew prophets as well. While the correct name would be Yitzchak, the name Isaac comes first, simply because it is more commonly recognizable. I hope that explains it. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Muslims as ethnic group in the Balkans

I removed a section that an anon had added, saying that "Muslims" were considered an ethnic group in the Balkans. It's not clear quite what the anon means -- is he saying that other ethnicities consider you a Muslim if any one of your grandparents was a Muslim? If that is so, it should be referenced, not just asserted. Also, it would probably be better to discuss this in Balkans-related articles and perhaps just put a link there. If I'm understanding the anon correctly, this is an idiosyncratic use of the term Muslim. I don't think an observant Muslim would accept someone as Muslim on the basis of a Muslim ancestor. Zora 23:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hagarenes

Cltfn, Muslims called themselves Muslims, or Believers, from the beginning. Crone and Cook argued that Hagarenes was used by outsiders back in 1977, I think it was, but they're no longer standing behind that book. I don't know what terms were used by all the groups that the Arabs conquered. Why don't you learn Byzantine Greek, Syriac, Aramaic, and Pahlavi to find out? :) Zora 09:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora, simply not true, if you were to check the primary sources of the 7th century you might see that Muslim is never mentioned , only saracens , or hagarenes or derivations of these 2. I plan on writing a wikipedia article on those primary sources shortly that will make this abundantly clear.No offense but the argument of " they do not stand behind the book " is getting worn out. --CltFn 23:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the final outcome of the sources debate. The paragraph belongs in the Other words for Muslims section. Ashmoo 03:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Eat Swines

Why dont muslim´s eat Swines? --Comanche cph 18:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

swines are pigs, muslims do not eat pork, hence no they dont eat swines --81.170.113.155 01:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Does muslims drink beers?

--Comanche cph 18:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The Sharia and Islamic dietary laws articles provide more details regarding those questions. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 18:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Some Muslims do drink beer, just like they do other wrong things. However, yes it is forbidden in Islam. --- Faisal 20:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I need to ask a muslim a question

Is this BS? http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1183

It's a very opinionated rant about the writers' apparently islamophobic attitudes. Some of it is true, other parts of it are false, and almost everything is taken out of context. Ignore it. MP (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So The Muslim population in Britan is still less than 5%?

Yes, the official 2001 UK census showed that 2.7% of people declared themselves as being part of the Muslim faith (roughly 1.6 million out of 58.8 million) [9].

The article mentioned is exaggerating quite a bit unfortunately (and is largely unreferenced - which always makes me suspicious!), for example, it would be near impossible for the population of muslims in the UK to rise by 7 million over the next 25 years (a 1.6 to 8.6 million increase would represent a 538% increase) . Wikipidian 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

General comments about this article

Dear all I've read through this article (muslim) and I have to say it's quite appalling. It looks like something done between 2am and 2:15am. If you would like some guidance or inspiration please take a look at this article (Jew). --Yas121

Did anyone can expect that there will be millions of people who became christians when Jesus died?

Why remove "Osama Bin Laden", "jihad", and "terrorism". It is fact that they have to deal with "muslim". You consider it "negative", but so does the rest of the world. BUT - it is FACT - that they are associated, whether you like it or not. If you want this article to be objective, you have to include things even if you don't like it. Otherwise...this article is nothing but propoganda.

Nation of Islam

If those of the nation of islam are not considered muslims, and malcolm X was a muslim through the nation of islam, then how is it that Malcolm X was aloowed on Hajj. Documentation is required to prove one is a muslim to participate, if those of the nation of islam are not muslim, why was he not forbiden to take the Hajj.. Fabio

He went after he converted to mainstream Islam. You should read his biography. Yas121 16:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Article growing again

Someone added a long list of exactly what Muslims must believe to be considered Muslims. WP can't take any stand on such things, and it's not appropriate here in any case. People keep trying to turn this article into a duplicate of the Islam article. Zora 23:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

wait. why the hell isnt this page locked, and the article for jews isnt. hmmm.....

Image:Esharplar (Hijab image)

~~We should either remove or find an alternative to the image:Esharplar.jpg used in this article. See Image talk:Esharplar.jpg~~ --Delta Tango | Talk 17:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hatred and violence

Islam is a religion based on hatred and violence (see the Koran), this factor should be given far more significance on the talk page.

I thought this would do for starters (p.s. i am semmi-serious about the general idear, though not the exact text used).

'The American presence in Iraq fuels Muslim extremism.” -- a conclusion concluded from the National Intelligence Estimate by many concluders in solemn conclusory conclave assembled.

