Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:01, 12 June 2006

Islam/Archive 16 received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:Core topic

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Islam/Archive 16 has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Template:FAOL

There is a request, submitted by FaustX, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages. The rationale behind the request is: "A concise and informative oral presentation of this information could add further depth to the material, and broaden general understanding. FaustX 23:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)".

Template:Todo priority

Five Pillars of Islam

Why are the five pillars listed as the main beliefs of Islam? Are they not practices? Surely the 6 beliefs of Iman are the main beliefs of Islam, and so should be the main beliefs of Islam, not "other"? Dev920 10:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Look up the definition of ideology.

i·de·ol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-l-j, d-) n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Because Islam contains beliefs about the structure of law and society as well as purely theological beliefs, it is also an ideology. For example, a person could be either for or against welfare while being an Episcopalian, but a true muslim cannot be against the use of Islamic law in some form or another. I will use the term "family of ideologies" but my use of the term is perfectly valid.

What the hell has that got to do with anything? The five pillars are not the main "beliefs" of Islam. The six beliefs of Islam are the main beliefs of Islam! The five pillars are actions, which means they aren't beliefs. So listing them as the Islamic main beliefs is silly.Dev920 15:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism

Seanr451, could you explain your rationale for adding that link? BhaiSaab 11:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I in fact did just that, both on this page and on the talk page for Criticism of Islam. However, in checking the history I find that my comments were never added nor did anyone else erase them.

The fact is that a large group of people around the world associate Islam with terrorism, if you have to ask why then I'm not qualified to explain it to you. I'm not saying that all Muslims are terrorists, or anything even remotely that ignorant. I'm simply saying that any article that discusses Islam in the real world should at least mention the subject.

In the world today there are some reported 2 Japanese terrorist groups, 5 Christian, 6 Jewish, 8 Sikh, and 137 Muslim Terrorist Groups. So please explain to me how you can be offended that I think that an article about Islam should at least mention terrorism in the world today. If you refuse to do so you'll be just as guily as those that still believe the world is flat, those that insist that man never landed on the moon, those that want to write a book about WW2 that doesn't mention the holocaust. You are ignoring a large portion of reality if you refuse to allow any mention of terrorism in an article about Islam.

I don't think it's unreasonable to add a link to the article about terrorism. I honestly feel that someone should at least write a small section that addresses Muslim Terrorism in the world today. Perhaps in doing so you might find that information will go a long way toward the stated goals of Misplaced Pages. To inform people.

Or, you could just delete the link, delete these comments I’ve wrote, and ban me from Misplaced Pages. And in doing so go a long way toward reinforcing the Muslim stereotype. Seanr451 11:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Linking to terrorism is POV in the exrtreme. We do not need to pander to biased opinions to maintain a NPOV. Jefffire 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

We already have several articles that deal with Islamic fundamentalism. Why do you feel the need to shove "terrorism" into what is supposed to be a neutral article? 216.165.12.100 16:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding the link to the terrorism article really isn't justified. Can you show me another scholarly encyclopedia that would have such a link? BhaiSaab 17:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "shove" terrorism into a neutral article. I was merely trying to add a Single Link. Last I heard the term Neutral doesn't mean Ignoring the things we don't like. And last I heard Misplaced Pages was a community project not your project. Seanr451 19:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think your addition to the articles Islam and Criticism of Islam as you did was not proper since by the same standard there should be a link to anti-Judaism from Christianity article (Have a look Martin Luther and the Jews). Yes, there has been a period of time that the some adherents of a religion have misused their religion but this does not qualify adding the tag to the article of that religion. These issues have their own article. (e.g. Islamic extremist terrorism).

