From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

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 Wikipedia. To inform people.
Or, you could just delete the link, delete these comments I’ve wrote, and ban me from Wikipedia. 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 talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 talk 01:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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

I have access to the full version of the EB, and their (very large) article on Islam contains 0 references to terror. I think that's a good reason not to do this, if a major encyclopedia doesn't include it, it is a good reason not to include. Naelphin 23:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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: "Make up your mind, mate, are they Christians or Jews, they can't be both..."



  • 2001 Halifax, Canada Mosque attacked The race and religion of the man who committed this crime was not mentioned, therefore, he cannot undoubtedly be put under the category of a white Christian terrorist.

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) Wiki me up™
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) Wiki me up™

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 Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia. — Aiden 20:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, please read accounts by survivors of the USS Liberty attack before resorting to the two gov'ts spin er explanation of events. How come the survivors were given the highest medal of honor in secret? Ask yourself.


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

Many of these articles reported on unsolved crimes with no suspects. It cannot be assumed that the people who committed these crimes are white Christians. Many of these article report on crimes that do not fall into the category of terrorism but rather warfare or murder. In addition there are articles that report acts of terrorism committed by people who are not white Christians therefore they have no relevance to what you are saying. Hindus, Hutus, Israelis, Jews, and other ethnic and religious groups reported here are not white Christians. There are too many disputes with whether these articles fall into the catagory you are trying to place them in. --L

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)

Muslims do believe that Christians are monotheistic.

Sociologists classify Christianity as monotheistic, along with Hinduism. They are of the same type: Monotheistic with several manifestations.

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. joturn e r 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is not censored, there isn't any real grounds under policy to prevent one from appearing. Agent Blightsoot 12:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. Also, censoring for these reasons would, IMHO go against NPOV. In addition, I don't like it when people delete my comments, Hammer Racoon... CynicalMe 09:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Can I consider that a 'For' Blightsoot?
  • For a picture of Mohammed. There are pictures of Jesus and other prophets on Wikipedia. This should not be an exception. (Anonymous User) 10 June 2006
  • For 'An artist's interpretation of Muhammad, however, does not seem particularly notable to me. Kasreyn' Photography didn't exist back then so a picture IS notable. Remember Wikipedia is secular.
  • Comment. No, a picture would be notable if it were a portrait of him from his lifetime. For example, photography didn't exist in Mozart's day, yet the artistic depictions of him on Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart are extremely noteworthy because they are actually and really based on what he looked like, even if they have some minor inaccuracies. An artistic depictions of Muhammad, on the other hand, must, by necessity, be almost entirely from the artist's imagination, no? Consequently, it is not really relevant to have an artistic representation to him on Islam: it would be relevant to have a portrait of him, but as far as I know, we do not. (The Muhammad article itself, on the other hand, is a very different story; artistic depictions of him are fair game there.) - Silence 19:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Against Votes

  • As Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, but not here. DJ Clayworth 14:32, 7 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)
  • Against Absolutely no need. Wikipidian 15:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Against - Per above. Mário 14:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Against - No real picture exist. It is against Muslims feeling and not informational. --- Faisal 14:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Against - No real picture for Muhammad (SAW) exists. Hence any picture placed here would be false. --- IbnWiki 17:23, 19 June 2006 (GMT)
  • Against - Same argument as many people above, any image place would not be a real or indeed certain of being an accurate representation, there is already a wikipedia page on depictions of Muhammad. M2k41 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Against - Dittoing what people have been saying. There are no accurate portrayals of Muhammad so having a picture of him here would really serve no purpose.-- Konstable 12:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Against - there is no need to upset the millions of muslims that go to wikipedia Bazel 17:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Looks like this one is a no. BhaiSaab talk 04:16, 20 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)


Islamic terrorism section

In accordance with WP:SS, I have added a section to the article entitled Islamic terrorism. The content is the lead section of the Islamic extremist terrorist section, in order to provide a fuller overview of all the daughter Islam articles in the main article itself.