Ninety-Five Other Things That Also Fuel Muslim Extremism:

1. Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses.” 2. The British government’s protection of Salman Rushdie. 3. The American coup against Mossadegh in 1953, cited by some Iranians as the direct cause of the takeover of Iran by the Ayatollah Khomeini more than 25 years later. 4. The remarks of Pim Fortuyn about Muslim attitudes toward liberal Dutch mores. 5. The movie by Theo van Gogh about the subjection of women in Islam. 6. The election of Ayaan Hirsi Ali to the Dutch Parliament. 7. Hindus passing by mosques as Friday Prayers end. 8. The failure of Americans in Iraq to sufficiently subdue the Sunni insurgents. 9. The failure of Americans in Iraq to sufficiently subdue the Shi’a militias. 10. The failure of Americans in Iraq to sufficiently subdue the Kurdish desire for independence. 11. The failure of Americans in Iraq to give Baghdad an instant makeover so that it resembles the most prosperous and advanced American city. 12. The failure of Americans to solve every economic problem in Iraq, to make Sunnis and Shi’a friends, to get the oilfields pumping at full capacity, and to make donations even beyond the many tens of billions spent directly on reconstruction in Iraq. 13. The failure of the Americans, in obtaining debt relief from all Infidel creditors for Iraq (but not from any of the Muslim Arab states), to persuade those same Infidel countries to supply another $50-$100 billion. 14. The refusal of the French state to permit the wearing of the hijab. 15. The insistence, by the French state, that texts by Voltaire, Montaigne, Proust, and other writers deemed or perceived to be anti-Islamic by Muslims, be assigned to students, as required reading, by the Ministry of Education. 16. The selling of alcohol by Christians in Basra. 17. The existence of Christians in Basra. 18. The continued functioning of Christian churches in Baghdad. 19. The Copts in Egypt who complain when Muslims attack their churches and other institutions, or kidnap and forcibly convert Coptic girls to Islam. 20. The Filipinos who try to hold private religious services in Saudi Arabia, land on which no non-Muslims should be present in any case.

