Talk:Islam/Archive 30

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

The article currently mentions the five pillars (Faith, daily prayers, almsgiving, fasting, and pilgrimage) as the Muslim practices/actions. As it is mentioned in the article itself, these are five basic acts in Islam, but not all. According to Nigosian, these five pillars are the 'minimum standards'. There are at least two other Muslim practices, a) moral behavior and b) social service. Moral behavior/practice is a very broad topic in Islam. We have articles on them: Morality in Islam and Social welfare in Islam. This article, in fact, lacks many other essential topics; hence, is not complete. I suggest, renaming the 'Five pillars' section to 'Practice' or 'Actions', and then include Five pillars and Moral behavior as sub topics. Any better idea to arrange them? -AsceticRosé 04:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A couple of different points. First, the five pillars and six articles of faith we currently list here are Sunni classifications. RSs devote more space to Sunni than to Shia traditions, and so should we, but we shouldn't present these classifications as normative. The five pillars belong to the category of ibadat, so it would be more appropriate to title this section something like "Acts of worship", and add a subsection on Shia Islam, briefly noting alternative classifications.

I'm not sure how to incorporate teachings on moral behavior and social service. From a traditional perspective, they belong under mu'amalat. In fact, from that perspective, both ibadat and mu'amalat should be subsections of "Law and jurisprudence", but that's not how standard modern textbooks present this material. Perhaps we need to review a few of them for guidance. I'm frankly concerned about relying too much on Nigosian's book. I'm not familiar with it, but I see that

WP:UNDUE violation. Eperoton (talk

) 01:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Nigosian in his book has just made a loose personal observation about the resemblance between the 17:22-37 verses of the Quran and the Ten Commandments. Nor has he presented it as the overall moral teachings of Islam. He was, in fact, using the 17:22-37 verses as an example when referring to moral teaching. It is actually the wiki editor who shaped it into that way in Islamic ethics#Moral commandments. Apart from this, Nigosian's book is a good example for us because of its neat and clean and good arrangements of topics.

Coming to the main point, the moral topic is not just the teaching in Islam; rather, they are both regarded and done as practice. For example, The Quran: An Encyclopedia says: 'to forgive and to seek forgiveness must be an essential Muslim practice' (214). Again, 'Since they [moral behaviou] are voluntary actions, they fall into the category of supererogatory acts of worship' (140). Referring to moral behavior, Juan E. Campo's Encyclopedia of Islam says: 'Submission and performing good deeds, the Quran teaches, are done because they are prescribed by God, they reciprocate God for the blessings he provides, and they are rewarded… . Justice, respecting elders, maintaining honesty these are not just teachings; rather they are practiced in everyday life.

Ibadat should not ethically come under "Law and jurisprudence", because if you think in that way, then there will be nothing left to discuss separately, not even the articles of faith and holydays, as Sharia has various rulings on almost everything.

As for arrangement, Malcolm Clark's Islam For Dummies discusses a) five pillars of worship, b) other religious rituals and customs, and c) Muslim ethics/morality under the same Part III section. S. A. Nigosian discusses a) Five Pillars and b) Moral and Social Behavior in the same chapter named Faith and Actions. In Matt Stefon's Islamic Beliefs and Practices, there is a chapter Community and Society under which he has discussed topics like social welfare, community figures, marriage etc. Under Piety and Ritual in Islamic Life chapter, he has topics like a) Five Pillars of Islam, b) Holy Days, c) Life and Death. Under the Milestones in Life heading, Nigosian presents topics like Birth, Marriage, Death. From this, one thing is clear that Marriage topic belongs more to social life than to "Law and jurisprudence" category.

From the above scenario, we can draw a simple outline. There should be a separate section named something like Family and Society which will discuss a) Family life b) Life and Death, c) Marriage d) Social service. Under Practices section, there will be a) Five Pillars of Worship, and b) Moral Behavior.

I think the main can be named "Practices" rather than "Acts of worship" because 1) we are including the sub-section 'Five Pillars of Worship' 2) discussing Moral Behavior fits more under "Practices" than "Acts of worship". What do you think? -AsceticRosé 15:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that overview. You've convinced me that a legalistic perspective would not reflect textbook treatments of the subject. However, I still don't see a rationale for combining the five pillars and moral behavior under one section. The term "practices", which is not found in the classifications above, seems to be too broad, and, like jurisprudence, could potentially include anything. Based on what you've presented, it seems that "Five pillars" and "Ethics/morality" should be separate top-level sections. "Five pillars" could be part of a "Rituals" section, as in Stefon, or there could be a separate section on "Family life". How community and society would fit into this really depends on the nature of content. Eperoton (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You are probably right that 'Practice' may be too broad a term, and has the potentiality to include many things. I see that in

reciting Quran

, zikir and the like. 2) No ideal book, which comprehensibly deals with the religious practices of Islam, makes Five pillars the main section simply because it does not mirror the reality. Thus, we can choose between a) Acts of worship; b) Religious practice; or simply c) Worship. I assume that it is almost impossible to find a terminology which will be 100% satisfactory to all, and which will be a true equivalent for the Arabic terminology 'Ibadat' (thus, Ibadat alone is the proper word to refer to the Islamic acts of worship).

I see some rationale to discuss moral behavior with other acts of worship. 1) Moral behavior has a practical/action side. They are not just teachings in Islam. 2) One better argument is that there are two categories of worship: involuntary and voluntary. The so called five pillars are involuntary and mandatory. That's why they are so highlighted. But what about the voluntary ones? According to The Qur'an: An Encyclopedia, "Since they [moral qualities] are voluntary actions, they fall into the category of supererogatory acts of worship. It is in this area of worship that man is brought near to God." Here, moral qualities have been described as worship. 3) Just as five pillars are commanded in Quran and Hadith, so are the observance of good deeds like forgiveness, justice, Kindness, charity, respecting the elders and so. Just as the five pillars are practiced in everyday life, so are the good moral behaviors. And I have shown above that moral behavior has been discussed in the same chapters along with the five pillars in Nigosian's and Malcolm Clark's books. 4) One point I should have clarified earlier. I want to present Moral behavior as a practice, not as a teaching here, because besides being teachings, these are practiced in everyday life. That's why, Malcolm Clark has discussed a) the five pillars, b) other religious rituals, and c) Muslim ethics in everyday life in the same Part III. The section I've prepared will look something like this:

Islamic tradition holds that moral qualities and good actions elevate the status of a man before God. Faith is considered incomplete without having sense of morality. Thus, Muslims go beyond the minimum limit of worship, namely the five pillars, and practice the body of moral teachings prescribed in the Islamic scriptures. The Quran, which Muslims believe to be the verbatim word of God, and the Sunnah, which is the teachings, deeds and sayings, silent permissions (or disapprovals) of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, serves as the primary sources of moral teachings in Islam. The typical Islamic teaching on morality is that imposing a penalty on an offender in proportion to their offense is permissible and just; but forgiving the offender is better. To go one step further by offering a favor to the offender is regarded the highest excellence. Charity to the poor and the helpless is the most highlighted and most insisted virtue in the Quran. As a virtue, forgiveness is much celebrated in Islam, and is regarded as an important Muslim practice, inspired by both the Quran and the Sunnah. Since the pursuance of moral qualities are more of a voluntary nature, their observance falls into the category of superior worshipping, and is seen as the key to attaining the nearness of God.

You are right, and as I told earlier, that there should be a separate section on family life. But it should be something like Family and Society. That's what a standard book does. Marriage is a social event, for example. Two families from one/more society join together. In the ceremony, social people are invited. Even birth and death are social events. In the funeral ceremony, people from society attend. We all know these.

Having a separate section on "Ethics/morality" will be too ambitious a task, I believe. And I do not see enough editors/efforts to bring it to a good end.

Actually, we have to start. Everything can't be shaped a priori. The course of time will shape them. -AsceticRosé 16:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I can see changing "Five Pillars" to "Acts of Worship" or "Worship". To say five pillars might restrict the scope a little. For example, User:AsceticRose mentioned the observance of good deeds like "charity" be mentioned. Charity such as sadaqah needs mentioning and has some mention in the "Alms-giving" subsection, but it would already be out of scope since the section is named "five pillars" and sadaqah, unlike zakat, is not part of the five pillars. Sodicadl (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

AsceticRose Yes, that article describes a philosophical theory that links moral behavior to worship, but your text doesn't seem to do justice to the logic sketched out there (also, supererogatory doesn't mean superior). I would suggest either finding a more straightfoward account of this connection or spelling out the philosophical arguments more carefully. Why don't you want to make a separate section on ethics/morality with a few general statements and links to the two articles where these topics are discussed in depth? This article should in part serve as a guide to the more detailed articles. It would even be standard practice to adapt the lead of the main article here. The lead in Islamic ethics isn't good enough for that purpose, but the lead in Morality in Islam does a reasonable job of summarizing that article. Eperoton (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@ Sodicadl, I also prefer "Acts of Worship" (at least for now). And yes, Sadaqah should be a separate section. When done, the little mentioning of it in "Alms-giving" subsection will be taken out.

@Eperoton, you have a nice question as to why I don't want a separate section on ethics/morality. Part of it has already been answered. Actually, you will find that collecting "a few general statements" from any ethics/philosophical article will do a very poor job no matter how simplified a version you want to make. Another reason is that so far as I have understood Islam by practicing it and by reading canonical and standard books, observing proper moral behavior falls almost into the category of Ibadat, a good clue of it you have already found in the above encyclopedia. In Islam, moral behavior is not something for teaching purpose only, rather inextricable from everyday practice.

You have a good suggestion to 'either finding a more straightforward account' or 'spelling out the philosophical arguments'. Working for a stretch on these topics, I'm at a logjam. If you can provide me with clues, I can work on it. Or, this can be done gradually. And you are right about 'supererogatory'. I've changed it. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 05:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@AsceticRose: I'd be glad to help summarizing sources. Right now I don't have much to work with in the direction that you propose. I'm familiar with several treatments of ibadat: in Brill's Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed (that article is rather outdated), the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, the Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History, and Hallaq's Sharī'a: Theory, Practice, Transformations. I don't recall seeing a discussion of moral behavior as such as a form of ibadat/worship in either of these sources. OEoIW notes broader implications of ibadat, but from a different angle:

 the relationship between ʿibādāt and muʿāmalāt is not unambiguous. For instance, the connection between the performance of ritual acts of worship and muʿāmalāt can be seen in the prescriptions related to a range of religious obligations that extend beyond the five pillars of Islam such as the provisions relating to marriage, the hunting and slaughter of animals, the taking of oaths, the expiation of sin, circumambulation of the Kaʿbah during pilgrimage, and even the degree to which transactional matters are to include praise, glorification, and remembrance of God.

Perhaps the matter is treated differently in other kinds of texts -- I don't know. The philosophical perspective you pointed out is interesting and worth mentioning, whether here or in a more detailed article. I can try summarizing it, but the argument is rather subtle, and the philosophical categories it uses aren't spelled out very clearly in that article. In any case, I think placing moral behavior under ibadat/worship based on passing statements in one encyclopedic entry would be undue. If you know standard books that do so, that would be a different story. Eperoton (talk) 03:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I can summarize the result of the above discussion as follows:

• A separate "Acts of worship" main section with some sub-sections discussing various ibadats.
• A separate "Family and social life" main section.
• A separate "Moral behavior" main section (currently, I’m not naming it something like Ethics and Morality because it will incorporate the moral side. If someone can incorporate ethics side, it can be renamed accordingly). -AsceticRosé 13:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was changing the title of "Five pillars" to "Acts of worship" is a more accurate reflection of the content in that section. I changed the title to "acts of worship" as it seems that there was agreement on that.

AsceticRose, I understand that the jurisprudence section can technically incorporate everything. However, of the subsections already in the jurisprudence section, why should family life be entitled to get its own section and not the other subsections?

I am still uncomfortable with an entire new section for something like "Moral behavior". I would prefer knowing more clearly what will be going into that section first. One issue with moral behavior as a separate section is that so many of the other sections already pertain to the topic of moral behavior and so much of the passage suggested above is repetitive of the article. My other issue is singling out charity and forgiveness to highlight Islamic morality is not something the sources would necessary come to consensus on and you would be giving undue weight to one way of looking at Islam. I think it would be fine for the sentences on forgiveness be incorporated to the law section, as it is relevant to crime. Sodicadl (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

About the Family life section, it was somewhat erroneous to discuss it under Law and jurisprudence. The reference books generally don't do it, rather discuss it separately as illustrated above (Matt Stefon rather discussed Law as sub-point under Community and Society chapter probably because law has value only if there exist family and society, and not vice versa). In fact, topics like Scholars, Etiquette and diet, Government should not be discussed under Law and jurisprudence. I have not seen this in the reference books I have. Generally law topics – like penal law, inheritance law, family law, transaction law – are discussed under it. Probably the present arrangement of the Law and jurisprudence section was adapted for ease of arrangement. The present Family life section is discussed from a legal point of view. In that case, 'Family law' was the appropriate title for it. Anyway, it is better to discuss it ("Family and social life") from social and ritual viewpoints because a) a community's everyday and social life is concerned more with its everyday customs, norms and social interactions than the legal aspects; b) a community is distinguished and identified more by its visible life-style than its law which is somewhat internal but important aspect.

The present Family life section has some lines related to family law which could be incorporated with the third paragraph of Law and jurisprudence section because that paragraph discusses such things. And new "Family and social life" section will have sub-sections (Birth, Marriage, Social welfare, Death) discussed from the above-mentioned viewpoints.

"Moral behavior" was initially proposed as a sub-section. Even if we make it a main section, it will not be too much because Quran and Hadith literature are rich in such discussions, and Islam was never separated from and devoid of it. I originally proposed to place it under Worship section. Eperoton proposed to make a separate Ethics and Morality section (probably with two sub-sections). One idea has just come into my mind that we can alternatively place it under "Family and social life" section. I will be glad to know what Eperoton will be thinking about it. Sodicadl, do you have any better idea about this arrangement?

I still believe that the section on morality can be reworded in a way to make it able to be included under worship section, especially if we can name the latter as Religious practice because no one can deny that following moral teaching is a Muslim practice.

The present state of the article is a partial representation of Islam. It does not discuss what the other forms of worship are besides the five pillars, what the moral doctrines are, what the social and family rites are. -AsceticRosé 16:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The point I brought up about having a family and social life section is that only taking the family subsection out of the law and jurisprudence section would seem arbitrary but then again the other sections in there like economy and government are related to society. So, I think a better way of organizing this is to have a section called "Society" which could bring out the "Etiquette and diet", "Family life", "Economy", "Government" and "Warfare" subsections from the law and jurisprudence sections and perhaps you may add your suggestions to that new section. However, another point is that your suggested subsections like "Birth" and "Death" seem way too specific for the main article of Islam.

