Talk:Islam/Archive 16

Archives of older discussions may be found here:

Talk:Islam/External links

Islam's true meaning

In the article it says Islam means "submission" it actually means "Faith" as in "Faith to Allah." Or "Faith to the betterment of mankind"

Not true.... --GNU4Eva 17:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The meaning of Islam is NOT faith. Some people say it means submission, some people say it means "peace." Many claim, and im pretty confident it's true, that "Islam" is derived from the word "Salam" which means "peace." The word "aslam" which to me sounds like the verb form of Islam is usually translated as "submit." Perhaps it comes from "Salam" and literally means "pacify", which may have over time, been taken to mean "submit"? That seems to make sense. Since Islam is probably the noun form of "aslam", it seems to make sense either way.

==============================================

2005-07-20

Many claim that "Islam" is derived from the word "salam", but it is only a claim. The word "islam" means "istislaam" and comes from the root word "aslama", spelt from left to right, the transliteration of the arabic letters are as follows: alif, seen, lam, meem; vs. "salama" which is: seen, lam, meem (notice 4 letters vs. 3). These are two completely different words (verbs). Shaykh Ibn Katheer (d.774H) – rahimahullaah – a great Islamic scholar, one of the best exegesists of the Qur'an, said: “And ‘ibaadah (worship) is: obedience to Allaah by acting upon what He commands and abandoning what He forbids; and this is the reality and essence of Islaam. And the meaning of Islaam is: istislaam (submission and surrender) to Allaah – the Most High – along with the utmost compliance, humility and submissiveness to Him." It does not mean "peace". Peace is obtained as a consequence of submitting oneself to the will (legislated laws) of Allah, by willfully desiring to obey Him in His obligations and doing so and staying away from His prohibitions, further supplemented by optional but recommended acts of worship to earn His pleasure. Through this one attains, peace of the heart (i.e. contentment), peace of mind, peace within the society practicing Islam openly and completely, etc. I hope this helps clarify some things.

"spelt from left to right, the transliteration of the arabic letters are as follows: alif, seen, lam, meem; vs. "salama" which is: seen, lam, meem (notice 4 letters vs. 3). These are two completely different words (verbs)." That argument does not seem to hold up. The arabic word "kariha" is spelled ka, ra, ha; vs. ikraha, spelled alif, ka, ra, ha. But they are both different forms of the same verb: to hate. This seems to be true for almost all verbs.

AdamCaliph's edits

A new editor has arrived, and has split the Tenets of Islam into two sections, Sunni and Shi'a, and vastly elaborated the Shi'a section. It is now longer than the Sunni section. It seems to me that this disturbs the flow of the article (introducing sectarian divisions in advance of the sectarian section) and unduly amplifies the distinction between Sunni and Shi'a. There is so much that these sects have in common. I'm not sure I want to revert -- the earlier version, with its presentation of the Sunni list and a footnote for the Shi'a seems, to slight the Shi'a, which may have upset the new editor -- but I don't have time to rewrite today.

Could someone else tackle it? I'm thinking that we need to avoid the clash of lists and just identify, informally, the beliefs that all Muslims (Sunni, Shi'a, Ibadi) hold in common. The Qur'an, Muhammad, the Hajj ... what else? Zora 01:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know about that either... I am rather deficient in Shia knowledge.... but that section was meant to be very basic... which, is what the five pillars are... the basics. I also think in the Islam and other religion section we have some problems... it says fight... but I think it should be clarified whether it is QITAL, JIHAD, or HARB because they have different meanings but can all be translated as fight... so, I'm not really sure how to fix it though. gren 16:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've given it a try... - Mustafaa 17:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! That looks good to me. Zora 21:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New or old sections have been reinserted

These topics are covered in NPOV and are part of the article. The usual suspects are probably going to start their usual attempt at squashing the information.Nevertheless the info belongs here.--Aldowi 13:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those POV sections are not fit for this article. Try other articles like Islamist terrorism if you want to start ranting about 9-11 and the "clash of civilizations".Yuber^(talk) 14:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually they belong right on this page. You are so ethno-centric in your POV that you do nothing but censor any info which does not fit your agenda, very much like Islam itself . If you want to challenge any statement then you can , if you cannot challenge them then do not blanket them out--Aldowi 16:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually they don't. Please stop adding your blatant POV unsourced paragraphs to this page where they don't even belong.Yuber^(talk) 17:19, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is the source for the conversion.: Al-Jazeera --Aldowi 17:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is English wikipedia.Yuber^(talk) 17:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, read it for yourself , its in arabic, you can read can't you.

A source on slavery for the historically illiterate :[1]--Aldowi 17:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the clash of civilization section I refer you to any contemporay newsmedia you want to check for yourself .--Aldowi 17:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aldowi, should we also cite the end of Islam from the same site? Maybe a nice source like bible.ca would add to this article ~_~ Slavery in Islam would have to mention that Muslim slaves were taken to the Americas by Christians too... That is a bad source. . . bad. --gren 01:14, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is a vague citation. Besides, there is already a Clash of civilizations article, and it seems to be very controversial theory not worthy of inclusion in this article.Yuber^(talk) 17:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the slavery section (again -- we have some very determined POV warriors here) and added a link to Slavery in the "see also" section. Surely this should be a sufficient pointer to the info there. Zora 18:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zora put the slavery section back , it is a historical fact just like the other sections which need to be put back as well. Obviously there are folks in here determined to obfuscate the parts of history that they deem undesirable and would rather see erased. Are you one of them ?--Aldowi 18:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please look at other articles about religions before starting lists of bad things followers of the religion have done.Yuber^(talk) 20:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OO that was very logical , quoting CHRISTIAN ACTION for an article on Islam . U know christians were the ones who captured & marketed those slaves to America , so U should first add this to Christianity page . How pathetic..some guys come here only to publicitise what they read on their hate filled evanglist sites . And U know whats even funnier , all the facts about verses in bible about slavery havebeen removed from the slavery page . And some phobic psychos R insistent to add slavery in main Islam page , just b/c their teachers told them that slavery is a core belief in Islam . Feel free to PM me if U want to Slavery in Christianity page . I have loads of verses from OT & NT for that matter . Peace Farhansher 20:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article references was provided for as a reference. It provides its own historical sources . The fact that it is on a Christian web site is irrelevant , the article is the work of a published historian on the matter.--Aldowi 22:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In any case, this article is about Islam, not Islamic history. Generalizations about slavery in Islam do not work well, you can go to the history page and write about slavery in the Ottoman empire... or slavery under the Mamluks... but this is the Islam page... and Islamic slavery throughout history is not something to be dealt with here. gren 01:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is relevant. Slavery is part of the scriptures of the Qu'ran and we are mentioning that fact and also its historical implications to the Islamic world. It is sourced and presented in a NPOV manner, it is a legitimate insertion. If you want to challenge any assertion go ahead , but you certainly have no right to block it just because you do not like the fact of it being mentioned. You have no basis to say that it should go on another page.--Aldowi 05:19, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you are maintaining that a slavery section deserves to exist you must realize what you are pushing now is utter crap. Firstly you talk about Saudi Arabia and the Moors which are eras from history not what Islam says about slavery... You could possibly legitimately put (if we somehow agreed it belongs on the main page) that "The Qur'an has verses referebcing the good of freeing slaves and Islamic theology of now opposes slavery but some non-Muslims argue that the text really allows slavery" That might be a decent section... find Islamic sources talking about the advocating of slavery. Notable ones. We are not here to do an exegesis of the Qur'an to our own liking... and the things you have stated are historical. gren 07:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

U and your published historian & your Christian action site know nothing about what Islam says about Slavery . Besides U know nothing what relevent is . What the Christian action people want .. well .. one can easily figure out by watching their logo ..africa bible..cross .. & a sword . Nice

BTW this is english page .. right ?? Farhansher 05:37, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

U guys have nerves talking about what Quran says , when all U read is one-forth of a verse . For your benifit I've started a new article , Islam and Slavery . Farhansher 05:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islam and Slavery

Hi, I have a request for an admin change under protection to the page. The link "Slavery Under Islam" should probably link to the protected page Islam_and_slavery since linking to the unprotected Slavery page just seems to be unnecessarily spreading the fight there. It's also just the most logical place for it to link to. --Camipco 7 July 2005 06:43 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources in the Qu'ran and the hadiths mentioning slavery. You can start with a search on the word slave. Muhammad had slaves, and historical Islamic culture has always been characterized by the ownership and trading of slaves. The atrocities and evil commited in Islamic culture through slavery is so horific that most people would not have the stomach for it.

--Aldowi 12:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aldowi, this article is about a religion and we are to report what that religion says... You are glossing over so many issues... Wikipedia is read by a great many Americans where the word slavery is incredibly loaded. You will know if you have read anything like Ibn Hazm that slavery in Andalusia was completely different from what it was in America... but this is all beside the point. The religion (which is not your interpretation of the Qur'an) is against slavery now. You will not find any books in the mainstream or anything close to it advocating slavery. Therefore, it is not our place to start rants against the religion because you choose to interpret it as pro-slavery... Historically we can take those issues in Ottoman Empire, Safavids, and even History of Islam. I don't care if you like Islam or not... I do not like brussel sprouts but I am not going to go to that article and say it is a well known poison.... .... nice analogy huh?? If I thought for some reason you were well versed in Hanafiyyah or something similar I would trust your opinion more... but I'm not thinking you are... The Christianity article isn't going to have a rant about slavery, the Moses article is not going to talk about the killing of 3,000 levites and the Islam article is not going to rant about slavery... so, please, you are free to use your userpage to write your argument against Islam, but trying to push your point of view onto this article, and that is definitely not a view Muslims share, is tantamount to vandalism. gren 18:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are simply reporting the answer to the questions below.

Is the practice of slavery sanctioned in the Qu'ran ?
did Muhammad have slaves?
Is the practice of slavery part of historical Islamic culture?
what is the modern day status of slavery in Islamic world.

We are not pushing a POV , we are stating facts about the faith that anyone including yourself can easily verify. Perhaps this is not how you would want to SEE your faith, but that is its reality . Your statement that Islam is against slavery now , implies some kind of reformation , well I am all for that, however that does not change the statements above. --Aldowi 19:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re Converts from islam section, the source has been provided , what else do you need? The source is here Al-Jazeera so read it for yourself. --Aldowi 19:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is slavery a central issue of Islam fit to be on the main page? There is a page for legitimate talk of the issue, the main page is not that. What type of slavery was performed by which Muslims? More importantly than the modern status of slavery in the "Islamic world" what is the modern teaching on slavery by Muslims? We are the Christian world like they are the Islamic world... we cannot pin everything any Muslim country does to Islam. Most Islamic sources will tell you that the phasing out of slavery is prescribed because it was impossible to do it at that time... you do not know very much about Islamic teaching and that is a problem when you edit this article... No, I would not want to see my faith portrayed incorrectly therefore I am trying to defend the Islam articles because I don't think they would want to be portrayed unfairly either... we're not all Muslim here ~_~ ... so put historical fact in the history of Islam article... and put the view of Islam and slavery in that article... I don't trust you will do that in a proper manner but at least we might move the argument away from here. gren 20:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect this type of blatant revisionist / apologist approach towards Islam cannot erase history and facts and is utterly unconvincing. Apparantly nothing seriously incriminating can ever be said about the nature and conduct of Islam, without a bunch of zealots jumping up at once to erase or rewrite the text into watered down nonsense. Are you so insecure about the legitimacy of Islam that you have to resort to continual historical revisionism, which seems to be the favored activity on this page. We will have to see how this plays out but I place my bets on the belief that cold unvarnished truth will prevail. --Aldowi 20:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aldowi, not all the editors here are Muslim. I'm a Buddhist, frex, and a stickler for not avoiding inconvenient facts. A number of the Muslim editors here will tell you that I've raised hackles by insisting on including material that some Muslims find offensive. Indeed, I arrived here declaring that some of the material read like mosque hand-out material! I've worked on the Satanic verses article, and put a long section on Western academic treatment of the Qur'an in the Qur'an article. However, I've found that many of the Muslim editors here are willing to have other, opposing POVs represented as long as it's clear that the editor in question just wants to be fair. People with a strong anti-Islamic bias, however, who want the Islam article to be an indictment of Islam, are going to face resistance.

Most of the Islamic articles seem to be delicate balancing acts. On the one hand we have the anti-Islamic crusaders. On the other hand we have the devout Muslims who want to put PBUH (praise be upon him) after every mention of Muhammad, insert Muslim piety, and censor anything inconvenient. And then there are the Sunni-Shi'a wars, now raging at Umar ibn al-Khattab <g>. Right now, I think the Islam article is fairly neutral, pushed into the middle by fanatics on both sides. You seem to want to push it over to one side. Those of us who have worked hard to reach this balance point are going to resist.

IF you want to work on Islamic topics, there are lots of them that need attention. Instead of going straight for the highest profile article, how about working on the Zanj slave rebellion? Islamic slaves rising up against their masters ... interesting, yes? Or adding a critical perspective to Deobandi. Or adding an article on modern-day immigrant domestic workers? They're women, they're exploited, they're often egregiously mistreated. There was a New York Times article on Sri Lankan guest workers, many of whom had worked in Muslim-majority countries. Or discuss debt slavery and cocoa plantations. Lots of work ... Zora 21:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not know what to make of your claim that you are a Buddhist, that Zora, does not make a lot of sense to me to spend so much of your effort defending a belief system that is so antipathetic to the beliefs and growth of buddhism. I do buy into the idea that you demonstrate some impartiality at times, but at other times though I would characterize your efforts as clever methods of re-directing what you perceive as anti-islamic inserts to less prominent pages which is apparantly what you are suggesting for me to do. But just to reassure you , I do contribute heavily to other articles so I do pull my share in Wikipedia.

I sort of disagree with your premise of a balancing act in Wikipedia, someone says the wall is red , someone else says it is white , so we compromise and say it is pink. That approach does not get to the actuality of the color of the wall. I am a proponent of evidence and facts. In the case I have made on slavery , we can assertain by direct observation whether my assertions are true or not. You can do a search in the Qu'ran and the hadith to see whether or not you will find the word slave mentioned. It is a yes or no deal. If it is a yes , then it is a legitimate statement for Wikipedia. It should never be , "well yes it is mentioned in the Qu'ran but lets insert qualifiers to lessen the undesirability of those facts or lets just erase that all together."

It seems that we are dealing with editors here who put far more emphasis on perception than on evidence and facts. I think this is a fair conclusion since after the endless arguments over that past days on the slavery issue , i have yet to hear of anyone actually acknowledge the facts which they can easily check for themselves in the Qu'ran.--Aldowi 03:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I place my bets on the belief that cold unvarnished truth will prevail....well I completely agree with this part . Try to talk some sense . Did U ever read any Islamic stuff , other than that provided on their phobic Christian Missionary/Supposedly apostate sites ? Did U read Quran ? Did U read Hadeeth ? Did U read Sunnah ? Did U read Sira ? Did U read how many slaves Muhammad had . Did U read if they were serving Muhammad on their freewill ? Did U see how Muhammad treated them ? Based on treatment , were they actually slaves according to modern definition . What the Sahaba did with Slaves ? How many of these slaves made by Jews/Christians were freed by Muslims ? How many of those Ex-slaves were made very respected citizens ? Comeon man ..did U ever read a single Islamic book in your whole life ? & U blame Islam for your dumness ?? This is sick . Do U see Muslims trying to introduce these kind of hate/lie filled Sections in Christianity/Judaism page ?

U know I have seen many people like U , who claim to be so much , & R actually nothing more than childern crying for attention . They always copy claims from their hate filled sites as a justification for their illeteracy . And the people running these sites R always unknown people , who again R illeterates . I can see the pattern here , one of U starts by introducing a hate filles section , then 4-5 more users attack Islam page with all their stuff . Then U blame others for vandalisn , white washing , blanketing Islam , & leave your seeds around .

Try improving your reading/surfing habits . Hope that helps ,

Farhansher 21:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have studied Islam for quite some time, I have studied the Qu'ran in detail many times and have written a thesis on its spiritual message. The problem is what I found out was not a spiritual message but a primitive superstition destructive to individual self determination which never really enters the realm of spirituality. At best its a set of ambiguous metaphors which are highly prone to mis-interpretation. I think that anyone who reads the Qu'ran with an open mind would notice that this book is a call for enslavement , not for freedom.

Yes there are good concepts in Islam , its not all bad, but nevertheless there are also bad ones. You have to be willing to take a broad view if you want to see what is there. It does not help when people can only look at the good side of a subject, which is obviously your case. It is not until you look at the good and the bad that you begin to see the picture.

I have tried to state what I observe in an NPOV way, which at once gets shot down by people like yourself who take personnaly any challenge to their religion and who only will allow the good side to be presented about their faith. That is not what I call balanced.

There is a hell of of lot of atrocious things that have occured in the world , and which are still occuring where Islam is very much implicated. But in your eyes, it has nothing to do with Islam. Just like today, you would probably say that there is no genocide going on in the Sudan, and you would also say that it certainly has nothing to do with Islam.

I do not know what can be said of that except denial, if not cover-up. As far as I am concerned, I believe that it is up to free people to speak up and denounce evil when they see it, and I wonder why you do not do this, why do you turn a blind eye to the evil commited in the name of your faith, and label anyone who speaks up as an Islamophobe.

I never read the Christian Missionary/ site that I refered to in the slavery article , I just googled it to give a quick reference for Yuber who wanted a quick source on Slavery and Islam and this page seemed like a good compilation of the subject. I should have been smarter about that, I should have realized that the Islam zealots would pull out the "oh its a Christian site , no wonder they are saying all those bad things about islam. and therefore we can throw that out". But then again I doubt if certain editors are even willing to look at any topic like this.--Aldowi 02:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aldowi, this is the Islam section of Wikipedia. This has no need for your pointless vandalism and anti-Islamic POV. In any case, all of the so-called information you have linked to is completely irrelevant to your point. You can not expect viewers to believe your lies simply because you have linked to christian missionary sites. SLAVERY, if any, was in NO way was as severe in Islam as it was in christianity and that is proven to the mid 19th century; don't even try to dispute that.

