I have no idea, i just know that Imamat (leadership) and nobuwat (prophethood) is not on the list, and thats sunni pov.
--Striver22:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
What bothers me more is that Sociopolitical Aspects includes both Political Islam and Jihad. Both phrases portray a conservative view of Islam. I think adding a link to Progressive Islam will improve NPOV.
--Zeeshanhasan14:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
How about creating a new section on this talk page and bringing up this issue? So do not add a link yet. Wait until people have seen the discussion. :)--a.n.o.n.y.mt15:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I had already made the change last night, but saw your comment this morning and thought it was a good idea. So I've removed the link I added, and I'm creating a new section. --Zeeshanhasan03:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Women
Shouldent Khadija, Fatimah and Aisha be among "Major figures"?
I think there should only be Allah , Muhammad , Companians . B/c companians includes everyone , Omar , Abu Bakar , Ali , Fatima , Hussain .If we pointout people by name , it'll be a long list . Farhansher12:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, Muhammad is the only existent figure so I think it's fine not to have women (although we might add wives too). Names will just add POV because if we add Bakr we need to add Ali and if we add Uthman we'd need Hussain or something... so... maybe add the wives for women or people of the house? (I think that's reasonable since they had a fairly large effect on Muhammad) grenグレン17:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Muhammad had so many "wives" that there is a seperate template for them. They clearly cannot fit into this template. --Zeno of Elea20:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Yah, which is why you link to the wives page. Not to each wife. not individually... like, we didn't list Bakr, we listed Sahaba so we don't list Khadija, we list Wives or use a better term if there is one People of the House? I forget. grenグレン21:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Islamism
Why is Islamism in it? Political movements do not go in religious templates. Are we going to start putting the Judaism template on Zionism?Heraclius15:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, the first reason is that politics and religion are historically more closely linked in Islam than in any other major world religion. Second, the political manifestation of Islam has increasingly come under the spotlight in the last four years. I think it would do a disservice to this encyclopedia's readers to omit a topic which is widely discussed currently. Third, Islamism is an Islamic religious belief (from the Islamism page: ...religious views of Muslim fundamentalism which hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state). It is held by conservative fundamentalists, but it is an Islamic belief nonetheless. As Islamism is an issue of current salience and significance, especially to people who might be researching Islam on this encyclopedia, I think it merits inclusion squirreled away down there at the bottom next to Jihad. (Also, Template:Jew does feature a link to Zionism under the heading of Jewish political movements). —thames15:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I guess what I meant was that when I went to the Zionism page there was no Jewish Template, just an Israeli template.Heraclius15:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Karl's idea is a good compromise. Should we add [[Islam as a political movement|Political Islam]] to the template? —thames16:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think Judaism having a Kingdom is pretty political... However, you do often hear the Muslim catch phrase from Dawa books of "Islam is more than a religion, it's a way of life" and while... I think it's self-aggrandizing to say that (Catholicism is a way of life if you practice it like they want you to ~_~) it is something commonly said. Off the top of my head I'd say that Islamism is better because I'd think it would deal more with theology of Islamic political theory (Qutb style of whatnot)... but, I haven't read either in a while... (see below) grenグレン17:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
And why is that? the Islam as a political movement seems to be the better article of those two, and it clearly offer the reader much more historical information and background of this side of the Islamic religion. Not just information about contemporary political islamist movements. -- Karl Meier16:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
The political Islam article is very convoluted and has sections that are both very anti-Muslim and very pro-Muslim. Islamism is a much better article.Heraclius16:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Then start working the PoV problems, that you claim is there. In my opinion we should link to the article that offer the broadest range of information regarding this issue, not one that only offer limited information about contemporary Islamist movements. -- Karl Meier16:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
After reading the premises of both articles I think that Islam as a political movement is better. Islamism explicitly states that it is about fundamentalism (which seems to be used in a rather pejorative sense)... There are non "fundamentalist" political movements in Islam or at least the potential for such. In Egypt in the early 1900s they reformers talked about how Islam could exist with Democracy... one of the guys went to France and enjoyed their liberalism and found it compatible with Islam. That article has the potential to be more balanced than Islamism and of course links to Islamism... that's what I think. grenグレン17:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
A symbol on the template
It know it has been discussed a lot, and it has obviously been very hard to find a compromise that no one would object to, but here is another one: How about a Mosque? Maybe something like what OneGuy suggested half a year ago: [1]? So far I haven't seen anyone making any objections to that suggestion yet? -- Karl Meier20:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Zora, you removed the crescent moon symbol yourself and commented your edit by saying (I quote) "the crescent moon is a symbol of the Ottoman empire." Yet here you say that this cresent moon symbol is "nice" that you would "be happy with that." Your statements are contradictory and it brings the basis of your reverts into question. Can you explain why one crescent moon DOES supposedly symbolize the Ottoman empire while another does not? --Zeno of Elea10:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Um, because it's a compromise and because it doesn't look as stark and aggressive. My textile artist's eye likes it better. Zora10:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh please, it's not a compromise. It's a combination of the crescent moon symbol with some aggressive Arabic