As to the article "Criticism of Islam", what you linked is more related "Criticism of some Muslims" rather to criticism of Islam. Thanks --Aminz 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that there should be a link from the Christianity article to the Salem Witch Trials and the Crusades. Fair is fair. I'm not picking on the Muslims, I'm simply trying to add a LINK to an article. Since you're all not interested in allowing me that (cause apparently you own Misplaced Pages now) I am instead going to write a small section on Islam and Terrorism and add that to the article. Given the recent history of Islam and Terrorism you'd have a hard time justifying deleting that section from the article. I thought that just a simple link would be enough, but your actions have proven otherwise to me. Seanr451 19:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Seanr451, I replaced your terrorism link with Islamic extremist terrorism on criticism of Islam article. I don't own wikipedia. And you are always welcome to write a section but the wikipedia has its own rules, so you should prepare your write up carefully enough so that it does not get removed by other editors. Also, if you feel I am unfair, you can always contact wikipedia administrators. I am an editor just as much as you are. If you feel I am unfair, then you must contact a wikipedia administrator at least in order to prevent me from doing the same thing to other editors. Again, we have exactly the same rights here. Thanks. --Aminz 20:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to read that you feel that I actually have some rights here. As stated above I am going to be adding a new section to this article. Perhaps you can make some suggestions on how I can improve this section before adding it to the article. Seanr451 21:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Seanr451, I've added a link to Political Islamism. "Islamic" terrorism is in modern times, so far as I can tell, always connected specifically to the political philosophy of Islamism rather than merely Islam. Whether a proper understanding of Islam mandates Islamism is an interesting question which has been debated on that page. Whether Islamism justifies terrorism is yet a further discussion; in eithr event, the two are closely connected enough as a matter of recent history to justify a link. There is also Criticism of Islam, in which the link to terorrism may be discussed. I encourage you to look at both those articles. However, a direct link from Islam to terrorism is, I believe, needlessly provocative and rather inappropriate.Timothy Usher 21:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that a direct link from Islam to terrorism implies existence of a link from "Islam in its general sense" to "Terrorism". I agree that there is a link from "Some interpretations of Islam" to "Terrorism" but not from "Islam" to "Terrorism". --Aminz 23:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with both of you. Initially all I wanted to do was include a link from Islam to the article about Islamic Terrorism. However several editors have insisted that I am merely vandalising those pages, reverted my additions, and I believe that doing so has violated several of the rules of Misplaced Pages.

Since this started I went back and carefully read the entire article on Islam. IMHO it's one big POV article. It is written from the POV of those Muslims who believe in Islam, and obviously those who believe that Islam is a religion of peace. However there are a large number of Muslims in the world who believe that Islam is a religion of war and terror, and to deny me (or anyone else) the ability to present the other side of the arguement about Islam also violates a number of the rules of Misplaced Pages. The article as it stand isn't neutral. In order to be neutral it must present both sides of the subject. The article as it stands does not do that, and I have been actively prevented from presenting the other side of the subject.

An article about Islam that doesn't at least mention Islamic terrorists is like a biography of Hitler that doesn't mention World War 2. It's like an article about the Empire of Japan that doesn't mention Pearl Harbor. It's like an article about the history of Jews that doesn't mention the Holocaust. It's like an article about James Earl Ray that doesn't mention that guy he shot.

I will be writing a section of Islamic terrorism in the modern world. I will add it to this talk page to give everyone the opportunity to review, comment, and hopefully improve on it. Once that is done I will be adding it to the article on Islam. When you delete it (as I suspect you will) I will then appeal to the admins, and then to the newly formed Arbitration Commitee. Hopefully they will enforce the rules of Misplaced Pages and allow someone other you to decide what can go in the article and what can't. Seanr451 10:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Put it into the article about Islamic terrorism. Jefffire 10:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I will include a link to that article, but I am going to write the short section, and I am going to add it to the Islam article. Seanr451 10:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"When you delete it (as I suspect you will)"...Absolutely. After you speak with the admins about that deletion, we'll see what happens. 216.165.12.100 20:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind so much that you're breaking the rules of Misplaced Pages by preventing any POV other than your own to be on the Islam page. At least you're being honest about it. Seanr451 23:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow man Chill You're comparisons to other events without mentioning their bad history were all evil people or actions that were considered evil, there was no good side to James Earl Ray, no good side to hitler and no good side to pearl harbour. And the fact that the majority of Muslims aren't terrorists doesn't qualify it to be mentioned. And about the lack of other "terrorist" organisations doesn't mean that legitimate or formerly legitimate governments haven't committed actions on the basis of religion (beside the issue). It's obvious that this link or paragraph would be biased, if not then why not add a link to the support of the Vatican City to Hitler in the roman catholic church article for instance. Zakaria mohyeldin 07:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Seanr451, what percentage of Muslim population are terrorists? How many people out of 1.3 billion adherents? (From every 5 person one of them is Muslim.) Are you sure your above comparisons(re: world war 2, holocause, etc) are fair? --Aminz 08:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