One common christian misconception about Islam is the notion that it gives sanction to slavery. In fact, the very initial Makkan surahs appealed to the Muslims to liberate as many slaves as they could. The Prophet (pbuh)also directed the Muslims to raise the standard of living of the slaves and bring it equal to their own standard. So, don't try to shove any of your propaganda in to this article as the Qur'an and the Hadith are both against slavery.

Before you try to present your anti-Islamic views and completely useless links, go look at other religions such as christianity which have actively performed slavery because ISLAM WAS COMPLETELY AGAINST IT. And in any case, this is the ISLAM section of wikipedia and this, like all other religion sections, is not the place to put this material. Why the heck do you anti-Islamic idiots have problems with realizing the basic facts? Or quite clearly it is just a sad attempt to try and make your own troublesome religion look "good". --Anonymous editor 20:14, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

The issue isn't were Muslim or Christians better with slaves... the Afrikaans were different from the Quakers and the Nigerian Muslims different from the Indonesian... Islam doesn't have a ruling that every in every time has agreed on with slavery... Yes, Muslims allowed slavery... and so did Christians... and then some Muslims didn't and so didn't some Christians... Muslims today (just like Christians today) are pretty unanimously anti-slavery... so... it's not revisionist Aldowi and it's not that Islamic societies have been perfect in this issue Anoymous... it's that this article is not a place to ramble about countless cultures and their different views on slavery... and to generalize by saying "Islam supports slavery" or "Christianity supports slavery" is ludicrous... different societies and schools have all viewed this differently throughout time... so in Islam and slavery feel free to address the different fiqhs, societies, etc. about this issue. gren 02:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did Islam sanction slavery and is it mentioned in its scripture? yes. So lets say so. Different Islamic school of beliefs may have differing opinions, but the fact remains , it is integral to the the "perfect and immutable" Qu'ran. Do a search in the Qu'ran and the Hadiths for the word slave and what you see. Do you need me to list every verse where it is mentioned or will you be able to run the search yourself?--Aldowi 02:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aldowi, mentioning and sanctioning are two different things. Slavery was a reality of pre-Islamic culture and the Qur'an deals with that reality. That is how it is seen by most people, there are some who claim like you but they are typically dismissed as bigots and there opinions will not be found in most publications of repute. I think maybe you should read another encyclopedia's article about Islam and find out... You are not going to teach me anything about slavery in Islam, I know what it says and the theories on it. It is not going to go on [[Islam]] because it does not belong here and I pray you can mention it in a NPOV manner on one of the historical pages or Slavery + Islam page . gren 08:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aldowi, how ignorant are you? NOT once in the Qur'an is slavery mentioned in the negative way that you described it and neither is it sanctioned. Here are a few examples:

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the prophets; and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due. (Quran 002.177)

Evil is that for which they sell their souls: that they should disbelieve in that which Allah hath revealed, grudging that Allah should reveal of His bounty unto whom He will of His slaves. They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom. (Quran 053.010) NOTE: In this case, slaves refers to people not in a "slavery" sense of the word.

So, I think frankly that you have trouble reading or maybe you are just too biased towards Islam in the first place. In any case, you have NO PROOF to support your statement that Islam sanctions slavery. Secondly, you said you have an "open mind". How can you have an open mind when clearly you are nothing but an anti-Islamic POV extremist who tries to use the fact that the word "slave" occurs in the Quran as proof that Islam allows "atrocities" against slaves! And it does't matter what you have written on the topic of Islam and what studies you have done if you were biased against the religion in the first place. You are nothing but close-minded and you think that by coining phrases like "primitive superstition" and calling everyone who proves you wrong an "Islamic zealot" you can get a point across.

This is an another low for anti-Islamic bigots and I wouldn't be surprised that you are just another right-wing christian trying to give a bad name to Islam simply because you need a scapegoat for the problems with your own religion. I know all about this because I was taught to try and degrade Islam (in particular) by my church before I converted to Islam. Why do you and other bigots insist on bringing your pointless vandalism to all Islam-related articles?

Lastly, as both muslim and non-muslim editors have stated, this section is about the religion of Islam, not slavery. Religions do NOT need a dedicated "slavery" section. So stop your vandalism and do research on Islam that isn't simply gathered propaganda from anti-Islamic sites. --Anonymous editor 20:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Colleagues, Hello. I have been watching this article for some time, and I am sad that there is prevailing a thorny problem at the moment about slavery in Islam. Aldowi, since I am a sheltered Christian from Arizona, I don't know anything about the teachings of the Koran, and I would appreciate seeing the specific verses that most quintessentially represent the positive attitude of the Koran toward slavery. I would be interested in passages equivalent to the Mosaic law sections dealing with slaves that give tacit permission in the Old Testament. Please give the passages along with their references. I will let the Muslims here verifiy for me that your selections are correct. Thanks. Also, may I know exactly what you would like to be sure the article says? Tom Haws 20:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for Slavery in the Qur'an. - Mustafaa 22:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful response, Mustafaa. Tom Haws 23:17, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Let me weigh in here on an NPOV issue (I have no intention of editing this article, however). Our modern idea of slavery is just that, relatively modern in the last 2 centuries. All cultures did it for a whole variety of reasons. Slavery has no more connection to the Koran whether mentioned in the book or not than slavery does in the bible. If an individual had slaves, one can express it on that page, like Thomas Jefferson. But I see no unique connection between slavery and this page. Put it on the right page, not on this page.

--Noitall 05:57, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wow , now that is liberal education gone wild. Are you kidding? Have you even studied Islamic History or the Qu'ran?? Islam is a system of slavery , one for its followers and two for those it dominates. The whole black slave issue that has scarred the history of African Americans in the US began with the capture of slaves by the Islamic slave traders , acting out of the tenets of the Qu'ran. But we won't mention that fact , now will we, lets just perpetuate ignorance of history . Now did other societies also have slavery , yes indeed , many cultures had slaves and this should be mentioned in their respective pages, just like it should be mentioned on this page. My objection is the REFUSAL to mention it on this page along with the REFUSAL to mention any other unsavory historical events. By the way did other alleged religious prophets also have slaves? My knowledge of other religion's history is limited

--Urchid 11:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I you're going to mention it prominently here, you might as well mention it in every article about every other culture and religion (including Christianity). Pointing Islam out specifically for its slavery is biased against Muslims. Xunflash 18:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Moon Cult Roots

Something about Islam descending from a pagan moon cult should be included here.

MSTCrow 04:27, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it should be mentioned, since it is an accurate historical fact but there are a bunch of anti-freedom of speech Islamic supporters continuously monitoring this page who do nothing but tear down any changes they do not want presented to the world.--68.130.206.88 12:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think it should. It's a shoddy theory, one that has been disproven over and over again by Muslims and non-Muslim historians. Go see Talk:Allah on that, its not worth mentioning.

mr100percent 01:42, Jun 6, 2005 (EST)

I have heard a lot about Christianity descending from worshipers of Sun godess Eshtre ( from where Easter originated ), & some others that I cant remember . Should that be included in Christianity too . And what about Jews worshiping the Cow , when Moses went to Mount Sinai . Farhansher 08:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A religion that regards Abraham, Moses, and Jesus as prophets cannot be descended from a moon cult. Unless those people were part of a moon cult.Yuber^(talk) 20:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, Christianity evolved from a number of cults in the region, including an Egyptian Sun cult (Son of God and all that) and a fish cult (fishhead, prominince of fishes in the New Testament, etc). So yes, the cult origins of Christianity should be included. I don't know much about the origins of Judaism, ie how much was taken from cults and how much was original, but I do know they incorporate a good deal of what was around them into it as well. If it is not true that Islam evolved in part from a Moon cult, then it should be at least mentioned in the article that it is a topic of controversy, and that some believe it did, while others it did not. We can't let the fear of PC stomp out the search for truth.

MSTCrow 22:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Those "some" who believe Islam is (or descended from) a moon cult are largely Christian polemicists and have a venerable tradition; in the earliest such literature one finds not only the moon cult accusation, but allegations of worshipping the head of Aphrodite in the form of a stone and summoning up demons by night. (Not to mention the standard accusation, beginning (IIRC) with St. John Damascene and presented more recently in Hilaire Belloc's writings, that Islam is a Christian heresy, no better than warmed-over Arianism.) So much for that.

A historian of religion without any axe to grind would readily acknowledge that Islam incorporated elements from Jahiliyyah paganism (which was not, note, exclusively or even primarily a moon cult), along with the greater influences of Judaism and Christianity. Even the 8th-century Muslim scholar Ibn al-Kalbi readily acknowledges that the hajj and certain associated practices, notably the circumambulation of the Kaaba, were adopted from the pagan Arabs—though he avers that they, in turn, got it from Abraham. I'm vaguely aware of later Islamic literature that addresses the topic, but can't recall specifics.

The same historian would not fail to acknowledge how much of Islamic belief, notably its strict monotheism, was formed in direct opposition to that same paganism. He would also leave off writing something about it here until he had written the in-depth explanation in the article on the history of Islam. —Charles P. (Mirv) 2 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)

Islam has no relationship with the ancient Semite moon cults. The Qur'an itself describes the moon as a thing created by God. There is room for comments on the Moon cult business, this is after all an encyclopedia but those references are foot-note material not main entry. Kiwimac

Persistent POV problems and unsourced edits from 68.130.206.88

Plus I get the feeling he's a fan of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, which is problematic in and of itself. BrandonYusufToropov 12:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And you seem to be very keen on stoking the fires of religious hatred by pushing the gitmo flush the koran in the toilet scandal. Its not POV , the info is sourced and you can check it for yourself, only you cant stand the truth .--68.130.206.88 13:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, though, what's your favorite MMST3K episode? We're big fans at my house.BrandonYusufToropov 13:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to blow your bubble but I have never seen any of those shows, can't help you there.--68.130.206.88 13:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Conversion rates in Africa

The source being in Arabic is not the problem. The quote's accuracy, reliability, and relevance is. In reality, the 6 million a year figure is given by a guest on an al-Jazeera talk show, one Ahmad Al-Qataani of Libya. He gives no sources for this figure, as far as I can see, and, from his alarmist tone ("667 Muslims a minute!") I suspect him of simply trying to drum up funding for his own missionary efforts. The quote thus has no credibility. Find an almanac or some other reasonably trustworthy source. - Mustafaa 23:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For non-Arabic speakers' benefit, a translation has apparently been provided, at a rather odd place: User:TheConversionArticle. The source's credibility may be judged by statements such as "Concerning Zanzibar, there was a priest by the name Julius Niriry, president of Tanzania, who annihilated 20,000 Muslims (male and female) with a military force lead by a chicken thief. This thief was imprisoned for being accused of stealing chickens; he was released and asked to command the military brigade that annihilated 20,000 Muslims." - Mustafaa 00:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read the part about the conversions , do you not believe the speaker's numbers ? We are providing the source , let the reader assess the weight of the data. Look you seem to accept the dubious statistics about the growth of Islam , which in my view are blatantly exagerated or unreliable extrapolations then the Al-jazeera article statistics can provide an alternate POV.--Urchid 00:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed I don't believe the speaker's numbers. Why should I? He's not a demographer; he's just some Libyan sheikh. He provides no source for his numbers. Do you believe him saying "A Belgian missionary by the name of Sabeh came to Somalia and purchased 30,000 Muslim youth"? As for the stats about Islam's growth, they are from considerably more trustworthy sources - mainly, in fact, from the US State Department. (See Islam by country.) - Mustafaa 00:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I do not believe the stats about Islam's growth considering there is no head count available and all the numbers are extrapolated. And considering that most muslims in the world do not have a choice in being a muslim ,if they were born a muslim in a muslim country, since they would suffer painful consequences if they freely stated that NO they do not want to be a Muslim . Also the quote about there being 5 million or more muslims in the USA does not match what I have observed in travelling the US. That would mean that 1 out of every 60 people we see in the Us is a muslim and I know that this is not the case. --Urchid 00:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the latter issue, you may or may not have a point: Islam in the United States indicates that estimates actually range from 1.2 million to 7 million, which indicates some uncertainty to say the least. The stuff about most Muslims not "having a choice in being a muslim", though, is irrelevant as well as highly speculative. Only God knows people's hearts; all that a demographer can or should deal with is what people claim to be. - Mustafaa 01:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your "800,000" is unsourced, as are your claims about the definitions used. 1.2 million is the minimum estimate listed in Islam in the United States, to which Islam in Canada's 580,000 has to be added. The source linked on "African Muslims converting to Christianity" comes from an interview full of statements so ridiculous that even you aren't prepared to defend them, while speculation about the motives of those claiming that "Islam is in growth" or "Islam is ebbing" is uncalled for and not relevant here.- Mustafaa 02:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let the reader be the judge about the source. Just like we can let the reader be the judge about the growth of Islam around the world. I like Zora's approach, it presents a diversity of views and they are sourced. We should not take it upon ourselves to only selectively present information that we personally prefer but present both sides. Its the wiki way.--Urchid 04:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was inclined to agree with you before I read the source... this man is not someone even remotely linked to a profession that would give him credibility in assessing populations. At least the growth of Islam sources are. We must not select inane sources and there are so many sources on various issues that it is up to the editors to select certain ones. gren 04:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you personal view is Gren, we should provide diverse views as per wiki policy. I do not for instance share your opinion on the growth of Islam sources however I do not try to nullify them on that account.Wiki NPOV policy is clear is to provide both views.--Urchid 12:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Step back and consider this a second. The goal here is to write an encyclopedia that meets the highest academic standards, not to provide a soapbox for every rant. Do you really think that citing some random sheikh on a talk show meets any kind of academic standards at all? There are plenty of professional demographers out there; if you want statistics on converts from Islam to other religions, then that would be the place to look, and if they turn out to be significant in number, it would be appropriate to add them here. - Mustafaa 17:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Writing from a NPOV, does not mean representing every view, that would be impossible. Nor does it mean giving every view represented equal weight. We have to make editorial judgments, not every source is equally credible. Paul August ☎ 06:04, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Guys there is no point in this dialogue . These people ( with multiple IDs ) r all brain slaves of Sina & Spencer , both liers hypocrites . Their sites R a new version of Missionary sites, with the added charm of " I was a muslim once ". I dont know if U have figured out uptli now , but for me its as clear as 0 & 1 . There sentences , logics , choice of vocab , phrases , R a perfect match of the brain slaves of these 2 as**oles . If U dont believe me , checkout their site . They arnt here to improve WP . They R here to give links to their site to increase their hitrate , & to defame Islam . Hope that helps . Farhansher 05:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Something tells me Farhansher is not a moderate Muslim but a radical islamist, future recruit for al-qaeda? .--Urchid 12:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOL ...Something tells me U R gona be the recruits of the new Adolf Hitler , Very soon U guys will come up with something like Protocols of Elders of ...... !!! . Be creative , I have seen your gurus trying the same reverse psychology tactic on muslims . Try something new . Farhansher 13:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Farhansher, this sort of exchange has no place on Wikipedia. Cut it. dab (ᛏ) 13:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Similarly "Urchid", you can not call everyone you disagree with a "radical islamist". This is a common tactic used by anti-Islamic editors like you. If you were to say this, then you are likely a member of the Ku Klux Klan. --Anonymous editor 02:21, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't Demographic Trends be added?

Just a question: shouldn't continuing demographic trends be added to this? Such as the below info:

"The world population is growing at about 1.10% per year, but the percentage of Muslim population is increasing by 1.4% per year due to both converts and growth rates. It has been stated by many that statistics show that within the next century Islam will outgrow Christianity and become the largest religion in the world."

The reason is simply because it indicates the growth of the religion and I believe should be added to a "Future of Islam" section. I have seen this material on several NPOV sites and various statistics and am willing to cite my sources if needed.

So what do you think? --Anonymous editor 06:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

the point is that the numbers are disputed, and it is almost impossible to get reliable statistics from the relevant states. Also, even naive interpretation gives Islam overtaking xtianity only in the 2070s, and only very naive statisticians will extrapolate current growth rates into the 22nd century (we'd litterally be stacked, by then). So while current growth rate estimates should be included, the "overtaking" thing is simply idle speculation about future events ("WP is not a crystal ball"). dab (ᛏ) 13:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd be fine with readding the first sentence ("The world population is growing at about 1.10% per year, but the percentage of Muslim population is increasing by 1.4% per year due to both converts and growth rates.") if a good source is provided. The second, however, seems to me to violate the principle that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." - Mustafaa 17:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I will append the first portion of the statement. Got info from religioustolerance.org. --Anonymous editor 19:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

REMINDER TO ALL EDITORS OF THIS PAGE

There appears to be an extreme intolerance of alternate views on this page being perpetuated by a small clique of editors who have been attempting to monopolize all edits on this page. Wikipedia is a colloberative endeavor not a tug of war between zealots. IF you have any questions on Wikipedia's NPOV policy go here. WIKIPEDIA NEUTRALITY POLICY . Thank you for your cooperation.--Urchid 00:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, there is no monopolization. You can not simply understand that the material that you want to add is illegitimate and is no more then POV. Regardless, this is the ISLAM article, not the conversion article. I don't see other religions with info like this on their section. Perhaps you should get factual statements rather than put anti-Islamic views onto the religion section. By the way, if we were to mention something along those lines, we would have to mention the many millions more who convert/have converted TO Islam (like me). I know the truth hurts you.