I am aware that many Muslims seem to want to erase any mention of terrorism in the article, but it is only fair, and I haven't added anything that isn't already immediately available on Wikipedia. Dev920 14:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Islamist terrorism is a sub-topic of Islamism. Thus, if anything, we can have an Islamism section in this article, with a mere reference to terrorism. Note that there already was a reference to terrorism, in the "contemporary Islam" section. dab (ᛏ) 15:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Islamic terrorism may have fundamentalism at its core driver, but it is still an important article in its own right. If you want to put Islamism, that's cool, but the terrorism summary should go underneath. Anyway, why shoudl we have a "mere" reference to terrorism? Is it not the main reason for all this "security" issues being put forward by our governments today? Dev920 16:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
this is an article on Islam, not a security advisory. Islamist terrorism (not "Islamic terrorism" as you abbreviate the title) is a notable movement within Islamism, and duly has its own article. Islamism should be mentioned as relevant to Islam as Christian fundamentalism is mentioned on Christianity: in passing. dab (ᛏ) 16:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Dab, I genuinely do not understand why you think I am attacking the inclusion of Islamism in the article - sure, give it the same mention as Christianity gives their fundamentalists on that article. I don't really care what you do with Islamism, note I haven't taken it off.
But terrorism is separate from Islamism, its not a subarticle, it is an article in its own right, and in a world where 57% of terrorist incidents are caused by Islamic terrorists, and America will cheerfully go and bomb places because they're harbouring terrorists, or claims they are, I think its an important part of an article giving a general overview of Islam. I'm not suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists (certainly none of my Muslim friends are), but the sheer percentage of terrorists who are committing these deeds because of what they perceive Islam to say I think credits it a section on Islam.
Dev920 17:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in this article. BhaiSaab talk 17:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Why? Is not al-Qaeda committing acts of terrorism because of their ideas of Islam? Terrorism is a serious plague for Muslims everywhere, why doesn't it belong? Dev920 17:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Al-Qaeda is committing acts of terrorism because of their ideas of the west - not their ideas of Islam. It doesn't belong here for the same reason that the war crimes of Ariel Sharon don't belong in the Judaism article. BhaiSaab talk 17:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Their ideas of the West are informed by their Muslim beliefs. However, this doesn't matter because al-Qaeda wasn't mentioned in the section I put in, and neither were any other organisations. Any crimes that Ariel Sharon may or may not have committed should not be included in the Judaism article, but the Israel one, because anything he did would be political rather than religious. But if 57% of the world's terrorism, was committed by Jews, I'd want Jewish terrorism to have a section. Why shouldn't Islam?
I assume you have some sort of evidence to back up your assertion that 57% of the world terrorism is carried out by Muslims? CynicalMe 18:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I am taking my assertion from Islamic extremist terrorism. Dev920 19:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
if there is such a reference, everybody is welcome to discuss it over at Talk:Islamic extremist terrorism. Now, since " terrorism" in recent usage is defined as "anything so described by the Bush regime", I have no doubt you can come up with even a 90% number if you look in the right [pun intended] places. However, such classifications of the term have nothing to do with bona fide analysis, and all the more with propaganda. That's not to say Islamist terrorism is neglegible or harmless, to be sure. It is a serious problem of recent years, with its own proper article, duly linked from this article as pertinent to Islamism, which is in turn somewhat pertinent to Islam. That's the long and short of it. dab (ᛏ) 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I am taking my assertion from Islamic extremist terrorism, which also defines terrorism while we're about it. Please don't let your bias against George Bush get in the way of adding this section. Islamism and Islamic terrorism ARE linked, yes, I understand that, but to say that Islamic terrorism is nothing more than an aspect of Islamism and should remain there is wrong, and it should have its own section, because it is more significant in global affairs than just as an example of Islamic fundamentalism. Dev920 19:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It's probably not useful to politicize this. Tom Harrison Talk 19:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
as far as I understand, Islamism is an intrinsically political phenomenon. How will we not politicize it? dab (ᛏ) 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Keeping our opinions of George Bush out of the discussion would be a start. Tom Harrison Talk 20:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, if we're going to discuss Islamist terrorism, Bush is relevant indeed: it is important to understand that Islamist terror and the Bush cabinet are the life-blood of each other, there is no discussing of one without the other. But my entire point is that both do not belong on this article, so I am more than happy to close the thread altogether. dab (ᛏ) 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
How is Islamic Terrorism and George Bush inextricably linked? Islamic terrorism existed before Bush became president - al-Qaeda was set up in the 80s fighting the soviets, and the first notable bombing from them was in 1991, on Clinton's watch. Either way, there is still no need to refer to a "regime". Dev920 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe that the most common formulation of the argument Dbachmann is expressing is that authoritarian governments (which he seems to allege the Bush administration is) have a tendency to harsh crackdowns against visible symptoms of terrorism, which in turn feeds recruitment of terrorists by making the nation performing the crackdown look like an aggressor and making martyrs. The usual coda to the argument is that a better solution to the problem of terrorism is to determine the root causes motivating individual terrorists; once these causes are removed, so the theory goes, terrorist organizations will no longer be able to find people willing to blow themselves up.
The general dispute over acceptance of the theory seems to be over whether terrorists are "evil" people incapable of being reasoned with, who can only understand and respect a show of strength, or whether they are normal people motivated by necessity, who can be reasoned with, and who would cease their attacks if a better path was available. As you noted, it certainly isn't regime-specific. As near as I can tell, the last American administration which even hinted at supporting the theory Dbachmann asserts was the Carter administration. Immediately thereafter, Carter was labelled "soft on terrorism", lost his bid for reelection, and every administration since has held to a policy of refusing to negotiate or reason with terrorists. Kasreyn 20:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
well, there is no need to call every Muslim with a gun a terrorist. Some of them might be fighting for a worthy cause, or just for old self-interests like everybody else. It is npov to say that Bush is de facto in power. Implying legitimacy is a more controversial matter. dab (ᛏ) 20:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I never suggested anything of the kind, not all Muslims who brandish guns are terrorists (though possibly a majority are) and I apologise if you misinterpreted my words that way. But the fact is, referring to a a "Bush regime" is POV and impies he is akin to an authoritarian state, is it not? But this is getting off the issue. Dev920 20:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
A question, Dev920: if you "haven't added anything that isn't already immediately available on Wikipedia", why duplicate the information? According to you, Wikipedia already has a copy of the information somewhere. This is a matter of information categorization, not some sort of censorship debate. I see a link to "Islamism" in the right sidebar near the top of the article. Surely that will lead readers interested in Islamic extremism to the information. What purpose is served by duplicating the information? Kasreyn 20:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Because WP: Summary Style says "The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail." Islamic terrorism is often the reason many in the West originally look up Islam. They would not understand the concept of Islamism, so linking solely to terrorism from there would not allow these users good accessability. An Islamic terrorism section would allow this users to access the information they want immediately. This is what I meant, as people keep asking me to back up my assertions, when I am merely writing what is already on Wikipedia. I just want to improve access. Dev920 20:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have listed this dispute at Wikiquette alerts, to try and get some outside opinions. Dev920 17:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The new section on Islamism is enough. There is no need to pack everything into this, the top-level survey article. Tom Harrison Talk 19:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As per above, Islamism is a separate, if linked, issue from terrorism. Dev920 19:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
no, it isn't. Or show me a Sufi terrorist. You can be an extremist without being a terrorist, but you can hardly be a terrorist without being an extremist ("let us strike a moderate amount of angst into the hearts of our enemies"??) dab (ᛏ) 19:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Shamil Basayev - sufi terrorist. But, as I understand it, Islamism is driven by political concerns, rather like zionism. Many Islamic terrorists see it as a religious war, driving out invaders from foreign lands (I am taking all this from Wikipedia articles, so please don't shout at me). Hence the two may well be linked, but they are still separate. Dev920 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
If you come to Pakistan, you will find majority here will say America is a Terrorist state. Tell me that now its okay to create an article with name American_Terrorism and then add it on the USA site? I think NOT. Hence similarly terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Even the word is yacky/ugly political word. --- Faisal 20:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
If you could provide sufficient evidence that Americans were collaborating in terrorism because of their American nationality, certainly it would be acceptable to create such an article and link it. But they aren't. However, Americans are conducting terrorist operations because of the abortion debate, for example, and hence the article exists at Anti-abortion violence. Islamic terrorism, however, is a sad, but documented fact. Dev920 20:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
here we are at "who has defining power over 'terrorism'". Of course the US army terrorizes its victims. But that's still not called terrorism by mainstream media. Still, it would be about as justified to add a h2 "US war crimes" section to the USA article, wrt the US's 230 years history, than it is to add an "Islamis terrorism" h2 section to the Islam article, wrt its 1400 years history. We do not want articles on major topics spammed by recent news. Islam may be notable for terrorism in the headlines, and the US for breaking of the Geneva conventions and the Kyoto protocol. That's Wikipedia:Recentisms, not immediately worthy of h2 sections. dab (ᛏ) 20:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Whether the US army is terrorising their "victims" or not, they are not doing so because they are American. Like I said over at Wikiproject Islam, I think a hundred years of terrorism is not exactly "recent", and I think 57% of terrism incidents being caused by islamic terrorists is more than just headlines. Now I don't want to get into US mistreatment of terrorists, because that has been neither conclusively proven, nor has an adequate parallel with Islamic terrorism, for the reason I outlined above. There is no article for "American terrorism", because terrorists who are american do not commit acts of terrorism because of their nationality. But this not related to islamic terrorism, which, as I mentioned before is a significant percentage of world wide terrorism and, reading WP:SS, should be made accessable to the common reader. Dev920 20:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Returning to the question of a section for terrorism on this page, I share dab's concerns about recentism, and undue weight. Tom Harrison Talk 21:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think 100 years at least of Islamic terrorism can hardly be described as recent. Dev920 21:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
From where 100 years time come? It think it is much more recent. In fact it started around 1940s, after Muslims were defeated. --- Faisal 21:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I just picked that as a round number, much smaller than the whole history of Islam. Tom Harrison Talk 21:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Islamic terrorism in the form that we would recognise it today I thinks started around the fall of the Ottoman empire back in the early years of the last century. [1] However, I found this article on Wikipedia which implies it may have started much earlier. Dev920 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


