Revision as of 00:23, 3 November 2024 editJtrevor99 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,854 edits Undid revision 1255048665 by Ghazi Sahab Khan Niazi (talk) WP:NPATag: Undo← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:46, 9 January 2025 edit undoSerios3723 (talk | contribs)104 edits →Shahada needs witnesses?: new sectionTag: New topic |
(60 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) |
Line 69: |
Line 69: |
|
|topic = Philosophy and religion |
|
|topic = Philosophy and religion |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=no |class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=top}} |
Line 118: |
Line 118: |
|
|archive = Talk:Islam/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Islam/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
== Article reliability == |
|
== Muslim demographics section is problematic == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<s>To the recent editor who just reverted, what makes you think that the article I cited was unreliable? It's only deemed as unreliable if I get a warning before I click publish. However, this wasn't the case when I added this article about birth rates of Muslims. ] (]) 20:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</s>{{sock vote|LDas12345}} |
|
You have to define precisely whom you count as a Muslim. For example a recent poll from Iran said that less than 40% of Iranians consider themselves Muslims today, and yet the maps and figures in this article claim that islam is the religion of more than 90% of Iranians. The same can be said about other countries. Muslim demographics |
|
|
also there are two denomanatians in islam 1.sunni 2. shia articles totally ignore the statistics about atheists, agnostics, apostates, converts to christianity and non-believers of all sorts. They simply count everyone born within a traditionnally Muslim society as Muslim. To be fair, this isn't the way ] are constructed. The numbers estimated for christianity are those of the estimated actual believers, not people born in Christian cultures. How do you plan to correct this bias ? ] (]) 21:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@]. I think he's tryna talk to you. Your welcome. ] (]|]) 22:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Greetings, |
|
|
:<blockquote> You have to define precisely whom you count as a Muslim</blockquote> We cannot, but it would be great if such definitions would be clarified in such statistics. However, it is rarely done. We can only work with what sources provide us. |
|
|
:<blockquote> The numbers estimated for christianity are those of the estimated actual believers, not people born in Christian cultures </blockquote> There is a difference between Christianity and Islam in regards of adherence. A Christian is made by baptism and every person is born "sinful" (this is also why a lot of babies were baptized when born and babies unbaptized led to the Catholic limbo-theory). In Islam, a child born from Muslim parents are consdiered Muslims. It does not have to be a conscious choice, you probably do not even have to believe in it. There are some opinions which constitute ], but they are not clearly defined. For some, missing a prayer can lead to Apostasy (I think some Hanbalites hold this position), while others even interprted angels as merely abstract intellects and are still highly esteemed scholars of Islam (such as ]). Because of these reasons, Muslim and Christian identity are hardly comparable. ] (]) 19:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm glad someone else raised this matter, as I've raised a similar issue before on another Islamic related article. For example, in ] and ], the Muslim population is hyped up. There is no disagreement that most people in these countries are majority Muslim, but the figures do not tally and their statistical data in regards to Muslim populations is not even reliable. It is simply based on guess work especially Gambia. As such, many reliable sources cite these unreliable government figures. However, organisations and other RS who work and do research in these countries would tell you that almost 100% of the Muslim population syncretise with African religion.] (]) 11:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I will profess I am not familiar with RSs on this topic. But it sounds like an issue in definition: those who practice Islam likely are a smaller subgroup within those traditionally considered "culturally" Muslim. Delineating between the two might be helpful. ] (]) 19:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It's true. The ], or collective of Muslims in the world, is greater than people we might consider as fully adderant Muslims. IE. attempting to perform all 5 pillars or 10 obligatory acts for most Shia groups. |
|
|
::::nd then you have concepts of being born into a religious faith, those people would be included. The action of whether you are able to leave it. Similar to some Christian sects belief in ] being a permanent change that claims you to either their faith or Jesus Christ depict in that sects version of the bible. |
|
|
::::There are multiple schools of Islam and cultures that have adopted Islam whether due to historical trade or conquest. It makes defining who and what is inside the group and outside the group difficult at times. ] (]) 20:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::@] You need to read ]. Misplaced Pages has rather strict rules for reliable sources. Just finding an Internet page that says something is not enough. Before you continue Misplaced Pages, it would be good to familiarise yourself with Misplaced Pages policies. ] (]) 23:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Preparing to prayer == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2024 == |