You are zealous about your opinion perhaps you should be more tolerant and stop your persistent vandalism. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 02:14, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

The truth about Islam

Anyone with a remote knowledge of the atrocities being constantly carried out by Muslims in the world today must speak out. These horrible attacks on truth by Muslims who would hide it are not acceptable. Muslims murdered 2,000 on September 11, 2001. Islam is responsible for the heartless murder of journalist Daniel Pearl. The term "Islamic extremist" should not be used because all Muslims are a threat. Even Islamic clergy are now encouraging and promoting murder of "infidels". Islam is an evil religion that enslaves women, turns men into bloodthirsty monsters, and calls for the murder of those not stuck in its stinking, rotting quagmire. Muslims are even now trying to infiltrate the U.S. bringing their foul, scum of a religion here. There is no love in Islam, only hate, a vicious murderous hatred. The crusades were entirely necassary. If the Christians had not driven out the Moors, Europe might today be the living hell that the Middle East is now. There is not a shred of honor, not one iota, in Islam. It would have been better if Mohammed had never been born. Osama Bin Laden is one of his monsters, blood-thirsty and murderous who masterminded the NYC mass murders on 9/11 nearly 4 years ago. Islam is no religion of "peace", whatever people like Cassius Clay may call it. Muslims are a lost people, floundering in the darkness, following a distant, unloving god, and trying to get to Heaven by murdering Christians and Jews. Jesus came into the world to redeem mankind; to save us from our sins. Muslims' only hope for happiness, a changed heart, and eternal life is to give their lives over to the one who truly loves them, Jesus Christ and to make him their savior and Lord. Therein lies true freedom. 4.158.211.175 01:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You should probably get a blog. This sort of "truth" is better expressed in that medium than in an encyclopaedia. Grace Note 01:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, like... do we put that all in our article?????? gren 01:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel tempted to get rid of above user's editorial comments, but it is too humorous to bear. Perhaps a section on the distortion, or myths of Islam is prudent (for one, in response to the op ed--there is no such thing as a peaceful Abrahamic religion. Each has nuances of peace, harmony and love, and each has its nuaces of hatred, dispair and violence.) One could figure out where the misinformation is coming from and that would be a truly powerful addition to this article. Well, my opinion at least.

User 4.158.211.175, a possible sockpuppet of Urchid, is nothing more than a bigot. It is not uncommon to hear people like him commit racism against muslims, because frankly they fear so much that christianity is losing against Islam in terms of conversions and growth. It is not uncommon to hear stuff like this being taught in christian extremist churches, I know because I was once evangelical. Truly shows how misinformed they are when they say that 'muslims follow an unloving god', when it is the same God that christians worship. LOL.Perhaps this user should also look through history and see that if it was not for Islam, Europe would have never made it out of the dark ages and into the renaissance that is the foundation of modern western civilization.

How about you mention the numerious atrocities that christianity committed with other religions and still does to this day? How about the hundreds of thousands of civilian Muslims and JEWS slaughtered ruthlessly during the crusades? Or how about how the United States bombing muslims in Lebanon on false grounds? This is bound to get retaliation, my friend, and although I do not agree with extremism, 9/11 was bound to happen.

Maybe you should also mention how christian evangelization led to the death of thousands of africans or how evangelicals were smuggling orphan children out of Indonesia after the tsunami in order to convert them?

Frankly I don't find it necessary to debate about this anymore right now because clearly you are nothing more than a bigot and and it is your own POV and attempt at recruiting more zealous christians for your pathetic cause. It goes against everything that WIKIPEDIA stands for. And yes, you can believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is "lord and savior", but you and I both know that is nothing more than a dying fad and people with half a brain are leaving christianity as we speak.

Praise be to Allah that I converted to Islam. It is only through him that we wake up and see the reality. --Anonymous editor 03:09, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

No I am not that user 4.158 however I do agree with the general premise about Islam posed above minus the references to Jesus.--Urchid 03:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, your agreement with that 'general premise' truly shows your credibility and true nature. Maybe since now that you seem so NPOV, we should listen to everything you say. (sarcasm ofcourse) --Anonymous editor 03:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Editor , you do seem so full of hatred, deceit and intolerance of other POVs that you certainly make a poor example of a Muslim , if I was a muslim I would be embarrased by your behavior.--Urchid 03:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Racism, as you call it, can go both ways. Please do not forget that. I did not and do not agree with many of Urchid's posts and edits but your response to him is just as bad. Neither of them constitute NPOV in my book. If you were to call Christianity a fad in that article I think there'd be more problems (and rightfully so) than Urchid has created. gren 03:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Gren, generally I agree with you and I was definitely counter-POVing not NPOVing in this case. I am saddened that it has come down to something like this. Truly wikipedia is no place for stuff like this.In response to urchid: Man, I am not what faith you are and I am still embrassed by YOUR behaviour. I suppose you are very tolerant? --Anonymous editor 03:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am tolerant,uh? oh I am intolerant because my opinion does not match yours? I inserted edits that obviously reflect my POV. I have sourced and discussed these. Embarrased by MY behavior? Lets make something very clear, I am not that Christian editor you seem to confuse me with. The trouble here is that whenever someone expresses a different opinion than yours you blow your top and act like those zealots ranting in the streets of Pakistan about their little book. What 19 people killed for what? on hearsay ?--Urchid 03:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

_ _ _

Okay first things first. THIS article is NOT a POV debate. It is not my POV that should go there and it is not yours. It is a factual article, one can NOT say their POV. Frankly, who cares what others think about Islam??? That doesn't change what Islam is, does it? Why can't you understand that?

Secondly, you are the one who called me intolerant simply because of my POV. see your message above. The fact that I responded to you by saying that "I suppose you are very tolerant?" is simply in response to your assertion.

You are not making anything better by claiming that those people on the streets of Pakistan were "zealots ranting about their little book". Is it wrong to respect one's religion? Would other religions not protest if their holy book was destroyed in such a manner?

Lastly, you are misinformed about Islam in accordance with the facts of Islam. In reality, do you really think that you can come close to factual information about Islam better a muslim who clearly knows the tenets of the religion? The fact of the matter is that one who clearly practices the faith is more likely to know the facts about it better than someone who doesn't. It is just like a communist is more likely to know communism better than a non-communist.

So remember that this is not a POV debate. It is a factual article. There is no reason for any POV in this article. It should be all factual statements. People's opinions about Islam do NOT change what Islam is. --Anonymous editor 04:20, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

To urchid: Well man , if U have any authentic , neutral , non Islamphobe , non-pro-islam source saying anything about conversion rates , it deserves to be on Islam page . What 100-500 people in the world think , isnt important . There R thousands of people who will consider themselves as God , we cant give their names in God page . Christian/non-christian stuff isnt relevent . If a christian brings some authentic info , it deserves to be added . The rest , well .... doesnt matter . Your use of words like " their little book " , " hatred, deceit and intolerance " & by 4.158 "foul, scum of a religion " , "trying to get to Heaven by murdering Christians and Jews" , clearly shows your mindset . But then...i've seen worse . Sorry if I was rude b4 , my exams R goinon , & I am very much irritable . Hope this gets my point across . Thanx for your cooperation . Farhansher 07:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

guys, an anonymous account cannot be a sockpuppet. sockpuppet are accounts used by people who have another, primary account. dab (ᛏ) 14:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

also, you should all try a chatroom. If you cannot discuss the article's wording in a civil, academic, neutral atmosphere, you shouldn't even be here. dab (ᛏ) 14:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To AE: Why on Earth can't you be more civil! I have gone through a lot of this talk page and all throughout I see your stupid ranting! If somebody doesn't agree with you: "Yell, Yell, Yell, Shout, Shout, Shout, So And So is a bigot, So And So is intolerant, everybody should be tolerant of my ideas but I don't have to be tolerant of anybody else's!" I'm not user 4.158 but I do agree with him for the most part! I see no reason to be neutral about this topic when you can't be. Ratso 19:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

slaves

needless to say, the information in "Islam and slavery" was in the wrong article. After all, we don't have "Christianity and Islam" in the Christianity article, discussing all the good Christians who shipped slaves to America after outbidding their Islamic Arabic counterparts. The names of Muhammad's slaves should go to the Muhammad article. Islamic laws on slavery should go to the Sharia article. dab (ᛏ) 14:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, read it carefully , it is written in NPOV and it presents an accurate representation of those topics , now if you want to add it to those other pages you are welcome to. --Urchid 23:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As Dab correctly notes, this is in entirely the wrong article, as well as being neither NPOV nor even accurate ("Islamic slave traders over the centuries in Africa were responsible for capturing and selling nearly twelve million indigenous black africans to European traders"?) This section belongs in the article about as much as "Islam and cousins" or "Islam and honeybees" would - both topics are, after all, alluded to in the Qur'an... - Mustafaa 23:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The numbers are accurate , I can tell that you do not like those numbers and want this out of sight , however , this is an encyclopedia and history is history.--Urchid 23:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Care to support that assertion? (Not that it would make the section any more relevant - as practically everyone except you has so far noted...) - Mustafaa 23:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I have provided all the references to support those statements , only you and other fellow travellers keep shooting those down cause you cannot disprove them. This page could use a little more intellectual honesty and less religious Jihadism.--Urchid 00:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no, you haven't "provided all the references", or indeed any references. - Mustafaa 00:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, "jihadism", did you just make up that word off the top of your head? Totally shows how misinformed you are when you make up words faster than Foxnews. Clearly, when you write a section in an article where it does not belong and fill it with lies, you are going to get opposition. What exactly are your sources; do you know anything about Islam that is not gathered from right-wing american bigot sites?--Anonymous editor 00:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

So, 12 million blacks were sold as slaves by islamic slave traders to christian slave traders? What does that tell you except that slave trading is apparently independent of religion, and that this factoid (if it is one) is at home neither in the Islam nor in the Christianity (or in both, with the same justification), but in the slavery article. I mean, really, how about "Islam and stupidity" (some muslims are stupid!) "Islam and roadkill" (muslims run over animals on the highway!) or "Islam and ugliness" (some muslims are ugly!). Factuality is one thing, notability is another (slave trade is notable), relevance is quite another thing (slave trade is not relevant to the ship article, in spite of slaves having been transported in ships). This is too obvious to even argue. We do not want either Islam-hyping editors here, nor Islam-bashing one. Unfortunately, we have both kinds now, only neutralizing each other by emission of a lot of unsavoury diatribes. dab (ᛏ) 08:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a very good point dab, especially where you say we can't attribute all Muslim action to Islam. gren 20:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are Anonymous editor and Farhansher sockpuppets?

Looks like Anonymous editor is editing Farhansher 's text. A slip up? sock puppets?--Urchid 23:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lol, funny. I was only editing text because I assumed the message by Farhanser was intended for you. Obviously he doesn't mean me and I wanted to avoid confusion by others, thus I wrote 'to urchid:' by his message. Anyways sockpuppetry is your expertise, although you prefer to use non-users. --Anonymous editor 23:44, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes very funny , cause I believe you were included in Farhansher comment, in any case , I believe farhansher is quite capable of making his own clarifications and you should not go around revising other peoples discussion inserts.--Urchid 11:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His comment was clearly towards you because you are the only one misinformed enough to have made such false statements in the first place. It's sad to see that you take offence to the truth. Perhaps you should follow your own advice before judging others. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 19:50, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Some more references that back up my assertion about growth of Christianity in Africa and the world

Christianity Rising in Africa

Christianity expected to grow to three billion followers by 2050

This throw into question all the assumptions demographics of Islam Today --Urchid 00:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, actually. The first talks of conversions to Christianity in Africa (by pagans? Jews? Muslims? It does not say, although in fact most are by pagans.) The latter says nothing helpful at all; just speculates on future conflict. - Mustafaa 00:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh you are right , all these articles I presented are not real, keep believing what you wish . --Urchid 01:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay so according to your "sources" christianity is growing in Africa. Why exactly does this belong in the ISLAM article??? The concern was never christianity growth in Africa, it was about a unreliable claim that muslims were converting to it. I can quote many sites that say Islam is growing in Africa and that would still be related to the ISLAM demographics section.

Why can't you understand how wikipedia works? If you want to enter this info of yours put it in a christianity-related article. The sources don't even mention Islam! Why should the Islam article incorporate info/propaganda about christianity growth???

Frankly, this Islam article isn't concerned with christianity is it. Btw, you seem rather persistent to enter anti-Islamic, pro-christian material for someone who says that they have no religion. Maybe what you really are is finally showing.--Anonymous editor 00:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Right , I do not share your POV on Islam and that is my right as an editor, Wikipedia is not an Islamic theocracy on the contrary it is the opposite. I have thus been trying to present alternate information in the demographics of Islam Today section , but you folks on your ridiculous religious Jihad have been reverting it everytime I insert anything there. You seem only concerned with your fantasy image of what you wish Islam was and are batting down any contrary facts that are presented. I call that intellectual dishonesty , and of course you and fellow travellers have decided to try to impose your POV by force of revert while no one is presenting information to disprove my insertions , I continue to provide documentation.--Urchid 00:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why can't you understand that there is no need for POV on this article in the first place? This is not a debatable recent event, it is a factual article about Islam.

Why exactly would the growth of christianity be relevant in an Islam article? Why do you want to insert christianity info/propaganda into the Islam article? You can provide all the 'sources' you want but as long as it is NOT related to the article, why does it matter?

You are the only one here who is entering the most disputed material with stuff about christianity when your sources don't even mention Islam. Wikipedia is NOT a christian propaganda site. You seem stubborn on putting in christian material into an ISLAM article; go put christian material into the christianity article. Seriously, even you must realize something as simple as this???

By the way, I AM A MUSLIM. I know what Islam is because I practice it. It is you who has the 'fantasy image' and is being nothing more than a bigot. --Anonymous editor 01:02, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Man you must be frothing at the mouth, do you have rabies or something? You are quick to call anyone who disagrees with you names and you seem way to confused to understand what I am going to say, so I will answer this for the benefit of other editors who may come to read this.

I am not inserting a POV. I am presenting sourced information. I present a claim and its source. That is what Wikipedia requires.

This article makes various claims about the growth of Islam for instance. Those are only claims based on using sources which are highly disputed. For example all the numbers related to the size and growth of Islam are conjecture and extrapoloation. No one has ever counted the number of Muslims in the world. The numbers are only estimates , extrapolated. There are many conflicting analysises about this . We should present high projections as well as the low projections.

The problem is that a certain group of pro-islam editors will only permit the sources that make Islam look the way they want it to look to be presented, for example they chose to use the Clash of Civilation quote of the fastest growing religion. Anything which challenges this is reverted. I have presented sources that challenge this claim , and at once the insertion gets reverted.

The reason they do this is because they are on a religious Jihad, that is they are doing whatever it takes to make Islam look good, regardless of the facts. Look at the revert history of this page. Its called censure , and it is unfortunately a characteristic of Islam, the destruction of truth. --Urchid 02:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Urchid, what you fail to understand is that the growth numbers you 'cited' from your sources have nothing to do with ISLAM whatsoever. What do christianity growth numbers have to do with Islam in the first place? If you want to put you 'source' and 'claim' in an appropriate article put it in the christianity article.

The only problem here is that you seem to have a problem understanding what this article is about. You are clearly the one who is 'frothing in the mouth' as you are over-stimulated at the idea that you can vandalize a perfectly legitimate article by inserting christian propaganda about christian growth. Truly anyone can realize that is unrelated to this article and does not belong here, why can't you?

The only problem here is your bigotry against Islam. The article tells the truth and you insist that your racist views and totally unrelated claims be added to this article. Every time the editors remove your vandalism you show them disrespect and claim that you are being censured and that the article is a destruction of truth. If you can't edit the ISLAM article fairly and without extreme anti-Islamic POV, go away because your propaganda is not needed here. --Anonymous editor 19:23, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to include high and low estimates of adherence and growth. And I believe that adherents.com would be a good unbiased source. I quote "Contemporary figures for Islam are usually between 900 million and 1.4 billion, with 1 billion being a figure frequently given in comparative religion texts, probably because it's such a nice, round number. The largest and best known branches of Islam are Sunni and Shi'ite." [2] Tom Haws 15:11, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

AE, I guess I agree with you, but if you won't stop shouting, nobody will read what you say. Just let the cooler heads (like Mustafaa and Tom) quote the estimate ranges. The exact number, and the exact growth rate is unknown, live with it. Both Christianity and Islam are growing, because of population growth, and the numbers are extremely unreliable, because the countries with highest growth rate also have the worst level of organization (a.k.a. 3rd World). dab (ᛏ) 19:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see you agree with me, Dab. Surely anyone can see that urchid's claims have nothing to do with the article and clearly supposed christianity African statistics do not belong in an Islam article. The controversy was never over growth rates, it was about adding completely unrelated material about christianity. By the way I am not shouting I am clarifying what I mean and urchin can't seem to understand for some reason and enjoys making remarks against editors in general. Thanks for your input in this matter. --Anonymous editor 20:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

AE, by "shouting" dab means entering your comments, presumably for emphasis, in bold and/or in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, and the use of repeated punctuation (e.g. ??? or !!!). On the web, that is generally referred to as "shouting", and many people consider the use of more than the bare minimum of such emphasized text to be rude. Just like raising the volume of your voice beyond what is required to be heard is considered rude. Paul August ☎ 20:40, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this, Paul. I already knew what Dab was saying though. I wasn't trying to be rude but I apologize if the bolding/capitalization of my text was offensive to anyone. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 03:04, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Tags not needed

So please stop putting that at the top of the article, Urchid. BrandonYusufToropov 12:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there not a dispute on this page? Are you willing to have my inserts added then?--Urchid 12:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The dispute doesn't seem to be about specifics -- you aren't challenging anything that's there -- it's just that you want to include stuff that you believe reflects badly on Islam, even if it's not particularily germane to the article. I added a link to the Slavery article, in the See also section -- Islam and slavery is discussed there, as part of a discussion of slavery in general. How come you aren't insisting on adding the names of the slaves owned, if known, to every historical figure in Wikipedia? No, you're just interested in making the equation Islam = slavery. You're marking the article POV because it doesn't hew to your POV ... and that's wrong. Zora 12:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Zora. There may be a factuality dispute concerning conversion rates, but that is simply up to either side being able to present credible sources. afaik, no serious estimate has been censored. "I want to insert oblique potshots aimed at Islam in general" is not a content dispute, sorry. Nobody disputes slavery was common, both in Islamic and Christian society. If you must, insert a list of Muhammad's slaves in the Muhammad article (if the list is factual), but it is certainly not pertinent to this article. dab (ᛏ) 13:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