21. The American airmen who were assigned to bases in Saudi Arabia and who showed insufficient obeisance to their Saudi masters, all daggers and dishdashas, with their sneers of cold command. 22. The obvious superiority of Western economies. 23. The obvious superiority of Western education. 24. The obvious superiority of Western medical care. 25. The obvious superiority of Western artistic achievement. 26. The obvious superiority of Western (fill in here whatever you like). 27. The failure of Muslims living in the countries of Western Europe to have a standard of living equal or superior to that of non-Muslims. 28. The continued refusal of non-Muslims in the West to institute a formalized long-term system of Jizyah, by which Muslims can be supported; they now must make do only with the benefits provided by Infidel taxpayers on a year-to-year basis. 29. The financial support given by the Americans to the Mubarak regime in Egypt that enrages the Muslim Brotherhood. 30. The financial support given by the Americans to successive Jordanian kings and kinglets, which enrages the Muslim Brotherhood. 31. The diplomatic and other support given by the Americans to the corrupt Al-Saud family of “Saudi” Arabia, which enrages Al-Qaeda and its local supporters. 32. The threats by some in the United States to withdraw support from the Mubarak Friends-and-Family Plan, which whips up anti-American sentiment among Egyptian Muslims. 33. The threats by some in the United States to withdraw support from Pakistan if it does not collaborate less meretriciously in the soi-disant “war on terror,” which whips up anti-American sentiment among Pakistani Muslims. 34. The temporary withdrawal of Infidel support for the “Palestinians,” who deserve to receive Infidel aid of every kind, and permanently. 35. The discussion by some in the West of ways to diminish, in order to prevent further global warming, the use of oil -– which discussion is seen as damaging Arab and Muslim interests, and must therefore be regarded as a deliberate attack on Islam. 36. The reference by Pope Benedict to a 14th century Byzantine emperor’s remarks in the course of a scholarly address at Regensburg. 37. The refusal of Pope Benedict to continue to apologize, and his apparent refusal to completely humiliate himself, before Muslims demanding such humiliation. 38. The Israeli “occupation” of Sinai, Gaza, and the West Bank after the Six-Day War. 39. The Israeli “occupation” of Gaza and the West Bank after the Camp David Accords. 40. The Israeli “occupation” of the West Bank after the full withdrawal from Gaza. 41. The Israeli “occupation” of the sacred Arab and Muslim soil on which the only Jewish state was created in 1948. 42. The presence of Jews in the Middle East. 43. The presence of Jews, uncowed, anywhere in the world. 44. The presence of a strong, self-assured community of Christians in Lebanon. 45. The presence of Copts in Egypt, who sometimes act as if they, too, too, have a right to regard Egypt as their land. 46. The refusal of Italian authorities to prosecute, before her death, Oriana Fallaci. 47. The refusal of Italian authorities to ban Dante in schools because of the mention of Muhammad in The Inferno. 48. The refusal of Italian authorities to remove or cover over frescoes in Bologna that depict Muhammad in an unflattering manner. 49. The refusal of the government of Denmark to punish a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, for daring to exercise the right of free speech. 50. The refusal of Hindus to abandon any claim to ancient sites, where Hindu temples once stood until destroyed by Muslim invaders. 51. The refusal of some Hindus to forget the history of India. 52. The refusal of some European governments to permit Muslim mosques of any size to be built wherever, whenever, and with whatever towering minarets and electronic amplifying equipment, as Muslims believe is their sacred right. 53. The attempts by some Western police to enter mosques where they have found, in the past, false passports and other documents, as well as weapons including guns and explosives, sometimes hidden in false ceilings. 54. The attempt to permit Europeans to continue, even outside Denmark, to exercise the so-called right of free speech, as has happened with Charlie-Hébdo and other French newspapers. 55. The refusal of the University of Geneva to renew the contract of Tariq Ramadan. 56. The public displays of piggy-banks, and of allusions in English pub names such as The Saracen’s Head, which may offend Muslims. 57. The discussions by some national authorities in Holland and state authorities in Germany of the need for more stringent qualifications for nationalization, and in some cases the institution of those more stringent qualifications. 58. The single mention by President Bush of the word “islamofascism” -– a word which Muslims all over insisted must never again be repeated by him, and which he never again repeated. 59. The behavior of American soldiers who have on several occasions returned deadly fire coming at them from mosques in Iraq. 60. The behavior of the British police in not notifying Muslim authorities well in advance of any planned raids on any suspected Muslim terrorists in Great Britain; this is a grave offense which has now apparently been rectified in order to win Muslim hearts and Muslim minds. 61. The belief that some in the West continue to hold, that Jews do have a historic as well as religious connection to the part of Dar al-Islam they call Israel. 62. The outrageous way in which Infidels refer to the Prophet Muhammad as if he is not universally regarded as the Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil. 63. The mention by Infidels of aspects of Muhammad’s life -– such as the Khaybar Oasis attack, the Banu Qurayza decapitation, the murder of Asma bint Marwan, the marriage to nine-year-old Aisha; these are not true, or if true, are not things which Infidels have any right either to discuss or even to know about. 64. The belief of some Infidels that those who give up on Islam, who are apostates and therefore traitors to Islam, could after their act of treason conceivably continue to know anything about Islam, given that Allah clearly takes away from such people all their previous knowledge of Islam at the very moment when they decide to apostasize. 65. The outrageous belief by some Infidels that nonetheless they may have reason to listen to the testimony of ex-Muslims as to the real contents of Islam. 66. The outrageous and insulting mention, by Infidels, of such words as “taqiyya” and “kitman.” 67. The outrageous mention, by Infidels, of the word “dhimmi,” about which they can not possibly have any accurate conception, and which they have no right to discuss in the first place unless they are Muslims. 68. The outrageous attempt to suggest that people are not born Muslims. 69. The outrageous attempt to suggest that the spread of Islam was ever undertaken through violence, when everyone knows it was a case of sudden mass conversion. 70. The refusal of this or that Infidel religious leader, political figure, writer, artist, comedian, or simply you, or simply I, to exhibit the proper attitude toward Islam, Islam, Islam. 71. The wherewithal provided by OPEC revenues that enables the Saudis, especially, to fund mosques and madrasas worldwide and thereby to naturally increase the numbers of “extremists” in the Lands of the Infidels. 72. The wherewithal of OPEC revenues that pay for an army of Western hirelings, including former diplomats (mostly English and American), former intelligence agents, former and present journalists (especially those covering the Middle East), public relations experts, businessmen eager for contracts in the Gulf, and many other fixers and middlemen. This helps delay the day of new energy policies that could conceivably diminish the OPEC oil revenues that fund the Jihad, and also prevents the unwary from regarding Saudi Arabia as anything other than a “staunch ally.” 73. The willingness of journalists to overlook obvious links between the practice of Jihad and the doctrine of Jihad, encouraged by journalists who still do not feel any obligation to learn about Islam. This encourages Muslims to make demands for changes in political and legal institutions in the West, or to insist that outspoken Infidels -- the Pope, Theo van Gogh, Jyllens-Posten -- must stop speaking or writing about Islam. Any such refusal to comply with Muslim demands engenders -- “fuels” -- Muslim “extremism.” 74. The refusal of the Buddhists in southern Thailand to stop being Buddhists. 75. The refusal of the Christians in the southern Philippines to submit to the demands to hand over lands to the Muslims of As Sayyaf. 76. The refusal of Christians in Sulawesi to stop holding church services. 77. The refusal of the Israeli government to stop trying to protect ancient archeological sites in Jerusalem, many of which have been severely damaged by the Muslim construction on and deep within the Temple Mount. 78. The refusal of Hindus in India to concede to Muslim demands for the full application of Shari’a to the Muslim community. 79. The refusal of Orthodox priests in monasteries in Bosnia and Kosovo to abandon the monasteries to Muslims who are clamoring to destroy them. 80. The outrageous insistence by the world’s Armenians and by many others that Turkey stop denying the mass murder of Armenians by Muslim Turks between 1915 and 1920. 81. The outrageous demands by many Infidel lands that outside forces be brought in to protect the non-Arab Muslims from the Arab Muslims in Darfur, despite the express opposition of both the government of the Sudan and the Arab League. 82. The outrageous demands by some Infidels that Muslims should be permitted to open mosques only on the basis of reciprocity -- that is, on the basis of similar permission being granted to non-Muslims in Muslim lands. 83. The outrageous refusal of some Infidel countries to prevent transmissions of Al Manar and other satellite channels run by terrorist groups. 84. The refusal of many Western countries -- Great Britain, Germany, Canada -- to yield to demands of local Muslims that they be made subject only to the Shari’a and not to the manmade laws of the Infidels. 85. The refusal by Australia to cease contributing troops to help their American allies in Afghanistan and Iraq. 86. The continued existence of Jews. 87. The continued existence of Christians. 88. The continued existence of Hindus. 89. The continued existence of Sikhs. 90. The continued existence of Buddhists. 91. The continued existence of followers of Confucius. 92. The continued existence of agnostics. 93. The continued existence of atheists. 94. Everything. 95. Nothing.'