|
Salah ] (]) 13:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Islam|answered=yes}} |
|
== This Article/Page is Discriminatory == |
|
|
|
For any image that depicts the prophet, angel and gods face should be removed because in islam it is very disrespectful to do so because it encourages idolatry, or the worship of physical objects. This is inconsistent with the Muslim faith's monotheism, which teaches that God alone should be worshipped. |
|
|
whenever i see these i feel disrespected as i myself am muslim and a follower of islam i find it wrong to just see ancient paintings of something and immediatly think its right without background checking it with an actual muslim thank you for reading this and goodbye. ] (]) 23:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> Misplaced Pages is ]. ] (]) 23:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Wrong information about Islam == |
|
This article does not respect the religion of Islam. It is discriminatory. |
|
|
|
Islam is oldest religion in the world, please correct it , the first prophet was Adam ( from life start of Human Beings ) and the last was Muhammad: |
|
Where is the respect for the Prophet Muhammad (SAW)? |
|
|
|
The first prophet, considered the father of the human race. His story teaches about forgiveness, obedience, and patience. |
|
I see terrible remarks. |
|
|
|
Muhammad |
|
Let a Muslim scholar or Group of educated Muslims make this page because it SUCKS! |
|
|
|
The last prophet, who received a divine gift of revelation through the angel Gabriel. Both Sunni and Shi'a Muslims believe that no new prophet can arise after Muhammad. |
|
This is UNACCEPTABLE !!] (]) 17:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Idris (Enoch), Nuh (Noah), Hud (Heber), Saleh (Methusaleh), Lut (Lot), Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaq (Isaac), Yaqub (Jacob), and Yusuf (Joseph) etc there is more then one lakh messenger from God till the last ] (]) 00:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:The article already states that Muslims believe this. WP is not in the business of stating religious beliefs as facts - regardless of which religion it is. ] (]) 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Every scholarly source states otherwise. On Misplaced Pages, we go by what reliable sources state. ] (]) 23:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Title == |
|
:Your suggestion is against ] and ] ] (]) 08:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:And also against https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:The_Free_Encyclopedia ] (]) 08:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The title for Fasting should have a / then say Sawm. I know this form my religion being Islam. ] (]) 20:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Vandalism on line 27 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Incorrect Fact On Islam == |
|
I cannot correct it since the article is semi-protected, but right now the second paragraphs opens with the following text: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi ! How Can You Just Say That Islam Was Spreading Father Due To The Fertility Rate ? Theres Thousands and Thousands Of Reverts Across Globe And Reverting Rate Was Much Higher. That fertility Fact Was Too Descriminating and Replicating Propaganda Myths . So I Request Someone Who Can Access The Edit Section Of This To Edit The Part . Thanks So Much ] (]) 11:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
"78% muslim don't know Quran word meanings and don't speak arbi language .All muslim organisation is terrorist organisation .Muhammad was a writer and born as hindu and grow up mix hindu and jewish religion and made a false religion islam ,he killed his own uncle and own people whose expel him from own city mekka . invading none muslim land is proud in islam and making people forcefully muslim is legal and killing none muslim is legal , a false and saitanic religion created by false prophet Muhammad ." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:According to the latest study conducted by the Pew Research Center, conversion does not play a significant role in the population growth of religions, including Islam. The study states that the primary factors driving this growth are fertility rates and median ages. The source is included in the demographic section. If you have any new research sources suggesting that Muslim population growth is mainly due to religious conversion, please share them along with the sources. I have reverted your last edit as it was not supported by a source. ] (]) 12:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
This is obviously vandalism. ] (]) 12:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Infobox issue == |
|
:Indeed; it is recent vandalism and has been reverted by ]. --] (]) 21:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On behalf of @]'s request, I will make a discussion regarding the "separation from:" parameter and its value within the infobox, I am inviting @] and @] to join the discussion. |
|
== Out of Scope last section. == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, I've been skimming this article and the ] in order to find the information regarding the separation of Islam from ancient Arabian (possibly just Meccan) polytheism, and from this article alone I found no indication or evidence to support this particular information to be kept in the infobox. But I do, in fact find some information regarding the relationship between Muhammad early religious activity and Meccan paganism, but it is still ambiguous and cannot explain the whole idea of Islam being parted from Arabian polytheism. |