General links

Anonymous editor, talk about adding edits like that which were previously decided against for doing it. An article of this size and nature should not have arbitrary decisions made by one editor like you are doing and not expect them to be reverted. Discuss it here first and get input. I am not totally against it, I am rather apathetic towards the issue but you are a single editor among many so please discuss putting a "general links" section into the article and which sites it should contain. I am guessing that BrandonYusuf's, yours and Urchids opinion might not be the same in which links to put. gren 19:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Grenavitar. You know ofcourse that I had the best intentions in mind and did not mean any offense. The links I posted were not permanent, ofcourse, and other editors who were willing to insert links that give a factual look on Islam rather than a POV based one are free to do so. The issue I was bringing up is that, although user Zora's efforts in the directory links are well taken, most users will not use the directory for general link service for reasons such as non-apparency, time consumption, etc. Therefore, I proposed that general links that offer a factual insight into the religion should be added much similar to those that can be found in the christianity or other religion articles. I did NOT add them for POV ofcourse and I think that a problem here is that we fear the risk of vandalism by extreme POV editors. We should, like other credible encyclopedias offer factual links to wikipedia users so that if one requires an understanding of the religion or is researching a topic related to the religion, they may access non-encylopedia factual sources. But yes I do understand the controversy over this and if other editors find factual Islamic links they should consider them to this article. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 19:24, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I understand completely and I didn't change it because I thought it was POV. My problem is that when you say "links that give a factual look on Islam rather than a POV based one" that probably means different things to different people... I have no problem with the section in genereal but it did create problems (especially with link spammers) and that's why Zora pruned it (see #Pruning links). Just leave this up for a bit and see what people say and what they can agree on... rushing into changes on a well established article can create problems so if you just let proposals sit on the talk page for a while it helps that I think. Personally on this issue I'm pretty neutral. I don't think directories are too hard to navigate (and as someone mentioned directories can have their own POV) but I think we could plausibly make a balanced general links section... but just let's hear what others say. gren 19:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely fine. I will keep the links at hand until people have voiced their opinions. TO EVERYONE: Should general, factual external links about Islam be added to the article, much like the other religion articles? Please voice your opinions as this is both: to help people find material that gives a better understanding of the religion, and also to add to the professionalism of Wikipedia by adding factual external links like other credible encyclopedias have. Similarly feel free to recommend factual links so that editors may review whether they should be added. Thanks. --

BrandonYusuf, Mustafaa, Zora, Yuber, Dab and Farhanser, you have all been major contributors to this article and your input in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Anonymous editor 20:09, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'll comment on the links issue. Someone else -- I forget who -- proposed the directories solution in response to my effort to clear out the links. Before I started pruning, there were dozens of links, to different sects, to different teachers, and more were being added each day. Anyone who wanted more publicity for his/her preferred version of Islam was adding a link. There didn't really seem to be any way to limit the links without provoking howls of protest at the discrimination. The suggestion to list only directories was received with a general sigh of relief. Having seen the alternative, I would argue vigorously that we keep to this policy for the Islam page. Links have been allowed to proliferate freely on the pages for the various sects/versions of Islam. Zora 20:02, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, factual, external links about Islam should be added to the article. Owing to the Mohammedan's willingness to follow the sunnah of Mohammed, we have an element of Taqiyya mixed with intolerance of anything that may expand upon the "sugar-coated" version of Islam that is being promoted here, exploiting the popularity of this site and using it as a one-eyed propaganda facility. I placed a link to this page as an INFORMATION SOURCE about Islam......... www.faithfreedom.org/links.htm .........so where did it go?

Skirmishing re first para

I've lost track of who did what, but the first para has been turned into an encomium of Islam as the source of art and science. I don't think that's NPOV, and it's certainly debatable that this is a distinguishing characteristic of Islam. Other religions have also contributed to the arts and sciences. I also removed a phrase re Islam being an Abrahamic faith. That categorization is Muslim -- I don't think I've ever heard an Jews or Christians use it. In fact, I still remember the first time I ran into it, in a National Geographic article on Abraham some years ago. It would certainly not be comprehensible to non-Muslims. Most Christians will refer to the Judeo-Christian tradition, and ignore Islam entirely. The first para sets the tone, and that tone should be NPOV. Zora 21:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wait a second, Islam IS an Abrahamic faith, in all senses of the word.Yuber^(talk) 22:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but that's an unfamiliar term which is put into the first para with no explanation whatsoever. It may be transparent to you, but most non-Muslims would not understand it. One could link to Abrahamic religions, of course, but it seems preferable to introduce new concepts in the body of the article, not in the introductory para. I don't know whether it's IN the body of the article -- probably should be if it isn't.

After some furious googling, I am left with an even stronger impression that the term has come into general use fairly recently, as a polite term to be used by politicians, academics, and religious figures. I don't object to it -- it seems more useful than Judeo-Christian -- I'm just concerned about comprehensibility. (Shades of jguk's campaign to erase BCE/CE <g>). Zora 23:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yuber, it seems a little hostile to revert to the "Abrahamic religions" version while we're still discussing it. Zora 23:20, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Abrahamic religion makes sense from the Muslim perspective. The connotation of Abrahamic faith implies the sanctioning of Abraham, not just that they believe they come from Abrahamic lineage. Therefore, Zora makes a good point. gren 23:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what you're trying to argue here. If Christianity is an Abrahamic religion then so is Islam, and that description is included in the Christianity article as well in the first paragraph. The definition as I see it basically means that it is a religion that comes from the original religion Abraham followed. Islam isn't just an Abrahamic religion from the Muslim perspective, it's an Abrahamic religion from all perspectives. Judeo-Christian is a totally different concept.Yuber^(talk) 23:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that the concept is illegitimate -- it works from even a non-Abrahamic perpective, as simply pointing out that all three major religions share texts and history. I'm just arguing about comprehensibility. But if no one has objected in the Christianity article, then I'll stop fussing about it here. As long as we LINK it.

Which I'll do right now. Zora 00:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aha, it's done. OK. Zora 00:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zora is both sympathetic and nice to Yuber, and he still reverts her. Unbelievable. FYI, Christianity is not an Abrahamatic religion. Christianity is a christian religion. --Noitall 00:50, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's nice. Perhaps you would like to edit out the Abrahamic part on the Christianity page. Yuber^(talk) 01:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a new-ish term, but it's not necessarily POV. Jews, Christians, and Muslims all claim Abraham as the founder of their faith and there is at least one text (the Torah) that is accepted by all faiths (though the Muslims claim the Jewish version is corrupted). Even an atheist hostile to religion could use the term. As for Yuber's behavior -- as has been pointed out elsewhere, it's easy to lose one's balance when the argument gets hot and heavy. Let's ALL try to keep our balance. That goes for me too <g>. Zora 01:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There were actually no hostile feelings towards your edit. So please disregard what Noitall said as there is no huge argument here.Yuber^(talk) 02:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually it was me who added the word "Abrahamic religions" here . The word was present in Christianity & Judaism's first para . So I thought it should be added here too . In Judaism, this word is present with a link to Islam page. Farhansher 04:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

shahadan

of course you need the second part. Any monotheist would subscribe to "there is no god but God". To be a Muslim, you need the additional belief that Muhammad's testimony is authentic, just as to be a Christian, you need to believe that Jesus was sent by God (not necessarily that he is God, viz. Arianism, Unitarianism). Just saying la ilaha illa llahu says nothing about the status of the Quran, i.e. you may testify that, and still think the Quran is a surrealist poem, which would hardly make you a Muslim. 80.219.219.208 11:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Islamic Expertise and Knowledge

I have not yet edited on this article, but am preparing to do so. Of course, as a Christian, I want to have knowledge before inserting my POV. I believe that finding one or two sources on google and reading the Koran text as I think it should read and interpreting it the way I think it should be interpreted should be a good generalization for the entire Islamic world. But it does not really matter because, as User:Mustafaa argues, Muslims can believe anything or nothing at all, so anything I find on google is good and must be accurate and correct. Anyhow, don't you agree that I will soon be an Islamic expert?

Oh, by the way, that was not my opinion, but was User:Mustafaa's argument as to why he can interpret Christian texts and is really qualified with lots of expertise as to edit the Christian interpretation of Abraham. I disagreed and made the argument that I am respectful of other religions and that I am not really qualified to understand all the nuances of the religion to edit on Wiki. Anyhow, if Mustafaa's opinion is the right one, I will really enjoy doing some research and debating you all on what the text and interpretations of Islam mean. --Noitall 02:12, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I really don't understand what pisses you off so much about the Old Testament saying Ishmael is the ancestor of the Ishmaelites. Is there some personal reason this angers you?Yuber^(talk) 02:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Noitall still, after ample requests, hasn't explained his actual objection to the suggested wording on Talk:Abraham, preferring the easier course of ad hominem arguments against its author. If anyone other than Noitall thinks that only Christians should be allowed to make Christianity-related edits, raise your hand now... - Mustafaa 02:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have explained it at length, just like I have said that I do not edit THE RELIGIOUS VIEWS of other people's religions, and yet you still think I interpreted the Torah incorrectly (I could not have, since I never ever ever made any statement about it at all except what I just said). But if Mustafaa is correct, then it will be happy editing in all these articles -- I am certain that I can find some good sources out there if I google hard enough. --Noitall 02:30, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall,why is adding "Old Testament" beside "Torah" (Torah/Old Testament) such a problem on the Abraham article? You have gone way overboard on such a little issue to which you have really not given enough reason. --Anonymous editor 02:33, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Listen Noitall, the old testament specifically names Ishmael and his twelve sons. This is not an "Islamic view" as you said, it is a Christian and Jewish view. I don't have to google to find sources, it's in the Bible itself [3].Yuber^(talk) 02:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK Noitall, you say you've explained it at length. Now could you explain your explanation, preferably on Talk:Abraham? I don't see how your statements connect to the actual text of the article nor what changes you're suggesting - bearing in mind the truism that statements about Genesis are simultaneously statements about the Torah and statements about the Old Testament. - Mustafaa 02:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no time to respond AGAIN, as I spent the last two days responding and listing rationale and detailed explanations and providing the Christian view (to be substituted by Mustafaa and Anon and Yuber's expert Christian opinion). -->But I will re-write the statement and provide rationale for the 3rd time. And expecially I have no time for Yuber. I have to check Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration to see if the Arbitrators' opinions on the hearing against Yuber are still (4/0/0/0). --Noitall 02:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Please respond to my specific questions instead of talking about random stuff. Are you disputing the Christian Bible's view of Ishmael's twelve sons?Yuber^(talk) 02:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me what this discussion has to do with this article? This seems like a discussion concerning the Abraham article. I think this discussion should be moved there. Paul August ☎ 03:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Easy. Noitall didn't really mention his concern clearly on the Abraham talk page and said that he would proceed to edit Islam-related topics until his POV was mentioned. Please see Talk:Abraham for more detail. Hope that helps my friend, as we are both clueless about why someone would do something like this. :)--Anonymous editor 03:23, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me my "friends." I brought up an issue relevant to this page and Yuber, of course Yuber, immediately change the subject to insert his POV. Now Anon entirely misleads, as pages on pages of rationale over days are not enough for him (but then he probably had to do 4th grade reading class over a few times also). --Noitall 03:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall: What is your issue with this page? Paul August ☎ 03:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

What is the issue? TELL US CLEARLY ON TALK ABRAHAM PAGE. Your issue here has nothing to do whatsoever with this article and should probably be moved. The only issue you raised here is threatening to edit this article. I have been tolerant, respectful and patient with you and so have Mustafaa and Yuber. Can you please mention the REAL issue on the Abraham page, not this one. Refrain from making personal attacks too. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 03:39, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

That is the problem with Anon, he does not read. As far as I am concerned, you can erase everything after my first 2 paragraphs after the header and get back to the real issue. Then I will address it and not have Anon speaking for me (right, tolerant and respectful as a suicide bomber, give me a break!, it is me who has been respectful of other religions and you who are dismissive and arrogant with a religion that you expressly reject.) --Noitall 03:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall: If you are talking about the Abraham article please discuss it there. Paul August ☎ 04:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Why are we talking about suicide bombers now?Yuber^(talk) 03:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Attack of the Quran Alone Muslims

Edip Yuksel has just discovered Wikipedia. He seems to be a disciple of Rashad Khalifa; he claims to represent the Quran Alone Muslims, who at this point seem to consist of him and one other gentleman. He is busily editing the Islam article to insert his name, as well as setting up a page for Quran Alone, and trying to link to it. I've removed the link, since I have no evidence that there are any other adherents of "Quran Alone" than these two new editors, and the page may have to be deleted. Zora 23:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you Zora. To the "Quran-Alone Muslim": Please stop advertising beliefs in Islam-related articles. I doubt that many people have heard of you and Mr. Janjhua before. Wikipedia is not the place to make someone famous or raise one's credibility and support. Please remember this is an encyclopedia and all neutral/legitimate comments and edits are accepted whereas such extreme Point of View will be deleted. Also please make sure your pictures are smaller as they are taking way too much space (even the founder of wikipedia does not have an image that large!). Thank you and I hope you will co-operate. --Anonymous editor 23:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

There are a (very) small number of adherents of this belief (as discussed on Talk:Hadith), and we do need a page on them. I don't know if Quran Alone is an appropriate title for it, though. - Mustafaa 00:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A look at Yuksel's web page [4] indicates that there is already a schism in the Rashid Khalifa/submitter community, and that Yuksel is one of the schismatics. We don't know much about the Submitters (that seems to be their own name for themselves) and we know even less about Yuksel's group, if it is a group. It would be difficult to write a Wikipedia article about all this, because it would soon veer into original research. It's fascinating, however. Yoohoo, anyone out there need a dissertation topic? Zora 02:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Problems with Islam

Was there not a section called "Problems with Islam" in this article, which covered various issues, and has now been removed?

There is no such thing as a problem with a religion. If it is believed to be God's will then that doesn't make sense and is only the editors subjective concept of "problems with Islam". Conflict between and other beliefs and viewpoints is a different matter, and I believe such things are covered in some places. gren 21:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, we had a section of external links to directories of websites critical of Islam, but -- if I remember correctly -- that kept getting wiped by people who felt that any criticism of islam was too much. Figuring that the section title was a signpost to "vandalize here", we combined all the directory links, pro and con. The links are still there and still labeled as critical, just not in the section title. Zora 21:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This sentence needs to be rewritten

In the section "Schools (Branches}", in the paragraph beginning "Recently, with the rise of the Internet ..." the following passage occurs which needs to be rewritten, however I'm not sure what it is trying to say:

"Upon all the other sects (mentioned above), each has things that believe are theirs, and are the right way. Also, in some form on another, the sects use interpretations and decisions from people who are not looked upon as messengers or prophets."

Paul August ☎ 08:19, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

This entire section has now been removed, by another editor. Paul August ☎ 13:21, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Huge changes at the last moment

Paul August, who hasn't been involved here previously, has been making a great many changes, most of which seem to be mere copyediting. In checking his edits, I found that I generally approved of them -- but felt that they didn't go far enough. I've been sucked into the skirmishing over sentences and sections, and haven't looked at the article as a whole for a while. Some of the prose seemed to me to rather substandard (which is frequently the case in often-edited articles). I ended up reorganizing the sects section and rephrasing a number of things that I felt were ... dubious.

(For an explanation of my recent dozen or so small edits, see below. Paul August ☎ 13:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC))

I found that someone had inserted a large lump of Qur'an-only proselytizing, which I removed. I also found that someone had upped the percentage of Sunnis to 95% -- clearly a Sunni triumphalist.

There is one section that I would like to delete, but don't want to do it unilaterally. There is a whole section on liberal Islam that floats unmoored from the "sects" section. Though I would certainly be a liberal Muslim if I were a Muslim, it seems to me to be POV for the liberals to get their own section when other sects don't. OK to remove? Zora 09:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christian intolerance

An anon editor, with no other edits to his/her credit, changed a sentence re Christian nations at the time Islam arose not tolerating religions/sects other than the state religion, to "some" Christian nations. I removed the qualifier, as I can't think of a single tolerant Christian state before the Renaissance. All of them had state religions and periodically persecuted or expelled Jews, other Christian sects, etc. Even if a few tolerant states could be adduced, I'm not sure that this would require changing the qualifier to "some" -- I would say that it would be "most". Hmmm ... tolerant nations ... Poland, I think, and the Netherlands once they broke free of the Spanish. Europeans had to kill each other for centuries before they grudgingly accepted tolerance. Any other suggestions? Zora 12:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm wary of quantification of tolerance because I feel it can be rather subjective at times. Those who argue against Dhimmi taxes (not sure how this worked under Khalifate) might not find it more tolerant than some of the Christian measures. In general I would agree, but I'm not sure that any of this falls out from definition. Good thing this answer doesn't help :) gren 13:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, well, the history of Islam I've been reading suggests that the reason the Muslims were able to HOLD their empire was that the dhimmi, at least at first, thought that the Muslims were preferable to the Byzantines or the Persians, because the Muslims let them practice their faith. The Byzantines were actively trying to stamp out Christian "heretics". Zora 14:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tolerant Christian states before the Renaissance: Sicily under the Normans. Most Spanish states pre-unification. --7 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

My recent edits

I made a few edits to this article a few hours ago. On my talk page (here), Zora asked me to explain what I am doing on this page, so here I am ;-) My changes were as a result of reading the article and making copyedits and trying to improve the writing, along the way. It was not my intention to change the sense or meaning of any part of the article. if I have misunderstood some passage and inadvertently changed its intended meaning, then please accept my apologies. If anyone wants to discuss any of my edits, I'm more than happy to do so. Paul August ☎ 13:40, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Color of Islam

Why is color of Islam green ?