Concerning the "moral behavior" section, I am still not very confident about it for the same reasons I mentioned before. What is going to go in there? The passage you suggested is not persuasive. It says that "following moral qualities are more of a voluntary nature" and so makes them better. That is something enough sources would disagree with; obligatory acts are also considered part of moral qualities. Sodicadl (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The arrangement of material seems to differ in the sources depending on whether they make a systematic presentation of classical religious sciences or take a sociological perspective on contemporary Islam. Incidentally, I just finished reading Women and Gender in Islam by Leila Ahmed, and she takes pains to distinguish the "ethical" perspective of contemporary popular Islam from the "technical, legalistic" perspective of the religious establishment. Here are a couple of other sources:

1. Section structure of John Esposito's Islam entry in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, which is similar to how he arranges material in Islam: The Straight Path: Origins and Early Development; God, the Qurʿān, and Prophet Muhammad; Creation of the Islamic Community; The Paths of Islam: Law and Mysticism (NB: includes the five pillars and jihad); The Muslim Community in History; Sectarianism: Sunnī and Shīʿī Islam; Modern Islam; Islamic Revivalism or “Fundamentalism.”; Roots of the Resurgence; Ideological Worldview; From the Periphery to the Center: Mainstream Revivalism; The Globalization of Jihad; Issues of Authority and Interpretation; The Struggle for Islam; Islam and the Diaspora; Assessment
2. Section structure of
   Fazlur Rahman
   's Islam entry in MacMillan Encyclopedia of Religion: Origin and history; The systematic content of Islam (the Quran; Sunnah; Law; Theology; Sufism; Sects; Modernism; Islam's attitude to other religions)
3. Section structure of
   Fazlur Rahman's contributions to the Islam entry in Encyclopedia Britannica [1]
   : Fundamental practices and institutions of Islam (The five pillars; Sacred places and days; Shrines of Sufi saints; The mosque; Holy days); Social and ethical principles (Family life; The state; Education; Cultural diversity); Social service is also a subsection of Doctrines of the Qur'an

I like Sodicadl's proposal of putting things under a "Society" section. Multiple sources have a section like this, including the ones mentioned by AsceticRose (Muslim Daily Life in Islam for Dummies, Moral and Social Behavior in Nigosian, Community and Society in Stefon). None of them present ethics/morality under a separate top-level heading. Eperoton (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll reply soon. -AsceticRosé 17:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

AsceticRose, what I meant about the "Acts of worship" section was that changing the title to that from five pillars more accurately reflects the content already in that section, as I have clarified previously. I was not on the same page for a separate section for sadaqah. This is a summary article and so would not be appropriate to have one subsection for zakah and another for sadaqah.

Additionally, in the edit and on the talk page, you used the word "voluntary" for acts like sadaqah. I suppose this is a translation of Mustahabb or more colloquially "Sunnah". "Voluntary" might seem problematic. Even Fard (Compulsory) acts are voluntary, so wouldn't "optional" work better? Sodicadl (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Sodicadl, I will discuss the sadaqah issue later. I'm now concentrating on our main topics.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm making things easy for us. We now have two issues: 1) arrangement of "Society" (or something similar) section; and 2) issue with "moral behavior" section. Let's first discuss and settle "Society" issue. Then we will move to "moral behavior" issue.

It seems both of you have taken a courageous step. I agree with you proposal. I will start the process soon. However, I have some observations. You should notice that 'Economy' and 'Jihad' sub-sections are written purely from legal point of view. So, transferring them under "Society" main section with their current texts will be a great technical mistake. Readers will be confused too. Additionally, Jihad is not generally discussed under "Society". How will you manage them? (So, my primary suggestion is that keep these two in their current position). -AsceticRosé 15:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think those two subsections should also go into the society section. One of the reasons is that, as mentioned before, it looks a little arbitrary to leave some in jurisprudence and give others a new section. Even in the society section, after all, it is going to be about Islam applied to everyday aspects and is bound to have a jurisprudence bent to it. You could change the angle and/or add other angles to it. That would still be better than leaving them out because something like "economy" seems pretty relevant to a section called "society".

I took a look at Morality in Islam. If that is how a potential morality section is going to be structured, then I have mixed feelings about it. In addition to my disagreements previously mentioned, that content looks likely to be contested as POV. But the content is also relevant. A hadith says that the characteristic of Islam is modesty, which would make it quite relevant but nothing in the structure of the article so far would give space for content like that. Even if this is a summary article, nothing so far links to these issues, so there is a deficiency here. Something I may let pass is perhaps a subsection called maybe “Mores” that would be preferably be in the Law and jurisprudence section, as that may help regulate it from getting too vague and into weasel words. It could ground things like saying the dress code Islam is known for is an example of its stance on modesty. It should also stick to virtues as that is what is missing, not actions, like “charity and philanthropy” as that would be repetitive of other sections already available. But, not so sure. I think we all must be agreement before going forward. Sodicadl (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Sodicadl, I found your statement a little bit problematic. You're saying that transferring some to Society and keeping some under Law will be arbitrary. No, that is not arbitrary at all. Rather, transferring sections without considering their relation and content will be arbitrary. Again, you see, you yourself have proposed five sub-sections ("Etiquette and diet", "Family life", "Economy", "Government" and "Warfare") to be transferred while you yourself have left two sub-sections (Scholars and Schools of jurisprudence) under Law. So, are not your proposals contradictory?

The Economy section is taken from

Islamic economic jurisprudence article, and it is better to describe it from legal point of view because economy is a overall issue mainly governed by Sharia. One thing should be clear that under Society we will discuss things that have social rites/customs like what Muslims do after the death of a Muslim or what is done at the time of Muslim marriage. Same is true to Jihad. A biggest issue is that Jihad is not described under Society. So, even if we transfer Economy under Society, I don't agree about Jihad. -AsceticRosé

15:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I was not asking for there to be no law section. I should have specified then that of those five applications of jurisprudence, I don't know why only some would get their own new section. You seem to draw the line that economy is "overall issue mainly governed by sharia" but others are "social rites/customs". How did you make that differentiation? Right now they are too nuanced for some to deserve their own section. Sodicadl (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I think my previous comments contain answers to some of your questions. Actually, it is not about some or all; it is about appropriate text under appropriate title. It is not something that I or you will decide based on personal choice; rather appropriateness and reference books will decide them.

I originally proposed to make a 'Family and social life' section because 1) reference books arrange them in this way; and 2) I was not going to just cut the 'Family life' sub-section from Law and paste it into 'Family and social life' section; rather I prepared and changed the text accordingly. And I said above that Economics sub-section may be placed under Society section, but it is better to keep it under Law because it is written from legal viewpoint, and it describes a bunch of sharia rulings. And I also said that Jihad will remain under Law.

I personally have no problem to place Economics sub-section under Society section; but what is stopping me has been described above.

Probably you had a nice question 'how did you make that differentiation?' Consider the followings:

• To say that To reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, Islamic economic jurisprudence encourages trade, discourages the hoarding of wealth… or Usury, which allows the rich to get richer without sharing in the risk, is forbidden in Islam is to describe the sharia rulings (and hence, a legal approach)
• But to say that In a Muslim family, the birth of a child is attended with some religious ceremonies. Immediately after the birth, the words of Adhan is pronounced in the right ear of the child. In the seventh day, the aquiqa ceremony is performed in which an animal is sacrificed and its meat is distributed among the poor or The amount of money or possessions of the mahr is paid by the groom to the bride at the time of marriage for her exclusive use. is to describe social rites/customs (and hence, a social approach).

I think the distinction is clear. -AsceticRosé 16:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Another argument is that some topics can be discussed from both 'Legal' and 'Social' viewpoints. A good example is the topic of 'marriage'. That's why, we have two articles on this:

Islamic economic jurisprudence. Again, some topics are generally discussed from social viewpoint like social service and morality because they are basically customary. For the last two types, it is easy to understand where they should be placed. As for the first type (topics that are discussed from both social and legal viewpoints), I think there is a good way to arrange them. We can briefly discuss the sharia rulings under 'Law and jurisprudence', and we can briefly discuss the associated customs/rites under Society section. We can implement this first step so that we can understand what we should do next. -AsceticRosé

16:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Something I brought up earlier was still not addressed. This should be a summary article. If the threshold is such that "birth of a child" gets a section with the amount of detail you mentioned, then this would be a very long article (it is already 162 kb, when

WP:TOOBIG recommends >100kb "almost certainly should be divided"). I don't think marriage should be in two sections. My position remains to have a section on something like "Society" and it can have subsections like "Family life". If they have details on jurisprudence, as anything in Islam (like acts of worship and rites/customs) has, that does not mean it is disqualified from being there. You mentioned that this should be decided by reference books, but from those mentioned in this thread they mostly have one section for topics concerning the community. I guess we'll have to see other editors think. Sodicadl (talk

) 15:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Size is not a problem. Size depends on the quality of the article. There are far more larger articles like Andalusia (191 kb) and The Holocaust (298 kb!). -AsceticRosé 17:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Moral behavior

I think, we now can discuss Moral behavior issue. Both Eperoton and Sodicadl have presented constructive criticism and valuable suggestions which I found helpful. It is now clear that the text I previously prepared should be reformulated to be fit for this article.

Sodicadl and Eperoton are right that it should be a sub-section instead of a main section. Eperoton said 'either finding a more straightforward account' or 'spelling out the philosophical arguments'. Sodicadl asked 'what will be going into that section'. I have the similar question as to what we should put here. Actually, the fact is that both the Quran and the Hadith and other Islamic traditions contain and suggest ample moral teachings for mankind. Much emphasis has been paid for their practice. Various reference books discuss them variously. Our challenge/task is just to represent this simple fact in a simple but best possible way, and no more.

I, however, found Sodicadl's this statement It should also stick to virtues as that is what is missing, not actions, like “charity and philanthropy” erroneous because every moral virtue becomes a moral action when you practice/follow them. -AsceticRosé 15:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

My concerns were about the proposed classification of moral behavior under worship. It sounds like you have multiple RSs (Clark, Nigosian, Stefon) that discuss contemporary moral teachings under a "society" heading, so I suggest that you summarize what they say under that section here. It so happens that the sources I have at my disposal take a historical perspective or else they discuss classical religious sciences, which is something else. Eperoton (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Eperoton for reply. Recently, I too was contemplating to put it under 'Society' section to make the issue easier. Do you have any suggestion as to how it should be summarized? Is the previously prepared text good enough to be put under 'Society' section?

And you are right about your sources. Such encyclopedias generally do not help us in section arrangement. Reference books do, to some extent. Clark, Nigosian, Matt Stefon are available on Google books. -AsceticRosé 15:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

If the book passages you've based your summary on are available online, I can take a look and offer my opinion. Encyclopedias and books on history of Islam are an important class of sources to inform the structure of this article. The ones I have just don't happen to cover contemporary moral teachings as a coherent topic, while the introductory texts you have apparently do. Eperoton (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Besides the three, Juan E Campo's Encyclopedia of Islam and Oliver Leaman's The Qur'an: An Encyclopedia have excellent discussion on this issue. However, I'm trying my best to summarize them. -AsceticRosé 15:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I've summarized them in the article. If you think there is scope to improve, feel free to do that. -AsceticRosé 16:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I was out for quite awhile. A few things I that came up to me - I still don't feel right with the title "moral behavior" because the rest of the section is about moral behavior too. I suggest a more specific title relevant to the content of the section, like "character" as the Oliver Leaman source uses [2].

I thought it was ok to shift economics to the society section. I was going to make that edit, but thought of checking first for fear of looking like I am edit warring. Sodicadl (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the section was to briefly discuss/summarize the moral teachings which Islam has suggested and which Muslims tend to follow. Character is different from morality as stated in Oliver Leaman's The Qur'an: An Encyclopedia (p. 139):

Character refers more to the inward condition of the human soul, and should therefore be distinguished from personality, which refers more to the outward qualities of human behaviour. Character is also different from morality, which pertains to rules of moral conduct. Character pertains rather to the innate motivation and virtues of the soul and is a guide to moral conduct.

I will be happy if a better title can be found. However, "Character" seems unlikely. -AsceticRosé 14:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, character is different from morality, but the point was that what is mentioned in that section is more pertinent to character than moral conduct. Like Leaman says, character is what is inside, like what that section describes, while morality "pertains to rules of moral conduct". Those are the outward rules like the other sections in the society section like obeying parents and being good to neighbors. Sodicadl (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Sadaqah

I remember we had an unfinished discussion on Sadaqah. It is true that most reference books discuss Zakat and sadaqa together because they serve as introductory books. But they too recognize the difference between them. Zakat and sadaqa are not same. Zakat is compulsory; sadaqa is optional. Zakat is incumbent upon the rich who have certain amount of money; sadaqa is required for all. Zakat is given once in a year; sadaqa can be given any time. Zakat is given in cash; sadaqa can be offered either in cash, or in any item form. In Islamic theology, even helping others and good behavior are regarded as sadaqa. That's why I think, it is better to present them separately, under separate titles. I agree that it is a summary article, but there is no harm if we can present them accurately. -AsceticRosé 14:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

They are both considered "charity" and are in two different paragraphs under that title. I don't see how having them in one section makes it inaccurate. Sodicadl (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

A couple of fine-grained lexical distinctions: "almsgiving" is a more precise term than "charity", and it may be useful to distinguish the compulsory/voluntary distinction from the obligatory/discretionary distinction. They are sometimes treated pairwise as synonyms but they also have more precise meanings. Compulsory has a connotation of enforceable legal constraint, as is the case with zakat in some countries which collect it as a state tax; voluntary is the opposite of that. Obligatory has a connotation of religious or moral constraint, as is the case for zakat in general; this is contrasted with the discretionary almsgiving of sadaqa. I've tried to keep these terms straight in Zakat, though it's an open question what percentage of readers are helped by these lexical niceties.

If there is a problem, in this article, it would be status of sadaqa as an act of worship. I'm not sure about it. Otherwise, the Five Pillars are listed at the top of the section and sadaqa is correctly excluded. Eperoton (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "almsgiving" is more precise for Zakat, and charity is appropriate for sadaqa; and this also points to the difference between these two. And this is exactly what I did in my previous edit. However Eperoton, from your comment, it is not clear what your suggestion is: to present them together or separately. ---AsceticRosé 00:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I can see an argument for both. Since the section is titled Acts of worship, it makes sense to move the discussion of sadaqa under Social responsibilities. On the other hand, keeping it where it is may be helpful for contrasting it with zakat. Eperoton (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, by separately, I meant that to present them under a same title, or under separate titles as I did in this edit. -AsceticRosé 04:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

la ilaha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.35.53 (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Islam#Denomination is incomplete. Please mention

Salafism and Wahhabism are mentioned. Ahl-i Hadith is a regional Salafist movement, not prominent enough to be featured here. Eperoton (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that the IP was in fact referring to Ahl al-Hadith. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the Lead needs slight rewording to make it more straightforward and clear to the readers. But before that, Eperoton, I see in the above discussion titled 'Lead?', you commented They include, for example, a false statement that Islam is "articulated by the Quran", period. Why do you consider it false? What is wrong with it? And if this and some other phrases like for the vast majority of adherents are problematic, as you said, then why are they still there even after your discussion at that time (September 2016)?