All true, but: your getting offended only reinforces Sean's assumption that the truth is being censored, lest it cause offense. Not so. Instead of Hitler and the Holocaust, think of History of Northern Europe and the Holocaust. Or a history of East Asia that didn't mention Pearl Harbor. Should these be included? Arguably. Should these play a major role in the articles in any case? Probably not. The association of Islam with terrorism per se (as opposed to mere fanatical violence) is recent, while as Aminz says, few Muslims have an interest in taking part in either. It's an issue, but it's hardly the issue in an article about Islam generally.

The "Contemporary" section refers to this only obliquely. If you wish to be more explicit, but appropriately brief and neutral, with wikilinks, I don't see why such an edit shouldn't survive.Timothy Usher 08:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, if there were three Muslims that were terrorists it wouldn't be worth mentioning. Just as a guy who robs a bank and who also happens to be Catholic isn't worth mentioning on the Catholic article. But in this particular case a lot of changes have happened in the world over the last few years because of terrorists. In and of itself I'd argue that information belongs in an article about terrorists. But the terrorist organizations have themselves said that they aren't terrorists who happen to be Muslim, they are Muslim and are using terrorism to carry out the goals of Islam as they see it.

How many Japanese pilots participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor? I'd say it was significantly less than 1% of the total men in the Japanese armed forces at the time. However it IS a significant event in world history, and whenever WWII or the Empire of Japan, or the history of the Japanese Military is discussed so is the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The fact that Muslim Terrorists are an incredibly small minority, while true, doesn't change the fact that Muslim Terrorism has changed the world dramatically. Muslim Terrorists have killed tens of thousands of people in the last three decades, they've changed the way the world works, and significantly added to the history of the world. Any Truly Neutral article about Islam or Muslims must mention those events. Seanr451 21:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Eventually this will probably lead to an Rfc. We'll see what happens then. BhaiSaab 01:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "addition of a section for terrorism" will probability lead to an Rfc. --24.7.102.19

White Christian Terrorism

To learn about White Christian Terrorism, all one needs to do is to look at today's World Map to see how many countries speak Spanish, Portuguese, English, Dutch or French. White Christians Terrorists killed MILLIONS of people around the globe in the name of Jesus Christ. Hiding behind Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Noble Prizes .etc or castigating 1.2 billion Muslims as "terrorists" is not going to whitewash White Christian Terrorists' own dark past which is full of crimes against Humanity, genocides and holocausts which should be listed and documented not only on Misplaced Pages but on other places as well. If mainstream media doesn't report today's incidents of White Christian Terrorism, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. White Christian Terrorism is not only alive and well but also have become even more sophisticated and delibrate.

Some EXAMPLES of Judeo-Christian Terrorism:

• 1955 Emmett Till murdered, KKK

• 1957 Assassination of Patrice Lumumba, guilt disputed

• 1963 Medgar Evers murdered by Byron de la Beckwith

• 1963 Four little girls killed in Birmingham church bombing by white supremecists

• 1964 Three civil rights workers murdered in Mississippi by KKK

• 1963 John F. Kennedy assassinated in Texas by Lee Harvey Oswald

• 1964 Malcolm X murdered in New York, responsibility unknown

• 1967 Israeli attack on USS Liberty

• 1967 Martin Luther King is killed by white supremecist James Earl Ray

• 1968 Robert F. Kennedy assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan (a Palestinian Christian

• 1969 Dennis Michael Rohan of the Church of God (Protestant) sets fire to Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem

• 1970 pipe bomb exploded at NY offices of Aeroflot, JDL suspected

• 1971 Bomb attack on British soldiers in Belfast, IRA

• 1971 - 2 Russian gift shops bombed, one in NY and one in Minnesota, Jewish Armed Resistance claimed responsibility

• 1972 JDL members firebombed NY offices of Sol Hurok

• 1972 Bloody Friday Bombings, IRA

• 1974 Biringham Pub bombings, IRA

• 1976 Bomb kills British Ambassador, PIRA

• 1976 - 3 pipebombs found near UN library, JDL claimed credit

• 1976 bombing at building housing Czech and Soviet national airline offices in NY, Jewsh Armed Resistance Strike Force claimed credit

• 1978 The Jewish Armed Resistance planted a bomb in the Manhattan offices of Novoye Russkoye Slovo, a Russian-language daily newspaper. The 3:30 am explosion heavily damaged the first two floors and the printing facilities.

• 1978 firebomb on stairwell of Soviet tourist office in U.S., Jewish Armed Resistance claimed credit

• 1979 Earl Mountbatten killed in bomb attack by PIRA

• 1980's Ted Kaczynski, the Unibomber

• 1980's 20 bombings in NY area alone attributed to JDL

• 1981 Israeli attack on Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem

• 1981 Iranian bank in San Francisco firebombed, JDL

• 1981 - 2 bombings in London, IRA

• 1982 IRA bombing in Hyde Park, London

• 1982 JDL claimed responsibility for an attack on Air France offices in Paris

• 1982 JDL claimed credit for a bomb that exploded outside the Lufthansa offices in Manhattan

• 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacres of Palestinian refugees by Lebanese Christians while the camps were surrounded by Israeli soldiers.

• 1983 bombing of Harrod's in London, IRA

• 1983 JDL claimed responsibility for a bomb explosion at the Aeroflot Soviet airlines

• 1984 Brighton Hotel bombing, IRA

• 1984 Anti-Sikh riots and massacres in India

• 1986 Bombing of ADC offices in Santa Ana, California killing Alex Odeh, JDL suspected

• 1986 Firebombing outside Lincoln Center, New York, JDL suspected

• 1987 Tear gas grenade fired into Metropolitan Opera House, New York, JDL

• 1987 "Enniskillen Massacre", the PIRA bombs a Remembrance Day parade

• 1989 bombing of Royal Marine base in Kent, IRA

• Genocide of Bosnians by Serbs (Christians)

• 1990 car bombings in Northern Ireland, IRA

• 1991 Victoria Station Bombing, PIRA

• 1992 London Bridge Railway Station Bombing

• 1994 PIRA bombing in Warrington

• 1994 Paul Hill murders abortion doctor

• 1994 Rwandan genocide of 800,000 Tutsi's by Hutu's

• 1995 thousands of Bosnian Muslims murdered by Serbian soldiers at Patachari

• 1995 Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by an Israeli (Jewish)

• 1995 Srbenica massacre of Bosnian Muslims by Serbs

• 1996 Olympic Village Bombing, Eric Rudolph

• 1996 Belgrade, Serbia Mosque bombed

• 1997 Bombing of Abortion Clinic in Atlanta, Eric Rudolph

• Human Rights lawyer killed in car bombing by Protestant Red Hand Defenders in Ireland

• 1998-1999 massacres of Kosovo Muslims by Serbs

• 1999 Buford Furrow attacks Jewish day camp in Southern California

• 2000 Memphis, TN Mosque attacked by shotgun fire

• 2001 Dallas, TX Mosque firebombed

• 2001 Belfast Mosque attacked

• 2001 Three Palestinians killed in roadside ambush by Jewish settlers

• 2001 Halifax, Canada Mosque attacked

• 2001 Earl Krugel of JDL plots to bomb a mosque and field office of U.S. Arab American congressman (sentanced in 2005)

• 2001 James Kopp indicted for murder of abortion doctor

• 2002 Charles Franklin drives truck into Florida mosque

• 2002 Riots and massacres of Muslims in Gujarat by Hindus

• 2002 Jewish settlers kill 14 year old Palestinian girl and injure 9 in funeral rampage