[Siyac] 14:19, Jun 28, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting question.. I once knew better but this site has a short answer. I think it's more or less tradition and something early Muslims used to differentiate themselves and it stuck. gren 28 June 2005 12:52 (UTC)

Islam and Slavery section

Re-added to article as it evidently won't stand as its own article without the Wiki-Islamo-zeolots at once whitewashing it down to nothing.--Urchid 2 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)

It won't stand here either as a symbol of anti-Islamic bias. It has already been opposed before by almost all editors besides you and it even has its own article. You are also suspected of being a sockpuppet by several admin. If you keep pushing your POV on this article as you have done before you will be reported. Thanks.--Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 14:38 (UTC)

Look who is talking, you do nothing else than shoot down any thing which does not suit you pro-islam bias. You do not care for the facts or history , you only want to whitewash the info to make Islam look like something that it never was. --Urchid 2 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)

Regardless of what you consider me to be or not be, all the edits you made have months of discussion against them, and if you are going to act so arbitrary without even considering other editors then I'm glad that there are others here who will be happy to also revert your bias.... All of your edits on this section and on the relative article about the topic are clearly original research (your own stories) and really I don't even have to talk to you because you have given enough evidence to see that you are actively inserting your bias again, even despite warnings from several admins. Thanks. --Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 14:49 (UTC)

As I said you do not care for the facts or history , you only want to whitewash the info to make Islam look like something that it never was and you use every devious trick you can think of to accomplish. Watching your edit trail is eye opening. Amazing the devious tactics you use--Urchid 2 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)

Devious tactics? Urchid don't even get me started about you. You have hated Islam to the extreme and it is pretty absurd to think that you can go around making biased statements and reverting repetitively on Islam articles when everyone knows this already. This is an encyclopedia and anyone that looks at your "contributions" can figure out what type of editor you are. Anyways like I said this is irrelevant now, has already been discussed and has its own article. So info not needed here, please take it to your personal web page. Thank you.--Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Urchid, please avoid personal remarks. Focus on the content instead. Anonymous editor, the same goes for you, even if you feel provoked.

Now, the issue of the extensive slavery section has been discussed above (#New or old sections have been reinserted, #Islam and Slavery, and #slaves) and the general consensus seems to be that so much detail is out of place in this overview article, which after all has to cover 1400 years of Islamic history, doctrine, thought, and practice. The details belong in a separate article, which should be referenced and linked to from this page. —Charles P. (Mirv) 2 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

No problems Mirv. I just think it was a wrong move to reinsert the sections and delete all the links even after years of discussion. If you look at the article relative to this section or on his talk page you will see the type of bias he wants to insert. Anyways, I agree with what you said and the article was indeed linked to this the last time I checked. Thanks.--Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 15:22 (UTC)

I do not disagree on this except for this: As soon as I took the slavery section to another seperate article then the pro-islam gang immediately started cutting it down with the apparent end goal of totally erasing any mention of any thing negative about Islam regardless of history or facts. That was my original assertion and it has proven true. --Urchid 2 July 2005 15:38 (UTC)

In the history of Islam and slavery, I see that the conflict starts with a rewrite by Farhansher. This is followed by some tweaks to that version by Anonymous editor, a revert by 65.etc, a rollback by SlimVirgin, some tweaks by Infrogmation, a revert by Urchid, a revert by Anonymous editor, a revert by Urchid, and a revert by Anonymous editor. On the talk page, we see this: Farhansher makes some initial comments, which Urchid follows by declaring that it's time to reinsert the information back into the main Islam article. SlimVirgin comments that both versions seem POV and suggests that something in between, using good references, is needed. Urchid replies that the article is about Islam and slavery.

From what I see, it seems a bit too early to declare that it's time to merge that article back here. I don't see any attempts at constructive engagement backed by careful research, just a lot of reverting, talking past one another, and personal invective. —Charles P. (Mirv) 2 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)

CENSORSHIP

Since there has been endless censorship by the Pro Islam people on the Islam series of articles , what would you people think of creating a new series of articles called ISLAM/UNCENSORED , MUHAMMAD/UNCENSORED, etc. This will permit those editors who believe in accurate historical information to continue to build wikipedia and not get blanked out continuously. Here is an example Islam and Slavery Uncensored--Urchid 3 July 2005 16:17 (UTC)

How about trying to work out your disagreements with these editors constructively, through polite discussion and research, in order to create an article that all of you find acceptable? POV forks are generally deleted, and even if the title does contain the word "uncensored", creating them isn't going to convince anyone of your rightness—quite the opposite, in fact. —Charles P. (Mirv) 3 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)

I am open to discussion , however what seems to happen is a gang of pro islam editors simply reverts anything they do not like regardless of discussions. Look at the edit trail on the Islam history or Muhammad history page.--Urchid 3 July 2005 17:12 (UTC)

If you are open to discussion, how about heading over to Talk:Islam and slavery and addressing the substance of the arguments made at some length by Farhansher, SlimVirgin, and me? —Charles P. (Mirv) 3 July 2005 18:10 (UTC)

faithfreedom.org

I added a link to the directories critical of Islam given under external links directories. The link was to www.faithfreedom.org/links.htm . It was deleted within a day. That is a shame. I did not edit any content of the page, nor added or subtracted any statement on Islam. The links provided by faithfreedom are more extensive than anything given under the directories listed under the external links. Faithfreedom is clearly anti-Islam and its links are to various critics of Islam. I find it absolutely unacceptable that the editors will censor to this level. Why cannot wikipedia tolerate links to faithfreedom's link page that is clearly more comprehensive than the other directories linked under external link? Perhaps the editors of the Islam page should not be biased muslims who have an agenda to beat the drum of their particular sect. Reading this disscussion page clearly shows that the malady of sectarianism within Islam has reached Wikipedia as well.

The links provided by faithfreedom are more extensive than anything given under the directories listed under the external links.—You are mistaken. The dmoz directories are much more extensive, better-categorized, more multilingual, and they link to faithfreedom.org already. There's no need for this link, nor for speculation about the religious motives of other editors, which is in fact erroneous. Long ago, this article had a massively bloated list of external links, and the list you see there would have been much longer if not for periodic trimming. Zora (a Buddhist) removed most of the links, and I (a Catholic) added the ODP links, and all agreed that this was the sensible thing to do. If we are going to link to faithfreedom's external links page, why not http://bismikaallahuma.org/Archive/links.htm ? Or http://islamfortoday.com/special.htm ? And so on, and so forth. This way lies madness. —Charles P. (Mirv) 3 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)

I just checked the link to the directory at dmoz and they list a total of 27 enteries that are critical of Islam. The rest are essentially links to islamic sites. Here is the numbers in the list at dmoz: dmoz gives under opposing views of islam: Ahamadiyya(32), Deendar Anjuman(2),Islamism(22), Nation of Islam(19),Quranites (1),Shia (3),Submitters (3),Sufism (13),Sunni(3) which are all sects of Islam and quite pro-Islam. I have gone to the various sites and found no contra views on Islam at those links. The contra Views on Islam are listed by dmoz as: Christian Views(20),Ex-Muslim(3),Hindu Views(3),Jewish Views(1).

Faithfreedom links to 74 sites on the page. There is perhaps an overlap of about four or five enteries between dmoz and faithfreedom. I am not interested in your or zora's or anyone's religion. The idea, I thought was to provide the readers the best information available. The issue is that the bickering on this page clearly tells us that there are plenty of sectarian issues within Islam and the contra-views of Islam are clearly a need to understand the passion being demonstrated. I provided a link that clearly has more contra views to Islam than the link given at dmoz, and that was deleted. I urge the editors to take another look dispassionately and restore that link. And look at the external links under Hinduism for a comparison. A few more links under Islam will not be madness, but far from it.

This is an encyclopedia ...remember !! Faith freedom is not a site , its hatred spread by a phobic psycho who is illeterate , unauthentic & unverifiable . ITs not coming here . What U think or say is not important . we are giving links to authentic & verifiable people , not pink monkeys & flying mules . And yes , see the hinduism page , tell me if you find any link to a "critical site" there . Try inserting links to some dungpools like FFI there . Learn how to use an encyclopedia , learn how to read & what to read . If U dont like encyclopedias , go back to your dung pool U call FFI . Sign your name if you think your existance is of any importance on WP . Farhansher 4 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)<s?

Farhansher, that sort of thing doesn't help. All we have to say is that faithfreedom doesn't get any special treatment. Rather than link directly to sites about Islam in general (except for academic sites and sites re non-controversial specific topics), we link to directories, which have the space and the mission to be completely inclusive. Anyone who goes to the directories will find ALL the sites. Zora 4 July 2005 07:25 (UTC)

Farhansher, it is your diatribes that are unencyclopedic. You will acheive nothing by ranting at people. As for "faithfreedom", by the title of that page,

Fight Islamic militancy, militarily and its ideology, ideologically. These are the two fronts of the war against barbarism.

it appears to be a site about Islamism? At first glance, it contains very cheap and sarcastic Islam-bashing, and it has certainly no theological relevance. You may attempt to argue for inclusion of the on Islamism, but probably the more appropriate place would be Islamophobia. Just like we don't link to pure proselytizing sites, we don't link to fearmonging sites. dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)

The real problem with this page is that it has essentially been hijacked by a gang of Islamist who do not care for history of facts and who will stop at nothing to block any presentation of Islam that does not fit their POV. The links on FaithFreedom belong on this page. I have had my share of battling with the Islamists on this page, I will not name names , but just look at my edit trail. There are even admin islamists who are part of the blockade. Of course they will tell will you tell you that they are impartial and only interested in the encyclopedic integrity but it is just a tactic they use. Do a search for aL-taqya on the internet to learn more about their tactics.--Urchid 4 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

There is an article on taqiyya; you should read it before making any more ill-informed personal attacks. —Charles P. (Mirv) 4 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

The issue is not whether you agree with Faithfreedom or not. The point is that the link page at FFI has more relevent and varied links than at dmoz. Your argument that dmoz is more comprehensive and that there are too many links have been shown to be spurious. The external links under hinduism are atleast 4 to 5 times more than what they are under Islam, and the number of links at FFI clearly are more and varied than at dmoz. The bias of the editors is obvious and evident, and it is damaging to Wikipedia. You will not even tolerate a link to a page under External Links because you disagree with the sites point of view? That is not the function of an editor!! That is censorship plain and simple. There are many many people who agree with the pov expressed at those links as is evident by the number of sites and their readership, and you do not want to provide any link to them? Is that what an encyclopedia is supposed to be? Who is asking for any special treatment for FFI? Do the editors appreciate what is meant by contra-views on Islam? Do the editors appreciate what is meant by freedom of speech? If this attitude of censorship of Wikipedia gets general media attention, do the editors understand what the consequences will be for the credibility of this supposed encyclopedia? Too many people have put in too many hours to create this resource to be allowed to be "hijacked" by a few editors who obviously are having a hard time understanding the proper role of an editor.-Nickbee

The comments by FarhanSher are an example of an unbiased editor at Wickipedia? Is that representative of the quality of editorial comments here? Just curious? -Nickbee

The issue is not whether you agree with Faithfreedom or not.—I agree. As Zora explains above, it was long ago decided not to link to any sectarian sites from this page, but rather to use the non-sectarian directories. There are thousands of Islamic websites and thousands of anti-Islamic websites. Rather than make the selection of which are linked here subject to the whims and biases of editors, which would lead to endless fighting (witness this section of the talk page) over which links to include and exclude, we pass the job off to dmoz and other directories. These generally include the sites that people might want to link here, so anyone who's interested can still find them. If you want to include FFI because there are many people who agree with it, why not islamonline.com? or bismikaallahuma.org? or answering-christianity.com? or. . .but you get the idea. Millions of people agree with the views of those sites, but we don't link them either. —Charles P. (Mirv) 4 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

I suppose I'm an islamist admin, for helping keep the fundamentalist hate sites from the article? Farhansher doesn't realize he's really working for his opponents. I estimate he is 15 years old. That doesn't automatically make you a quality editor, Urchid. For that you would have to show some productivity rather than throwing around polemics on talk pages. We won't accept any cheesy islamist proselytization links either, ok? Just because it's anti-Islamic doesn't make faithfreedom a quality site, people. "These women think they are 96% vagina" — how low can you stoop? dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)

1) http://www.faithfreedom.org provides a legitimate counter POV to the Islam page and deserves to be presented. Have you seen how difficult it is to try to present any other POV on this page? Dab, are so insecure with your faith in Islam that you cannot allow to have a critical link added to the page?

2)There seems to be is a fundamental flaw with Wikipedia, in that by its design it is vulnerable to hijacking, for example, since you have a limit on 3 revert per day, all it takes is a few editors colluding with each other to gang up on single editors and out revert them. Then you have the admin layer of editors, which I have not yet seen being policed by anyone, though I could be wrong on that, so you have admins going around and taking ideologically motivated measures, locking pages that they are partisan in, deleting pages that does not suit their own POV and generally bullying their ideological opponents. It kind of makes it difficult to contribute to articles under those conditions. --Urchid 4 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

Charles P. The policy is obviously not uniformly applied. I showed you the Hinduism page where the external links are directly to sites that are clearly proselytizing in nature. I am not linking to Faithfreedom directly but to a page that contains 74 links to contra-views on Islam. These links are not available to Wikipedia readers and you as an editor are not willing to consider whether they should be? You mention the other sites: Are there link directories at those sites? Are those sites already listed at dmoz? If not then they should be included. Who is asking for withholding of information? Why deny the Wikipedia readers access to information because you do not like the point of view being expressed there? Why the need for such petty censorship? Again I am not changing one line of information on the topic, merely linking to a page that contains links to sites that express contra-views to the topic and those links are not available at any other listing provided by wikipedia under the topic? If you know of sites that have directories that present links to pro-views on the topic and those links are not currently available, I would imagine that as an editor you should, perhaps must, include those links as well. Should a good encyclopedia not offer access to information that is available out there? Why the reluctance to include merely a link to a page that contains links to sites that are obviously well visited and that contain "contra-views" on the topic of the page? -Nickbee

Dab's comments make it perfectly clear that he is very familiar with Faithfreedom. So he visits it and knows about it, but he also feels entitled to deny the information about it to the readers of Wikipedia!! Is that not THE Definition of censorship? Who is asking posting the faithfreedom pov under Islam? But why deny an external link to a page that is obviously potent enough to rile a distinguished editor of wikipedia, and that obviously has significant readership? -Nickbee

it is teh definition of informed editing. I have visited lots of kooky website, and didn't feel compelled to add them all to WP. Of course, I don't own WP. If I am voted down, the link will be added. At the moment, however, it rather looks like you flew in the face of established consensus, mister anonymous. Also, I had never seen ff before you linked to it. "potent"? You mean "patent fundamentalism". Not on Wikipedia, thank you. dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)

re "uniform application": understand that it is a consensus arrived at on this article, because we have quite a history of pov-pushers trying to add their precious websites. So people figured out that the way to go is to be restrictive about biased links. this doesn't necessarily hold for other articles, although as a rule, the farther out your site, the smaller the chance of inclusion. dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)

Well said. Some people seem to forget that this is supposed to be an enyclopedia. Do you really expect to find Encyclopedia Britannica, say, linking to "faithfreedom.org"? This sort of silly games merely reduces Wikipedia's credibility. as for the Hinduism article, pruning its link section sounds like a great idea. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)

oh, and urchid, I am not a bloody Muslim (nor an unbloody one), got it? I'm just a random "Westerner" who cares about encyclopedicity and factuality. Not necessarily about Islam, although a fortiori about Islam as if falls into the larger realm of human knowledge and spirituality. dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)

(via edit conflict)

The policy is obviously not uniformly applied.—It is not a policy, but a consensus among the regular editors of this page, which has lasted since last October.

I showed you the Hinduism page where the external links are directly to sites that are clearly proselytizing in nature.—then perhaps Hinduism needs serious link trimming, but I am not the one to do it, as I know little about the topic, do not edit the page regularly, and could not judge what should stay and what should go.

I am not linking to Faithfreedom directly but to a page that contains 74 links to contra-views on Islam.—you're not linking to their front page, but you are linking directly to a page with www.faithfreedom.org in the URL, which is closely linked into the rest of the pages on the site. Word games. Meanwhile the directories link to many sites with contra-views (including faithfreedom), which themselves link to similar sites, and so on.

These links are not available to Wikipedia readers and you as an editor are not willing to consider whether they should be?—They may not be available directly but they are available through dmoz; all that's required is a bit more clicking. I have considered the value of the link and given my considered opinion that it does not belong here.

You mention the other sites: Are there link directories at those sites? Are those sites already listed at dmoz? If not then they should be included.—Yes, there are link directories on the sites I named, and yes, the sites (if not the link pages) are in dmoz. I still do not believe that they, or any others with a pro- or anti-Islamic agenda, should be included, for reasons which I have already explained.

Who is asking for withholding of information? Why deny the Wikipedia readers access to information because you do not like the point of view being expressed there? Why the need for such petty censorship?—Spare us the empty rhetoric. I've argued against the inclusion of links to any sites with a religious and/or political agenda, for the sake of sanity and usefulness. To recapitulate:

There are thousands of sites about Islam which have an agenda, whether proselytizing, apologetic, polemical, or political.
This page cannot link to all of them; Wikipedia is not a link repository.
Therefore, the choice of which to include will be a matter of editorial selectivity—and thus a point of contention and an endless battleground.
dmoz is a reasonably neutral selector of links; it has no overt agenda apart from creating a useful directory of sites about a topic. In this it is reasonably successful.
By leaving the selection of links to agenda-driven sites up to a reasonably neutral third party, we avoid disputes over which should and should not be included here. The reader is still offered a selection of agenda-driven sites which is much wider than anything this article could reasonably include.
Therefore, rather than link to any of the agenda-driven sites, this article should link to the dmoz listings, or another directory of similar scope and neutrality.