I was not present there at that time. So, I'm not sure what was actually going on about this. Note: The section I am talking about has been archived at Archive 29. -AsceticRosé 04:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

My comment was about a version that has since been reverted, so we probably don't need to discuss it here. In the current version, aside from the somewhat tortuous syntax, I don't like the word "articulated" in reference to the Quran and hadith, as it seems to suggest a very naive view of religion in general and Islam in particular. Islam is an interpretative tradition, and it has been variously articulated through interpretation of these scriptures. Eperoton (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I would instead suggest a formulation inspired by Merriam-Webster's learners' dictionary [3]: "Islam is the religion which teaches that there is only one God and that Muhammad is God's prophet. Its primary scriptures are the Quran, traditionally viewed as the verbatim word of God (Allāh), and hadith, which report the sayings and normative example (sunnah) of Muhammad." Eperoton (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Eperoton for your input. My proposal is somewhat similar with some improvements like "Islam is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion which teaches that there is only one and incomparable God, that Muhammad is God's last prophet, and that the purpose of existence is to worship God. It is the world's second-largest religion[1] and the fastest-growing major religion in the world with over 1.7 billion followers[5] or 23% of the global population,[1] known as Muslims. . Its primary scriptures are the Quran, traditionally viewed as the verbatim word of God (Allāh), and Hadith, which reports the sayings and normative examples of Muhammad." I will work on it. -AsceticRosé 06:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think "an Abrahamic" is a good change. "Monotheistic" is redundant with the shahada. Our goal for the opening paragraph is to define Islam in as concise a manner as possible. Using the shahada seems like a good choice (so, perhaps "messenger" rather than "prophet"). Different people may want to elaborate it in different ways, so making one elaboration would open the door to disputes. Why do you want to do the sentence swap? Eperoton (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

First, one correction. I think it is Tawhid (oneness of God), not shahada. Now, coming to the point, "Monotheistic" is a technical word whereas 'oneness of God' is descriptive. "Monotheistic" is technically important because it contrasts Islam with non-monotheistic religions. As for sentence swap, I think it is not swap. In the current version, there is a bad repetition like Islam is a religion articulated by the... and again Islam is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion that upholds that.... It should be unified. And yes, "messenger" may be a good choice. -AsceticRosé 03:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I forgot to read the rest of the current paragraph. We certainly need to consider all of it in a revision.

I didn't understand your first two points. Tawhid is a doctrine and the first shahada is its best known canonical formulation. What religions teach that there's only one God without being monotheistic, or vice versa? That's what the word means, literally.

The current paragraph has the same structure as our Christianity article: definition, demographics, concise characterization. I think we can keep this structure.

I would suggest removing the part about the purpose of existence. The underlying concept is prominent to be sure, but the phrase doesn't seems to appear often when modern sources try to define Islam, and it's not idiomatic in Islamic discourse either (I can't even think of a way to express it in classical Arabic). We can try to formulate essential and distintive aspects of Islam by striking a better balance between idiomatic English and idiomatic Islamic expressions. For example: "Islam teaches that God is merciful, all-powerful, incomparable and unique. Muslims believe that God has guided mankind through revealed scriptures, natural signs and a line of prophets sealed by Muhammad. The primary scriptures of Islam are etc". Eperoton (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to improve the lead as per suggestions here. I'm still not sure how you prioritized shahada over Tawhid or how you were to accommodate it here. Am I missing something? And, do you really think "Monotheistic" has no place here. I see the article Christianity it. -AsceticRosé 13:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let's sort this out more carefully. Monotheism is a

Nicene creed

("I believe in one God") or by the first shahada ("There is no god but God"). Tawhid is also a concept, a more specific one. Tawhid is a form of monotheism (because Islam is monotheistic), but not vice versa (because Christians don't subscribe to the doctrine of tawhid). The question of whether the first shahada expresses specifically tawhid or monotheism more broadly has a long complex history and neither this talk page nor the opening sentence are the right place to get into it. However, there is no dispute that the shahada is the canonical formulation of Islamic creed, which is why I think using a close paraphrase of it in the definition is the way to go per NPOV.

Incomparability of God is a different concept, and it has to do with the tashbih/tanzih theological debates. I think that using this term in the definition is undue.

I'll let the discussion on the issues above play itself out, but I will make two quick changes right away. Islam doesn't teach that God is called Allah. This is conflation between doctrine and language use. Allah is the only word for God in Arabic. In some languages, it is the only word for God used by Muslims. In most languages, including English, Muslims have a choice between using the Arabic word for God and using the native word. Some prefer one usage, and others the other, sometimes strongly. Islamic doctrine takes no position on this point, though Wikipedia consensus does, and it is expressed in MOS (

WP:ALLAH). Eperoton (talk

) 15:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I should also mention why I'm pursuing this discussion, rather than doing what I normally do in such cases, which is compile a representative collection of definitions from RSs and try to reconcile them. At first I tried to do just that, but the specialist encyclopedias I checked don't attempt a concise definition of the term, while the definitions one finds come from weak tertiary sources and have a slap-dash quality. That's why I think this discussion is appropriate. Eperoton (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry I was late to the discussion. I also do not agree with how the lead was and I also think it needs improvement as I have discussed on the talk page before. However, I am divided over changing the lead sentence. Variations of the lead sentence that it is a religion based on the Quran and Sunnah have been long held consensus for about eight years now. Islam, as in the shahada, defines itself by the two aspects of tawhid and that Muhammmad is a prophet but I am not sure if that is the neutral definition. For example, an author might consider their novel first as a philosophical novel when others would normally classify it first as another genre or a magazine might considering itself a newspaper does not make it one. That Islam is based on the Quran and Sunnah is more appropriate for an encyclopedia because it is something all sides would agree on. What I do strongly disagree with is the editor adding the third component about eternal salvation. Picking this component to emphasize that they felt captured Islam can be quite OR as another editor could easily pick some other characteristics. The statement about eternal salvation like much of the rest of Islam is already captured in believing Muhammad is a prophet anyway.

The new sentence on "Guided mankind through revealed scriptures, natural signs, and a line of prophets sealed by Muhammad" is very repetitive of the sentence that follows in the very next paragraph, "that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus." I am not sure how that helps. I would suggest the new sentence be put in the second paragraph by adding anything new it brings to the sentence already there. Sodicadl (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm open to lightening the opening paragraph. Those expressions were meant to replace an arbitrary formulation already there, but now we have added content from two editors. The opening reference to the hadith may be long-standing, but it doesn't reflect RSs, as far as I can tell. It's also tendentious, suggesting a particular and rather untraditional vision within Islam, and reinforcing the common misconception among WP editors (and probably wider public) that one can get an idea about Muslim beliefs by fishing in hadith collections. The Quran has always been experienced by Muslims directly, though with help in interpretation, while hadith traditionally always has been and generally still is filtered through scholarly mediation. Don't take my word for it. I've looked up all the references at Oxford Reference and a couple of other encyclopedias. While you have a valid concern about citing the shahada directly, there seems to be a broad tendency among these references to mention God, Muhammad, and revelation/prophecy/mission at the outset. The shorter entries, and even some of the longer ones, don't mention the sunnah or hadith at all, and in other longer entries they appear in later paragraphs. For example, this entry from the Oxford Dictionary of Islam [4], which is about twice as long as our lead, mentions "Muhammad's example" (but not "hadith") only in the last paragraph. Here's Britannica [5] and some other encyclopedias via Google Books: [6], [7], [8]. Finally, opening passages from sundry Oxford Reference sources. For the longer entries, I've cited the openings of the first few paragraphs, truncated with "...":

 The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions: The religion of allegiance to God and to his prophet Muḥammad, the religion (dīn) which God always intended for his creation, but which is derived in its present form from the prophetic ministry of Muḥammad (c.570–632 ce), and from the revelation mediated through him, the Qurʾān.

 A Dictionary of Asian Mythology: The word Islam comes from the Arabic root slm meaning a Muslim is a person who submits to the order and peace that is the law of Allah as described in the holy book, the Qur'an. Islam was founded in Arabia by the Prophet Muhammad, the “messenger” of Allah, 

 The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature: Islam is a universal religious tradition claimed by over 1.3 billion people throughout the world at the end of the twentieth century... Islam originated in western Arabia in the early seventh century... A supplementary source of guidance for Muslims exists in the form of reports about the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad...

 The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (2 ed.): the religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah.

 Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages: The Arabic root slm means “to be at peace”, “to be safe”. The verb aslama, which is derived from it, acquired in Muslim Arabic vocabulary the sense of “to submit to God's law and thus be safe”. In this theological context, Islam is thus submission to God and to his Prophet.... [this 7-paragraph entry mentions "traditions ascribed to the Prophet" to illustrate some points of doctrine, but makes no generalizations about them]

 The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3 rev. ed.): (i.e. ‘submission’, usually understood as submission to the will of God), the religion preached by Muhammad (prob. c. 570–632), the adherent of which is called a Muslim. Islam is the religion of the majority... Muslim doctrine is derived from the interpretation of the Koran (or Qur'ān) and the ‘Sunna’, i.e. ‘established practice’, a body of tradition which records the actions and sayings of the Prophet and the first four ‘Rightly Guided’ caliphs. Muslim law or ‘Sharia’ derives from the reform by early jurists of existing legal practice in line with the Koran and Sunna. ....

 World Encyclopedia: (Arabic, submission to God) Monotheistic religion founded by Muhammad in Arabia in the early 7th century. At the heart of Islam stands the Koran, the divine revelation of God to Muhammad. Members of the faith (Muslims) date the beginning of Islam from ad 622, the year of the Hejira. Muslims submit to the will of Allah by five basic precepts (pillars).

 A Dictionary of Contemporary World History (3 ed.): A world religion which was spread by the Prophet Muhammad following a series of divine revelations beginning in 610. These were written down in the Quran and are regarded by Muslims as the words of Allah. The Quran founded a monotheistic belief in Allah as the creator of humanity, which in turn is endowed with the power to choose between good and evil. The five core duties of Islam are:

Eperoton (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not helpful that most sources don’t seem too concerned about having their own lead sentences be defining of Islam and most seemed concerned about etymology. Most do have mention of the Quran and The encyclopedia of religion and nature, Encyclopedia of the middle ages and the Oxford dictionary of the Christian church do have mention about the Sunnah. I am still leaning towards defining Islam by its two primary sources but I can see both ways.

There was a discussion of the use of the word “articulated” when referring to Islam as the religion being articulated by the two primary sources. The point of that word in place of saying “based on” was that there could be other religions that could base themselves on the Quran like the Nation of Islam or Moorish scientists but the sources themselves are only articulating one particular religion. Sodicadl (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the history behind the choice of that word. However,

WP:BEGIN

says "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition" [emphasis mine]. The way to see if the subject is definable is to consult RSs. We shouldn't attempt to construct a definition ourselves.

MOS also says "Try to not overload the first sentence", and I share your concerns about the choices currently made there. A bit later I'll review the sources cited above again and try to formulate some alternatives that reflect them collectively.

I'm not suggesting that we do not mention hadith and sunnah in the lead, of course. I'm not even opposed in principle to mentioning hadith somewhere in the opening paragraph, though I am increasingly uncomfortable about the discrepancy with the RSs I consulted (frankly, it came as a surprise even to myself, which perhaps goes to show how much headway the oversimplification of Islam=Quran+hadith has made in the popular imagination). I do support the hopefully uncontroversial proposition that we should treat these two subjects in a way that reflects RSs. How best to do it will require more thought. Eperoton (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

To be sure, I would also rather not overload the first sentence. I am not asking to add in about the Quran and Hadith to the current lead sentence. I meant of using that old lead sentence with Quran and Hadith instead of the current one about Tawhid and Muhammad's prophethood. If the current one is to stay, then it might be better that the sentence on Quran and Hadith stay where it is - separately but in the lead paragraph. If the current one is to stay, I think it is as good a reflection of collective sources as you'd get. Perhaps, a few issues I may have with it is that, as mentioned before, even if monotheism and tawhid may not be exactly the same it seems too close as to make "monotheistic" look redundant. Also, an issue with quite some warring history is about Ahmadiyyas view of Muhammad being the last prophet. I would suggest saying in the lead sentence, "and that Muhammad is a messenger of God" rather than "last messenger" and add the details about finality of prophethood in the second paragraphs, which delves a little deeper into prophethood. Sodicadl (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The information on three Islam page is severely lacking in information. 1. It does not talk about how Mecca was Jewish hence not polythestic. 2. Mohamed was first peaceful until some started following then he murdered so many and taught to murder "infidels " 3. Also failed to mention Mohamed marrying a 9 year old 4. Also failed to mention how the Christians and Jews were massacred by Mohamed and his people causing the second crusades then playing the victims 5. Also failed to mention how Mohamed was so sex crazed that he used to reaper so many women between going to pray that he had semen on his cloak

So much more missing from this page. I think the facts need to be checked here.

Crly2str8 (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You might want to try reading

mainstream academic history (the sort of stuff we base our articles on) instead of propaganda. Ian.thomson (talk

) 06:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

So, I was looking up the concept of the Ghoul which turns out to be from Arabic Mythology originally, much like the djinn. Okay, so, wishing to learn more about elements of "Arabic mythology" I click the link that supposedly puts me to that article - which given what was linking to it, I assumed was meant to be about folklore, such as the Ghoul or Djinn. Yet instead, it directs me to a giant main article on Islam??

Guys, Islam is a LARGE religion found in MULTIPLE cultures. It's not purely "Arabic" mythology to begin with (um - Iran, anyone? That's Persian culture!), but also, there's no apparent subsection on "arabic mythology" either, no mention of things like ghouls and djinn on here that I'm seeing so far (angels yes, but ghouls and djinn no). This makes me feel like links have been messily turned into redirects instead of proper merges? Which has honestly been happening a LOT the last few years and is getting so frustrating lately, because half the time it feels like there probably WAS an article on X subject, that has been both blanked, and made impossible to reach the edit history of, by the fact that it's just turned into a redirect. But of course, I cannot tell...because it's just a redirect, so there's no way for me as a casual user to find the history of the page that once had that name. You see how this could get frustrating. 97.102.79.98 (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a recent, undiscussed change. For many years it pointed to Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, which is the case now. See also Middle Eastern mythology. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 12:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Learn to follow Islam properly from the Kashmiri.