• 2002 Robert Goldstein plots to blow up 50 mosques in Florida

• 2002 Jewish settlers plant bomb in Palestinian school yard

• 2002 massacres of Muslims at Ahmedabad, India by Hindus

• Mossad agents arrested inside Mexican Congress carrying explosives

• British UN official shot in back by Israeli soldier

• 2003 Rachel Corey murdered in Gaza by Israeli

• 2003 Chicago Mosque attacked, unknown perpetrator

• 2003 Mosque bombed in India

• 2004 Mosque attacked in Katmandu, Nepal

• 2004 - 630 Muslim nomads killed by Christians in Nigeria

• 2004 Islamic School bombed in Holland

• 2004 Israeli forces fire on peaceful Palestinian protest in Rafah

• 2004 Gale Nettles was accused of targeting the Everett McKinley Dirksen Federal Building in a bomb plot

• 2004 Jewish Settler kills Palestinian driver

• 2005 Israeli West Bank settler kills 4 Palestinians

• 2005 Jewish settler shoots 15 year old Palestinian boy in the back

• 2005 Palestinian child stabbed to death by Israeli settlers

• 2005 Israeli soldier kills 4 Arab bus passengers

• 2005 Jewish terrorists attack Al Aqsa mosque

• 2005 arson attacks on 2 Mosques in England

AmandaParker

I hope you don't start a jihad now. You make a great point, religion equals death. But let's be honest, compared to the christian and jewish articles, the islamic articles have little information on their killing. And there is a mountain of evidence just as big as the others.

This article is like walking through Beijing, this is the part they only want you to see. I know there is much violence in the koran and I've seen it. (Anonymous User) May 23, 2006

I think you don't know how wikipedia works. This article is about the generalities. Haven't you checked the "see also"" links toward articles that discuss what you are talking about. Cheers -- Szvest 12:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about both the Islamic religion (things contained in the koran) and events by Muslims. (Anonymous User) May 23, 2006

Yes. However, the things contained in the Qur'an cannot be interpretaded easily as you think without any POV whearas acts done by Muslims can be interpreted the way you see it. But i don't believe this article is fit for that as there are plenty of other related articles that discusses that such as Islamism, Criticism of Islam and Islamic extremist terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamofascism, to mention only a few. Cheers -- Szvest 12:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that extremism should be mentioned in other articles but what about what the koran says about "infidels". (Anonymous User) May 23, 2006

Anon, wheather you don't know about wikipedia scheme or you are just wanting to discuss this in depth here. Whatever is the case, i suggest u'd have a look at both Category:Qur'an and Category:Islam where you can find articles such as Tafsir, Origin and development of the Qur'an, Satanic Verses, Ghazw, Historical persecution by Muslims, Jihad, Kafir and many other articles that would answer your questions. Just please note that every article is about the subject it treats and therefore we cannot have a single article treating all the Islamic history and tendencies. Cheers -- Szvest 14:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Malcom X was killed by fellow Muslims according to many sources. The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was proven an accident by two investigations, one conducted by Israel, the other by the US. I'm honestly a little confused about the motives of this. What does this post have to do with the Islam article on Misplaced Pages? Someone could make a similair list of Islamic terror, such as the one at http://thereligionofpeace.com (scroll down), or their list of Islamic Terrorist Attacks in 2004 or 2005. My point is, this type of debate doesn't help Misplaced Pages. —Aiden 20:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This post is as relevant and justified as "Islamic Terrorism", "Jewish Terrorism" and "Chirstian Terrorism." McKhan

Sufism

Amended the final sentence from "However, Sufis are often criticised for innovative beliefs and actions, by Wahhabis who consider their practices to be against the letter of Islamic law" - a) ungrammatical, b) such practices are criticized by many Sunni groups, not just Wahhabis!, c) "However" at the start doesn't relate to anything in previous sentence & seemed slightly pejorative Tom49 12:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

orientalism

a breif look at this site shows that orientalists have set the agenda for its contents, with major sections being dedicated to dhimmis and apostacy. Can we please set this page so it reflects the important issues according to muslims such as tawheed, justice, etc. jazakallah