Try to address the points of this argument, if you please, instead of squawking about censorship and withholding of information. —Charles P. (Mirv) 4 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

It is truly mindboggling. The professionalism of the editors as expressed by their language: "instead of squawking about censorship and withholding of information.". "Spare us the empty rhetoric."!! And all of this because of trying to get the editors to reconsider their decision on providing a link. No one is asking you to link to all the sites. You answered your question yourself about the other sites: "Yes, there are link directories on the sites I named, and yes, the sites (if not the link pages) are in dmoz.". There is no need for replication, is there? Now where in dmoz are the links given at faithfreedom? Those links are not available. Why is that so hard for you to understand? There are not infinite links to Islam out there. The contra views are not many, and that is why the collection of contra views of Islam at the link page at FFI is valuable. Your comment: "you're not linking to their front page, but you are linking directly to a page with www.faithfreedom.org in the URL, which is closely linked into the rest of the pages on the site. Word games." is indicative of your mentality. The entire Internet is only a few clicks away. Why have Wikipedia at all? Do you understand fully the logic of your statement? It really appears that the idea of providing information to Wikipedia readers so that they can get ALL sides of the information on a topic is not something the present set of editors grasp. Wikipedia is not British Encyclopedia, is it? It is an online Enclycopedia where people can edit and enter information. It is supposed to be better than the british encyclopedia. And you cannot grasp a simple and straightforward concept that providing a link to a page that has useful information is required for Wikipedia to be successful. But the agenda of the current spate of editors will not allow that!! Where does it say that Wikipedia "policy" is that links can only be provided by dmoz? Atleast they have the decency to link to FFI which you and your cohorts are unable to fathom that it is okay if NEW AND RELEVANT information is to be had there. I assure you that this will get more and more publicity and this issue will not go away. You guys are behaving as if you own Wikipedia and want to run it as a private domain. No one is allowed even to ask for a reconsideration! Amazing! -Nickbee.

Wikipedia's success is not the issue. It's safe to say that Faithfreedom offers little relevance in religious debate. The main editors seem to not want that. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH It might be worthwhile to point you in the direction of a typical encyclopedia and reading the article on Islam. How does it read? What kind of information does it give you? I hope that maybe you doing that will solve some of this problem. gren 5 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's success is not the issue." If that is not the issue then why such insistence in not allowing a good contra-view to the topic link in external links? What motivates the editors to such steely resolve? -Nickbee

very simple indeed: we do not consider it good. Personally, I consider it godawful. If ff.org is your site, you are so far away from grasping the actual issues that it is almost pitiful. I've looked at it some more, and it is so full of absurd hate that it goes only to show that both Islam and Christianity have their shares of fanatical hate-mongers. Try to get listed on any of the directories we link to, so people can reach your site from here in two clicks. dab (ᛏ) 5 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)

If I may add -- the reason WP is gaining in popularity is that it is perceived as (generally) trustworthy. Why? Because there are guidelines, traditions, and structural safeguards here that stand in contrast to the bias that is so rampant elsewhere, and all too evident on partisan sites like ff. What Nickbee is asking is akin to asking, "How come the editors at (to use a conservative example) The Wall Street Journal don't run front-page op-ed pieces by Matt Drudge?" Because front-page op-ed pieces by Matt Drudge are the opposite of what the Wall Street Journal is. If it started running op-ed pieces by Matt Drudge, it wouldn't be the Wall Street Journal anymore. Clear? BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)

except the WSJ is not the best of examples here; most WSJ articles would be torn to pieces on Wikipedia in a matter of minutes for being ridiculously biased and rife with strawmen. dab (ᛏ) 5 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. :) BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Ah, the royal we comes out! "We do not consider it good"? Who is this we? Certainly not the dissenting editors? Or are you and your "cohorts" the Wikipedia? If you represent Wikipedia then I am sure it deserves little respect and possiblly cannot be gaining in popularity. So far it has demonstrated high handedness and arbitrary censorship. -Nickbee

you are quite right, I see it now, Wikipedia is doomed to unpopularity :o(unless we, the hivemind, allow everybody to link their sites dab (ᛏ)

No you cannot see much because you will not allow free expression. Second bombing in Europe and of course it has nothing to do with Islam according to the esteemed editors of Wikipedia who cannot bear to give open links to sites that question the ideology of Islam that is driving people every day to commit suicide and kill innocents. Muslims are doing a good job of showing Islam to the world all on their own. Keep protecting your tiny kindoms on the web. -Nickbee

and of course your site is the only one on the internet providing the insight that London was bombed by Islamist madmen, and not, for example the Wikipedia article, 7/7. Look, if you want to know about the religion, read Islam. If you want to see a discussion of crimes committed in the name of Islam, read Islamist terrorism, ok? These are different topics, that may be linked, but should not be confused. For the same reason, we don't have the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse article under the USA title, the Auto da Fe article under Christianity, the Armenian genocide article under Turkey, or the holocaust article under Germany (yeah, Godwin, I know). dab (ᛏ) 07:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

And ofcourse only an unbiased editor like yourself would immediately assume that FFI is my site. FFI is not my site. I read that site like I read any other. I never said that FFI is the only site that discusses Islamist madmen. You are the one that is preventing a link to links about Islam by people who are anti Islam. Again the links are to anti Islam sites and not particular events or themes. As I said you cannot see because you do not want to see. That is alright because as I said the muslims are telling the world about themselves. Which Evil Ideology was Tony Blair referring to in his speech? Where can one find about that evil ideology? Why does it keep getting confused with Islam that Blair and Bush keep telling the world that ideology is not Islam? Are there people who disagree with them? Are there reasons to beleive that Bush and Blair are wrong? Where does one find the link between Islam and that evil ideology? And why is it that so many muslims find it so easy to accept that ideology as Islam? Today 32 mostly muslim children were blown up in Iraq by one of those who " wants to sell his soul to Allah for paradise" (their words!). What is it in Islam that should allow so many suicide bombers ? And you are intent upon censoring links that present a different face of Islam. And you claim to see far? Keep enjoying your little kingdom. -Nickbee

An interesting sidelight. The suicide bomber technology was pioneered by the Tamil Tigers, who have fielded more bombers than all the Muslim groups put together. What is it in the Tamil language that allows so many suicide bombers? What do Islam and the Tamil language have in common? NOTHING? Ah! Zora 05:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

yes, Mr. Socrates. How about you read some non-hatesites with these exact questions in mind? Maybe you'll learn something, but I doubt it; it is easier to hate than to differentiate, this is exacly in line with the fundamentalist mindset, congratulations. Anyway, we are not censoring information about Islamism and Islamist terrorism: they have their own articles. If you are so much into those subjects, I humbly suggest you go over there, this is simply the wrong article for you. dab (ᛏ) 05:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You cannot suggest anything humbly because you are not humble. No need to be a hypocrite. I am not here asking for your understanding but pointing out to the editors here that they are acting as petty bureaucrats and refusing to even provide a link to information about Islam. Not Islamism not Islamist terrorism but Islam. Fascinating that the proclaimed "buddhist" editor will come to declare that "Tamil tigers have fielded more bombers than all the muslim groups put together"! Fascinating that an esteemed editor could demonstrate such fascinating knowledge? May we know the source, because I know enough to state that is totally wrong.

The source is a BBC article I just read, an interview with a professional security analyst asked about the London bombings: [5]. Zora 11:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Or is this a type of built in bias that may be expected from the editors? You can keep denying that you do not censor, but your actions and your locked up page speaks volumes. Again you are unable to grasp that the issues are joined not by my interest but by the headlines of newspapers all over the world. People do want to know why so many suicide bombers can justify their acts are justified by Islam, why so many mufti's have sanctioned suicide attacks, and how come the western leaders know more about Islam than so many of the muslim scholars themselves? One of the reason obviously is that we have people in the west like the editors of wikipedia who are busy trying to censor and prevent people from finding information about Islam. -Nickbee

that wasn't hypocrisy, that was sarcasm. you have good questions, but the answers are hardly on faithfreedom.org. If anything justifies muslims in treating "the West" as the devil, it is "the West" treating them like the devil. Wikipedia is biased towards sanity. If you don't like that, well, there are plenty of insane fora on the internet, do go join those. Anybody is welcome to an informed discussion of the problems Islam has with fundamentalism, and this discussion is taking place on Wikipedia. It is just difficult to conduct, because it is shouted down by people with brilliant answers like "Islam is evil". dab (ᛏ) 06:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it not surprising that Wikipedia does not mind having a page on "Ali Sina" the ex-muslim behind FFI but the bureaucratic editors of wikipedia are unable to bring themselves to link to a good source that he provides? Becasue he is insane? Shouted down? Why? Interesting that it is people who know about Islam and probably are muslims, shias or sunnis who cannot seem to agree upon what should be on the page. And ofcourse a bunch of people who were born into Islam and have decided to leave it and claim that Islam is evil are insane!! But a westerner who is not a muslim knows better and feels entitled to judge and censor even a link to the x-muslims site where they provide links to a 74 sites supporting their views. But ofcourse they are insane!! And you feel entitiled to squash free flow of information to impose that judgement on wikipedia. And by your own admission, you did not know about FFI till it was brought up here, and you linked to it and decided in a few minutes that it is a hate site. People who overcame the fear of Allah and the penalty of death to renounce Islam do not know Islam. They may be wrong, but they do have the right to say that Islam is Evil. They would not have left Islam if they did not think that something was seriously wrong with it, now would they? But you reveal your bias when you state that the proposition "Islam is Evil" is enough to convict someone for insanity!! No wonder you do not grasp the concept of freedom of speech and free flow of information. The questions are being asked by people but wikipedia cannot provide good answers on Islam. Why? -Nickbee

This is not everything2 where we all have our own POV entries about an issue and people vote on it. This is community collaboration where we try to make a reference equal to the scholarly references in books, journals, etc. Unfettered freedom or speech in the way you seem to envision it is chaos and does not make for a good encyclopedia. An ex-Muslim does not necessarily make a better scholar on Islam than a secularist or Muslim. Anyone who has researched the sources knows about Islam and interestingly enough that is completely independent of what religion the person is. A typical Muslims might know more about ritual, but that does not mean they know more about theology. gren 11:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I realize that "faithfreedom.org" is linked from Ali Sina, where it belongs, in all its splendour. So why don't you just stop whining about censorship, Wikipedia is linking your precious site. dab (ᛏ) 11:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Only a self righteous who is unable to see beyond his tiny domain would consider my request a whine. The irony is not even lost on you is it? Ali Sina can have his page but his views on Islam (not Islamism, not Islamic terrorism) are being censored and suppressed by intellects that are having problems grasping the notion of freedom of speech. Again I have not asked nor am I asking for a change in the content of what the editors consider Islam or its theology, but what I am asking for is a link to a page that voices anti-Islam opinions and the best directory that I know happens to exist at FFI, Ali Sina's website. So the issue is no longer that Wikipedia will not link to Ali Sina but the editors of the Islam page will not link to Ali Sina's page. Interesting! And you still call that this is not censorship and imposition of your own biases? -Nickbee.

This is what the esteemed editor Zora says in defending Censorship by refusing a link to anti Islam sites: "An interesting sidelight. The suicide bomber technology was pioneered by the Tamil Tigers, who have fielded more bombers than all the Muslim groups put together." and provides the source for this statement as "The source is a BBC article I just read, an interview with a professional security analyst asked about the London bombings: [5]. Zora 11:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)". Now the BBC article states: "Indeed the Tamil tigers are statistically the most successful and ruthless practitioners of suicide bombing". I assume the editor does not understand what statistically means. It does not mean that Tamils pioneered suicide bombing and it does not mean that Tamils have fielded more bombers than all the Mulims groups put together!! Is this reflective of the integrity of the editors of the Islam page? Or does this tell us about the level of comprehension that results in snap judgements and attempts at suppressing others POV?

-Nickbee

OK, you don't like that reference, try this one, from a Frontline interview: [6]. Dr. Rojan Gunaratna, author of Inside Al-Qaeda, soon out, says that 2/3 of all known suicide bombings were committed by Tamil Tigers. Zora 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not a question of what I like or I do not like. You are an editor of the Islam page at Wikipedia. You made totally unsupported claims and then found some BBC article which did not support your claims. Now you find another article on frontline. I can argue about it, because Ron was even wrong in 2002 and he certainly is wrong today, but that is not the issue here .. is it? I am asking the editors to restore a link to a web page that contained 74 links to anti Islam sites, and that web page happened to be at FFI, Ali Sina's site. The editors first went into a superiority huff and have made the following claims to avoid acknowledging that their actions are arbitrary and an outrageous example of censorship: FFI is an insane site but FFI is linked to by other pages of Wikipedia. FFI demeans the credibility of Wikipedia, but FFI is linked to by other pages of Wikipedia. FFI is a hate site but Ali Sina has been mentioned by Wikipedia as a personality of the times and he is an ex-muslim who has very strong views on Islam; Why are you attempting to suppress those views because you do not like them? According to the editors here anyone who says "Islam is evil" is obviously insane ... but the ex-muslims became ex-muslims and that is what most of them tell the world why they left Islam; Why are the editors insisting on implying that most ex-muslims are insane? Why will not the editors of the Islam page at Wikipedia allow a link to directory containing a list of anit-Islam sites? Keep your contents of Islam page as you like, but why deny a link under external links to a page at FFI because you do not like to hear or contempalate what Ali Sina has to say. That is censorship practically be definition. Why do the editors insist on defending this arbitrary excersise of abuse of power delegated to them as editors of the islam page? -Nickbee

O_O! Hi, the views are being "censored" because they are in no way scholarly, they are in fact quite disreputable. Hmm, I'm running out of ways to answer editors like you. But, my first bit of advice that seems sound to me is "read a real paper encyclopedia". See how that treats Islam, and what it says about it. Hopefully that will tell you something about the use of FFI links. If that fails then... hmmm, well, let's try this. Try adding a KKK external link over at African Americans. I mean, hell, that's a far more notable critique of black Americaness than Ali Sina's stuff is of Islam. Ali Sina says apostasy is the way to solve the Muslim problem... and, deportation or... death? well, they solve the African American problem. O_O!!! Analogies are fun, but this is tedious. Goodbye gren 06:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

yes, I think all has been said now. Nickbee, freedom of speech means you are free to shout "Islam sucks" out of your window all day. You are here, however, courtesy of wikimedia, using their resources. This means you are bound to Wikipedia:policy. Not letting you edit here does not impinge on your freedom of speech any more than if you don't let me use your cellphone. Does the New York Times violate your freedom of speech because they won't print your columns on their front page? I thought so. As far as I'm concerned, this is the end of this discussion, and I support unprotecting the article. dab (ᛏ) 08:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely fascinating! You cannot come up with any real reason why to deny an external link. Courtesy of Wikimedia? I thought it was the courtesy of wikimedia that you are an editor of one of the pages. I am a "custormer". New York times does not pretend to be a Encyclopedia. I am familiar with paper encyclopedias ... are you? You or gren have not addressed the question that why do you insist on censoring information that is anti islam? No one is asking you to add any of Ali Sina's views in your article on Islam which you cannot even keep unlocked courtsey of dedicated Shias and Sunnis. But why do you not allow linking to a web page at his site that provides links to other sites that are anti Islam? Are you guys drowning in so much political correctness that you cannot see your own arrogance? -Nickbee

You are familiar with paper encyclopedias. Do you want wikipedia to have the same credibility as a paper encyclopedia? It's not a matter of political correct ness. Ali Sina has debated men like Edip Yuksel or Yamin Zakaria... their sites should not be linked either. They both represent the Islamic side but are not notable enough for the main article. gren 17:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

a customer! oh my, we'd better write what you like to read, otherwise you might take your money elsewhere! we are not censoring anything, we are editing, removing the junk. Hell, let's unprotect this, and you'll see how many people will revert your hate site, you'll hit 3RR before you know it. dab (ᛏ) 17:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not care about which muslim gets linked or which muslim says what. Please link to any or all pro-Islam sites you like. It is they who cannot decide what is or is not Islam. I am merely asking why links to anti-Islam sites are being suppressed by the editors here. Why? Do you own Wikipedia? Are you an editor of even a minor fraction of pages at Wikipedia? So I think the decision of what Wikipedia should or should not do is beyond your pay grade. As far as I can tell it is the dedicated muslims themselves who are changing the content of the page and that is what has resulted in locking up the page. Why blame the ex-muslims? My hate site? Why does it bother you that ex-muslims call Islam Evil? Many ex-christians call Christianity evil. Are you emotionally unable to even allow a link to a directory at an ex-muslim site? The pettiness and the intellectual bankruptcy of the stance you "guys" are taking is becoming obvious. Keep it up so even the most avid poltically correct groveller will be able to see where you stand. Muslims may not know what is Islam, and are unable to agree on Islam, but you self proclaimed westerners certainly do, and know for certainity in a five minute evaluation that ex-muslims are evil and hateful. Whatever.

protection

why is the article protected? I suppose that enough people are watching it to prevent inappropriate edits for surviving more than a couple of minutes? fwiiw, I do think some slight npoving is necessary. It is nobody's fault that the Islam-critical editors we get always seem to want extreme changes or insert cheap insults. Still, some informed criticism may be appropriate. E.g. the "Contemporary Islam" sections sounds a tad apologetic, beginning with "Although". We have established that there are indeed liberal Muslim organizations, but it is rather questionable whether they conterbalance Islamism in any way. So it would be better to have a brief section about Islamism, and then a brief section about liberal Islam, without attempting to excuse one with the other. dab (ᛏ) 5 July 2005 13:49 (UTC)

Agreed. "Look, we have liberals, too!" History of Islamism, and its intellectual roots as a response to colonialism, deserves a little more context than it now has, I think. Also, the map in that section is driving me nuts. Makes it looks like there are no Muslims in, for instance, France. No wonder people don't trust CIA intelligence. BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)

You can hardly blame the CIA for that. I suppose the map is supposed to show areas with Muslim majorities. Not much of France would qualify, maybe parts of Marseilles? We could redraw the map, inserting shades, e.g. "Muslim minority, 30-50%", "Muslim majority, 50-80%", and ">80% Muslim". Yes, some context on Islamism would be nice, too. It is very hard to separate religious and societal effects in cases like this. After all, the original expansion of Islam was essentially military. Can Islamic expansion be described as "medieval colonialism"? After all, Christianity in subsaharan Africa and South America arrived by colonialism, essentially similar to the Islamic conquest of North Africa, Central Asia and Anatolia. dab (ᛏ) 5 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)

Is juxtaposing Islamism and liberals good? I'm sure you've seen books about Islam and democracy.... wouldn't that be liberal Islamism? I think it's a bad idea to make assertions about the majority of Muslims in many cases because statistics on these things aren't always so great (or even existent) gren 7 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)

Actual Muslim Population

Even by taking data from General Sources, like CIA Fact Sheet, we can easily establish that fact that total Muslim Population in 2003 is 1.48 billion which is far greater than currently estimated 1.2 or 1.3 billion. Under general source section, we have taken all the datas from popular sources such as CIA Fact Sheet, HOLT,RINEHART & WINSTON etc.