I would like to emphasise that I do not believe that all Muslims are terrorists, or even a majority of them. If this idea is coming across in the way I am phrasing myself, I absolutely do not intend to. Dev920 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if your idea is that Islam teaches us terrorism then it is wrong. Yes we do believe in Jihad. But Islam never allows killing innocents or children. --- Faisal 21:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I am absolutely aware of that. That is what I was trying to say. Have I managed to give the impression I was specifically trying to say I wasn't? :D Dev920 21:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"terrorism" in the modern sense dates to post-WWII. Sure, you are free to call Muhammad himself a terrorist. And others are free to call Godfrey of Bouillon a terrorist. Semantics. "Terrorism" in the 2000s is mainly an US propaganda term, as such ill-defined, and it would be better to do without it. We can point out that Islam expanded by military means in the 8th century, no problem. We can say that Islamists are in the headlines for terrorist activity, but keep in mind that this is the Islam article, and descriptions of recent history is not the topic here. It is my impression that you are consciously pushing an offtopic discussion. All this belongs on the Islamist terrorism talkpage. dab (ᛏ) 21:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Why would it belong on a talk page there is no reason to edit? We are not talking about the modern version of terrorism, or whatever propaganda you think the US is pushing. I am not, as I have mentioned before, trying to push recent history on the Islam talk page. I want to make a significant, if regrettable, aspect of Islam accessible to people who want to read about it. How could this be construed as off-topic? I am being onfocus, sticking to the discussion at hand - whether islamic terrorism deserves a summary style section on its mother page, as outlined by WP:SS. I'm not digressing into discussions about the US Army terrorising people. I am defining terrorism as it is defined on Wikipedia - if you think that is POV, by all means change it. But please stop claiming terrorism is propanganda pushed by the Americans - I'm British, I don't care what the Americans think about terrorism. Dev920 22:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree there can be a link. I agree people wanting to read about islamist terrorism should be free to do so, at Islamist terrorism, which has been perfectly accessible for many months. This is the Islam article, not the Islamism article and not the Islamist terrorism article. It is debatable whether IT is an "aspect of Islam" any more than the KKK is an aspect of Christianity. Debatable, on the pertinent article. The point is that people do not agree that this is its mother page, as you seem to take for granted. Clearly, Islamism is its mother page. You could argue that this is its grandmother page, which might warrant a short mention. dab (ᛏ) 22:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
As I have explained before, islamism, and Islamic terrorism are separate issues. If they are separate issue, than they are sister articles. Off this one, in fact. Now, admittedly "aspect of Islam" was poorly worded, but Islamic terrorism, of which much is motivated by religious desire to further what they believe to be Allah's will, is rather different from the KKK which was motivated by hatred of blacks, not their religion. Now you seem to be talking as if this is an obvious fact that Islamism is the mother article to Islamic terrorism - but you are the only person arguing this, and everyone else's input seems to focus on either insisting I back up asertions I am making based on Wikipedia articles I have read, or saying that an Islamic terrorism section, be it h2 or h3, does not belong, without ever specifying why. If you agree there should be a link (which there wasn't until I added the section), what is the opposition to a summary style section based on the lead section from islamic extremist terrorism, which WP:SS postively encourages and is the reason it should be added? Dev920 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
at this point we are just reiterating what we said before. You claim Islamism and Islamist terrorism are "separate". I say that the latter is a subset of the former: In spite of your insistence to talk of "Islamic terrorism", our article resides at Islamic extremist (i.e. Islamist) terrorism. There is a reason for that: Nobody except for the terrorists themselves agrees that their activities are, in fact, "Islamic" in any way. By insisting to list them as a subtopic of Islam, you are, thus, pushing the insertion of a pov only held by terrorists, which doesn't sit right with me. dab (ᛏ) 10:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Man, do you ever sleep? And I note you seem to be trying to equate my views with that of terrorists. Neat sidestep. The article resides as Islamic terrorism. But the names are irrelevant; whether Islamic terrorism is Islamic or not is also irrelvant, because what my point regarding Islamism and Islamic terrorism is that Islamic terrorism is not neccessarily motivated by Islamism, and therefore cannot be considered a sub-topic. By saying that I'm pushing a POV when I want to add a summary style section that is already on Wikipedia to its mother article for the ease of accessibility is not true. What I am "pushing" is a fair and accessible article which covers all significant issues, and your rejection of what you call "the terrorist POV" only indicates that you're "pushing" one of your own. Dev920 10:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

no. The article resides at Islamic extremist terrorism. "Islamic extremist" is what is expressed by the term "Islamist". Woman, do you ever listen? I disagree that this is its "mother article", no matter how often you pretend that that's an agreed fact. Yes, I believe that not all points of view are of equal notability. In particular, I believe that Wikipedia articles should be written less from a terrorist's viewpoint than from the viewpoint of scholarly mainstream: sue me. dab (ᛏ) 10:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Would that be WP:LEGAL? :D

Right, to sum up the curent dispute:

  • I think that WP:SS, in particular ""The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail." would suggest that adding a section on terrorism to the Islam article is a good idea for those who want to read about islamic terrorism, mainly because the common reader does not want to read about political ideology to reach Islamic terrorism. The information provided came from the lead section of Islamic extremist terrorism, rearranged in an appropriate summary style.
  • However, this was repeatedly reverted.
  • Hardly any users gave input (I assume because they're all arguing with Timothy Usher over at the Muslim Guild right now), with most comments being "It does not belong here."
  • There was a short debate, initated by Tom Harrison, over whether terrorism was too recent to be included in an article about a religion 1400 years. I stated that Islamic terrorism as we know it today began in the early years of thsi century with the fall of the Ottoman empire, and arguably this article could also been for terrorism as well. The debate fizzled out shortly after.
  • However, DBachmann did respond. Besides short arguments that "terrorism is defined by the Bush regime", "It doesn't belong because the war crimes of Ariel Sharon aren't on Judaism", and "Terrorism isn't Islamic", the main dispute seems to be that Dab added a section on Islamism and removed mine on terrorism, because he said that terrorism was a subtopic of Islamism.
  • I replied saying that Islamism is a political ideology, and as much Islamic terrorism is not committed for political reasons it could not be argued that Islamic terrorism was a subtopic of islamism, but a parellel one
  • This went back and forth for about 12 hours now, is it? There were also semantics over the difference between Islamic and Islamist terrorism.
  • Interestingly, in the discussion on Dab's and mine talkpages, Dab admitted he could live with a h3 section on terrorism, but wasn't allowing it because "if it was between the two of us, I could accept it as a compromise, that is, as a still acceptable deterioration of the article's organization. Others will feel more strongly about it, and because of what I just said, I will tend to take their side."
  • I think this is a poor reason to prevent an editor being bold. Dab sees it as consensus.
  • Dab has since changed his opinion to agreeing to have a link, but not a section.
  • We are both getting frustrated at this deadlock.

Your thoughts, whoever you are, would be welcome.

I thought I had made my reasoning clear, though I see I wrote it somewhere else: Presenting it on the main page of the top-level article skews the presentation, giving terrorism undue weight, and making it look like it is somehow intrinsic to Islam. It also introduces a recentcy bias. With 1500 years of history, we have to be careful not to over-emphasize the last hundred years. Certainly 'recent' is not a bright line. As for Ghazw and terrorism, "The degree of resemblance between the two phenomena is a contentious issue." I'm not sure it has any more to do with Islam than piracy has to do with Christianity. Tom Harrison Talk 19:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

RFC Response

The peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Islam contains this 1-May comment "The 'see also' section is a disgrace. It carefully avoids links to any of the controversial topics (which I think some of the Muslim editors would like to cover up) ...". There is a "Terrorism" section above started on 10 May that also started because it was believed that the subject was too important to omit. I haven't gone back through the Talk archives to look further - but I would be shocked if there were not prior discussions there.

While the Islamic terrorists are a small fraction of Muslims, they are the most visible face of Islam in the Western World. This article will not deserve to be a featured article unless it finds an adequate way to address modern islamic terrorism.

The Islamism article does not have a daughter article on terrorism by Muslims. So, the argument that having a link to Islamism covers the topic fails. Something more must be done.

A summary section of, and link to Islamic extremist terrorism is an adequate way of addressing this topic. However, the first version of that summary section posted here could be improved upon. I would suggest making prominent use of what is now the lead paragrpah of that article: "Islamic extremist terrorism refers to acts of terrorism claimed by its supporters and practitioners to be in furtherance of the goals of Islam. The validity of an Islamic justification for these acts is contested by other Muslims." This two sentence paragraph might by itself be adequate summary and is certainly expressed in the NPOV, although I think if you work together you can come up with a better and longer summary to use here. GRBerry 13:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

After watching Striver's latest edit ( this diff), I asked him to enlighten me as to why he thought there was a summary section on criticism. Discussion at his talk page revealed that he was thinking of one that used to be in this article. Reinstating it somehow should also be done. There has been at least one proposal to make a paragraph in Criticism of Islam about terrorism and islam. If that was done so that the appropriate terrorism article was a child of the criticism article, and the criticism article was brought here as a true child of the Islam article, that might be sufficient. Today at least, the Criticism article has fewer bad-article type tags on it than the "Islamism" or "Islamic extremist terrorism" articles. GRBerry 21:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing the section

Ok, here is the section as it stands: Islamic Terrorism

Main article: Islamic extremist terrorism

Where such violent and terrorist activity aims to establish a pan-Islamic theocracy and impose religious law ( Sharia), it is sometimes termed Islamist terrorism. The term Islamic terrorism is more widely used, while governments often refer to it as Islamic extremism. Islamic extremist terrorism refers to acts of terrorism claimed by its supporters and practitioners to be in furtherance of the goals of Islam. The validity of an Islamic justification for these acts is contested by other Muslims. There is much debate about whether commentary on the subject unfairly caricatures Muslims, and Arab Muslims in particular (see the Muhammad cartoons controversy for example).

According to statistics of the National Counterterrorism Center, a national government organization of the United States, Islamic extremism was responsible for approximately 57% of terrorist fatalities and 61% of woundings in 2004 and early 2005, where a terrorist perpetrator type could be specified [1]. Extremist acts have included airline hijacking, kidnapping, assassination, and suicide bombing. Terrorist threats have included fatwas and death threats. Children have been used in the administration and perpetration of these attacks. Both Muslims and non-Muslims have been among the targets and victims.

Islamic extremist violence is not synonymous with all terrorist activities committed by Muslims. Nationalist, separatist, and occasionally Marxist- Leninist organizations in the Muslim world often derive inspiration from secular ideologies. These are not well described as either Islamic extremist or Islamist.