This is a secular encyclopedia. We discuss topics that Muslims think are important and ALSO topics non-Muslims think important. Zora 09:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

These issues have never occupied anything but the fringe element of islam, they have been given far too much coverage and so i will accordingly reduce their content in favour of more "mainstream" elements of islam

Monotheism

Do most Muslims accept the Christian claim that Christianity is monotheistic? Drogo Underburrow 05:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, most muslims do --Aadamh 12:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Width of pix

Someone went through and made all the pics 300px wide. I put them back to 200px. At 300px, they just looked TOO BIG. The pictures were crowding the text.

Now this may be a function of my monitor (only 17 inch) and my screen resolution (I've got it set to the minimum, 800 x 600), because that makes the lettering on my icons easier to read. 300px may be just right for people with 19 inch monitors running at higher resolutions. But I think that the article should be considerate of the needs of the poor and the old, like me, who may have older monitors and worse eyesight.

I'm not up on the technicalities of inserting pictures into articles. Is there a way that they can be specified as a proportion of the window rather than absolutely, as pixels? That might resolve the older monitor problem. Zora 21:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Protest Picture

I don't see the need for the picture of the Muslim protesting in London, how does that contribute to the article in anyway? I am proposing the picture be deleted. M2k41 21:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It has little to do with the religion. —Aiden 21:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Salafi/Wahhabi explaination is inncorrect

This should be corrected, and I would no mind doing it since the mention of Wahhabi being something started by a known and resepected scholar, Mohammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab is a futile claim. This could not be further from the truth, he fought against groups/sects in Islam and reformed the Muslims to make them follow the Qur'aan, sunnah, and the understanding of the companions of the prophet peace be upon him. This is what Salafi (salafeeyah, dawatul Salafeeyah) really is. --Abu Mahdhoorah 03:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is your belief. Those who do not share your belief regard the tradition as one started by Abdul-Wahhab. There's a parallel phenomenon in Christianity, in which many sects claim to be the one true, real, pure Christianity. Zora 03:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been told that Islam means "submission" to God, not to Muhammad and his followers.Timothy Usher 03:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam is the submission to God this is correct. As part of this submission, a Muslim must be obidient to God and that which was revealed in the scriptures, the last of which is the Qur'aan. The Qur'aan explicitly explains that one must follow the way of the Prophet Muhammad who is the final Messenger and Prophet of God. This coincides with the scriptures of before where the people were ordered to follow the way of the prophets (Jesus, Moses, Abraham, for example). Muslims also follow the way of these prophets, which is an obidence to God, which is submission to God. I hope that is clear. --Abu Mahdhoorah 15:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As for Zora's comment, go and verse yourself with the works of Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab. He does not innovate any matters into the religion, rather he strictly commits himself to that which is revealed in the Qur'aan and thes sunnah and this is the meaning of "Salafeeyah." This is the truth, and if anyone disagrees please feel free to explain it to us here. If you are goign to use people as examples, then this is not correct because everyone makes mistakes. Rather, "Salafeeyah" is following the pure way of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him without innovating anything into the religion. Also, maybe people have Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab confused with a deviant "scholar" that lived a thousand years before him with the same last name. --Abu Mahdhoorah 15:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

The God section needs to be rewritten so that it's historical and depicting an Islamic promotion of its viewpoint on a so called-god.شيطان

It seems pretty neutral to me. Any more neutrality would require annoying caveats on every sentence. Are there any specific sections you think are POV? What sort of changes do you think it needs? Ashmoo 02:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read the section, and I think it's quite neutral. Since the section is supposed to explain Muslim belief, and does that without equating it as fact, it is neutral. Regardless, at most the NPOV tag, should be placed in that section, and not for the whole article. -- Jeff3000 02:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Jihad state

The article Jihad state is very poorly written and controversial. I'm not convinced that 'Jihad state' is a term that is used. Please see it's talk page for my comments. MP (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of arts and culture references.