|
Reading articles on religions and belief systems, such as ], ], ], ], ], ], all have their own criticism articles like ], ], ], ], ], ] respectively, and they do not contain a ''Criticism'' section, properly following ] and their ]. So, for consistency purposes, it’s best to remove the meager '''Criticism''' section in this article. I am thinking of making this move. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is why I insisted on removing the data, until a clear and unequivocal information is given and included in this article alone. I advocated the use of Infobox in any article, but not if the information given by the infobox is misleading or contradictory with the content of the article, I heavily discouraged the policy of adding or keeping unsourced information in the infobox. ] (]) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
If the question becomes, "''Then how will the readers find critique articles''?" we can simply relocate the links to the ''''See also'''' section right below. Any readers can instantly click on it should they choose. ] (]) 08:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:See ]. My objection was to your deletion of references to the Separations section, and the three references it contained which back up the assertions of that section. Meanwhile, the article you deleted the link to, ], contains references that back up that assertion. That said, I will have to defer to other editors: I am traveling for the next few weeks for holiday, and Internet connectivity will be questionable starting in an hour or two. Good luck. ] (]) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Okay, I agree with the separations section, but the separated from section does not reflect the article (see ]), the particular claim that Islam is separated from Arabian polytheism is not described at all within the article, and infobox is supposed to be made to summarize the whole article, not to add something up. That is why I said, this particular claim needs a source and mention as well, if not well then remove it, and that's it. Hope everyone understands. ] (]) 23:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Just chiming in as a random person but I completely agree there’s no source or anything to back up that Islam is separated from Polythiesm of any kind and it’s an entirely false and made up claim. It’s a completely Abrahamic religion so this must be removed from the infobox and I support your removal. Thanks ] (]) 16:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I support its removal. {{tq|But I do, in fact find some information regarding the relationship between Muhammad early religious activity and Meccan paganism, but it is still ambiguous and cannot explain the whole idea of Islam being parted from Arabian polytheism.|q=y}} With sources that contrast the two faiths, it might come down to what they mean by "separated": (1) some adherents gradually modified elements of the faith until it was a distinct religion? or (2) among the population, Islam appealed to more and more adherents until the population comprised two distinct groups? I think common wisdom says (2) is true. I agree, we'd want some sources that explicity spell out (1), if it's going to be in the infobox. My two cents. <small><sub>''signed'', </sub></small>] (]) 17:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Abrahamic religions also separate from polytheism. They do not fall from heaven. |
|
|
::::The separation from Polytheism is basically common sense and should fall under ]. Where else does Islam come from then? ] (]) 04:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::That's nonsense, people usually start with believing one god before they started associating with others. And again I'm not talking that we should cite it, I only highlight the problem is the infobox is to summarize the article, and the given information is not in the article, your claim in the comment below proves no evidence, I just reviewed the section and I still found no such information, not even a clear and unequivocal. I believe ] are for specific stuff that are crystal clear and universally known, but this is an exclusive infobox, and it should not be stuffed with information not provided in the article. ] (]) 14:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The article pretty much states that it originated and separated from Arabic polytheism in the section "Muhammad and the beginning of Islam (570–632)"? You do not need to cite the sky is blue. If Islam does not derive from Arabic polytheism, from what is it deriving? ] (]) 04:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{tq|You do not need to cite the sky is blue.}} Yes, but we're talking about infobox, and ] are definitely not made for specific informations in an infobox, unless such information is found within the article, and your claim proves no evidence. ] (]) 14:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
:I see no objection to remove it as long as it is done for good reasons. |
|
|
:The only scholars who claim that Islam began as a Christian sect are from the ]. Evidence for their claims are lacking at best if not outright diametrically to a vast majority of primary and secondary sources. Wang, Shutao. in: ''The origins of Islam in the Arabian context''. MS thesis. The University of Bergen, 2016. explains the issues pretty well on pages 21-23. So, if not from polytheism, where does Islam come from? |