script about Muhammad being the last messenger of Allah, who exists as is the only God. The cresent moon symbol is still there. The added scripture is not a compromise for people who are actually opposed to the moon symbol. I dont see why you think the nice moon symbol it's stark and aggressive. There's also a white version of the moon symbol - maybe that would be better? --Zeno of Elea12:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure it's copyright status, and it's obviously unacceptable anyway, because it also has the shahada on it.. For some strange reason I missed that, the first time I looked at it. I've been searching to find a more neutral mosque symbol, that is public domain, but it's actually much harder than to find, than I thought it would be. -- Karl Meier06:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the picture of the star directly over the crescent is the best. But the Shahada can't be seen when the image is shrunk. How about I just fill it in with solid black and make the back transparent. Then there won't be a copyright issue. Cunado1908:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
But then ... there are Muslims who object to the star and crescent, I believe -- though I like the layout, it's balanced, and it doesn't look so cartoonish. Black would be too dark. Dark green would be better. Um, how about this image (Allah in Arabic, rotated and mirrored) from [3]? I reworked it a bit, praps that would make it PD:
Although that looks really cool (I can read Arabic), I think it's not a recognizable symbol of Islam, which the crescent is. I'll remake two of the above images and see what people think. gimme a few days. Cunado1910:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I've made a rough colored-in version of the shahada star and crecent. A cleaner version can be made, and the outlines around the green can either be made black or block green if people want. If I cleaned up the image, would people want it, or should I not bother? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC)13:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Why is the template GREEN? The only explanation so far is that Muhammad allegedly wore a green cloak (but no source). That's quite ridiculous. Why should the template be the color of Muhammad's cloak? Why not make it the color of his pants? Or his shirt? We know for a fact that Muhammad was a merchant and thus probably had a number of cloaks of different color, we also know that near the end of his life Muhammad amassed a great amount of wealth and that included a large wardrobe of fine cloathes (see Maria al-Qibtiyya). So this "green cloak" thing is a rather weak explanation. We also know that Muhammad actually used a black flag (thats right a solid black flag). WE obviously can't make the template black. But why GREEN? The first recorded official use of the color green by a Muslim state was with Fatimid empire which used a green colored flag. Is the template green because some empire (or perhaps some country, such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia) used or uses green in its flag? This seems like a pretty weak reason too, especially in the face of the fact that certain users have expressed a great deal of opposition to the cresent moon symbol on the basis of the fact that it is "a symbol of the Ottoman empire." So I ask again, WHY GREEN? --Zeno of Elea10:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
: Well, this is one symbol that's widely understood and doesn't seem to be controversial at all. Yes, there are various justifications, but it's all totally arbitrary, really. Why do Theravadin Buddhist monks wear orange? Why do Zen monks wear grey or black? Why is there a complex color symbolism in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox liturgies? I don't understand why you're so upset. Zora10:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not upset about the lime green color of the template. My contention is that the green color symbolism is as much symbolic of a specific empire or dynasty as the crescent moon symbol is symbolic of the Ottoman dynasty. If green is so Islamic, for arbitrary reasons, then I don't see what reason there could be for the anti crescent moon sentiment. --Zeno of Elea12:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I like green, i associate with Islam. I also associate the crescent moon with Islam, in both case not so for any hard evidential resones, but rather cultural. However i oppose the cultural crescent moon just out of spite of the "moon cult" non-sense that is pushed in resent internet era. Its not a integral part of Islam and i have no problem dissmising it if circumstances says so. Anyhow, i like green. I associate it with Islam. And i see no reason to not vote for that color. --Striver14:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
For one thing, there needs to be a color. Your changing it a while ago to purple was silly (as I have mentioned) because that is at least Catholic symbolism and maybe so for other Christians. I was under the impression that that is why the Jesus article used purple since unlike the albumbox project which has specific colors for the type of album, religious templates had no standard color. I don't understand why do you want the space wasting crescent and not the simple color? grenグレン19:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh goody. Another vote! :-p TomerTALK 17:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
I like green and the moon symbol also, and also associate them with Islam. You guys have admitted yourself that the only reason you oppose the moon symbol is just out of spite for the "Allah is a moon god" JOKE that has been circulating the Internet. This is hardly a reason for suppressing legitimate encylopediac content, such as the crescent moon symbol. Don't worry about the moon symbol "wasting space" - Wikipedia isn't about to run out of "space" anytime soon. --Zeno of Elea05:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Zeno, I believe you know how I meant space. You know, page height and the like. ~_~. In any case when a page's formatting is going out of whack for me and I run my monotir at 1280x1024 then for most people who use lower resolutions it will be even worse. That is space. I also see no reason to pick a symbol that is going to cause controversy it seems rather imprudent of you. grenグレン13:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Out of spite? Possibly. Whether or not people listen to you depends a great deal on how you approach them. When my Zen teacher suggests something, I listen. I don't obey without question, but I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in cases when I'm unsure. When someone who seems to delight in upsetting other people and causing conflict makes a suggestion, I'm much less likely to give him the benefit of the doubt. I know we're supposed to consider an idea on its merits and not on the basis of who has suggested it, but ... track records count. Particularily when the idea is being pushed, seemingly, in the HOPE of upsetting people.