As a Muslim, I already have prior knowledge on the religion of Islam so I was familiar with a lot of the information being stated in this article. This article teaches us about something called the Five Pillars, which is a concept Muslims practice to show their worship to Allah, or God. Since this was a topic I have been learning since I was a kid, I decided to focus more on this section of the article.

In this article, it says that the Five Pillars of Islam are testimony, prayer, charity, fasting and pilgrimage; then, we start to learn more about each pillar and why each is important. You can clearly see how organized this article was. The formatting was great. Everything was headed properly and in order of importance, which is key.

All of the information featured in this section was correct based off of my own knowledge and what I have been taught growing up as a Muslim. There were a few things that I actually never knew about, surprisingly though. I never knew that Jerusalem was once the direction Muslims faced during prayer nor did I ever know that it was a ritual to spend nights in tents and in the desert during Hajj. I was very interested to learn this new information about my religion.

The language in this article was neutral. I understood everything being stated. Everything was clear and straight to the point. All information was properly cited, which is also another key factor in writing a good Wikipedia article.

Reading this article gave me a better idea of how to properly format my own Wikipedia page and how to clearly state all of my information. Not only was I able to gain knowledge on my religion, but I was able to learn how to become a better Wikipedia writer as well.

Hamd Omar HamdOmar12 (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the word 'Mohammad' in the sentence 'God of Mohammad' beacuse He is the only One God of all. 212.10.46.168 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 

WP:NPOV — IVORK _Discuss

06:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

We've broached this question before, but it has fallen by the roadside. What makes us think that this phrasing is due in the opening paragraph? I don't see support for highlighting it in any of the standard references I'm familiar with. Eperoton (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam&type=revision&diff=780377410&oldid=780377093

• First, I am only discussing what is discussed in this section of the article below.
• Second, the paragraph is already talking about the History of Islam so I just added further information.
• Third, I am touching on major events that happened outside of the Greater Middle east.
• Fourth, from what I understand Delhi Sultanate was crucial in spreading Islam to most parts of India.
• Fifth, Delhi Sultanate was the first Muslim empire that took over most of India which set the pace for Mughal empire.
• Sixth, why a very large dominant Muslim Mughal empire in India ended of course by the British empire.
• Seventh, Ottoman Empire was the last Caliphate that came to end because of WWI.

Why should we leave out these major events outside of the Greater Middle east? When they are crucial to our understanding as to why there are so many Muslims in India, Southeast Asia and Southeast Europe. Chrisisherenow (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

There may be some room for tweaking the phrasing, but I think what we currently have in that paragraph is more or less appropriate given the scope of the article. There's a sentence about the rise of Islam and the early conquests; a sentence noting the rise of the Islamic civilization; and finally a sentence about further spread of Islam. Lapidus gives a half-page summary of the spread of Islam in the preface to the 2014 edition of his book, and in his usual style it compresses a wealth of material, with no indication for the particular prominence you're proposing to give to those specific events. A micro-summary embedded in that mini-summary reads: "Merchants and missionaries, often Sufis, brought Islam to the steppes of Inner Asia. From Egypt, the Sudan, and North Africa, Islam and Arab culture reached Saharan and Sudanic Africa. After these direct contacts, Islam was carried further by newly Islamized Persian, Turkish, and African peoples. Arab-Islamic culture followed later conquests, colonization, missionary proselytization, and commerce. Lapidus, Ira M.. A History of Islamic Societies (p. xxiv). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition." Our sentence is basically in line with this. Eperoton (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Kashmiris are blessed by Allah in every manner since we follow Islam in the proper manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.12.36 (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I have just modified 5 external links on Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110209094904/http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-the-Global-Muslim-Population.aspx to http://features.pewforum.org/muslim-population/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130923142412/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/janisla2y2.html to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/janisla2y2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070502045147/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/febislaw2y2.html to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/febislaw2y2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130923144205/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/DecIslaw2y5.htm to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/DecIslaw2y5.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130923142412/http://www.renaissance.com.pk/janisla2y2.html to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/janisla2y2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Bold text

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

182.190.10.35 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Maa bap ki khedmat karo Islam ko amm karo Namaz janat ke kunji hai

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Izno (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about the attempts to convert Mogametan into Christianity. The question seems relevant to me. But would like to start the discussion about an improvement.GoogleUser45765434 (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125113410/http://www.ballstatedaily.com/article/2015/04/nli-muslim-blood-drive to http://www.ballstatedaily.com/article/2015/04/nli-muslim-blood-drive

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Islamic terrorism, or the War on Terror? I just noticed that "terror" is mentioned once in the article and thrice in the reference section. Surely, this is not

Perhaps NPOV is the reason it isn't mentioned. Could you think of places where it would be appropriate and not

WP:UNDUE to mention? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk

) 11:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it should be mentioned, or how much weight it should be given, but shouldn't the weight it's given in the article roughly match the weight it's given in sources? Benjamin (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Jesus Christ! The same reason there's no section on Christian Terrorism in the Christianity article, Buddhist Terrorism on the Buddhism article or Atheistic Terrorism in Atheism article. --85.76.45.133 (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The sources for those articles don't mention the

WP:UNDUE based on our own opinion, but rather, based on the weight the sources themselves give. You could make the argument that the sources of this article are wholly inappropriate, but as it stands now, it seems clear that they're not being well represented in the article. Benjamin (talk

) 21:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

We do have some citations with "terror" in the title, but their existence in itself is not a good guide for establishing due weight, since their scope is different from the scope of this article. The question is how general RSs about Islam treat this subject. I've just checked articles titled "Islam" in a few encyclopedias, and there seems to be two approaches. Some generally keep away from recent political history and don't mention terrorism at all, as for instance the article in Britannica. Others present a fairly detailed historical exposition and discuss terrorism in this content (Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World, Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World). This doesn't give us a quick solution, since our history section is very sketchy. In order to reflect these sources, we would need to write a more coherent and balanced exposition rather than simply tack on a mention of terrorism. Eperoton (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you implying that sources that mention terror are not reliable sources for the purpose of establishing due weight? Benjamin (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, where did I seem to imply that? This is about scope.

WP:PROPORTION is established based on RSs of scope similar to the scope of the article. Existence of specialized RSs devoted to different aspects of the subject doesn't help us to establish what proportional weight we should give to the different aspects, nor how to integrate them together in a single discussion of the general subject. Eperoton (talk

) 00:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that due weight could only be established by sources that give a very broad overview of the subject. Is that really what the policy states? Benjamin (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a broad overview, it just needs to be of similar scope. This is what "its/the subject" (as opposed to "aspect") in

WP:PROPORTION refers to. We can use general books about Islam to establish due weight (and I think they support mentioning terrorism in some form here), but concise overviews are particularly helpful for guidance on how to cover the subject in a concise manner commensurate with the overall length of the article. Eperoton (talk

) 00:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Mumlai (talk) 10:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done—Odysseus1479 21:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Editor10!:

• The word Sub-Saharan Africa is already mentioned above in the lead so we are already covering this geographical area above.
• Space is limited in the lead. Shumam (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Excellent points. I do still think it would be great to distinguish between different parts of Africa. This would not be inconsistent with the rest of the lead. For example, Asia is split up into the Middle East, South Asia, Indonesia, Mainland South East Asia, the Philippines, China, and Russia. Too often, sub-Saharan Africa gets lumped into one group, with little thought to differentiate between vastly different groups. If anything, I would identify West Africa as another area with a major Islamic presence.

Additionally, there is a "Religion" section of the Horn of Africa page, which would have the type of information that our readers might be interested in.

This brings me to an interesting find. The page for the Swahili coast is horribly underdeveloped and has no mention of the Islamic presence along the coast of East Africa. So, would you be interested in developing that page (Swahili coast)? If you are, please let me know! I would be willing to help with that. Thanks! User:Editor10! —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Horn of Africa and Swahili coast should not be listed as places where sizeable Muslim-communities are "also found" as they are already counted in the Sub-Saharan Africa totals in the previous sentence. You would not add the Maghreb and Arabia to that sentence, as those are already counted under "Middle East-North Africa". This is the same thing.--Khajidha (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Editor10!: Hello, I would be willing to help as well (PhD Candidate originally from Mombasa, Kenya) Mumlai (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223012707/http://www.14publications.com/question-and-answer/why-cant-a-woman-have-2-husbands/ to http://www.14publications.com/question-and-answer/why-cant-a-woman-have-2-husbands/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715091828/https://www.planetseed.com/node/17129 to https://www.planetseed.com/node/17129
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101004145229/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/488/chrncls.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/488/chrncls.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140729180433/http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/home/ to http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/home/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041010144541/http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/islam/ to http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/islam

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Islam is a religion of peace and means submission to god which is Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) he is the only god and has always been there. Allah was never born but true Muslims who are pious and take the test of life seriously and pass their test in the grave and on the day of judgement (Qiyaamah) will meet their true lord. Muslims have 5 pillars of faith: Shahadah (faith), Salah (worship), Zakat (obligatory charity once a year for those who are working where you have to give 2.5% of your wealth to the local mosque/masjid, which donate it to charity), Sawm (fasting) & Hajj (pilgrimage). The first prophet was Adam (A.S) and the final prophet was Muhammad (P.B.U.H). It is stated in the holy Quran (33:40) that Muhammad (P.B.U.H) is the seal of prophets and nobody will be after. People in Makkah or around the world have challenged this statement and have wrongly claimed that they are a prophet. Zkhatab15 (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The entire article start out biased towards the view of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammedan (followers of Mohammad). Islam is not defined as the teaching of Mohammad, but the article start out claiming this. This claim is build on the religious view that Allah created the content of Quran via message to Muhammad, and therefore Islams teaching is the Quran. If someone does not belive Mohammad is the messenger of Allah, then Islam has nothing to do with Quran whatsoever. Entire article should tell this is the views of followers of Mohammad and that other people may have different opinions on what Islam is, even if they use identical definition on the word.

Though the dictionary meaning of "Islam" and "Muslim" are simply "submission" and "one who submits", many Muslims when asked for the meaning of these words reply with "submission to God" and "one who is in submission to God". However, Jews and Christians also understand themselves as being in submission to God (in obedience to those scriptures that they accept as God's true revelation). Therefore, they do not want to accept the term "non-Muslim" for themselves with its obvious connotations as refering to those who are not in submission to God.

If some religous group decides to call itself "the honest" what would all those be who do not agree with their teaching and oppose this group? The choice of names can be a clever trick to put oneself into a position of having a superior claim to integrity and "being right" even before the claims and teachings of the religion in question are evaluated for their truth.

For this reason some prefer "Mohammedan" as a more neutral term for the purpose of refering to those who follow the life and teachings of Muhammad, leaving open whether they are from God or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filosofen (talk • contribs) 10:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Source? Benjamin (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don´t follow the logic here: "If someone does not belive Mohammad is the messenger of Allah, then Islam has nothing to do with Quran whatsoever." I seems to me quite possible to not belive Mohammad is the messenger of Allah, but still believe that Islam has something to do with the Quran. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the original poster is confused by the difference in what "Islam" means in English vs what the Arabic word means. In English, "Islam" is the religious movement started by Muhammad. The Arabic word it is derived from means "submission to God" and is considered to be a continuously existing thing dating back to Adam. --Khajidha (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you and others who claims the word Islam has other definition in English than Arabic, is confused. This lie is spread with only motive to trick people into saying Quran is the word of God, without understanding what they say. The meaning of word Islam when we talk about Quran, is how the word is used in this book. Everything else is irrelevant. English speaking followers of Mohammad use the word with arabic definition. It would not be logical that they use the arabic definition and everybody else use another definition. Why copy arabic word Islam and give it a new definition not used in arabic? There is only one single reason doing this; Marxist brainwashing of the humans. Your reference to what the word means is oxford, and this is 100% controlled by leftists politicans. They refuse to explain why they write Islam is the teaching of Mohammad, obviously because they know it is a lie. Both wikipedia and Oxford write that the word Islam means submission to Allah at same page (where few people read it), and this is the only correct definition. Wikipedia does not write this is only relevant for arabic language: Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root S-L-M which forms a large class of words mostly relating to concepts of wholeness, submission, safeness, and peace. In a religious context it means "voluntary submission to God" Filosofen (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And I think you are letting your faith blind you to the facts. The fact is that "Islam" entered the English language as a word to describe the followers of Muhammad and this remains its core meaning in English. What Muslims do when speaking English is of very little importance to the corpus of the English language. When a word is borrowed into another language there are often shifts (some subtle, some not) in spelling, pronunciation, and meaning. When writing in English, we use the word Islam with its English meaning. That meaning is "the religion founded by Muhammad". --Khajidha (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion about Islam. All content must be sourced. Benjamin (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

In the Family section I'd add a description on how Quran allows for pets to be part of families or not. For example, birds are allowed, but dogs aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.220.69 (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Revert this (and subsequent edits to the same material by the same editor) - not otherwise discussed in article and part of continuous POV pushing by the same editor on that topic. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Already done That edit was later reverted by another editor. Spintendo      06:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I plan on editing the the Wikipedia Islam page. I plan on adding to the Islam art section specifically. It seems to exclude any references to Islamic poetry, and there are plenty of examples of famous Islamic poetry that would like to add. Myedits0123 (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see the existing article Islamic poetry and the articles linked from it concerning subgenres of Islamic poetry. This article is specifically about the religion. General Ization ^Talk 02:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The article provides the following line: "Sufism has played a significant role in fighting against Tsars of Russia and Soviet colonization". However, no quotation is given. I imagine it might refer to the Caucasus region with a strong influence of Sufism, namely the Chechen resistance during the war in the region led by the Russian Empire but since no link is given the statement remains ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya-42 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It is wrong to say that Christians and Jews refer to God as Allah or recognize Allah as God. Christians and Jews do not recognize Allah to be God at all. He is the God of Islam. That point needs to be corrected and taken out. 41.13.250.245 (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Middle Eastern Arabic speaking Christians still refer to God as Allah, and some Jews who originate from Arabic speaking countries (mainly older generations now). Hope it assists. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Under the heading "Concept of God" you have the following phrase.

Allāh is the term with no plural or gender used by Muslims and Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews to reference God, while ʾilāh (Arabic: إله‎) is the term used for a deity or a god in general.

This statement is incorrect.

In Christianity we call God "God" or "I AM" as he was revealed to Moses and also or "Yhwh", pronounced Yahweh. Christians never use the word Allah. We do not recognize Allah as God or even that God's name is Allah. Jews also do not refer to Allah or recognize Allah as God. Your statement is contradicting and very misleading to anyone reading the article. This should be taken out all together.