|
|
:Your arguement is that we should simply leave it open because there is no explicit statement. Please note that basic calculations or combining two logical propositions are not Original Research ]. Likewise, obvious examples do not need to be cited (]). Both Muslim sources as well as Western sources agree that Islam parted from Arabian Paganism by asserting that the Arabs should worship only Allah and not any other deity. I do not see how this claim (separated from Arabic Polytheism) can be wrong except from a religious point of view, which violates neutrality (]). |
|
|
:If there is good reason to doubt the general consensus that Islam derives from Mecca and that Mecca was predominently polytheistic, I agree with the removal, but if not I object to that. ] (]) 04:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@], I think it would have merit to supply an inline citation for this particular entry in the infobox. And, I must admit, I am not quite sure that the reasoning here is sufficiently rudimentary as to avoid ]—but to be clear it is just unsurety presently. Moreover, ] seems to apply. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 04:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::An inline citation would certainly solve the discussion. However, some citation requests cannot be met. Not because they are not true, but because it is not a statement found. The explicit statement that Islam separated from pre-Islamic paganism is surely such a statement. We can find various thesis discussing the Revisionist school of Islamic studies attempting to debunk that origin, but we will hardly find a properly published paper containing this exact statement. Here, I also want to point out to ] especially ]. ] is also relevant here. |
|
|
:::I do not think that "Controversial claims" from the WP:CK guidline applies, as it is not a religious claim, but a historical claim touching upon potential religious sensitivities. Not a clear citation as much, but given that I may errorneously presume that something is common knowledge while it is not; I would like to drop " by Yehuda D. Nevo, Judith Koren Review by: Gabriel Said Reynolds" accessable on Jstor, as an overview of the discussion of Islam's origin. |
|
|
:::What I do see as a valid arguement for a removal is that pre-Islamic polytheism also entails monotheistic elements. They did believe in a High God, although in contrast to the monotheist, likely not interfering with human-life. Christian and Hebrew terms are also mentioned in pagan writings, such as "cherubim" (archangels). I would suggest to consider alterantives and improvements first, before we remove it for weak reasons such as "insistence" or "lack of citation", when a citation becomes rather nit-picking. My bold change now was to move from polytheism to paganism, as the latter is broader defined. Alternatively, I could also imagine to insert "Pre-Islamic Arabian beliefs" instead. But removing the origin of Islam in its historical context runs danger to censorship (]). ] (]) 21:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::@], if there's no statement that can be found in RS, then we can't ourselves make an equivalent statement. That is a very basic distillation of ]. I respect the work you do a lot, but the argument you're making for your position here is trivially problematic. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 21:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I see it more as a form of censorship, as I said, I do not see a reason to cite trivial information. But I also have other things to do, as long as there are no blatantly wrong informations added, I can accept, though with disappointment, the removal of a statement which is simply common knowledge. ] (]) 21:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I hope you take me in complete sincerity when I say I understand your frustration. However, the basic reply that is usually applicable—and I would say especially applicable here—is that just because a statement is trivial to you, does not make it so for others that may be reading. You should already get that, as if it were trivial to everyone there wouldn't be such strong concerns over whether it is being censored. The citation isn't for your own benefit, it's for those who do not necessarily have the acclimation that you do. That is why verifiability is important. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 21:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I do not take it personal or anything, and I do see your point. To be honest, I had doubt about me reverting too, but a second thought and a look through the guidlines, I decided to revert it. |
|
|
:::::::I do not insist on my addition though, but it still leaves a bitter taste. The Islam info-box is now the only one of the Abrahamic Religion which hides its origin. Even Judaism has a claim of its Yahwistic/pagan origin. |
|
|
:::::::More than the removal of content, I am afraid the implications for why such a claim is disputed in the first place may bother me even more. Because it makes no sense on an academic level, but makes heartbreaking sense on a social one. I am afraid that the separation from "paganism" leads some people to the errorneous conclusion that Islam's truest identity is "pagan" (see also the ]-hoax). However, the opposite is the case: Separation from a previous belief means always a rejection of it to a certain degree, just as early Christians rejected the Greco-deities, Muhamamd separated because he rejected pre-Islamic polytheism. |
|
|