The template does look a little bare with just ISLAM on top, so a symbol of some sort would be nice. I'm hoping that we can find something that's acceptable to everyone. As I understand it, not only are the crescent and star Ottoman symbols, not only do they give rise to rumors of moon worship, there are also Muslims who feel that they are too figurative, and smell of idolatry. Why NOT pick a different symbol? The shahada crescent-and-star at least dissolves them into abstract shapes and changes the orientation. The mosque thingie would be nice too, if it were PD. I googled and found a lot of nice arabesques, some of them based on just the word Allah. But we'd have to be sure that the symbol was PD. Zora07:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I await the movie production of "Muhammad's Cloaks of Many Colors". :-p TomerTALK 10:46, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
On the green color. Green was the color of Muhammad's turban I believe, and a green turban in the Muslim world is only worn by His descendants. I think there are more reasons why green represents Islam, but it is recognized by everyone but a few people on this talk page as symbolic of Islam. So if we need a color then it should obviously be green. Although right now it's a kind of puke colored green that should be changed. Cunado1913:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the color wasn't a nice shade of green by any means. I've tried a more muted, pastel version as a potential alternative. What do people think? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC)11:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I didn't like your muted pastels--they looked kinda "pukey" to me, so I changed them. Comments? (I'm drawn to wonder what readers are thinking, meanwhile, when they see that the colors in the template are changing from minute to minute... :-p) TomerTALK 13:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
I see Zeno didn't like my color choices, and so s/he reverted instead of trying something new. In case anyone is wondering, this is what Zeno said was too dark. Since I really like my choixes better, I made this version too, just to show you a diff for a lighter version. TomerTALK 13:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Unacceptability of star and crescent
I just did some googling on "star crescent Islam symbol" and got a number of sites. Just about every Islamic site said that this was a symbol of the Ottomans, not of Islam. The sites took attitudes ranging from "this is shirk" to "it's regrettable, but hey, people WILL do it". I really really don't think it would be a good idea to use this symbol on the template. Why gratuitously offend Muslims?
I had another thought -- how about a silhouette of a mosque? That ought to be easy to draft, and recognizable. Zora11:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank for your effort! A mosque could do it, but i still strongly vote for the "Allah" calligraphy i mentioned above. That is more Islamic than a builing. --Striver11:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I seriously don't understand the opposition to the crescent and star. After reading the entire talk page, and from my personal experience, it seems like the symbol is by far and above the rest the most recognizable symbol of Islam. It is the crowning symbol of Mosques and minarets around the world, it's on the flags of a ga-jillion Muslim countries, it's on the grand mosque in Mecca, the red crescent is the Islamic equivalent of the red cross, a poll of 5,000 people chose it as the best symbol, of the Muslims I know they take no offense to the symbol, and even more, we can't even agree on what might be second place.
And to compare to other wiki pages... Christianity uses the cross, which is not universally accepted by Christians. Jehovah's Witnesses think he didn't even die on a cross.