Anthony Carsten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.250.245 (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you know that Jesus didn't speak English? Neither did His disciples. Paul didn't either. In fact, Jews and the Hebrews before them would have said "Adonai" or "Elohim" instead of "Yahweh." Elohim does roughly translate to "God" -- but so does "Allah." In fact, Allah and Elohim both share the same proto-Semitic root *Ilu-, so Moses, David, and Elijah would have been more likely to recognize that name over the English "God."

To say that no Christian would say "Allah" is to say that no Christian would ever speak Arabic. That's just racist (I'm assuming out of ignorance rather than malice, but still racist) and kinda misses the point of Colossians 3:11. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

(

unreasonably certain to be so unacceptably ignorant. Even this Christian college which seems to think that Muslims and Christians can't both worship God even though that would mean that Jews and Christians can't both worship God either, since Jews also deny the Trinity and Incarnation agrees that Arabic-speaking Christians use the name "Allah" and don't say that they're wrong for doing so (they just argue that God is not God except where God is God). The Christian Research Institute likewise affirms that Arabic-speaking Christians refer to God as Allah, and did so before Muhammad was even born. Ian.thomson (talk

) 18:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC) But why act as if all Christians are Arabs when in fact very few in percentage terms are?109.144.217.235 (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Dante and Virgil Meet Muhammad and His Son-in-law, Ali in Hell.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit War

Recently there has been an edit war between Mingling2 & AlHazen and no one seems to be mediating. I thereby invite both of them here to reach a consensus. This is because the material under contention was added by me in the article.

Personally I am of the view that info about Islam's relative growth compared to other religions in the lead seems a bit supercilious. However, since it was already in the lead & in order to avoid contention I added the info regarding high fertility rates. I did it because although AlHazen is right in that there is already an explanation in the demographics, not mentioning it gives an undue weight to 'conversions' & other possibilities in the reader's mind.

Currently I am of the opinion that Eperoton's version is the one best suited for both parties. It keeps the info in the lead but not in the opening sentence. Regards Alina Haidar (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks alina... This is a neutral article not an islamic site that compares its growth to other religions. Its about info on Islam as a religion. Therefore this cocky info is so unnecessary. Still i have agreed to keep the info but as a separate sentence at the end of lead. I do not think alhazan should have any problem withthis yet he keep changing it to the version he wants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingling2 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Mingling2; I am here to encourage a productive discussion on the topic & not to support anyone. Regards Alina Haidar (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how either views have much of a rational or wiki-rule basis to stand on. The arguments are 2: where Islam's growth should be in the lead, and whether it should be further further elaborated on.

MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH

: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts' that surround it."

In the context of world religions, among the basic facts surrounding Islam is obviously it's size. This goes in the first paragraph.

Islam is the world's second-largest religion and the fastest-growing major religion in the world are 2 facts that remark on the same point - the size. So why would they exactly be made separate? They're also directly related; Islam's growth contributes to its size, with future projections seeing it literally be the largest religion in the world as a result. Thus the latter info has an equal merit of being in the same sentence as the former.

Arguing it's "supercilious" and "cocky" is merely a subjective opinion. How can it be "unnecessary" if this fact paints the broader picture of the religion's existence? It is exactly relevant.

MOS:INTRO

: " Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article."

Alina wants to make an exception to this rule, based on her perception of how it could be interpreted. The policy of due wight concerns majority vs minority views. I don't think the fallacy of arguing from silence (treating absence as "primarily due to conversion") is a valid enough reason to disrupt the succinct nature of the lead. Furthermore, there is no evidence to state that it's primarily fertility - it merely sits alongside others (youth age etc); thus its sole inclusion in the lead is a disproportionate representation. Either the others be mentioned - or none at all (as it should be).

I am open to discussion; more to placing of the info at the end of the lead, than to putting explanations with it.

P.S. Mingling2 was explicitly told not to make an edit prior to establishing consensus. He has done so before he even made his case here, which I've reverted. AlHazen (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@

MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH

: "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts' that surround it."

In the context of world religions, among the basic facts surrounding Islam is obviously it's size. This goes in the first paragraph."

Exactly! That's why it is clearly mentioned that Islam is the 2nd largest religion in the world. But I don't see why it is relevent and not 'too specific' to compare its growth to other religions. It can be done in the demographics section but it has no need in the lead and that too in the opening sentence!

"So why would they exactly be made separate? They're also directly related; Islam's growth contributes to its size, with future projections seeing it literally be the largest religion in the world as a result. Thus the latter info has an equal merit of being in the same sentence as the former."

They aren't related! One tells us about the the size of the Muslim population and other starts giving projections. That's akin to mentioning that Buddhism is the 4th largest religion in the world & the 'fastest declining major religion' in the lead paragraph of Buddhism article. Because using your logic it can 'literally' experience a huge fall in its share of the world population by 2050. Anyone can see the flaw in this argument because if the info was opposite to "Islam being the fastest growing major religion" it would definitely not have been mentioned in the lead with it. This makes the info indeed 'cocky'.

"Furthermore, there is no evidence to state that it's primarily fertility - it merely sits alongside others (youth age etc); thus its sole inclusion in the lead is a disproportionate representation. Either the others be mentioned - or none at all (as it should be)."

I was almost in agreement with this. But looking at one of the responses in the page history by Mingling2, I do think its safe to say that fertility is the main factor behind Islam's growth since most of the other religions (apart from Christianity and Buddhism) have very young age structures. The only thing that differentiates then from Islam is the prevalence of modern contraception. Regards Alina Haidar (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

the problem is alhazan using wiki rules to support his own point of view. no other religion page has such type of material in the lead. there isn't a competition between religion on wiki. plenty of islamic sites out there who propagate this news. i am in favour of deleting info as a whole from lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingling2 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I just quickly checked entries on Islam in Britannica and several Oxford encyclopedias. A few mention a demographic fact in the first or second sentence, either in terms of the number of adherents or as a rank among other religions. None mention that it's the fastest-growing religion at the outset (or, at a glance, it seems anywhere else). Based on this, I don't see a NPOV rationale for including this in the opening paragraph. Eperoton (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Projections relate to size - are you actually serious? In Islam's case it's not a specific thing because it has very broad implications. You clearly don't see the logic, which explains you comparing the death of a religion, to the growth of one - anyone can see this fallacy.

Islam's growth has political, social and cultural significance and impact worldwide. This plays itself out into the sharia and secular discourse point at the end of the Law section, as well as the multiculturalism point at the end of the Criticism section. It overlaps with many points, making note-worthy in the lead.

Again, the

WP:Original policy. AlHazen (talk

) 11:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@ AlHazen You have completely failed to address my arguments as well as Eperoton's point. None of the other encyclopedia entries mention that it's the fastest-growing religion at the outset. I fail to see how mentioning Islam's relative growth will help the reader understand Islam's political, social and cultural significance and impact as well as contribute to the discourse on multiculturalism or sharia vs secular law. All I can see is you trying to stretch the conversation.

"Again, the Pew source does not identify fertility rates as the primary cause. It states: "This is one of the main reasons why the Muslim population is expected to grow"."

That's why I along with 2 other editors here are in favour of removing this info altogether from the lead. Demographics section is well suited for explaining these different reasons. Regards Alina Haidar (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Alina Haidar: "You have completely failed to address my arguments" "All I can see is you trying to stretch the conversation.""

I did. Your arguments are based on a misunderstanding of mine; the relativity of Islam's growth as a mere fact is not the purpose behind it's inclusion. It is to do with its significance and relevance. I already referred to this when i initially said "it paints the broader picture of the religion's existence". My literal emphasis was not on it simply being a trend - but rather what it entailed, assuming you understood.

"I fail to see how mentioning Islam's relative growth will help the reader understand Islam's political, social and cultural significance and impact "

Understand? The lead of an article reflects the body of the article. If the point of Islam's growth shapes the information in at least three sections of the article - it thus makes it note-worthy for it's inclusion in the lead. It's very clear. Also, what other encyclopedias do doesn't address the reasoning presented here.

"That's why I along with 2 other editors here are in favour of removing this info altogether from the lead. Demographics section is well suited for explaining these different reasons."

Firstly, you want to entirely remove info from the lead because your contrary-to-policy desire to elaborate isn't possible?

Secondly, it's not 3 vs 1. Eperoton says "I don't see a NPOV rationale for including this in the opening paragraph" - this is the same as my compromise when i said "more to placing of the info at the end of the lead...".

Furthermore, you keep pointing out what's not in contention. The reasons for Islam's growth are already explained in the demographics anyway- and that's why it stays there.

As far as i can see it, i've pointed to the general significance of Islam's growth and as it is reflected in the article for its mention as a lead point. The associated reasons don't belong and can't be in the lead for obvious reasons. The growth point can be relegated to the 3rd paragraph. AlHazen (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see that one coming. Alina Haidar and Mingling2 have been indeffed as socks of the same user. AlHazen, it looks like it's just the two of us left in this thread. I agree with you that putting both pieces of information regarding growth rate at the end of the lead is a good solution. Eperoton (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Done; with the exception of the second information due to the reasons above. (AlHazen (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC))

Biased article

Article deliberately tones down the criticism instead of having an unbiased. Do the following:

1. Add the one line summary of the criticism in the lead, instead of burying it at the bottom. Do not ignore, dilute or try to kill the reality.

2. No due balance: excessive amount of info on other stuff but criticism is not only toned down but made too short. Why?

3. Add the following to the criticism with this subheading "religious intolerance and inherent supremacist ideology":

The idea of Islamic supremacy is encapsulated in the formula, "Islam is exalted and nothing is exalted above it.[1] As of 2014, about a quarter of the world’s countries and territories (26%) had anti-blasphemy laws or policies,[2] of which 13 nations, all Muslim majority, have death penalty for apostasy.[2]

202.156.182.84 (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Good idea.109.144.217.235 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Yohanan Friedmann, 2003, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition, Cambridge University Press, page 18 and 35, isbn=978-0-521-02699-4.
2. ^ ^{a b} Which countries still outlaw apostasy and blasphemy?, Pew Research Center, 29 July 2016. Cite error: The named reference "terrorreligion1" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

The article's criticism section is in line with how it is presented in other major religious articles like Christianity. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a political polemic. The criticism is also relevant only to particular forms of Islam in the modern world and not relevant to a summary of Islam's entire 1400-year history. 97.115.195.164 (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad is the last and final messanger of Islam

You have mentioned in the first paragraph that "

Islam (/ˈɪslɑːm/)[note 1] is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion teaching that there is only one God (Allah)[1] and that Muhammad is the messenger of God

"

Here it should be "

Islam (/ˈɪslɑːm/)[note 1] is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion teaching that there is only one God (Allah)[1] and that Muhammad is the last and final messenger of God

" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmfmahmud (talk • contribs) 10:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit request or semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I will like to edit because I have a lot of knowledge about Islam and also I am Muslim, I would like to add a new paragraph about Death, Hell and Paradise or if there is one I would like to add on it because I have a good explanation about it! CooomeheeereBoiii (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a

reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk)

18:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Calligraphic presentation vs "Rare" Image

User:AlHazen has recently replaced the following image:

[[:File:Mohammed receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel.jpg|thumb|right|Muhammad receiving his first revelation from the angel

Rashid-al-Din Hamadani, 1307, Ilkhanate

period.]]

with this one:

[[:File:Israfil1.png|thumb|right|Islamic calligraphy of the Archangel Israfil (angelic form of representation)]]

citing rarity of image as the reason. Firstly, I am yet to find any wiki rule that that says that just because an image is rare it shouldn't be in an article. Also such type of art was common in medieval Iran and Ottoman empire so its not quite rare.

Secondly and most importantly the article is lacking diversity with entire sections only containing calligraphic presentations of the subjects. Therefore, images available on a particular subject should get preference instead of being removed. Alina Haidar (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Many pics of Muhammad used to be here a few years ago but they were deleted due to opposition from Islamics i think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingling2 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Citing diversity of image is valid; but you're under the false presumption that visual images automatically take precedence; calligraphy is precisely itself the primary method of representation used alternative to visual images (as denoted by the caption). It is thus as just illustrative according to the tradition. There's no rule on rarity (in body images); it was just a reasoning that regarded the more common to be suitable. Either way, this is an open one so it doesn't matter. AlHazen (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Still I fail to understand why you deleted this image in the first place. There was no figurative depiction in the article before this; only calligraphic presentations. More images like this one need to be in the article. Regards Alina Haidar (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

+1 supporting Alinas position --Nillurcheier (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Do remove this picture "File:Mohammed receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel.jpg" it disrespects Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H. As it hurts feeling of Muslim communityUmair Bin Ahmad (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2018

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Islam (/ˈɪslɑːm/)[note 1] is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion which teaches that there is only one God,"beside God

the term (Allah) should be mentioned, because Muslims consider "Allah" as "God". Pmohd (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a

reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk

) 07:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The name of God

This edit caught my eye. I've reverted the readdition of (Allah) there because I think it needs establishment of consensus here.

I see that this, or something similar, has been discussed here and here on this talk page. I also see at Names of God in Islam#Lists of names that there appears to be less than universal agreement about this. My limited, partial, and possibly somewhat incorrect understanding is that Allah is a romanization of Arabic for الله, that that Arabic word translates into something like God in English, and that it is understood by many to refer to the embodiment of the notion of the monotheistic God in Abrahamic religions, including Christian, Islamic, and Judaistic religions. I don't see any compelling argument for that readdition here. If it is readded, its presence probably needs clarification. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The onus of achieving consensus is on you, for starters. The first discussion does not refer to the same subject, while the latter is a response to your edit 2 days prior. As someone editing an established version with consensus either via

discussion or silence

- your case would have to attain likewise.