:::::::It is disheartening to see that people feel pushed to defend themselves as well as how it poisons academic discourse. |
|
|
:::::::Considering the broader context, the inline citation might really be a necessity because the context of the statement is by far not as obvious as I thought it would be. ] (]) 22:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Are you sure that there is no comparable tertiary source that makes a plain statement of this kind we can use? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 22:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I will have to look it up, after the holiday season. It needs to be a good one too then though. ] (]) 00:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Agreed. I'll look too, though I can't promise anything at present. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 00:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
=== Sourcing === |
|
|
I did some research last night. I only wanted to present results if I had at least a couple sources, since I do not want to engage in cherrypicking or the appearance of such, but barring the chance that I do not return to this, I wanted to at least show the solid attestation I did happen to find: |
|
|
* {{cite book | last=ʿAẓma | first=ʿAzīz al- | title=The emergence of Islam in late antiquity: Allah and his people | publisher=Cambridge University Press | year=2014 | isbn=978-1-139-41085-4 |pages=48–49, ''passim''|quote=For the purposes of the present investigation, two registers are of special pertinence. The first is generic. A generic history of a supreme deity, including Allāh, would consider in comparative compass the rise to primacy, eventually to indivisible divine remit, of one among deities emerging from a polytheistic universe to attain exclusive and indivisible divine status, in a movement that was to be recapitulated structurally in the Paleo-Muslim period of Muḥammad and his immediate successors. This was an area that, in the late sixth century, still saw the persistence of a generic polytheism, forming a series of geographical and religious enclaves of Arab polytheism alongside a variety of Christian, Jewish and, possibly, Judaeo-Christian denominations and conceptions, so far of uncertain physiognomy. Both polytheism and ambient monotheisms were equally pertinent to the emergence of Allāh as a monotheistic deity: the former pertinent to the religious transformation of the pagan Arabs, in some ways analogously to the cultic transformations of Israelite religion to Judaism.}} |
|
|
<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 19:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2024 == |
|
The argument that "other stuff does not exist" is not accurate when considering articles on religions and belief systems. Other of these articles, such as those on ] and ], do include a "Criticism" section. I believe that having a "Criticism" section is relevant for articles on major religions like Islam and Christianity, given their significant impact on the world. Criticism of their influence or belief systems is both relevant and frequently discussed. ] (]) 09:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Islam|answered=yes}} |
|
:@], The guideline advises against isolating the "Criticism" section in a separate section, regardless of the religion's size or impact, and a dedicated critique article already exists. |
|
|
|
In this article it is written that MUHAMMAD SAW is the founder of islam which is not true . Muhammad saw were the last messenger of ALLAH SW. according to Quran & sahih Hadith. ] (]) 14:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:{{tq|"given their significant impact on the world"}} Actually, no '''<u>Hinduism</u>''' has considerably more of a impact and influence both in ancient and modern world than those two. Zoroastrianism also holds its own in terms of far-reaching influence. And '''<u>Atheism</u>''' is as relevant as ever and its significance will keep growing. |
|
|
|
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> we characterize Muhammad based on ]. We consider scripture and other traditional religious works to be ]s, and as such generally do not cite them directly. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 15:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:{{tq|"Christianity and Judaism, do include a "Criticism" section"}} These should also be revisited for consistency. If anyone starts a new discussion on those articles, regarding the removal of their sections, my approach will be the same. ] (]) 10:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think there might be a misunderstanding. The criticism section should not be limited to just the Abrahamic religions. Other systems, such as atheism, Hinduism, and the Baha'i faith, also face criticism and have political and social impacts in various societies. There are numerous books, researchers, and viewpoints that address these criticisms. I suggest adding a paragraph that includes responses from Muslim scholars and researchers to these criticisms. Additionally, it could be valuable to include a paragraph on Islamophobia, as it has become a noticeable phenomenon in several societies recently. ] (]) 12:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@] What guideline? ] (]) 16:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::StarkReport, So why don't you start the same discussion in the Judaism and Christianity talk pages? ] (]) 17:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hello @], Doesn't ] generally advise us against having a "Criticism" section? |
|
|
:::{{talkquote|"In most cases separate sections devoted to '''criticism''', controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints."}} |