How can we improve on this for the Islam article, as per GR Berry above? Dev920 17:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

We could...remove it. :) BhaiSaab talk 18:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I want to put it up. I have given reasons. GR BErry supports putting it up, he has given reasons. YOU, keep taking it down and are giving no kind of response other than "it does not belong". I say "It does belong". I've explained why, will you explain yours? Dev920 18:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything to do with Islamic beliefs. BhaiSaab talk 19:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The article isn't about Islamic beliefs. I wouldn't dream of putting terrorism on Islamic beliefs. This article is about Islam and notable parts of Islam. And unfortunately, Islamic terrorism is a very visible development and, to improve accessibility under WP:SS, it ought to have a section. Now GR Berry says that the section should be there but edited, so why don't you discuss how it should be edited rather than repeatedly taking it off? Dev920 19:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you show me another encyclopedia that has an Islam article and dedicates a fair portion of it to terrorism? BhaiSaab talk 19:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Nope. But Then, I don;t want Wikipedia to, either. Dev920 23:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Without taking a position on either of your actions, I note that you both appear close to violating the 3RR rule. (I decline to look that closely at the time stamps.) Please discuss and reach agreement rather than edit warring. GRBerry 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I learned my lesson a few days ago about 3RR. BhaiSaab talk 19:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


How's this for an idea: On the Islam page, leave the redirect to Islamism, followed by a small paragraph on what Islamism is it is. Add mention to Islamic terrorism to that. Add the Islamic Terrorism info on the Islamism page as you planned to do on the Islam page. While the act of terrorism itself shouldn't be associated with the Islam article, the desire to bring nations under Islamic law (shariah) peacefully and not-so-peacefully should be mentioned. The way I see it, Islamic terrorism is an approach of certain Islamists, and therefore an aspect of Islamism. Islamism is based on a certain perspective on Islam. Islam >> Islamism/Islamists >> Islamic Terrorism. His Excellency... 21:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This grandchild approach also works. In fact, the Islamism summary section is here now. (Although it is new enough that I have no idea if it will stick.) It does require improving that article, which is itself contentious. But I encourage you all that it is possible to improve contentious articles. GRBerry 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue I have with that, as I explained repeatedly in the very long conversation with Dab above, is that Islamic terrorism isn't a natural consequence of Islamism. Islamism is poltical in nature; deen and all that. Much Islamic terrorism is for religious reasons, enough that it can't be considered a daughter article, but more a sister one.

Another concern I have is that people looking for Islamic terrorism won't read through Islamism first. Which, given I wanted to add the section for WP:SS made it seem rather pointless... Dev920 23:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A legitimate concern. It could be addressed by giving a paragraph or so to Islamism in the summary section here, including a single sentence linking to the appropriate terrorism article. That would help new readers understand that that the terrorism is related to Islam as a political movement, yet give a quick direct link. Remember that summary sections in the parent article do not need to match the introduction to the child article. (If they ever did, the natural effect of editing each separately over time would be the creation of differences.) To achieve this requires only a minimal edit to the current Islamism summary section here now, in changing [Islamic extremist terrorism|terrorism]] to [Islamic extremist terrorism|Islamic terrorism]]. GRBerry 01:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we could add a paragraph and link for both islamic extremist terrorism and islamism, in the same section, and title it something like "extremism"? This will allow people skimming through the TOC to get what they're looking for. Dev920 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dev, can you do me a favour and stop talking of "Islamic terrorism"? The proper term has just one keystroke more, Islamist terrorism. Otherwise, you are continually, and I must assume intentionally, provoking people. If you do not, in spite of multiple reminders, I cannot assume good faith on your part any longer. I still assume that people looking for information on Islamist terrorism will just go to the bleeding Islamist terrorism article without plodding through this article, so your argument of "won't read through Islamism first" is totally void (why would they read through anything at all? They can press ctrl-f and look for 'terrorism', or simply go to the article directly. WP:SS is not a navigation aid, but a guideline of how to lay out pertinent topics. I still don't understand how you argue that "Islamic extremist terrorism" is somehow not a subset of Islamic extremism: How is terrorism not extreme? Are you arguing that there is also moderate terrorism? dab (ᛏ) 09:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have explained previously, "Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from Islamic fundamentalism." from the main article. Islamic terrorism is, as I have argued before, not solely motivated by political ideals. Therefore I do not, and will not, refer to it as Islamist terrorism, because this is a subtopic. If you wish to assume bad faith on my part, that is your perogative, but please don't use it as a threat, particularly as your continuous arguing of this particular point belies your intelligence and suggests wilful misunderstanding. Dev920 09:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
In regards to your other point, yes I think there is "moderate terrorism". Throwing a molotov cocktail at an empty building in a protest as the invasion of your country seems mild compared to crashing three planes into buildings and killing 3000 people. Dev920 09:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
how is throwing a molotov cocktail "terrorism"? Your terminology seems extremely idiosyncratic. One can disagree over terms like "terrorism" or "Islamism", but throwing molotov cocktails, shooting armed soldiers and assassinating political leaders certainly does not qualify as terrorism. Terrorism needs to aim at the generation of fear in the population by random attacks on civilian targets. "molotov cocktail at an empty building" indeed... dab

(ᛏ) 10:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that the best efforts of the IRA to engender fear and terror in the British population by bombing empty buildings didn't count as terrorism... What would you call it? Childish pique? Dev920 11:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Latest update

Right to address Bhai saabs concerns about the size of a terrorism section, and Dab's on the flow of the article, what I've done is merge the two under political and religious extremism. This gives me the accesibility I've been seeking, Dab the flow, and Bhaisaab the smaller entry. It's all been taken from the leads of the concerned articles, I think it works, what do you reckon? Dev920 20:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable treatment. Any concerns about weight could be addressed by expanding on liberal movements within Islam, maybe adding a third sub-section about it. I don't know enough about the subject to do it myself though. Tom Harrison Talk 13:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly better than before, but I still don't support the inclusion of this information. Christianity, for example, only has a link to Christian terrorism. BhaiSaab talk 00:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting significance. I can, of the top my head, think of four Islamic terrorist groups, 1 Jewish, and 1 Irish. As mentioned way back at the beginning, Islamic terrorism accounts for 57% of world terrorism. Of course it would have a larger section than Christianity, which I think is confined to killing abortion doctors (as is my understanding, anyway. You can certainly try to add stuff about christian terrorism if you would like.