Unbalanced

As a Muslim who has recientally converted to Chritianity i have to say that this artical is very bias in favor of Muslims. It should include a criticisms of Muslims section as would be the norm with most other topics. --Omar Muhammad 19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore the sentance some groups that consider themselves Muslims, but are not accepted as Muslim by the majority of Muslimsis very bias and bordering on racist against these groups-who is to say that the are rejected by the majority of Muslims and the artical sounds more like a group of Muslim philosophers descussing the definition of the word Muslim rarther than an indepth look at Muslims. Sorry if i'm being a bit forceful but i am a new uses_i may be going about this the wrong way...--Omar Muhammad 19:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles such as Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, or Sikh don't have criticsm sections, becuase these are the generally terms for the adherents of a religion, not beliefs or events related to Islam. I don't see why a critism section is necessary for any of them, after all, these are isolated cases within the religious group. Criticism with Islam is delt with in the Criticism of Islam article, just like Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Judaism, and Criticism of Hinduism. (Buddhism, a major religion, doesn't seem to have a criticism page). Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 19:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Soz, as i said im a new user and hadent seem those pages-but that still leaves my other points unanswered...--Omar Muhammad 20:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I think i might have gon too far by putting an objection notice up...--Omar Muhammad 20:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence above should stay, since it does deal with the definition of who is a Muslim, which is relevant to the article topic. Don't worry about putting up the notice, you did have a real concern. If you don't object, I would like to remove the notice. Thanks. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 20:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We already have Criticism of Islam, Islamic extremist terrorism, Islamofascism, Controveries related to Islam and Muslims, we also have categories of all sort related to the subjest (i.e. Former Muslims, Books critical of Islam; Documentaries critical of Islam). We must note that the main articles are done for this. They should be general while pointing to other fork articles (be it criticism or not). We also have categories that are there to help navigate all related categories and articles. -- Szvest 20:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote section on takfir

Someone had rewritten the last para to say that Islam forbids takfir. WP is not a qualified Islamic scholar to say what Islam is or isn't. We can only describe what self-proclaimed Muslims do and say. The same person had also erased sentences saying that Muslims of all sects takfired each other and members of their own groups. Erasing this is censorship; all you have to do is look at the history of Islam to see Muslims takfiring right and left. I think it's OK to say that Muslims disapprove of takfir in the abstract, but in practice do it. Zora 06:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please archive/clean up

As of the time of this comment, this talk page is 89 kilobytes long. Could someone involved with the article please do some archiving? --Rschmertz 05:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)