This subject is too broad to allow specific books or chapters to be referenced in this section, unless they are broad and widely used. --Jumbo 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

religion under duress

• Does the threat of death to anyone leaving the religion impact claims of 2nd largest religion? If someone holds a knife to someone's head telling them , that they are will be killed if they leave Islam , should the person under the knife be counted as Muslim?
• Should people who privately renounce Islam , without making a public announcement to the knife wielding mobs on the streets of the Islamic world still be counted as Muslim?

--Eslamdemize 22:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is completely irrelevant to the article (not to mention, also untrue). And your username seems to indicate some negative (or hateful?) feelings towards Islam. joturner 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Eslamdemize, your question here would seem to constitute original research.Timothy Usher 22:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

his question is not OR, it's simple trolling, thus WP:DFTT. dab (ᛏ) 08:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wandered onto this talk page, but even if he wanted to be a troll, it seems like a good question: how accurate can the number of followers of Islam be if there is a death sentence for leaving? 67.70.17.152 14:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Jordan 6 June 2006

that's hardly a good question. It is an intentionally flawed question for polemic purposes. Religion as something you are free to pick is a modern, European idea. Before the 1700s, this would hardly have occurred to anybody in Europe itself. In fact, heresy means the "picking" of an idiosyncratic doctrine. This was of course done from earliest times, but the difference is that this was not considered "leaving" a religion so much as inventing your own doctrines. Thus, Islam was considered a heresy, and of course any Christian converting to the Mohammedan heresy would have been executed as an apostate just like a Waldensian or a Hussite. In fact, Islamic theology is rather close to Protestant theology, and obviously, from the point of view of the Catholic and/or Eastern Orthodox church, Islam and Lutherism qualify as the same sort of distortion of Christian doctrine. You can "pick" a doctrine, but you can not "pick a monotheism". Paganism is again different in that they are ethnic or local religions that are not necessarily in theological conflict, but again you are born with your religion and do not "pick" it. Therefore, the normal case is that "religion" is something related to ethnicity and language, you don't "pick" your language, you "pick it up" from your tribe/clan/people. That religion became a matter of choice in the West during the 19th/20th centuries really renders the concept of "religion" obsolete: as a consequence, "religion" in the West is rapidly becoming a lifestyle accessoire. But I don't see how

this is related to counting adherents of any given religion. You just count them, period. The demographic numbers of both Christian and Musim populations obviously include many people without religious conviction (how the hell do you want to count these?) and likely a large number of atheists or people who just don't care about religion either way. They are just Christian or Muslim culturally, maybe going through religious motions because they were so conditioned as children. They are still Muslims/Christians by virtue of going through these motions. The question is trollish because it was phrased polemically, and stupid because it implies an extremely naive notion of religion or apostasy. dab (ᛏ) 14:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling a vote on a picture of Mohammed

I consider it necessary, as well as fair, that Misplaced Pages not pander to Religion - Pictures of Mohammed appear quite frequently in Ottoman Art as well as various illustrated Historical manuscripts from around that time - It is extremely useful to have these pictures, or at least one, as a reference to what how Mohammed was perceived by different nations at different times, as well as it's effect upon art.

Therefore I vote:

For Votes

• For a picture of Mohammed, on the grounds that the only reason one has not been included is religious sensitivites.

Considering Misplaced Pages is not censored, there isn't any real grounds under policy to prevent one from appearing. Agent Blightsoot 12:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I consider that a 'For' Blightsoot?

• For a picture of Mohammed. There are pictures of Jesus and other prophets on Misplaced Pages. This should not be an exception. (Anonymous User) 10 June 2006