We think that in some countries the total number of Muslims are more in percentage than shown in general sources, like in China and India. For all those few above cases Islamic Sources, news items and thought provoking articles came in great help. Our reasearch shows that the total Muslim Population is 1.70 billion in year 2003.

(http://www.islamicpopulation.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.187.63.91 (talk • contribs) sometime (UTC)

Interesting. Seems to be quite a mixture of sources, though. - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)

How does that compare to adherents.com? Tom Haws July 7, 2005 23:01 (UTC)

Their methodology is laughable, this is how they calculated the Chinese Muslim population as they explain on their web site:

"At present, according to official statistics there are 28 million Muslim in China but in 1936 it was estimated that the Muslim population was 48 million. By this time total population has increased 3-4 fold. So we can conclude that the total Muslim population has increased minimum by that same proportion. Therefore, now the total Muslim population is at least 150 million."

--Urchid 9 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

I would look with skepticism at any source that is seemingly set up just to elucidate the public about Muslim population. I do agree that it is an intersting look but I think we need to know more about their methodology and if anyone of note actually believes that methodology is sound. 217.187.63.91, want to comment more about why you posted this? gren 9 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

The English version is 'locked' and a lot of squabbling (and some well reasoned yet endless arguing). Please take a look at 'ISLAM' entries in other languages: Short and succinct, no 'lock' no squabbling. {peter}

especially note de:Bild:Islamische Länder.png, a much nicer map than our CIA one! And yes, the quibbling here is quite embarassing, I agree. dab (ᛏ) 18:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Other meanings of the word "Islam"

On 23 June 2005 I inserted this section:
Other meanings of the word
The word "Islam" is sometimes used as a man's name, for example Islam Karimov (president of Uzbekistan).
Do not confuse with the village of Isleham in England.

and 3 minutes later someone removed it, stating this reason: "Other meanings" section not needed. It's pretty obvious info that does not need to be inserted. There are people named christian too but that isn't mentioned in the christianity article. Thanks.
But important words sometimes do have differing secondary meanings, and Islam Karimov is notable politically.
And the page Christian DOES have a pointer to Christian (disambiguation), which lists assorted other meanings of the word "Christian". Anthony Appleyard 17:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't Islam mean "Faith" not submission? (someone wrote)

The Arabic root s-l-m makes words with many meanings centering on "be safe", "submit", "surrender", etc. Its basic verb salama means "he became safe", "he is safe". Formally, the word 'islām is the infinitive of derived stem IV (= 4) of the root s-l-m; it means "submission". Anthony Appleyard 05:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

it can also mean Peace, as the Qur'an itself uses the word to invite non Muslims into Islam saying=, "Enter into Peace" where it uses the same 3 root letters s-l-m for the word peace (al slm) --GNU4Eva 18:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, if necessary, we can have a page Islam (disambiguation). Today, "Islam" simply means Islam. By root etymology it can mean anything from 'faith' to 'sumbission' to 'feeling safe because God is your buddy', I suppose, there is no single correct translation. dab (ᛏ) 18:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Page protection

Does anyone have a view as to whether the page still needs to be protected? It's been locked for nearly two weeks, so it should probably be unlocked some time soon. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:23, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should still be protected. There are still editors around who seem to want it to read like a "faith freedom" diatribe which would only lead to revert wars. Since there is no discussion about any possible improvements to the article I think having it locked for the time being is more productive than arguing about bad edits more. gren 03:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

the page was reverted at least twice a day for months. one fanatic with no grasp of policy should not be allowed to hold it hostage. plus, I did make a suggestion, namely to replace the map, see above. dab (ᛏ) 08:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Can we unprotect yet? Maybe if the Islam-bashers give us a short break, we can indeed try to insert more material critical of Islam, as long as it is well-founded, and not hateful drivel. As soon as Islam-hyping editors try to insert their biased eulogies, I will immediately take the side of Islam critics. We are here for well-founded analysis, not for spin-doctoring (and no, FFI is not even 'spin doctoring', it's just cheap hate speech). As it is, the fundamentalists are preventing us from getting any serious work done on the article. I want to unprotect it and let them see how far they can get. Editing without consensus is pointless on WP, you are just reverted and hit the 3RR within minutes. Learn to cooperate and to 'write for the enemy', or sit back and watch. dab (ᛏ) 10:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

If I may, with respect, repeat a key concept:

"Editing without consensus is pointless on WP, you are just reverted and hit the 3RR within minutes."

Peace, and I hope we do unlock the page and all work together to improve it. BrandonYusufToropov 16:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, as a couple of people want it unlocked, and as we're not supposed to protect pages for too long, I've unlocked it, so happy editing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:52, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

world population numbers

I don't want to enter any of the heated discussions about religion, just the population numbers.

The section toward the end "The demographics of Islam today" has some numbers that struck me as odd. The last sentence in the first paragraph reads "According to "The Almanac Book of Facts", the overall population increased 137% within the past decade, Christianity increased 46%, while Islam increased 235%.".

What is 'the overall population'? And what is 'the last decade?' This of course depends on when 'now' is. Also, what is the Almanc Book of Facts?

The number that set off alarms in my head was 137%. Surely the world hasn't more than doubles in 10 years! The US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html) claims the world population in 1995 was about 5.694 billion, as opposed to 6.451 in 2005. That's an increase of (new-old)/old = 13.3%.

I'm not involved in demographics. But the phrasing of that paragraph, and the citing of a book I never heard of, caught my attention. Especially when online sources like Census are available, maybe one of them should be cited.

OK, now you can start flaming me!

yes, these numbers are obviously wrong. people here have been fighting over demographics for ages now. Population growth is in 3rd world countries, and I am not sure how prestigious it is for either world religion to claim a greater part of the starving masses. It is getting boring. Also, Farhansher, can you not just say according to whom Islam is fastest-growing, and leave it at that, since apparently the claim is disputed? Unless you do that, the article will never be stable. dab (ᛏ) 08:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

factoids

can we have a discussion of why green is the colour of Islam, and maybe also a few words about Muhammad's calendar reform (if I got this right, he set prayer times to not coincide with with astronomical events (sunset, sunrise), so that the impression would not arise that heavenly bodies were adored (as was common over much of Arabia in his days)). the main article Islamic calendar isn't even in the Islam template. The prohibition of intercalary months has some political significance, since it was a matter of political influence which clan got to decide when they were inserted. The role of the new sickle moon should be mentioned, and possibly how it found its way onto Turkish flags. dab (ᛏ) 12:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

thanks Zora; we can always link Symbols of Islam, and reduce the section to a sentence or two. dab (ᛏ) 06:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

ffi

seeing that ffi.org is a site of an alleged apostate, I suppose the link could be added to Apostasy in Islam, where at least it will be relevant (and there are only two links there so far, so pruning is not yet an issue). I still think it is a hateful website, but as a compromise I think it could be added there (or a see also to Ali Sina). Insisiting to put it here is Wikipedia:Main article fixation. dab (ᛏ) 20:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a POV on Islam held by Ex-muslims and Apostates. Where is that expressed or mentioned on this page? Cannot the ex-muslims get simply an external link to a list of links? Why not? Why attempt to suppress their views on Islam? Personally I do not agree with their views entirely, but I do strongly believe that they deserve a link to their list. -Nickbee

There is a POV on Islam that is held by unverifiable & no where to be found people who know nothing about Islam & who call themselves ex-mulims to give some credibility to their hate speech. Credibility , verifiability & authenticity are very important things . So why do they deserve a link ?

The views of Irshad Manji, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Dr. Yunus Sheik, Robert Spencer, SecularIslam.org, etc. etc. views on Islam at a minimum need a link. Any criticism of Islam is labeled a hate speech here apparently. Apostacy is punishable by death and people are still being put to death for apostacy in muslim countries. So it is not surprising that many of the apostates do not want to be publicising there ID's. But many have. These people do have a point of view and it does need to be heard by people. -Nickbee

Nickbee, Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq are simply not in the same league. Ibn Warraq doesn't engage in cheap hate speech and uses his books to present useful selections from academic viewpoints on Islam. His books are found in many of the reference lists in the Islamic articles. Of course, they are regularly purged by anon editors, presumably Muslim, who object to his presence, and just as often restored by me or another editor. You can't leap from "my favorite demagogue isn't featured" to "no criticism is allowed". Zora 21:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

How about Robert Spencer, SecularIslam, Dr. Yunus Sheik, and others? Why not link to a list of links provided by Robert Spencer? A list of links to the POV of Ex-muslims is a useful addition to this article. You don't like FFI,fine, why not make a list of links to Ex-muslims and Critical of Islam and give that list? -Nickbee

Ibn Warraq is an ex-Muslim. His first book was Why I Am Not A Muslim. He publishes under a pseudonym because he's afraid of assassination. Is that authentic enough for you? Sheesh. I don't agree with the guy on many things, but he's at least honest and thoughtful. Zora 07:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

PS -- We already have articles on Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji. Zora 07:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

by all means, do an article on Christian converts from Islam, and we can link it from the see also. My prediction is that Muslim converts from Christianity will immediately follow, but then the dispute will at least finally take some sort of productive form. dab (ᛏ) 07:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

it is obvious from your answers where your emphasis lies: who cares who converts to what or from what. Why not link to a list of links or provide a directory with a list of links to sites that has a list of sites that are in opposition to Islam. You just do not want to allow the POV of ex-muslims on the page of Islam. Why not add a section on the Islam page about what are the views of ex-muslims on Islam; ex-muslims like Ibn-Warraq, Salman Rushdie, Dr. Yunus Sheik, Irfan Khawaja etc.

I think this has been discussed again and again above. It's not about ex-Muslims... being an ex-Muslim does not mean you have anything more to offer than Zora, you, or I have to. Islam is not a cult where those who have come out of it have secret tales. I can read the material and go to a khutbah just like anyone else. An ex-Muslim point of view is nothing special. gren 17:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

gren, The ex-Muslim point of view on Islam is very special as far as Islam goes. It lays out the intent and the practice of Islam from a very special angle. They present the content of Islamic literature and history which is different than the views of christian, jews, hindus, buddhists, etc. who might choose to criticise Islam. As far as I understand they present the same facts as the muslims about Islam but they do emphasise it differently. It is obvious to me after watching some of the changes being added in and reverted on the contents of the page, that the sectarian view within Islam is very healthy and strong. There is no single "Islam" despite the pretense by some of the more established editors. There is the sunni, shia, Ahmeddiya, Ismaili, etc. etc. islam which emphasise different aspects of the scriptures and history. Ex-muslims present a different view of islam and its practices. Nickbee 18:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

revert warring

seeing that the ffi link added by anonymous IPs, probably by one person ("Nickbee"), and removed by several established editors, it is very clear where consensus lies. Further adding of the link is in violation of policy. The various IPs should be considered on editor, and should be blocked for 3RR. Nickbee, if you create an account, you will at least be heard as one voice. You'll still be outnumbered, but you could look for a compromise. This anonymous edit-warring must stop, however, and I will take it upon myself to block the IPs for 3RR. dab (ᛏ) 07:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Dab, Show me where I have violated the 3RR policy? Do you really think that all those IP's who are reverting for ffi belong to myself. Look at the times, and look at the IP's and their locations. You want to block the IP's go ahead. Anyone who disagrees with you obviously needs to be blocked.

That is understandable that you will not allow even a single link to ex-muslims. I have not violated the 3RR rule. I have inserted the ffi link couple of times a day and I will continue to do so till I am able to get a real vote on the issue as to why the POV of ex-muslims is being intentionally blocked. I do not know how Wickipedia is organised, but I will learn. There is a list of sites at ffi that does deserve to be listed. There is a list of books available online with links at ffi that someone posted yesterday and even that was deleted. If the translations of the original books on Islam cannot be tolerated by the established editors then there is a problem with the editors and the wikipedia as a organisation will have to deal with it. Do not blame me for all of the revisions. It is not surprising at all that you are resorting to threats without any basis. -Nickbee

Nickbee, firstly, it would be helpful if you signed your talk posts using "~~~~" which will paste your username and a timestamp. Also, as he said, there is something to being an established editors. If you stay here long enough you will realize that many people come crusading about certain issues and editors have to come and work communally and build a reputation for doing that. It is important to learn how concensus works at wikipedia and that was what dab was talking about. I think about the anonymous IPs his problem is that they are usually first time (or close to it) editors just trying to re-add that link. It is hard to see what anonymous editors have to do with this and why they would just randomly stop by and cause a revery war. Either way it is not something very helpful. gren 17:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

gren, I am a newbie as far as wikipedia goes. I do not know how the various stuff works and what information is available and what the various rules are, but I am slowly learning. Thank you for telling me about the 4 tilda's. I will try it. A couple of the anon ip's are mine. It is because I do not remember to log in when I get to this site. Is there a way to automatically log in? But not all the IP's are mine. I counted about 9 IP's supporting the inclusion of the links critical of Islam. I urge those people to acquire an id. I am not very facile with computers. I am not attempting to cause any trouble, but I do strongly beleive that the Ex-muslims do have something valid to say about islam. I do not agree with everything they say. They have specific things to say about Islam and I wish some of them would contribute to the page under the section of Islam as seen by Ex-muslims. But that view does need at a minimum a link. You guys don't like ffi and condemn it as a hate site, but then how do I go about creating a directory at wikipedia where links to secualarislam.org, Robert spencer's site, Irfan Khawaja's site, irshad manji's site and all the other 74 links at ffi or the various links found at Robert spencer's site can be entered and then a link provided to that directory. If I am to be banned, I will be banned, but I was raised to have complete faith in free speech and the right of people with opposing views to be heard. Nickbee 18:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

most newbies try to get the feel of the place before they start full-scale edit wars and ranting at people. I hope you will become a good faith editor, a critical viewpoint is much needed, but you need to learn a lot about how WP operates first. please take your time. Take an interest in builiding an encyclopedia, and what that means, not just in a single link you want to see added. You have time, and once you get the feel of how to argue, and what you can acheive, you are very welcome to watch these articles and add your critical viewpoint. Just edit warring will not do, though. dab (ᛏ) 19:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Where is Wiki's Famous NPOV with regards to Islam

Why do the editors of this page refuse to recognize that Muslim's who have left Islam have a very specific and particular view on Islam? Why is that view being totally and completely ignored here? Is the "hate" being expressed by the ex-muslims for Islam any stronger or different than the hate that the two sides of the abortion debate (the example given in the FAQ by wiki foundation to explain NPOV)? Many ex-muslims do express their rejection of Islam in very strong language but others do not? Zora has given an example of ibn Warraq as a scholarly ex-muslim. Even his take on Islam and questioning of Islam do not find a single line in this article. I have spent time over the last couple of days at Ali Sina's site. A lot of people here find it a hate site! it is a site that does not make any bones about that it considers Islam as Evil and holds the terrorism at present around the globe as a consequence of the teachings of Islam. If you consider those thesis as apriori evil, then FFI is a hate site for you. It is a site that has very very strong views on Islam and that is not hesitant to express it. Often it does not couch its criticism in a language that makes its message any easier to swallow. The point is not whether Ali Sina's site should be given a link or not. The point is that you cannot pretend that the view on Islam is complete in the present day world without considering the Ex-muslim's view on Islam. You can ignore it as you are choosing to do so, but that makes your encyclopedia incomplete and biased. Why is there a confusion between the "Evil ideology" that Tony Blair's government wants to fight and Islam? You want to hide that under Islamicism, and other side topics and pretend that islam has nothing to do with the those who are claiming that they are motivated by Islam and that they are the only true muslims. You pretend that there is no civil war going on within islam and there a people who are battling and killing around the world to win the hearts and minds of the muslims. Look at Zora's comments about the anon Salafi who edited the article yesterday! Why not acknowledge that the islam of the Salafi's is different from the islam of the Sunni's which is different from the islam of the Shia's? Why not allow these different views to be expressed on the islam page? Instead of trying to force a single view of Islam, why not take the NPOV guidelines into consideration and allow a disscussion of the different views of Islam? Nickbee 18:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

What... see Salafi, Shia, Sunni... that might help... ex-Muslims don't have a great insight. As I've said above, Islam is not a cult hidden from view that when someone gives up Islam they have special information about Islam. They have no special knowledge. gren 18:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes gren, look at how you treat shia Islam, sunni Islam, salafi islam, etc. You give a main page to Islam as if there is a "Islam" and then you branch off with links to these other pages. The history of Islam as discussed on the page is woefully inadequate. If there was a central acceptable version of Islam why do different sects keep wanting to change what wiki has decided is islam? You keep saying that Ex-muslims do not have special information about islam. But they do have a different interpretation just as the other sects of Islam do. This is all about interpretation is it not? Are you suggesting that all the writings of ibn Warraq do not provide any insight into what is Islam? Nickbee 18:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

The history of Islam on this page is not supposed to be definitive. There is a page, History of Islam where more Detail can be found and edited in.--Irishpunktom\^talk 19:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Islam is a title that encompasses all of them. You are human, I am human, we are not the same, but there is still the concept of human. Same idea. I mean, everyone who has heard of Islam has an interpretation. I am not Muslim, I still have an interpretation. Yet, that is not going to be added to this page. Religion is defined by religious members, not by outsiders, the outside opinion is done by scholars, etc. gren 19:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Well there is a link to Dmoz , it gives links to the so called ex-muslim sites . Other than that , this article is about Islam , not views on Islam , right ??