But in any case, just because another article doesn't contain certain info, doesn't mean a similar article shouldn't. If it did, Wikipedia would never have got off the ground... Dev920 00:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty silly to pretend that Christian terrorism is a salient issue in the world today. However,t this section - and this article generally - is woefully undersourced. Timothy Usher 02:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Taoism doesn't mention terrorism at all. Mormonism has a whole section on polygamy. Each article is different. Having got to this point, I think we could correct any undue weight by expanding coverage of the more positive developments in contemporary Islam. Tom Harrison Talk 00:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and would like to add that adding something about Iran's program for heroin addicts, which is extremely progressive and I think should be copied everywhere, would be a good place to start. Dev920 01:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mosque Subsection or Details

I noticed Encarta dedicates a fair portion of their Islam article to explaining Mosques. The word "mosque" is used two or three times in this article but their significance is never explained. BhaiSaab talk 19:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Religious Authority

The current text in this section states: "There is no official authority who decides whether a person is accepted into, or dismissed from, the community of believers, known as the Ummah ("family" or "nation"). Islam is open to all, regardless of race, age, gender, or previous beliefs. It is enough to believe in the central beliefs of Islam. This is formally done by reciting the shahada; which should be made sincerely from the heart, the statement of belief of Islam, without which a person cannot be classed a Muslim. It is enough to believe and say that one is a Muslim, and behave in a manner befitting a Muslim to be accepted into the community of Islam."

I think it has little to do with "religious authority" and more with accepting converts. It should be rewritten. BhaiSaab talk 04:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Religions Based on Islam

"The following groups are not considered Islamic by the majority of Muslims or Muslim authorities:

  • Nation of Islam (based in the United States)
  • Zikris
  • Ahmadiyya Movement (also called Qadiani)
  • Al-Ahbash (also called Habashies / AICP)"

I really question this entire section as original research. Do we have any statistics that back up the listing of any of these groups under this statement? McKhan, I would like to see you put forth some statistics for the Al-Ahbash since you seem very keen on keeping them there. BhaiSaab talk 21:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have seen your edit History and contributions to Wikipedia so far. As soon as, someone challenges your contributions or edits, you turn around and start going after all of their edits / contributions. Did you ever look how many times you have edited this page ONLY today? Is this NOT blatant violation of Three Revert Rule? I would like to take the liberty to question your knowledge about Al-Ahbash / Habashies / AICP. (Statistics? They don't even have any statistics about themselves except heresay as they like to hide behind the mainstream Sunnis to seek legitimacy and recruitment.) What do you know about them? I have worked on Al-Ahbash for the past almost one and half year and I know them for quite sometime. I will recommend that you stick to those pages which you have some knowledge about rather going on rampage / campaign of edits and "contributions" as soon as you are being challenged. Wikipedia is NOT someone's blog but an encylopedia which aspires to NPOV. As far as this list is concerned, in my humble point-of-view, there should be Ismailis, Aagha Khanis, Boharas and many more added to this list to differentiate between them and mainstream Muslims. McKhan
First of all assume good faith. Secondly 3RR does not mean that you cannot edit an article more than three times, but means you can't revert to one version of the article three times. See WP:3RR. Third, based on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, the burden on proof for information in Wikipedia is on the editor who wants the information in Wikipedia. BhaiSaab could take the whole section out since it is, as he rightly notes, not referenced at all. If you would like the section to have certain faiths or not, you need to find reliable sources. -- Jeff3000 23:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Jeff. McKhan, of course your opinion is your opinion, but, again, do you have any sources that back up categorizing Al-Ahbash under that statement? You seem upset that I listed your article ( Mainstream Muslims Vs. Al-Ahbash) for deletion, but please leave any resentment at the door. BhaiSaab talk 23:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are references and there are pleny more which are available on the Web:

McKhan

This is the generic reply you gave me before. Their beliefs are irrelevant. What is relevant is how many other Muslims don't consider the Al-Ahbash to be Muslims. Do you have sources for that? BhaiSaab talk 23:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT a "generic" response. These are the sources which contain the INFORMATION. There are plenty of people out there who still dipute the statistics of muslim world populaiton figure of 1.2 billion Muslims let alone having the statistics of those who consider the Al-Ahbash, Druze, Bahia .etc as non-Muslims. Islamically speaking, if someone denies the TOTALITY of the Quran and Tawheed, he or she, automatically, by default, is out of the circle of Islam. And last but not the least, What statistics do you have to support the inclustion of:

  • Druze
  • Alawites (Alnusairiya)
  • Nation of Islam (based in the United States)
  • Zikris
  • Yazidi
  • Sikhism
  • Bábísm
  • Bahá'í Faith

in that list? And why Ismailis, Boharas, Aagha Khanis .etc are NOT listed? Logically, if Al-Ahbash seem to be included without reference then rest of the section should be deleted as well.

McKhan

I don't have any statistics to support the inclusion of Nation of Islam, Zikris, or the Ahmadiyya. That's why I called it original research. You say "Islamically speaking, if someone denies the TOTALITY of the Quran and Tawheed, he or she, automatically, by default, is out of the circle of Islam." So based on your knowledge of the Al-Ahbash, you decide that they fit that criteria and you put them in the list. That's original research, which is not allowed. Regarding Druze and Alawites, they are currently under "The following consider themselves Muslims but acceptance by the larger Muslim community varies..." I don't think that statement needs a statistic; it might as well apply to every other group as well, but we might as well delete that too. Yazidis, Sikhs, Babis, and Bahais evolved from Islam - that doesn't need a statistic either; it's a matter of history. BhaiSaab talk 00:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It has NOTHING to do with my knowledge. All the above links contain mainstream, expert, academic and religiously authorotative. Go and read them first before juming to any conclusion. McKhan
They're polemecist sources that claim that the Al-Ahbash are deviant. As far as I read, theres nothing about "Must Muslims consider them to be kuffar" or something to that effect. BhaiSaab talk 00:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, you are entitle to have your opinion. It doesn't mean that your opinion constitutes to an expert opinion and therefore you should entitle to edit the page as per your agenda. Go and read, expert opinions states otherwise. McKhan
There are "experts" all over the world. For example, if I was Sunni, some Ahmadi "experts" will consider me to be a kafir. If I was Ahmadi, some Sunni "experts" will consider me to be a kafir. Wikipedia strives to be NPOV. None of the experts have provided anything that, in my opinion, allow you to put the Al-Ahbash under "The following groups are not considered Islamic by the majority of Muslims..." And my only "agenda" is to raise this article to featured status. BhaiSaab talk 00:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are determined to Sanitize and Islamacize the Al-Ahbash, though, they deny the TOTALITY of the Quran and Tawhid as per expert, academic, mainstream and religiously authorotative opinion. I am not here to have "discussion for the sake of discussion." It is quite obvious that we don't see each other on this edit eye-to-eye. I didn't list it. It was already there. All I did that I relisted it when you tried to delete it. And now all you are doing is to go after most of my edits. This is called harrassment, just to let you know. This article is NOT ready to be featured as it needs lots of work. There should be NO rush. McKhan
I'm not determined to islamacize anything; I'm determined to present facts instead of original research. You think I'm harrasing you because I listed your article for deletion? Okay. Feel free to point out some examples of me "going after your edits." And of course this article needs a lot of work before it gets to featured status. I intend to delete the first portion of "Religions Based on Islam" as it does seem to be original research. BhaiSaab talk 01:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Whose facts? Those facts, school of thoughts, scholars .etc to whom you agree with or adhered to? This doesn't tantamount to NPOV. McKhan
Who I agree with doesn't matter. What matters is that Wikipedia provide verifiable information and the first part of "Religions of Islam" is not verifiable. BhaiSaab talk 01:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Facts about Al-Ahbash are verifiable and they are scattered all over the web. All one needs is a little bit of research. Your edits on Al-Ahbash and its Talk Page constitutes to a reaction of this futile "discussion for the sake of discussion." McKhan