|
|
:::As for belief systems: |
|
|
:::{{talkquote|"For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section '''<u>or "Criticism of ..." subarticle.</u>''' "}} |
|
|
:::Since we already have articles dedicated to critiques of religious and belief systems such as Islam, do we really need a skimpy section in their general articles? It seems incongruent and awkward. |
|
|
:::{{tq|"So why don't you start the same discussion in the Judaism and Christianity"}} @], My dear, you are more than welcome to initiate those discussions, and I will support them. Simple. Editors are not idiots, thoughtlessly spamming the same argument across multiple articles simultaneously. Addressing this article now doesn’t preclude future actions elsewhere. One thing at a time. In my capacity, I did started a discussion on the ] article for the removal of an out-of-scope section, and then removed it—same with an unnecessary section in the ]. ] (]) 02:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yep, I think it's appropriate to have that section here, the article(s) it summarizes are very substantial. One guideline (NOCRIT is an essay, but that doesn't make it useless) says "]" ] (]) 05:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::StarkReport, I won't to do that because I don't support that view. As Graa Sang said this "policy of NOCRIT" is actually not a binding policy but rather a non-binding recommendation, and personally I feel that the reason given there (that people might be confused and think that the criticism is part of the religion itself) is unconvincing. Having said that, I wouldn't object to that recommendation '''if it is applied consistently'''. Which is why I think that if you want to raise this issue, you should raise it simultaneously in all relevant articles. ] (]) 07:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't think this a one-size-fits-all situation, but that's me. If such a discussion is to be had, ] might be the place for it, with ]s in other places. ] (]) 07:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Flow of page and leaning == |
|
== Shahada needs witnesses? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Non-Muslims wishing to convert to Islam are required to recite the shahada in front of witnesses" is this correct? I don't think so: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/49715/do-you-need-witnesses-to-take-shahadah https://seekersguidance.org/answers/calling-to-islam/does-taking-shahada-require-witnesses/ https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/51648/embracing-islam-needs-no-rites-or-official-procedures ] (]) 18:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
The page flow, on the English page, is disorganized at times and the word choices in English disrupt comprehension when there are perfectly Halal English alternatives that would allow for better flow. |
|
|
|
|
|
My question is, Has that been addressed before but it is simply met with rejection? |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, it's very obvious the page leans in its explanation of Islam from the Modern Sunni point of view, Was that on purpose or something that can't be undone without risking future vandalism? |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm asking because I wanted to put the time in to make the page more approachable for English speakers while maintaining Halal word usage. I just don't want to throw my time away only to find out that the flow of words currently on the page is preferred. ] (]) 04:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:These questions are far too vague to admit meaningful answers. You are welcome (though not required) to propose concrete edits here before implementing them, to see how other editors feel about them; this is probably a good idea in the case of large-scale changes. ] (]) 14:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Islam|answered=yes}} |
|
|
"Islam has second-largest religious population after Christians" should be "Islam has *the* second-largest religious population after Christians". ] (]) 10:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:added definitive article *the* as described. ] (]) 12:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== discussion Al-Ghayb == |
|
|
|
|
|
The Islam page when referencing Allah's nature uses the below quoted sentence. '''Wiki has a page for Al-Ghayb describing the concept.''' Should we link that page in that sentence, include the proper word "Al Ghayb" thru some type of rewording or simply do nothing to give context to the sentence? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"God is seen as transcendent of creation and so is beyond comprehension." |
|
|
{{under discussion inline|Al-Ghayb}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 18:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== It's Mohamedism not islam in English == |
|
|
|
|
|
islam came in 7th century so mohamedism will represant accurate as religion starting from political leader prophet muhammad and previous were messengers too but not muslims.Because with islam definition everybody would be follower of muslim they dont accept this so Mohamedism would be best. ] (]) 18:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Muslim is from an Arabic word meaning, "one who submits". The preferred term for Islam by both academia and by Muslims is the term Islam which comes from an Arabic word meaning "submission to God". That same root literally helps form the common greeting used by almost all Muslims regardless of language, "Salamalekum", meaning Peace be upon you. |