People who are ex-muslims clearly say what they are . They dont twist the meanings of verses , they dont hide behind their pathetic "they will kill me" excuses . If they/he/U are so knowledgeable on Islam , ask any scholar to enter in a debate with U . That isnt hapenning anywhere on these hate sites . Rather they block users who start showing showing them their real face , & ridicule teenagers with their infinite bigotery & hypocracy . AS I said b4 , U have to prove they actually are ex-muslims . Any body can make a hate site & claim they were muslims & wont reveil their identity b/c somebody will kill them . I can say Christians & jews are S*Bs & I know it because I was once one of them( like what sina says ), but that doesnt make me important enough to be added to encyclopedia . It doesent even make me important enough to be talked about . Their are christian/jew/hindu views too about Islam , and well...these people are atleast verifiable . There are Islamic views about christianity/judaism/hinduism too . We dont add these anywhere .

About Blair..

HE says he is a christian

He doesnt say he is an ex-muslim

He doesnt hide behind excuses

People know him , he is reachable, talkable, debateable person

He doesnt say he knows Islam better than muslims

He doesnt say all muslims are dogs

He doesnt say muhammad was a pedophile

If he says so , He is accountable to others ( people, courts )

He particularly says about extremism/terrorism & not about all muslims

He doesnt say all muslim scientists/sufis/philosophers were apostates.

Well list can go on & on ........

Another thing , only for brainy guys . Suppose I leave Islam , due to some theoreatical conflicts , why the hell would I call my self a kaffir . That word doesnt even represent my self image . I would use some nice words do describe myself . If I use these kaffir words for me , it only implies that I still see myself as what muslims think of me . But that would/should only happen if I still see myself associated with Islam . So , if I leave Islam , Iwont call myself a kaffir . I will only use this word for me to gather hate for Islam . OK may be its too much ....

Anyways , is this a mere coincidence that there are two well known trolls associated with FF , namely Imanuel & a kaffir , backing such a nice person like U . And using the same filthy language that they use on FF . And is this again a coincidence that U come here ( like a lot of others ) , only to add link to your precious site , and copy/paste material from it . Farhansher 19:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

But they do have a different interpretation just as the other sects of Islam do. This is all about interpretation is it not? Are you suggesting that all the writings of ibn Warraq do not provide any insight into what is Islam?

Some important concepts to be understood here

1 . How do you define sect ? How does somebody lying on the outside becomes a sect ? Why should the views of any XYZ person be discussed ? Dont they have any lerned scholars ?

2 . Do I study books by anonymous doctors ( who say I left medicine ) in medicine course , or anonymous engineers im my B.S ? Farhansher 19:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Show one post that has been blocked at FFI. Show one person who has been silenced at FFI. Go to FFI and say whatever you like and see if you ever get banned or your post is deleted. Killing apostates is what muslims do everyday in the Islamic world. I am an apostate. I know. A Kaffir 21:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)A Kaffir

All the pro-Islam websites are linked through the DMOZ directory. All the anti-Islam websites are linked though the DMOZ directory. There is no discrimination against your favorite site. You are demanding special treatment and not getting it. Zora 21:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest to add similar links in other religions articles. Ericd 22:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I've added similar links to Christianity. Ericd 22:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

gren, I thought Ibn Warraq was an outside Scholar!

Zora, Look you do not like FFI, do not allow it, but there are a lot of links and books at their site that should be provided to people who want to know more about Islam. Tell me a way how the links that are on those pages can be provided to the readers here. What is so special about the link to a german site that gets prominance here? Zora you list being at Berkeley. Is this what you learnt at a University famous for Free Speech about free speech? I wish your class mates from Berkeley could see you now.

Farhansher: there is a page on AliSina on Wikipedia. So he is somewhat famous already. Ibn Warraq is an ex-muslim and is considered a scholar and has expressed fairly strong views on Islam and he is still anonymous because he does fear for his life and he has been threatened inneumerable times. Irfan Khawaja was anonymous till very recently and he has published and written on Islam extensively. Being anonymous as an apostate of Islam is not something that discredits a person automatically. Many of the apostates do have families back in Islamic countries where they would be at risk if their apostacy becomes public. I am not trying to defend Ali Sina here, but I have seen testimonials from ex-muslims on his site thanking him and praising him. He does have an audience. As far as I can tell, A. Kaffir is correct, that they do make a big deal about never censoring and/or banning anyone over there. There is a lot of material posted at that site from muslims themselves apparently. Whether you like it or not, the actions of muslims themselves have brought islam to the attention of the general people in the West. UK is suddenly considering making a control list of muslims not allowed in UK similar to the one that exits in USA. One does not have to agree with a word that is said by Ali Sina or his site, but he has a right as far as I can tell in Canada and in the US to say what he does. I am not sure whether European laws would allow him to write the way he does. Europeans apparently are not as strong sticklers for free speech as we across the Atlantic. I am no psychiatrist but an apostate perhaps never really leaves his childhood faith truly and perhaps that explains the nick A. Kaffir? I though Kaffir was not a hate term but an accurate description of one who is not a christian, a jew, a zorastrian, and also not a muslim. I thought there was Sura in the Quran titled Kaffirs.

I still think and believe that some mention of the views on Islam by any of the more well known ex-muslims and links to material by them ought to be part of this page. By insisting on excluding them completely, you are not being neutral about the topic at all, but definately being a partisan. Nickbee 02:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

NPOV on Islam!! LOL! Second bombing in London and Jihad under Islam at Wickipedia: "Striving to seek God's approval (Jihad)" Gimme a break! Jamiat-ul-Islamia could not have a better propoganda page than Wiki's page on Islam. And Gren will tell you that Ex-muslims know nothing about Islam. What a farce! Thankyou for Islamofascism, Nickbee. Couple more bombings and a few hundred dead in Europe and then .... Exmuslim 16:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Ex-muslim

Cleaned up the languate surrounding that link (needed to be clearer what it was) but it's NOT a "hate site" as certain POV warriors seem to think. If you disagree, please discuss it in talk before reverting.Existentializer 16:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Zora from Berkeley should love this one. Iraqi women are protesting the new constitution because of the non-existent rights for women under Islamic law Shareeya, and Wiki page on Islam has only one mention of Women: "Muhammad gave rights to women ...." LOL!! This is the NPOV of Wiki? And Ex-muslims do not know anything about Islam, Gren? And Zora the buddhist is busy enforcing suppression of Women under Islam. Is that a new Zen Koan? Exmuslim 17:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Ex-muslim

Todays Asia Times states:Fighting the uncivil fight. European Union officials, not to mention Europe-wide public opinion, are starting to confront a very serious question: how to fight jihad inside the EU without infringing on civil liberties, thereby playing into the jihadis' hands. -"This message is the final warning to European states. We want to give you a one-month deadline to bring your soldiers out from the land of Mesopotamia." - Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, July 16 What fighting Jihad? You mean someone wants to fight "Striving to seek God's approval?" LoL! Wiki's NPOV? No, No, hide the if and buts in sublinks and sub pages. On the front keep the "Striving to seek God's approval" and "rights of Women". Italy after August 16? Or will it be Denmark striving to seek God's approval in 3 weeks time?Exmuslim 17:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Ex-muslim

Todays Christian Science Monitor: "Some of the people tell you Islam is a religion of peace because they think that then you'll want to convert," says Dublin-born convert Khalid Kelly, who soaks up Abu Osama's sidewalk sermon. "But you cannot possibly say Islam is a religion of peace; jihad is not an internal struggle." "How dare anyone come on television and say suicide bombings are not part of our belief?" And a lot more on how Brits are going to get killed by other brits, and Gren and coterie tell us that Ex-muslims know nothing about Islam. How are the people ever going to understand Islam and what it is doing? That does not concern the dhimmis and Islamofascists at Wikipedia. Hate? Europe has not seen hate yet, but it is beginning to. Ask the Indians, they will tell you about hate. Ask the arab christians, they will tell you about hate. NPOV at wiki on Islam? LOL! Exmuslim 18:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Ex-muslim

This from this weeks Time Magazine, Irshad Manji, an Ex-muslim speaking: "The student shifted uncomfortably. She just couldn't bring herself to examine

my suggestion seriously. And I suppose I couldn't expect her to. Not when Muslim leaders themselves won't go there. Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general for

the Muslim Council of Britain, is an example. In the midst of a debate with me, he listed potential incentives to bomb, including "alienation" and "segregation." But Islam? God forbid that the possibility even be entertained.

That is the dangerous denial from which mainstream Muslims need to emerge. While our spokesmen assure us that Islam is an innocent bystander in today's terrorism, those who commit terrorist acts often tell us otherwise."

NO NO NO, what would an Ex-muslim know about Islam that Wiki on Islam does not already explain! Link to an Ex-muslim POV ..... Hate hate hate Site, But the 600 suicide bombers of Iraq, the dead in England, the killing in India .... that is not hate. NO not hate at all ... that is "alienation" that is "segregation" that is "marginalization"!! Islam ... Oh that is ever so a peaceful religion. LOL! NPOV of wiki? Ex-muslims have no POV on Islam says the Edddditors. Exmuslim 19:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Ex-Muslim

Wiki policy states talk out the differences under "Talk". But no one chose to respond to obvious NON-NPOV stance of Mirv, Zora, Grenavitor, Yusuf, and Faransher (have not seen dab lately) who insist on imposing their POV as the only one that exists. "One in four Muslims sympathises with motives of terrorists By Anthony King (Filed: 23/07/2005)" from telegraph.co.uk. How misleading can be "Islam does not say anything. People say things about Islam" : Grenavitor. Taqqiya all the way, but the body bags are starting to tell people that islam does say things that you all are busy suppressing here. But not for long. Read Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun in Australia: "It's time we accepted the difficult truth: many of the Muslims we invite to live in Australia want to destroy us. FOR four years, since the September 11 attacks, I've begged our Islamic leaders to drive extremists from their mosques. For four years I've also reassured you that most Muslims here are moderate...." Read it all. Islam does say things, Gren. What it says is just not very pretty. Exmuslim 18:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Ex-Muslim

Civility

Respectfully disagree. BrandonYusufToropov 16:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC) And I respectfully tell you that you are utterly wrong Yusuf. Exmuslim 16:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Ex-muslim

Anon's edits on Islam and other religions

An anon added a passage to the section on Islam and other religions by saying, in effect, "yes, but sura 9 was revealed after non-Muslims had been picking on the Muslims". The section is just a pointer to the main article, and not the place to go into apologetics -- and I also think that many traditionalist Muslims wouldn't agree that parts of the Qur'an should be ignored because "that was then and this is now". Just adding that one sentence is lame apologetics. Perhaps the anon could go to the main article on Islam and other religions and make sure that his/her point is expressed there. Zora 07:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Anon is vandalizing user talk postings here

[[7]]

Looks like a different anon. BrandonYusufToropov 15:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It's seems to be isolated, maybe dab forgot to sign in. Hopefully it won't happen again. gren 20:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I think a "criticism of Islam" article or section is required

In fact, I think any and every article about a controversial subject should have such a section or companion article. Islam certainly qualifies.

I think the "house of war" and the Islamic distinction between civilians and combatants, if any, as well as myriad other subjects, are worth presenting here.

side note: there are many logical absurdities proffered on this page, but one above stuck out for me, the idea that an editor is "proven" biased because he's interested in criticizing one historical figure (in this case a Muslim one), but not interested in criticizing others (in this case, non-Muslim ones).

That's blog-logic, not real logic. It's a common error that seems only to be trotted out against a certain subset of ideas. There are many books that criticize Christianity and its history, in fact it's a cottage industry. No one ever accuses the authors of bias just because they don't devote equal time to the criticism of Jews and Muslims.

It is not critique in general -- it is the type. Bias is not within the realm of logic so I fail to grasp your point. There are different kinds of criticism -- Ali Sina type, Ibn Warraq type, and Fazlur Rahman type. Two of those deserve to be represented, one does not. It is also interesting to point out that Ali Sina would be criticism over the existence of Islam, whereas the other two do not blanket the issue and call Muslims inhuman -- ecause that would be 'bbs-flamewar-logic' ~_~ gren 19:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Editors are not interested or "Burnt out", I cannot say which, but they have not bothered replying to Ex-Muslims objections on ignoring Wiki's NPOV. Unwilling to consider any objective view on Islam, considering the "Western" view on Islam as anathema, their righteousness declares the voice of Ex-muslims as "hate"; which neatly fits into the muslim law of silencing the Apostates one way or the other. The all knowing Wiki's editors are enforcing the silencing of Ex-muslims and their views. Terrorism is associated with Islam at present, and there is not a mention of that on this page of Islam. Ali Sina's voice is to be suppressed by Muslims like Grenavitar at any cost. If Ali Sina is correct on Islam then suppressing his voice is a crime. If Ali Sina is a paranoid then who cares. One in 4 muslims in the West hates the West, is that a lie as well? A Kaffir 19:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)AKaffir.

Ex-Muslims are not a cohesive viewpoint -- some just don't believe the claims of Islam while some actively dislike Islam. This debate has not been about ex-Muslims in general it has been about Ali Sina and his links. Terrorism is associated with Islam at present and before that it was probably more related to Irish Catholics. However high profile these things may be it does not define the religion. Ali Sina, Edip Yuksel and similar voices are being suppressed because they are not a notable scholarly view of Islam. It's that simple. It does not help your cause to call other people Muslims who are not. As for 1/4 of Muslims in the west hating the west you'd have to provide a good source for that ~_~ gren 01:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree but the mullahs and their cohorts are not known for tolerating criticism. So do not hold out any hope.

Ask Sina to enter in a debate with any well known scholar of Islam . There are scholars from Jamia-al-azhar who specialise in Shafi/Malki madhabs , & Darululoom Deoband who specialise in Hanafi madhab . Winning that debate will make him a legitimate person to be dicsussed . But before that , he/you is just somebody running some hate site on the net . If you thing Islam is bad , you should also give an alternative , when same question was asked be him/his followers , he said "A film critic doesnt have to make good films" . Well what can I say about that .

Those self proclaimed ex-muslims werent answered b/c there was noting to answer there . Before you there was an arab ex-muslim here who couldnt speak a word of Arabic . I have talked to some of those so called apostates who dont even know about Islamic conceept of Monotheism . And whats even funnier , they always mix christian concepts with Islam . Many of them have got a mental capacity of only copying half verses ( Like kill all infidels ) that are quoted by Sina . And Sina doesnt even know what is the difference between a Sufi & an apostate . Clearly shows what they are . Farhansher 05:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I also think a "criticism of islam" article or section is required in the Islam section of Wikipedia, for the simple reason that the religion is by a large part based on the criticisms of the "unbelievers" of 7th century that were allegedly levelled against it.....the Quran and ahadith are proliferated with commandments, directions, guidances and appeals to specifically deal with the criticisms and the critics of Mohammed and his islam these criticisms existed during the time of the "revelations" being delivered and much of Quran specifically is Allah's reaction to thses criticisms.

It still needs to be addressed and allowed to continue........people who would seek to know more about Mohammed and Islam are entiteled to have access to the very type of criticisms that may arise, due to the fact that the 7th century critics no longer exist and their story can not be fully explored, it makes good sense to allow these criticisms to re-emerge for seekers of information about Islam to compare the issues that existed in yester-year and in today's world. Islam's Quran is not a closed book, nor is the issue of criticism that it appears is a larger part of it's very reason for existing a closed matter. Mohammed may have deemed the matter closed/locked-thread with his "revelations" and "final word of god", not so those who would seek to continue their "revelations" of opinion and criticism, some on hehalf of their ancestors who may well have been targets of quran's punishing guidances. As we have muslim editors here at Wikipeadia who might seek to silence the critics of Mohammed and his Islam, in affect a form of emulating 7th century doctrine and practise, so too we have people here who take the other view as was the case in 7trh century Arabia. Question is, what are the muslims here so afraid of in being so apparently obstinently persistent in seeking to silence the critics? (unsigned by 211.27.142.217)

People, please sign your talk-page posts!

Ok, for those who don't remember or wasn't around: There was an article on this. It was created back in 2002 but was deleted quite recently, on June 18, 2005. See (but don't edit) the debate on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Criticism of Islam. The content of the article the last months was just an intro reading:

Criticism of Islam has been becoming more visible in world media, particularly in America recently and especially in the period after the September 11 terrorist attacks and the larger involvement of American and European countries in conflicts involving Muslims around the world.

That was all the content after almost 3 years of revert-wars and bickering on the talk-page. And then there was a long list of external links to various web sites. I was the one nominating it for deletion on June 5, for which I not only was flamed for being a Islamist (I'm not a muslim, trust me...) but also accused of having invited my islamists friends to vote (I don't even know any muslims). Anyway, I still stand by my nomination. But after seing some other and actually quite good "criticism" articles on other topics, I'm not completely against it myself if it can be made NPOV and encyclopedic. But at the very least come up with some lasting agreable "criticism" content in this, the Islam article, first before thinking about spawning it out to it's own "criticism" article again. If people really feel like going for it I sugest using this talk-page to come up with and agree on content (content, not just links) to avoid further revert-wars. Shanes 08:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

External links wrangle

. . .has lead to protection of the article. Discussion here doesn't seem to be moving towards any kind of consensus and has gone far off the track. I've put up a summary of past arguments and a recap of the two views on the faithfreedom links on Talk:Islam/External links; if we concentrate on the discussion there, maybe we can reach some kind of consensus. If not, then perhaps it's time to hold a poll. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)