Secondly, i understand your point in regards to the general essence of Allah as merely Arabic term for to God; however, Allah is used by virtually all Muslim people, while only Arab non-Muslims use it. This lends its liturgical significance exclusively to the religion of Islam. That is because Arabic is the language of Islam; while that's not the case with the religions of Arab non-Muslims. AlHazen (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit On The Concept Of God Section

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

God is beyond all comprehension and thus Muslims are not expected to visualise or anthropomorphise him. In this line Muslims are not expected to "visualise" should be removed, as in the Hadith Of Gabriel, Prophet Muhammad mentions Ihsan as "Worship to God as if you're seeing him and if you cannot have that feeling then remember that God is seeing you." thus according to this Muslims can visualise in mind that God is watching us. Pmohd (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - That statement in the article is well-supported with sources, which is how we decide what goes into Wikipedia articles. For this reason, it won't be removed, but if you have a

original ideas of editors are not suitable for inclusion. I hope you understand, and I appreciate that you are trying to improve the article. A2soup (talk

) 22:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't state anywhere in the supported sources, that God can't be visualised, it was the editor's own interpretation as well.Pmohd (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2018

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The founder of Islam is not Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) that should be removed from it 2405:204:E401:7D33:0:0:1047:38AD (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide

reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ

13:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Denominations- Alevi Bektashi

Not sure, whether or not we had this already here: Would Alevism at leaast in the Bektashi-version, fit in here? I mean they are strongly influenced by Islam, derive their teachings from Haji Bektash Veli and Islamic figures such as Ali play an important role in their belief-system. I focus here on the Alevis from the corresponing article; the Bektashi Alevis, not Alawis or non-Islamic Alevis. As far as I know there are also non-Islamic Alevis, who derive their nomenclatur from "alev" (flame), but a think a reference to "Islamic" Alevism would be helpful here. Even if it is just a brief notion in the "other denomination"-section. merging them with Shias would be odd, since they differ in regard of their rituals are are rather "shia" in their relationship towards Ali and Ahl-Bayt.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That seems right. We currently mention Alevis under Shia, but this is not sourced. According to EI3: "The Alevīs are a number of heterogeneous socio-religious communities in Turkey and the Balkans, historically referred to as Qızılbaş, who, in the twentieth century, began to share a common trans-regional Alevī identity called Alevism". The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World says: "Though clearly influenced by Shiism, the Alevis themselves do not typically regard themselves as Shīʿī.". Iranica calls them BEKTĀŠĪYA: "a syncretic and heterodox Sufi order, found principally in Anatolia and the Balkans, with offshoots in other regions, named after Ḥājī Bektāš and regarding him as its founding elder (pīr). " Eperoton (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you think it is worth to get a section on its own for Bektashi-Alevism, after the Sufism-section?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

That seems undue. I think there are books about Islam which don't even mention them, let alone encyclopedic articles. Strictly speaking, Sufism isn't a denomination, but that's another topic. Eperoton (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Remove Disrespectful Images

Some of the images like "Mohammed receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel" on this article disrespects Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H). And they hurts Muslim feelings, Please do remove these images as early as possibe Umair Bin Ahmad (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not a website to protect people’s feelings. Editor8778 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

As a Muslim it is disappointing that you have put your feelings above mine. There was nothing wrong with the images that were there and it is disrespectful to have had them removed. Don't put your own personal feelings above other Muslims - it is people like yourself like you that give us a bad name, what next? Are you going to stop our relatives (who are not Muslim) from driving us to the Mosque? non-Liberal Muslims need to get a life and accept that some of us have mixed marriages, some of us do not follow sharia law, some of us are gay and heck, there are even Muslim adult entertainers - get with it, this is 2019!!!

not the stone ages. Dyno1121 (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.78.188 (talk)  

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2019

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

202.191.127.38 (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a

reliable source if appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk)

14:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Zahirism

Could someone add the line "

Zahirism is a school of thought founded by Dawud al-Zahiri in the ninth century" to the Denominations section pls? Thanks. 92.19.189.35 (talk

) 02:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be something, that should be included in the Historical section, I guess. If nobody else will, I would read more about them and try to add them in an appropriate context, then I am back for greater edits (I currently took a break). However, I would like to let you know, that your request was noted.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it should be added to "history"; it should be added to denmiations. History seems undue. OTOH, Zahirism is the only major denomination that lacks mention in the denomination subsection. 92.10.236.47 (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems what Zahirism is a strant of Sunni->Salafi-Islam. Not sure, since I didn't know about them before. Then I am going to make an edit, I will read more about them anyway. I will also note your suggestion of Zahirism as an independend denomination. I can not give more details for know, since I do not know much about them. Probably another editor might find our discussion earlier, who has more knowledge about them than me. If not, I want to look up for them in 2-3 weeks.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Zahirism is one of the many early school of law. It declined at an early date and did not become one of the institutionalized Sunni schools of the classical era, but it has retained some intellectual influence through the centuries. Whether or not it is extinct and "Sunni" has been an enduring source on controversy on WP. Eperoton (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

there is about 20 thousand cats around the world >:3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:A00A:A900:6420:A60:DBA0:17FA (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sufism

Since I seem to have precipitated the dispute about characterizing Sufism as a denomination by a comment I made earlier on this talk page, I feel obliged to intervene. I recently did a fairly extensive review of encyclopedic articles on Sufism for a dispute over another article, and I don't recall any one of them calling it a denomination. In general, I'm pretty confident that this would not reflect the usage found in the body of modern RSs. Unless someone can demonstrate otherwise, making it a subsection of Denominations is

WP:OR. Eperoton (talk

) 19:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

P.S. One can quote Islam & Muslims by a leading scholar of Sufism Mark Sedgwick here "It is important to understand that the Sufis are not a separate denomination, although many people get confused about this." Eperoton (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sufism is not even a seperate tradition, but rather a designation for an "esoteric" interpretation of Islam. To many people of Central- and Middle-Asia, Islam was introduced as "Sufism", meaning as an rather esoteric interpretation of Islam. Most of them consider themselves as Sunnis. Nevertheless, it is "Sufi" in the meaning of the esoteric-interpretation as stated above, and by giving less attention to the

Maturidi is also described as "Sufi influenced", although it is clearly not related to any Tariqa. This all testifiies, that the academic usage of "Sufism" is simply the prioritization of the esoteric meaning of Islam, over the more law-based interpretation (If desired, I guess I still have some source about that, somewhere, I saved them since I needed them last semester) and is not limited to a certain tradition within Islam.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk

) 16:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Coming up with a concise definition of Sufism is quite difficult because the definitions found in RSs have significant variations (e.g., [10], [11], [12], [13]), but luckily we don't need to do that in order to determine whether it should be a subsection under Denominations. We just need to determine whether RSs call it a "denomination". Eperoton (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, coming up with a definition is not our work to do. We only need to determine, whether it is a denomination or not. @AlHazen: agreed with that it is not a denomination, but that is should be seperated, because it is a "specific tradition" (Quoting the comment made after the revert). I think, if we want to keep it in the denomination section, we must change the title of the section. But before it gets more confusing, I would prefer to give "Sufism" its own section. It could be expanded, with sub-sections, as it changed over time, and how it was perceived in different periods, and about it impacts on non-Sufi Sunnism/Shia/Folklore. I pinged AlHazen, because I think he should participate in the discussion and I am not sure, he noticed us here.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, the term denomination can technically be synonymous with order or communion etc descriptively befitting Sufism in my opinion; if none of these terms are used for it by any source, then it would be original research. I have no objection to moving Sufism into a broader mysticism section - granted that it is in fact broad - as it would otherwise be the lesser cohesive choice than where it's currently placed. AlHazen (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Going by the most common -- though contested on fine points -- definition of Sufism as "Islamic mysticism", I agree that Sufism can be a separate section. That would be the most straightforward solution. Alternatively, we might have a top-level section called "Mysticism", like in Sunni Islam, and start off with the opening statement from this article, "Sufism is the major expression of mysticism in Islam." The section can also mention Batiniyya and Esoteric interpretation of the Quran. We don't currently have well-developed content on this anywhere on WP, and I don't think RSs use the terms "Sufism", "mysticism" and "esoterism" consistently in relation to one another. Sufism itself is a big grab bag, encompassing devotional practices of Sufi orders, philosophy, and popular shrine culture. There's a fairly detailed, freely available discussion of philosophical mysticism in Islam in the The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, based on which we can mention Ismaili mysticism and Mulla Sadra in the same section. Eperoton (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I could also agree with this, as long we find enough stuff for Batniyya. There is a template, that the Turkic Wikipedia, I could try to check, contains more information about it. As long we will find enough content, I would agree with the alternative suggestion.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC) edit: It seems the alleged corresponing article in Turkish does not really coresspond with the Batiniyya article in English. It is rather about Qarmatians. BUt I found theother article, which is much more comprehensive, and I will not manage to translate it today (or the weekend).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: If you are considering translating an article from the Turkish WP to expand Batiniyya, I would caution against it, unless you're going to verify the cited sources. We have had repeated issues with material contributed by at least one Turkish editor on this topic, which on closer inspection turned out to contain a lot of OR and source misrepresentation. The Iranica article cited in Batiniyya is freely available and I can send you another encyclopedic article from Brill. For the purposes of this article, I don't think it would be due to devote even a complete sentence to Batiniyya, since it's a marginal topic in the broader context of Islam. For example, the six-volume The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World doesn't have an article on it at all, and I can't recall a single article-sized encyclopedic treatment of Islam that mentioned it. I think we can have at most one sentence here about the largely overlapping topics of Batiniyya and Isma'ili mysticism, which could also mention School of Isfahan and/or its most famous figure, Mulla Sadra. Eperoton (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's a convenient formulation from Batiniyya in

Encyclopedia Islamica

: According to mainstream Shiʿi thought, as well as basic Sufi thought, the hidden meaning behind the veil of language is called the esoteric meaning (bāṭin) of the Qurʾān, while the literal sense is called the exoteric (ẓāhir); the latter is understood by the common person and is considered evidence for the fulfilment of religious duties, while the esoteric aspect is comprehended by the elect, who contemplate its mysteries and discover the essences hidden behind the veil of forms.

For a Mysticism section we can have a sentence like this, citing Islamica and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Mystical interpretations of Islam have also been developed by

Ismaili Shias (sometimes called batiniyya), who in common with Sufis look for esoteric (batin) meaning of the Quran, by the School of Illumination, as well as by the Isfahan school of philosophy. Eperoton (talk

) 15:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on comments by

Ismailism instead. I'll make what seems to be an uncontroversial change. Eperoton (talk

) 01:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Skyline of Jakarta, capital of Indonesia, the largest Muslim-majority country in the world.

According to the information found on Wikipedia, Indonesia is the 14th largest country in the world and Saudi Arabia is the 12th. Doesn't that contradict the statement that Indonesia is the largest Muslim-majority country in the world? Rayansb (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@

Largest countries is a redirect to our list by area. (At List of countries and dependencies by population Indonesia is ranked 4th and Saudi Arabia 40th.)—Odysseus1479

03:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: thank you, the edit is more than satisfactory.Rayansb (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2019

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to edit this page. This is because you have forgotten a few key facts/terms which I would kindly type RumadooNo.2 (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2019

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ALMAS AZAM (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please request actual change you think is needed, in thge form: please change X to Y, so that we can actually consider the improvement you wish yto make. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

The last sentence is "It additionally gives Imams an oppoturnity to march against their own people ... " Please correct the spelling of "opportunity". Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 06:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks, Done IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Islam

Hi,

I was wondering if after the use of the name of the Prophet Muhammed (عليه السلام) (alayhi s-salām) within this article that perhaps at least some sort of abbreviation acknowledging his prophethood could be put after his name when referring to him within the article. It is more respectful and distinguishing and a lot of Muslims (including myself) would probably appreciate this given his immense significance. I would argue for this because I do not believe that it will affect the content of the article itself nor do I think it would contribute to creating bias. Rather, it is simply an addendum to demonstrate respect towards the followers of the religion who usually add this when referring to the prophet. If anything it could be seen as educational because this is usually what Muslims do when referring to the prophet. I understand that this may be redundant, however, I would not feel comfortable with myself if I did not at least bring this up.

This is just a suggestion; I would like to see other peoples views on this.

Thank you. Lilaclavendur (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

We don't do that on Wikipedia. See

MOS:PBUH. El_C

07:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

The followers of Islam are free to speak such every time they read his name, but to ask outsiders to do so is highly disrespectful on their part. It would increase bias by singling this one person out for such respect. Many would argue that he deserves no more (or less respect) than any other person. Many others would argue that he deserves no respect or even deserves denigration. The most neutral way for us to handle this is to avoid using such honorifics for anyone. (And before you ask, I will argue against having similar terms on any other page: Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Taoist, etc.) --Khajidha (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

No! As per

MOS:PBUH.Tamsier (talk

) 12:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove Disrespectful Images

Dear Editor, there in no authenticity for the image used for the prophet, so it is better not to propagate incorrect image.

What is an "incorrect image"? Nevertheless, the pictures are indeed licensed under

Public Domain. But thanks for your concern.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk

) 11:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

They, weren't drawn from life, and they were made centuries after Muhammad lived. And that's ok, we're not claiming anything else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No! There is nothing disrespectful about the images.Tamsier (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

I think Wikipedia is better than other websites, it turns out that the argument is just an assumption, I see a picture that depicts a prophet who clearly can't be pictured, the image must be replaced or better just delete it.

Pewkiw (Talk or Die!!!) 10:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

How is it clear that he can not be pictured? (Most depictions are just abstractions showing the idea an artist had during his work. In this case, the picture shows how Dante thought of Muhammad. Therefore, the picutre does not must be removed. I could agree with that we remove it, since to unnecessary violent and unnecessary cruel depictions of a prominent person, which is not representative enough to meet notability. It is not that Christians necessarily regard Muhammad as sitting in hell with his chess split off or something the like and Dante's Inferno is not a representative Christian Islam-critic (although it often demonized Islam, and this opinnnion is even more prevailing in European Christianity thatn in Eastern). Although I would regard Dantes critic as notable, I do not think the representation of Muhammad in necessarily. We also do not mention Shia sources there Paulus sits in hell (that he clearly does in the corresponding Islamic depictions of Paulus). The picture itself, I regard as unnecessary provocation and it could be debated, that we find a consens to remove it again. Nevertheless, the reason is not, because we not allow pictures of prophets. Please use your signature for signing your posts, not a raondom link to a userpage.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Image in Criticism section

Hello fellows, Still thinking about the picture in the Criticism section, and although I would think about it as appropriate in a "Criticism"-Main article by explaining the position of Dantes Inferno extensively, I think it is overemphazising in this article. I mean, it is not only criticising and demonizing a figure highly regarded especially for people this article is about, but also depict him as tortured in a manner, (as I think) most people would not even see in a common article. It is not only something like "Muhammad prostrating before Jesus on the End of Days" or "Muhammad portrayed as a barbarian warrior leading an army of demons". No, it is portraying him as cut off and his innards falling out. Referring to Wikipedia:Offensive material ("When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, the most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials. Images containing offensive material that is extraneous, unnecessary, irrelevant, or gratuitous are not preferred over non-offensive ones in the name of opposing censorship. Rather, the choice of images should be judged by the normal policies for content inclusion."), I think the image not shows Christian "criticism", but rather an attitue towards Islam the common attitue of European Christians towards Islam in Medieval Period. And honestly, everything and everyone who was not a Christian was regarded as evil (just as Jewish who there blamed for pestilence, the wrath of God, symbolically killing Christ again...), even described in apocalyptic terms. Nevertheless, in an article exploring all disregards towards Islam, this picture is obviously noteworthy (just like an extensive explanation of Dantes depiction of Muhammad and Islam), but here, criticism is a sub-section, which should cover some main aspects of Islam Critics, there this picture is not only criticism but also presenting one of the historically most cruel depictions of Muhammad available. My point is, that this picture is exaggerating the demonization of Muhammad in relation to the artciel, the Islam Main-articles subsection Criticism and choosing the worst image possible and not only choosen because it is supporting the understanding of criticism as images should do actually. Please remember (most offensive options should not be used merely to "show off" possibly offensive materials.) Only real argument against removal I can consider is, we have (as far as I know) no real alternative pictures for this section as far as I know (while, actually we could also show some concrete examples of that is critisied in Islam, such as coverings for women regarded as subpression and than adding a picture of a Niqab-woman or something the like). What do others think? Is the picture proportionate to the articles subsection or is it more offensive than necessary?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I just happened to see this in passing. My knee-jerk response is focused more on the section overall than specifically on the image, though this image appearance here might be a part of that. That response is that there ought to be more

summary style cross-pollination between the Criticism section in the Islam article and the Criticism of Islam detail article. Wtmitchell (talk)