Instead of going back and forth, the way to fix the discussion is to find a non-polemical source that states that most Muslims do not consider a certain denomination/group as Muslim. Let's be specific here, quote a specific passage, page number, etc, and reproduce the quote here, so that everyone can see what the quote is saying. Also, please try to obtain the quote from a non-polemical source; polemical sources usually state things to discredit others, and may or may not be true. Cheers. -- Jeff3000 01:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

McKhan
The first link says no such thing. The second link offers a book for $8.95. Can you produce a quote? BhaiSaab talk 01:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You put in a third link, but I still don't see anything relevant there. BhaiSaab talk 01:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you go ahead and spend some money and buy that book and find the quote? :) McKhan
McKhan, the burden of proof is on you. Please provide a quote, along with page numbers so that it can be verified. -- Jeff3000 01:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the first section. I think it's an appropriate compromise. BhaiSaab talk 01:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bhai sahab iquadri 21:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

External Links

One of the links I keep removing from the directories in the external links is * Dmoz.org Open Directory Project: Contra Islam (a list of links critical of Islam) for several reasons:

  • I fail to see it's relevance, and as a testament to that, I don't think any other religion article links to websites that are critical of it.
  • Dmoz.org Open Directory Project: Contra Islam is already a subdirectory of the Islam directory, which we're linking to. Look for "Opposing Views". Why do we need to link to it twice? And if we do link to it twice, should all the other subdirectories be linked to twice as well?

BhaiSaab talk 01:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This link should be removed since for example, in Hindu views( [2]), we have Jai Hinduism. Here is nonsenses that it says about Islam: [3]:
  • Muslims use to marry with their own sisters. (MY COMMENT: FUNNY NONSENSE)
  • Killing of their brother, father and other relatives for the sake of money is common in the so-called great religion Islam.(MY COMMENT: WHAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTT)
This link is totlly unreliable. It must be removed. -- Aminz 02:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Islam should be removed as well. -- Aminz 02:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not so sure that I support the removal of the entire Islam directory. Among the sites that have questionable information, there must be some sites with reliable information. Also, it's a lot more convenient than having to list several websites. BhaiSaab talk 02:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless we mention here that wikipedia does not approve their correctness. -- Aminz 02:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that already applies to all websites. BhaiSaab talk 03:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
We should not use the websites that are unreliable. Can I make a personal website and make a link from wikipedia to it. Obviously not. But if so, we should explicitly mention that wikipedia does not approve their correctness. -- Aminz 03:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
+ a website that links to another website which is full of nonsenses doesn't deserve to be included in wikipedia. (I am still surprised how did they invent the funny nonsense "Muslims use to marry with their own sisters.") -- Aminz 03:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been a vote, and a lot of discussion regarding what link to include to sites critical of Islam. If BhaiSaab wants this one removed or replaced with another link to a list of sites criticial of Islam (other lists, such as faithfreedom.org's, has previously been suggested as an alternative) then he should start a vote and establish a new concensus, instead of editing against that concensus by insisting on removing the link. -- Karl Meier 20:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Votes should be used as a last resource. This discussion is enough, I think, for now. BhaiSaab talk 20:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
In other words, you will not respect the opinions expressed by other editors on this talkpage? A concensus regarding this has been established and if you want a change you'll have to change that concensus. Editing against concensus is against policy. -- Karl Meier 10:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Well there seems to be no present consensus, other than what Aminz and I have said. Other editors are welcome to voice their opinion here. BhaiSaab talk 17:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the addition of any "opposing views" directory - the proper place for this is clearly in the criticism of islam article. It would be difficult for anyone to justify the inclusion since no other article for a major religion does so in the wiki-encyclopedia. Wikipidian 21:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The christianity wikipedia page has a short section on criticism of christianity. Likewise this wikipedia page should have a short section with critism of islam. Nicolharper 17:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
But the Christianity page doesn't have a section on terrorism, does it? BhaiSaab talk 17:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The christianity page has this on violence in the name of Christianity

'Christian attitudes towards followers of other religions have varied. In some cases, Christians have committed acts of violence against followers of other religions or denominations of Christianity, with or without the approval of church authorities. Well known instances of such violence in European history include the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Thirty Years War and pogroms. Armed violence between Christians and non-Christians occurs in several areas of the modern world, as well as between followers of different Christian denominations such as The Troubles in Northern Ireland.'

The islam page has this on violence in the name of Islam

'Islamic extremist terrorism refers to acts of terrorism claimed by its supporters and practitioners to be in furtherance of the goals of Islam. The validity of an Islamic justification for these acts is contested by other Muslims.[citation needed] Islamic extremist violence is not synonymous with all terrorist activities committed by Muslims. Nationalists, separatists, and others in the Muslim world often derive inspiration from secular ideologies. These are not well described as either Islamic extremist or Islamist'

About the same size and same amount on violence in the name of religion. However, the page on Islam lacks any overview of the broader discusion of the various controversies about Islam, for example Aisha, caravan-raiding, and pre-Islamic influences on Islam. The Christianity page however mentions the possible non-existence of Jesus and the pre-Christian influences on Christianity among other Christian controversies. This seems inconsistent. Nicolharper 17:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know there was any controversy about caravan-raiding. The Arabs at the time viewed it as a normal practice, not something immoral. Nevertheless, I think you'll find Criticism of Islam to be developed a lot more than Criticism of Christianity, and Criticism of Islam is already linked from here. BhaiSaab talk 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad's caravan-raiding is a minor subject, but the influence of other religions on Islam is a huge issue, and the article is indeed completely silent about it. Pecher Talk 18:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

references

I will continue to remove the unspecified {{ unreferenced}} for being unhelpful, bordering on defacement. I am very much for asking references for each and every claim on Wikipedia, but it is not true that this article cites no references. Therefore, it is just lazy to slap a generic "unreferenced" template on it. There is a reason we have the more surgical {{ fact}}, and I certainly won't remove any of those until references are brought forward. dab (ᛏ) 08:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As you have requested, I've added the {{ fact}} tags; not unexpectedly, they are numerous. Pecher Talk 10:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact tags have gone a bit overboard, some of the things that you have added tags to are vage and I do not think they are in need of citations. Otherwise every sentence in wiki would need a reference.—Preceding unsigned comment added by M2k41 ( talk • contribs)