|
|
:"Mohamedism" although once common in English speaking countries, probably because of our tendency to put "ism" on any system or religion, has largely fallen out of favor and in many cases is considered offensive. It can still be used in some instances to refer to cultural systems of Muslims, but has no place in this page about Islam. Ultimately, I would stay away from the term as it is a exonym that is not embraced by the group is tried to describe. |
|
|
:All the above can be sourced from sources in the Islam page, oxford dictionary, and Online Etymology Dictionary. |
|
|
:If you disagree, please offer current sources that meet Misplaced Pages guidelines ] with your rebuttal. ] (]) 18:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:]. ] (]) 19:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I knew there was a policy but couldn't remember the page name. Thank you. ] (]) 19:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm reminded of a discussion that wanted en-WP to spell Allah with 3 L. It didn't catch on: ]. ] (]) 04:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Islam|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Hello Sir I wanna add a Phrase is "Islam" Religion Page Thay is |
|
|
" It's The Complete System Of A Life Which Gives Muslims a religious, social, aur legal guidelines" It is a complete system that encompasses spiritual, social and moral dimensions. It contains guidelines for every aspect of life, such as family, business, and governance. " ] (]) 12:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 13:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Article reliability == |
|
|
|
|
|
To the recent editor who just reverted, what makes you think that the article I cited was unreliable? It's only deemed as unreliable if I get a warning before I click publish. However, this wasn't the case when I added this article about birth rates of Muslims. ] (]) 20:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:@]. I think he's tryna talk to you. Your welcome. ] (]|]) 22:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::@] You need to read ]. Misplaced Pages has rather strict rules for reliable sources. Just finding an Internet page that says something is not enough. Before you continue Misplaced Pages, it would be good to familiarise yourself with Misplaced Pages policies. ] (]) 23:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Islam|answered=yes}} |
|
|
For any image that depicts the prophet, angel and gods face should be removed because in islam it is very disrespectful to do so because it encourages idolatry, or the worship of physical objects. This is inconsistent with the Muslim faith's monotheism, which teaches that God alone should be worshipped. |
|
|
whenever i see these i feel disrespected as i myself am muslim and a follower of islam i find it wrong to just see ancient paintings of something and immediatly think its right without background checking it with an actual muslim thank you for reading this and goodbye. ] (]) 23:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> Misplaced Pages is ]. ] (]) 23:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
For any image that depicts the prophet, angel and gods face should be removed because in islam it is very disrespectful to do so because it encourages idolatry, or the worship of physical objects. This is inconsistent with the Muslim faith's monotheism, which teaches that God alone should be worshipped.
Islam is oldest religion in the world, please correct it , the first prophet was Adam ( from life start of Human Beings ) and the last was Muhammad:
The first prophet, considered the father of the human race. His story teaches about forgiveness, obedience, and patience.
Muhammad
The last prophet, who received a divine gift of revelation through the angel Gabriel. Both Sunni and Shi'a Muslims believe that no new prophet can arise after Muhammad.
Idris (Enoch), Nuh (Noah), Hud (Heber), Saleh (Methusaleh), Lut (Lot), Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaq (Isaac), Yaqub (Jacob), and Yusuf (Joseph) etc there is more then one lakh messenger from God till the last 117.254.233.106 (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi ! How Can You Just Say That Islam Was Spreading Father Due To The Fertility Rate ? Theres Thousands and Thousands Of Reverts Across Globe And Reverting Rate Was Much Higher. That fertility Fact Was Too Descriminating and Replicating Propaganda Myths . So I Request Someone Who Can Access The Edit Section Of This To Edit The Part . Thanks So Much ItsTrueNow (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
This is why I insisted on removing the data, until a clear and unequivocal information is given and included in this article alone. I advocated the use of Infobox in any article, but not if the information given by the infobox is misleading or contradictory with the content of the article, I heavily discouraged the policy of adding or keeping unsourced information in the infobox. Mhatopzz (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I did some research last night. I only wanted to present results if I had at least a couple sources, since I do not want to engage in cherrypicking or the appearance of such, but barring the chance that I do not return to this, I wanted to at least show the solid attestation I did happen to find:
In this article it is written that MUHAMMAD SAW is the founder of islam which is not true . Muhammad saw were the last messenger of ALLAH SW. according to Quran & sahih Hadith. 106.215.131.199 (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)