Against Votes

• As Misplaced Pages is not censored, if the article is benefited significantly by a certain image, there is no question that the image in question should be included; there is plenty of precedent for this. However, I'm unconvinced that an image of Muhammad is vitally necessary on the Islam page, per se, despite his importance to the religion: this poll would be much more appropriate on the Muhammad page, where I could see much stronger arguments being made for including images of Muhammad's face than could be made here. One issue is that there are no known accurate portraits, photographs, etc. of Muhammad, so any image we could include would be purely an artistic imagining. This makes the situation different from the one at Bahá'u'lláh#Photograph (where, note, a photograph of the founder is included, but is kept at the very bottom of the article on that person, and isn't included on any other article, including Bahá'í Faith), in that the image is similarly considered unacceptable by believers, but isn't necessarily an especially accurate or informative image with respect to Muhammad himself (though certainly such art can be important with respect to the culture and artists that created it). For that reason, although it's clear that Misplaced Pages does not censor itself for the sake of a certain religious belief (else we wouldn't have an image at the top of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]), it's not clear that we necessarily need an artistic depiction of Muhammad on this particular article. We have an entire article for this topic, after all: Depictions of Muhammad. -Silence 12:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for a picture !? of Mohammed,one reason being is that there was no photography in the era of Mohammed, second, all the paintings I've seen depict a person with a beard. Finally as a curtosy to the Muslim readers of Misplaced Pages, I'm against such painting for it's against the Musllim religion and many would protest. --The Brain 14:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that there is no need for a picture here. That doesn't mean we couldn't put one elsewhere on Misplaced Pages, but not here. DJ Clayworth 14:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Against per comments of Silence and The Brain. BhaiSaab 03:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Against. Mohammad's appearance is not a major concern in Islam, so it doesn't belong. However, I'd support pictures under the article devoted to Mohammad. Ashmoo 04:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Against. There is no need to place any image up as there is no reliable depiction, thus it will be of no useful or informational value. Needless to say it only serves as a tool for offending and alienating Muslims by violating, instead of appreciating, their sensitivities on the very pages that are most important to them. - Itaqallah 01:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Against. Agree with Itaqallah on all points. -- Jeff3000 01:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Against per Itaqallah. --ElKevbo 02:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Against. Despite Itaqallah's call for sensitivity, we are obliged to oppose relentless attempts to censor Misplaced Pages according to religious conviction; however such a picture is not needed here, and the fact that we have no reliable portraits makes the case less compelling than it otherwise would be (for example, a photograph of Muhammad preaching in Mecca would be very on-topic). The goal of a picture would seem to be to make a point against religiously-motivated censorship, but this would be better made on other articles where the material is more relevant and such attempts are underway.Timothy Usher 02:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Against.

• Against but not in agreement with Itaqallah. There is a lot of content on, say, Scientology or Xenu that members of that religion find offensive to their sensibilities, but the information remains. Misplaced Pages will respect religious sensibilities to a degree, but the limit is that the inclusion of notable information trumps respecting such sensibilities. An artist's interpretation of Muhammad, however, does not seem particularly notable to me. Kasreyn 08:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a picture of muhammad at the bottom of the page?

This is what was done with the article on bahaullah Pure inuyasha 01:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

But putting a photograph of Bahá'u'lláh at the bottom of Bahá'u'lláh's page is not analogous to putting an artistic representation of Muhammad at the bottom of the Islam page for two reasons:

(1) A photograph is clearly important for understanding the person himself, as it shows his appearance, mode of dress, etc. An artistic imagining, on the other hand, may be completely irrelevant for actually acquiring information about the person himself; many (most?) depictions of Muhammad tell us more about the artist and the artist's culture than about Muhammad himself. The same can be said for artistic depictions of Jesus.

(2) This is the Islam page, not the Muhammad page. You're saying "we should put an image of Religious-Founder-X at the bottom of Religion-X because there's an image of Religion-Founder-Y at the bottom of Religion-Founder-Y": that's clearly not at all analogous. This is because there's no photograph of Religion-Founder-Y (Bahá'u'lláh) at the bottom of Religion-Y, his actual religion: Bahá'í Faith. If there was, you'd have a case to make. Without one, you'll have to find some other rationale for including Muhammad. I'm sure there are potentially strong arguments to be made, but this isn't one of them. -Silence 01:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim behavior

In this article (here), some people want to claim that our Afghanistani and Tajikstani brethern are not muslims but Majusi. Please have a look at that; They remove the Islamic sign from the article. Its very bad. Ocean Wave 23:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Spoken Misplaced Pages requests