(earlier Boracay Bill) 13:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The Criticism in Islam article only makes a short reference to Muhammad in Dantes Inferno. I think this picture is over emphasizing Dante. And since we have a more public image now, I guess this picture of Dante could be removed.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Wtmitchell. The criticism section is too long especially when we already have Criticism of Islam. That section should be summarised and linked to the main article. However, if we are going down the route of including Dantes in the body of the article, I do not see any problem in including the image in order to help the general reader. It add's context.Tamsier (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this makes sense to me. I recently added about criticism, because a while ago, the section lacked any real criticism (just covered the topic too superficial). The image was once added before, and I added some stuff about Dante, so the image could make sense. I am uncertain which parts we should remove or move the the main article. Maybe the Tengrist, Manichaean and Dante part are too broad and should be moved? (just a suggestion) Edit: I made some edits now, please check also the edit summaray. Thanks.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• The Dante image illustrates the lengthy prejudice against a central figure of Islam. The 9/11 image is more suggestive of modern Islamophobia. I am not opposed at all to moving some of the content, by the way. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• User:VenusFeuerFalle, you are way too quick on the draw. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry. Yes, you are right about that it is related to the basic idea that Muhammad is a false prophet, but I am uncertain if showing someone "split off" on a page, there it is about a central figure, is appropriate and not unnecessary Wikipedia:Offensive material. Although it is consens over centuries for (especially European) Christianity to regard Muhammad as a false prophet, not all thought him of as split in half (as far as I know). If, the majority here agrees that this picture is nevertheless usefull and outweights the offensive implication, because Dante simultanouesly represents this prejudice, when I will re-add the section. Or you revert it, but please when remove the Manicheaism and Tengrist part again, since I moved it to the main-page now.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

You also mentioned that the 9/11 picture is misleading, I am not sure I get why. Could you explain?

Because I believe that using the 9/11 picture to illustrate criticism of Islam is in poor taste and exemplary of modern Islamophobia. The Dante image is, IMO, less offensive to Islam as a whole because it illustrates not supposed violence done by "Islam" (where the whole is indicted for the actions of a few) but rather an erroneous conception about Islam's founder--a false criticism, if you will, illustrative of faulty Western/Christian attitudes. The offensiveness you signal is, I believe, too much based on an opinion related to Depictions of Muhammad. I am not going to go to war over this image, and it could do with a better explanation (not "false prophet" but "schismatic", by the way--that is what Dante is aiming for), but if we're going to remove it it should be done with a more coherent and policy-based argument than what I've seen so far. Of course, we don't have to have an image here--but I do not see much or any support here for your removal of that picture. (That caption is really quite poor. "Schismatic" is amply proven on the first page of a Google search ([14] and [15]--and Danteworlds is reliable). I gotta run, but if you don't find consensus for removing the image, then maybe Tamsier and I can improve that caption.) Drmies (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Fine, I think your arguments are more convincing. I am curious if others want to say soething or have improvment suggestions. If not, I would like (as long as I find the time), to re-add the image ( if not done in the mean-time) nad the corresponding content and remove the 9/11 image instead.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

VenusFeuerFalle, what do you think of this? It's clean, inoffensive (I think), and steers clear of modern issues. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks nice. Especially due to the lack of violance. If noone else disagrees, I would prefer this picuture (not everything must be about, splitting people, cruelity and war, right?)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad you agree. I'm just going to go ahead and make the change--if anyone disagrees, we'll talk more. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Refs

References

1. ^ "St. John of Damascus's Critique of Islam". Writings by St John of Damascus. The Fathers of the Church. Vol. 37. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. 1958. pp. 153–160. Retrieved July 8, 2019.

Dishonour of Holy Prophet

In Islam, Holy Prophet can not be picturized. So the disrespectful pictures should be removed Muhammad Umer Farooq (talk) 08:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

With respect, In Islam, you can do as you please, in the real world, we feel no such restriction. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Consider using Help:Options to hide an image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how what is done in Islam is relevant to a website that cannot be an adherent of any religion. --Khajidha (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Certainly not! We had a similar silly request made above and as other editors noted, we don't care about your feelings. This is an encyclopedia, and since the images are relevant they should not be removed.Tamsier (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I feel like the contributors are being a bit brusque with you. This being a secular website doesn't mean it shouldn't be sensitive to the religion being written about. If a contributor wants to break a religious taboo in an article discussing the religion, they need a justification to do so, since arguing "Get over it, we don't follow X religion" does not enhance anyone's understanding of the religion. That being said, it is not universal that depictions of Muhammad are disallowed, as evidenced by the historical images in the article. These are depictions made by historical Muslims, created with respect towards the religion. UmarMayKnow (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Madhabs

Hi

In the article there are confusion between madhabs (schools) and branches. We know the madhabs of sunnismn but not shia madhabs. So each branch of shia have one madhab of the notion does not exist in shia? --Panam2014 (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

So Shia Islam does not refer to this "schools" as "Madhab"?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: In this case, Shiites call how these schools? What are the fiqh schools of Shiism? --Panam2014 (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not know much about Shia Islam. I would have to look it up. I thought that it would be something like "Jafarism".--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Synkretism, Shamanism and Folklore?

Hello fellow Wikipedians, Do you think we should make a section about the impact of shamanistic and animistic beliefs integrated into Islamic thought, as we encounter it among Turkic people (especially since Turkic people had huge impact on Islam's spread) and India people? I guess the Folkloric Aspect of Islams should not be underestimated, but I also hesitate because I would not like to overemphasize it. Further it is harder to summarize spiritual aspects of a belief system adequately than to do it with written aspects of a religion. But we could write about its development, giving an otherview about which traditions met, and how they influenced each other. The history section already contains partly aspects, which might be to extensive for the history section, but could be integrated to a "Islamized shamanism" section. I would suggest to make the "Mysticism"-section a broader section with Sufism, Ismailism and Shamanism as subsections (Sufism often affected Shamanistic ideas). I would not add it to the denomination, since it is no denomination, often such "Shamanized" Muslims identify as Sunnis, sometimes also as Shias, but this les likely.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Islam did not start from Muhammed,(peace be upon him) lack of Muslim viewpoint in this article and very one sided

The whole point of this wiki page is to inform people about Islam, right? To inform people about Islam, then you have to use the viewpoint of Islam wherever possible. I understand that in places, there will have to be neutral point of view and I don't expect you to put peace be upon him on every mention of of the Prophet Muhammed, (except in my example here, peace be upon him!) but to if your asking Muslims when Islam started, it from the prophet Adam, peace be upon him.

When you say that Islam started from Muhammed, you are giving a a opinionated view. This is where the balance is wrong. In other words, it could be the difference between Muslims believe there is only one and almighty God, this is factual and neutral, to say that there is only one and almighty god would be wrong for article neutrality.

But there are some cases were, if your asking Muslims and Islam, you have to be opinionated to be factually correct to refer to Islam and Muslims, otherwise your not talking about Islam.

Marccarran (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Marccarran the article says in the lead section that "Muslims believe that Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Abraham, Moses and Jesus".--SharabSalam (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

But what about this bit? Aside from the theological narrative,[20][21][22] Islam is historically believed to have originated in the early 7th century CE in Mecca,[23] and by the 8th century the Umayyad Caliphate extended from Iberia in the west to the Indus River in the east.

What your describing is that the prophets shared the same message, but the above is saying it started from Muhammed. So the two contradict each other.

"The whole point of this wiki page is to inform people about Islam, right?" Not entirely correct. It is about informing about Islam according to research. It is an encyclopedia, not an Islam-Blog, thus not writing form inside. It is Descriptive not introducing. To be fair, Wikipedia explains both the Islamic viewpoint, and the point of research. Maybe in 50 years we will have a line like "According to academical research, the much older Islamic viewpoint had been proven right and Islam is indeed older than Christianty and any other religion, but due to lack of knowledge and evidence among researchers, ignored over centuries." Or otherwise we will just keep describing the different points of view as accurate as possible (in accordance with the viewpoints, not only Islam, neither only Non-Islamic.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

As I've said before, this comes down to the fact that English (and European languages in general) uses the term "Islam" specifically to refer to the movement that began with Muhammad. Muslims see this movement as a revitalization of a pre-existing thing, but non-Muslims do not characterize it that way. The prophets before Muhammad are not thought of by non-Muslims as being "Muslim" or teaching "Islam". To a Christian or Jew the idea of Jesus or Abraham being Muslims is simply non-sensical. Basically the original Arabic word and the English word have different definitions and it makes no sense to read English texts using Arabic definitions.--Khajidha (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm neither an academic nor a Muslim and I'm not particularly familiar with the history of Islam, but that point looks like it could stand having some attention paid to it. This article does seem to include this info in the second paragraph of the lead which begins, "Muslims believe that Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, ...". However the third paragraph seemingly contradicts this with the view you disparage, saying "Islam is historically believed to have originated in the early 7th century CE in Mecca, ...". The Muhammad article seems to have greater problems, saying in its lead sentence that Muhammed was "was an Arab religious, social and political leader and the founder of Islam." The supporting source cited there qualifies that by disclaiming "From a modern, historical perspective, ...", and the cite echoes that it a quote, but that qualification didn't make it into the lead sentence assertion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Spelling of Shahada/Shahadah

Should the spelling of Shahadah in this article be changed to Shahada, in line with that article's style? For cohesion, maybe with a note on variant spellings? Or is it better to just leave as it is? Kormachameleon (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi I am a Muslim. We call it shahadat or shahadah AmirRezaa85 (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence

talk

) 19:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

If I may, it's probably because monotheistic already means that they only have one God, so it wouldn't be necessary to say so again.--Yhdwww (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I have a different problem with the lead sentence. Where it says "…there is only one God (Allah)," this can be misunderstood to be a separate god from that of the other Abrahamic religions, which is a common misconception. We should consider changing it to something like "…there is only one God (called Allah, the Arabic word for the God of Abraham)," or something like that. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@MiguelMunoz: I think this would be too wordy for the opening sentence. In the past the same point was expressed more concisely: God (Arabic: Allah), but the language identification was deleted somewhere along the way. Eperoton (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Monotheistic religion does not only mean that there is one god, but also this god is not an immanent deity (although partly, the Islamic deity is also immanent, but the transcedent aspect outweighs the immanent interpretaions), therefore I do not think it is unnecesary to mention it. The "Allah" in brackets seems to be redundant. Otherwise, that "Allah" is not a proper name, but only "God" translated seems to be a modenr phenomena. Although this might be the original meaning of the word, for a longer period of time, it seems Muslims used it as a proper name. Further, on Wikipedia, we have distinct articles for "God in Islam" and "Allah", the article "Allah" talking about the name/word itself. And since Arabic Christians, probably also call God "Allah" (as do many other religions in the Arabic region) the name following the word "God" seems to be misleading. I would favor to simly write "there is only one God", but not go into detail about it like "Allah as Arabic word for God", since Muslims do not neither necessarily speak Arabic nor do they replace the word "God" with Arabic. For example, Turks translate God as "Tanri", and use "Allah" for specifically this Islamic deity. Turkish Christians for example use "Tanri" instead of Allah (maybe due to Evangelical propaganda?). I think it is the best, neither siding by promoting that "Allah is just "God" in Arabic and is the same as the one of Abraham", neither stating that Allah is seperate, but only writing "God". From a scholary point of view, there is also no real consistence between all the religions, and Islam ende up with their own concepts of god, since it is a seperate religion. Finally, it is Islam, which believes to believe in the same God as Jews and Christians (as it is a Christian belief they have the same God as Jews).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Opening paragraph seems very biased

Presenting as if Islam contained all other religions and it is the "last word". Why isn't it stated that Islam came on last, during the 7th century? that should be on the opening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:188:6FE0:B41E:8B94:8A99:4EAA (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It didn't came last. According to Muslim beliefs it is the one and only religion. You have to write the article from a neutral view. It basically says what Muslims believe Rahbab Chowdhury (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Is the Kaaba a mosque?

There is a discussion on Talk:Conversion_of_non-Islamic_places_of_worship_into_mosques#The_Ka'aba concerning whether the Kaaba should be included in that article. Everyone is welcome to join the discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Disrespectful content.

Prophet Muhammad's (s.a.w.) name is not followed by p.b.u.h. Zaman Naiya 29 (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

"

Further information:

Islamic prophet Muhammad." The preceding text is from Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. --Khajidha (talk

) 00:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Submission

Quite odd that "submission" was missing from the lead. It's essentially what "islam" means, and what a muslim does, isn't it? Not just proclaiming the oneness of God, the prophetship of Muhammad, and the expectation of the final judgement, but also live according to this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@AlHazen: regarding this revert, edit-summary

Islam as meaning 'submission' is covered in the etymology section. Submission to God in Islam is implied in its beliefs (monotheism etc) and practices (Sharia etc); all covered in the lead. It is the character of the religion so is an unnecessary elaboration/mention

per

WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the article. So, if 'submission' is covered in the etymology section, than that is a reason to include it in the lead, not to exclude it. The lead should clarify, not obscure. 'Implication' is not enough; there is a clear definition, which should be used instead of assumed 'implications'. That may be clear for a Muslim, it's not obvious for a non-muslim. And that's your audience. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!

16:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't you say that any person of any faith who actually tries to follow their religion is "submitting" to the will of their god? In other words, it is basically meaningless to say that Islam is about "submitting to God". --Khajidha (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That's correct (I guess), yet Islam is very explicit about it. Giving the translation (against which there is no policy whatsoever here at Wikipedia) conveys very pointily what Islam is about. And, as said before:per

WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the article; the article opdns with an etymology-section; yet, this section is not summarized. So, what's the real problem? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!

04:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

1) It's not a translation, it's a derivation. The translation is اَلْإِسْلَامُ

2) I find the statement that "Islam is about submitting to the will of god" to be pointlessly vague and useless for the reason I stated before.

3) Not everything in an article will be in the summary of that article. That's how summaries work.--Khajidha (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we're talking about the translation into English, not into Sindhi (if Google Translate is correct). According to the sources provided in the etymology-section, "Islam" means "submission" or "return" (to God). That's what has been stated in the lead, in accord with those sources. The article contains a whole section on etymology, so apparantly the meaning of the word "Islam" has been deemed relevant. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we are talking about the English word "Islam". As it is an English word, it cannot be "translated into English". What I posted above is the Arabic word (taken from the intro of this very article). The English word is derived from the Arabic one, but (being a different language) is not the same as the Arabic one. In English, the definition of Islam is "the religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah." (from https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/islam). So, 1) "submission" has nothing to do with the English meaning and 2) is already mentioned in the meaning of the Arabic root word. --Khajidha (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/islam: Origin: From Arabic 'islām ‘submission’, from 'aslama ‘submit (to God)’. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. Your point? That's the derivation, not the English definition. Just like I said.--Khajidha (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, your point is that the etymology of the word "Islam" might be misunderstood as a definition of Islam [the religion], the idiomatic meaning, and therefor shouldn't be mentioned in the lead? Well, my point has already been stated: per

WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the article; the article contains an etymology-section, which is informative, relevant, and well-sourced; therefor, this section should be summarized in the lead. You think it shouldn't be in the lead because not everything has to be summarized in the lead; so, why not this etymological info? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!

04:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

No, my point is that YOU keep confusing derivarion and definition. Whether the etymology belongs in the intro or should be left to a dedicated section I am neutral on. But the intro should not say that Islam means submission, because that is simply not true in English.--Khajidha (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm talking here about the linguistic c.q. etymological meaning, not the definition; and the sources used in this article state that 'submission' or 'return' is the linguistic or etymological "meaning" of the word "Islam." But if you think that "meaning" is an incorrect term here, then how would you phrase it, when referring to the linguistic or etymological meaning? This is what the sources say:

• Lewis and Churchill:

Islam, meaning "to surrender oneself, to commit or resign oneself to the will of God."

• Friday journal:

1. Linguistic Meaning: This is the general meaning in Arabic usage, implying absolute submission, surrender and obedience that is obeying the injunctions of the ruler without objection. Before Islam came as a formal religion . The word was used to denote the above meaning, without attaching to it any ideological or conventional context.
2. Idiomatic Meaning: The Holy Qur’an defines Islam as the Message of Prophet Mohammed (saw). Although Islam was the theme of all preceding divine messages, the word was chosen as a particular title denoting the Almighty’s final revelation to mankind. In fact the Qur’an transformed the word “Islam” from its linguistic meaning to the idiomatic meaning. Still there remains the common implication in both usages- the linguistic and the idiomatic – that is submission and obedience, since Islam is the religion of voluntary submission to Allah’s Will, the obeying of His commands and surrendering to His Will without the least objection.

• Gardet, L.; Jomier, J. "Islam". Encyclopaedia of Islam Online. p. 4.

Islam literally means "submission (to God)"

• Encyclopedia Britannica:

The Arabic term islām, literally “surrender,” illuminates the fundamental religious idea of Islam—that the believer (called a Muslim, from the active particle of islām) accepts surrender to the will of Allah (in Arabic, Allāh: God).

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The way it is now is fine, with "submission" in the derivation section in parenthesis. We can say that the Arabic al-islam means submission, but not that the English Islam does. --Khajidha (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay; thanks for the discussion. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2020

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Latest religion on Earth 103.28.253.108 (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain where these religions came from, then? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Disrespectful content

Under some headings there are some pictures which there is e.g in one whose heading is of picture in which there is angel etc, they must be taken down as it is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN and A BLASPHEMY to try to draw Prophet Muhammad ﷺ in pictures etc, THEY ARE A VERY SERIOUS MATTER PLEASE EDIT AND TAKE PICS LIKE THESE DOWN. Bukhari 17 (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

this has been discussed repeatedly, Wikipedia is not bound by your religious beliefs, and will not be edited to meet your restrictions IdreamofJeanie (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has made it clear multiple times that these pictures are not going to be taken down. And blasphemy is still legitimate free speech. If you don't like it, ignore it. --99.245.168.121 (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Vague sentence in lead

Currently, the lead states that "Islam is historically believed to have originated in the early 7th century CE in Mecca". This seems to be an odd phrase, a bit like saying "WWII is historically believed to have started in 1939". To the best of my knowledge, there is consensus among historians that Islam originated in the early 7th century CE in Mecca. Not one part of that is vague or "believed". I realize that the theological perspective is different, and that perspective is already present in the lead so does not enter into the discussion. As for the historical perspective, "is believed to have" could be dropped as it introduces uncertainty where in reality there is none. Jeppiz (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, good catch. I don't know how I didn't notice that verbal contortion before. I would even read "historically believed" as meaning something like believed in the past, but not anymore. How about "From a historical point of view, Islam has originated..."? There are some revisionist historical accounts, which place the origins of Islam in other regions or periods, but I don't think they have enough acceptance to find them at the outset of general encyclopedic articles on Islam, and so not in this lead. No need to mention the theological narrative again. We already have the whole preceding paragraph devoted to it. Eperoton (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems like a much better way of phrasing it. As you say, any other historical accounts would probably be fringe and not belong in the lead. I'd be happy with that change to improve the lead. Jeppiz (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've made the change. Eperoton (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! Jeppiz (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Disrespectful content

Under the heading angels there is a picture that seems to show the prophet and an angel which is considered disrespectful to the prophet and the angel by the majority of muslims. In this case this picture falls in a disrespectful form rather than a neutral form that wikipedia is based on. Try to avoid pictures that show faces of respectful figures so it is agreeable to all sides as muslims don't support the idea of drawing or showing the face of a religious figure based on some human imagination. SuperRegex (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If one wishes to hide images, please use this guide

WP:NOIMAGE to hide unwanted images. Further, the image itself was made by a Muslim and although they appear not at the beginning of Islam, they appear frequently in Islamic culture. Therefore, it isn't disrespectul to Muslims in general, although there might be many Muslims who disapprove paintings especially of Muhammad. For that case, please use the recommanded guide. Wikipedia is also used by non-Muslims and Muslims who don't feel bothered by images and if they check out an encyclopedia about Islamic topics, they also might be interested in artistic depictions of this culture and religion. One can deactivate the images, but one can not activate them, if images get removed. Please understand the decission to add images, rather than removing them.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk

) 00:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for comments

Greetings to all,

A

Request for comment has been initiated regarding RfC about whether to allow use of honorofic 'Allama' with the names or not?

Requesting your comments to formalize the relevant policy @ Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2020

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Subsection 2.2, which links to main article Angels in Islam, has heading "Angles". Should this be "Angels" instead? Floozutter (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done @Floozutter: Thanks! Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: Why participation of Muslim background women on Wikipedia as editors is so low?

Hi.

If you feel interested in, then kindly do share your inputs on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam#Why is editorial participation of Muslim women on Wikipedia so low?

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2020

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Paintings which are supposed to be of the prophet are offensive to muslims and it is forbidden in islam to have or show these paintings and i request that you delete them. M7mdal5alifa (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC) M7mdal5alifa (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed before: wikipedia is a secular publication, for everyone, and is not bound by religious views. This will not happen. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the last paragraph of the lead replace North Asia with Siberia. Ty 2607:9880:4030:A8:4003:5BDD:2A4C:D049 (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: That would be incorrect. — 

Talk

) 19:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

I invite AlHazen and Hyponasty here to resolve their dispute through discussion instead of reverting each others edits. Epelerenon (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

And in the meantime, the article should remain at its WP:Stable version, with the disputed content removed. – ².O.^Boxing 10:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The statement is very relevant to the claim being made that "Islam is the fastest growing major religion". Without it, it remains ambiguous whether Islam's above average growth is due to conversions or hight fertility/youth bulge. It is fully sourced and above all just a single sentence!!! The only reason I can think why AlHazen is adamant on its removal is that it somehow leaves space in the readers mind that conversions might have some role to play. Considering the massive hysteria surrounding Islam's global growth, its underlying cause should be clarified. Hyponasty (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Struck sock puppet comment per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epelerenon. – ².O.^Boxing 06:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Opinion The intro should only mention Islam's status as the 2nd largest religion in the world. Any mention related to its fast growth is undue. AlHazen's arguments against Hyponasty's edit can be used to discredit this statement's existence in the lead too. However, if it needs to be kept in the intro, than I see no reason why high TFR and youthful population as the underlying cause can't be mentioned with it. Regards Epelerenon (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Epelerenon is also a sockpuppet.VR _talk 12:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Not Al-Hazen, but may I remind that christianty has a higher birth rate than muslim countries? Ethiopia, Nigeria and Ghana are highly christian populated countries, Ethiopia (92% christian), Ghana (89%) and Nigeria (82%) and they have one of the biggest birth rates in the world. https://www.pulse.ng/bi/lifestyle/here-are-the-5-african-countries-with-the-most-devoted-christians/zzxcmlz - Proof they are christian countries https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ETH/ethiopia/birth-rate - Birth Rate of Ethiopia Christian preachers love to meme and say that Muslim conversions are due to high birth rates but there really just is no proof of this (I checked Hypnos edit and their source is not that reputable really) In fair defence, all I see is both christianity and islam always claiming to be the biggest religion or fastest growing religion and it's all depending on where and how the study is conducted, also bias. -```anon``` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.143.242.122 (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Btw @ Boxing and Vice, the "Growth of religion" page in the Islam section has a lot of hiased and skewed points about the growth of islam. If one of you (or anyone interested with it) could look into it and act accordingly, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.143.242.122 (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Original Research on a scholary matter?

Hello, I know that quotes from primary sources can often be usefull, but in this passage, it is used to describe the matter itself: "The word sometimes has distinct connotations in its various occurrences in the Quran. In some verses, there is stress on the quality of islām as an internal spiritual state: "Whomsoever God desires to guide, He opens his heart to islām."[i][35] Other verses connect islām and religion (dīn) together" Here, and in the following lines, the quotes give Quran verses. Therefore, it is basically the authors interpretation regarding the Quran, and not backed up by scholars on the matters of Islam or the etymology or meaning. Maybe some one could fix it (I would have to be registered. Maybe an adaned member of Wikipedia might deal with this issue? I see, this article once had been "GA". Fixing such issiues could help becoming "GA" again. Cheers!--77.0.44.199 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request to make Muslim Population 1.5 billion to over 1.8 billion people

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ See this source make it 1.5 to over 1.8 billion followers. Why increase the number to create a fear. Jahaal85 (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Jahaal85, The cited source says approximately 1.6 billion, which is what the article says. Why would putting the correct population create "a fear"? Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV wording

@IslamMyLoveMyLife: this content needs to be worded in an NPOV manner. Can you please discuss before adding material? VR _talk 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Would you please tell me where to discuss?. IslamMyLoveMyLife (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@IslamMyLoveMyLife: we should discuss it here in this section. Regarding this edit: the idea that Islam is "based on the monotheistic teachings of Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, Muhammad and other prophets" is agreed upon by Muslims, but other religions don't necessarily see this is as a fact. So we have to write in a neutral way, something like "Islam sees itself as a continuation of the teachings of Adam, Abraham, Moses etc".VR _talk 15:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that these prophets are not venerated in Islam? All these people are included in the Qur'an. IslamMyLoveMyLife (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@IslamMyLoveMyLife:, please note that Wikipedia is edited from a scholarly point of view, not a religious one. These characters are mentioned in the Quran but that is not at all the same thing as saying that their teachings are accurately represented in the Quran. As for Adam, hardly any academic think that he existed; for Abraham and Moses, there is academic consensus on their historicity but there is consensus we have hardly any of what they taught (if they existed); David probably did exist, but we have no record of his teachings from even near to his time; Jesus did exist, and most academics do believe the gospels give some clues to some of his teachings. As for the teachings in the Quran, the academic consensus is that Muhammad had heard several stories about these characters, and adapted them. I am aware that my reply above is contrary to a classic belief in Judaism, Christianity and Islam but, again, we do not edit Wikipedia from a religious point of view, nor do we try to create some middle ground between scholarly consensus and religion. Jeppiz (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV issues? VR _talk

19:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please delete this instance of the word "the": "During the this, he formed an alliance with the Saud family" 109.175.155.100 (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

done, thank you IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Advertisement in Further Reading

Hi, I don't have permission to edit this article, but someone has added a link to the first entry in the "Further Reading" section that goes to a storefront. They have added links to this storefront on multiple pages on Wikipedia, so I think they might be affiliated with the seller. As per WP:NOSALESMEN this link should be removed, so can someone with more permissions remove it? Thanks. 96.41.246.116 (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Alevis not a sect?

Me again, While reading through the etymology section, I scrolled to the Sects, and wanted to "brain-storm", the Avelism section, but they are not mentioned here anymore. I searched through the "history" of the article and found this: "* Bektashi Alevism is a syncretic and heterodox local Islamic tradition, whose adherents follow the mystical (bāṭenī) teachings of Ali and Haji Bektash Veli.^[1] Alevism incorporates Turkish beliefs present during the 14th century,^[2] such as Shamanism and Animism, mixed with Shias and Sufi beliefs, adopted by some Turkish tribes." My question is about the reason for removal? I mean with (supposed) about 30% of Muslims in Turkey and also a majority among Muslims in Germany (emigrants from Turkey) with many distinct beliefs (distinct from both Sunnis and Shias) they are probably noteworthy I suppose. Is there any good reason to remove them or was it an accident?--77.0.44.199 (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "BEKTĀŠĪYA – Encyclopaedia Iranica". www.iranicaonline.org.
2. ISBN 978-0-748-67753-5
   page 255

I don't think it was an accident, Wikipedia, especially the English one, suffers from Salafism-biases probably due to a lack of available sources for Islam beyond Salafism outside of academic literatur. When you see for example "new world encyclopedia" they add the same Salafism-propaganda than they did on Wikipedia several years ago. And it is annoying to be one of the few who write from a neutral point of view and rather accidently found your post here. I will re-add it, if not done yet, but can not garante it will not be removed again soon.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2020

This edit request to Islam has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change "Muhammad is a messenger of God." to "Muhammad is last messenger of god" Nataliaali595 (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Why do you think your version would be better? Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 12:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think your version would be better? ANSWER: I think Wikipedia gives only authentic information, and Mr. Nataliaali595 suggest an authentic edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliRaxaVirk (talk • contribs) 17:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)