You've hit a nail on the head: yes, every statement in wiki needs a reference. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit, so an uncited claim on a Wikipedia article has the reliability of a Usenet posting. Pecher Talk 17:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's good that he put them there. I'll work on getting more citations. BhaiSaab talk 18:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It is even worse than every sentence needing a reference - the final standard is that every fact needs a reference. Sentences can have multiple facts. Take an example from John Brown (abolitionist). "He first gained national attention when he led a company of volunteers during the Bleeding Kansas crisis, in which he fought two major battles against pro-slavery southerners, directed the Pottawatomie massacre on the night of 24 May 1856, and freed 11 slaves from slaveholders in neighboring Missouri." This contains multiple assertions of fact. It could be parsed with more assertions, but the sentence contains at least these five: 1) first gained national attention; 2) led a company of volunteers during the Bleeding Kansas crisis; 3) in which fought two major battles against pro-slavery southerners; 4) directed the Pottwatombie massacre on the night of 24 May 1856; and 5) freed 11 slaves from slaveholders in neighbouring Missiouri. If more than one of those facts is found in the same reference, a single reference can establish them. That sentence could have been written a short paragraph. So it also can be adequate to put a reference at the end of a paragraph - it just makes it harder to keep the references up to date as editing occurs. GRBerry 18:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that every sentence in wiki needs a reference. I mean, if I were to state that the capital of India is New Delhi, would you really ask for a reference for that? Unless citations can be provided for the numerous tags you have added I think the article would look a lot tidier without them. M2k41 21:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

nonsense, Pecher, you are in WP:POINT territory (although you don't seem to even have a point). Claims must be referenced. For many articles, it is enough to cite one source, the article being a summary of that source. Undisputed explanations need not be referenced; it is a matter of informed common sense to figure this out. Especially, if the statement contains a link to another wiki-article, it may just summarized information that is referenced in the linked article, and the reference need not be repeated. If you exaggerate the tagging, people will just cease to take you seriously and treat you as a troll. dab (ᛏ) 23:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What WP:POINT? The rule of thumb is that everything must be referenced. New Dehli is a straw man example; such things are extremely few, especially in this article. Pecher Talk 21:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Imbalance

It is inappropriate in terms of the balance of the article to give to the Shi'a Islam twice as much space as to the Sunni Islam as the article currently does. Sunni Muslims are at least six times as numerous as the Shi'as, allocating more space to the Shi'as means giving them undue weight. Pecher Talk 08:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I already trimmed the Shi'a section and planned to do it further soon. But if you have the time, be my guest. BhaiSaab talk 08:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It should be alright now. BhaiSaab talk 22:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't be serious

The article contains this sentence: "...the addition of a hamza to the beginning of the triliteral root, followed by the first two consonants, a short vowel, and the final consonant, is the first-person singular imperfect tense in Arabic." Wait... what??? You're playing games with us here. You can't possibly have written this sentence with the goal of communicting information to another human being. It's ridiculous. I haven't decided yet if Wikipedia has any chance of working as a source of knowledge or not, but if it's full of sentences like this, it looks like maybe it isn't. Andrew Carlssin 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is the problem that it's wrong or that it's too technical. I don't know enough Arabic to know it's wrong... but, I just linked triliteral which should show how Arabic language roots work and then hamza is linked to show you that it's an Arabic character. We could link the specific parts "first-person singiular imperfect tense" but those are all ideas that the average English speaker should know at least some about. Please clarify because I'm not sure what you mean. gren グレン 20:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Andrew's comment is quite silly, IMHO. That remark is clearly about Arabic grammar. Its wording is perfectly understandable to anyone having even a minimal knowledge of Arabic, and can easily be identified as a grammatical remark even by someone who knows nothing about Arabic (how could a passage containing terms such has "first-person singular imperfect" be about anything different that grammar!?). A readers who knows nothing about Arabic grammar, and has no wish of learning about it, and has a normal I.Q., should easily understand that (s)he can safely skip about that remark... However, it may perhaps help to add a few in-line explanations and examples. I suggest the following: 

  1. After "hamza", add: "(an Arabic consonant, usually transliterated with an apostrophe)";
  2. After the first occurrence of "triliteral", add: "(a sequence of three consonants, which is often the basis of word-roots in Semitic languages such as Arabic)";
  3. Reword the example at the end: "E.g., applying the above rules to the Arabic triliteral root K-T-B ('write', 'writing'), yields the Arabic word 'aKTuBu ('I write', 'I am writing')."

Just my €0,02. Cingar. 14:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't realize at the time how unusual Arabic grammar is compared to English. Coming across that sentence as one's first exposure to Arabic grammar made it seem... well, silly and made-up, to be honest. I understand now. Thanks. Andrew Carlssin 20:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional Sections

Islam didn't just contribute a theology and political conflict to history. I suggest adding a few more sections on "Contributions of Islam to World Culture". Under that, small subsections with links to articles such as " Islamic art", "advances of science under Islam", philosophical contributions and reviews by prominent non-muslim historical figures (Gandhi and the like) etc. What do you guys think? His Excellency... 01:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. It would help with Wikipedia's systemic bias toward the present. (Of course, evey encyclopedia I'm aware of has it, but the more we can do to fight systemic bias the better.) If there isn't yet a parent article on Islamic Culture, that ought to be written as well and introduced to the navigation template in the upper right. GRBerry 02:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Islamic cosmology

Could a knowledgable person start something about islamic cosmology (i.e. origin of the universe, man's place in it, etc.) and add an appropriate summary to the religious cosmology page? Dragons flight 02:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You can have a look at Islamic astronomy. An article named Islamic cosmology would only be a duplicated article. -- Szvest 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Islam/Archive_14&oldid=1140128035"