Look at the Communism article... they use a hammer and sickle which represents neither the beginning of Communism nor is it accepted by all Communists. But it's the most easily recognized and widespread symbol. 68.166.50.14215:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about changing the symbol. Should've checked the talk page first. I had no idea there was such a commotion about it.—Kbolino00:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Mosque Painting Contest
While the calligraphy is certainly very pretty, although I'm still baffled as to why it's purple, very few non-muslims or non-arabic speakers are going to know what the heck that scribbling is. Therefore, to get going on the silhouette of a mosque idea, I humbly submit this beautiful image, made by yours truly. Improvements will be regarded as productive editing, criticism will be regarded as POV-pushing trollishness. Critiques are welcome, as long as they deal with the fine use of lines and curves, etc. So here, ladies and gentlemen, for your esteemed consideration, is the bestest proposal ever (it took me about 3 seconds in MSPaint, 2 of which were exhausted choosing the brush shape):
P.S. I should have been in bed two hours ago. Someone want to fix it? It's still a little jaggy and lumpy.
I see my efforts were not in vain. Like I always say, there's no better way to encourage people to correct you than by being utterly wrong and acting like you don't know better. Wait. I don't always say that! Oh well. Yours is a vast improvement on mine. :-D TomerTALK 12:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Many Christians take offense to the use of the cross as a symbol of Christianity, since they believe it focuses too much on Jesus' death instead of his resurrection, and prefer instead to use the little fish symbol, which references "the Great Commission". Any symbol that is used to represent any religion is going to be seen by some group as "incorrect". The truth of the matter is that minarettes are regarded universally as a feature of islamic architecture, just as surely as the sound of the muezzin intoning from a minarette is universally regarded as a hallmark of islamic calls to prayer. Meanwhile, I've modified the image so that the mosque consists of more than a roof, and added some nifty colors: It now occurs to me that it looks like the mosque is a façade and nothing more, since you can see right through it, but I'll let someone else fix that. :-p TomerTALK 13:01, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
The first is modeled from a picture of the Aswan mosque in Egypt. The second is a combination with your onion bulb dome. Cunado1901:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Oooh, cool, I like the second one. Let's shrink it and use it! It even has the crescent <g>. I noticed .... Zora02:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, I put up the second one, just to see how it would look. I think it looks FINE. If there's no consensus, however, we can revert. Zora03:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
After I saw it on the template I got another idea.
I put it on the template to see. I think it looks good, but the spacing and size of "Islam" is all weird. Maybe someone who knows what they're doing can make it look pretty. Cunado1905:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I just reverted it back to Zoras version for now, because I thought it made the template too wide, and the "history of Islam" link had disappeared. Another thing is that the transpartent background seems to work in (my) firefox browser, but not in (my) IE browser. -- Karl Meier06:49, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I like the two-minaret version. It's just that it's TOO wide. Dunno what to do about the background. I'm still puzzling out Adobe Photoshop. Maybe I should break down and RTFM. Zora07:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The template width is set at 150px, and I set the mosque at 140px, so it didn't change the width. And the history of Islam was linked further down. Is there a reason it should be part of the title?
I made the image GIF and it still doesn't load transparency on my IE browser. If someone wants to deal with it, try this article. My computer is completely in Chinese so I can't do anything if it gets complicated. Cunado1908:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The Mosque image as it stands takes up far too much vertical space, making the template less useful. How can we resolve this problem? —thames14:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I made it the horizontal mosque again but not as wide. See if you like this better. Don't revert cause I made other changes, just edit the page if you want to change. Cunado1916:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Is the Mahdi not Shia? Also, having "Allah" on its own line messes with spacing a little. They are known as the "five pillars of Islam" and with proper explanation on the page I think it's superfluous and ugly to say, "Sunni Five Pillars" on the template. In fact, I forgot, when I looked at the page it even mentions Shia belief... so, I'm reverting that part Striver. grenグレン08:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The Mahdi is both a Shia and Sunni belife, all Muslims acknowledge that Muhamamd (as) prophecies about him. The distinguishing Shia belife is that its the 12:th Imam. As for the Sunni part, if you look at the article you mentioned, it clearly says that the five pillars listed are not the Shia five pillars, rather the Sunni ones. As for God on its own line, im not going to nag about it, but it reflects better Gods supremacy. Thanks for your comment!--Striver08:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Zora, whats up with the "(rv - Striver! AAAGGH!)" ? Do you claim that the "five pillars" are a Muslim belife? Of course its not, its a Sunni belife, so why do you "AAAGGH" me when i accurately enlighten that? Hoping for quick reply...
I'm gonna have to side with Zora on this one. They are pretty universally known as the "Five Pillars of Islam". Even the name of the page is "Five Pillars of Islam" and not "Sunni Five pillars of Islam".... I was in the middle of changing it when Zora did it. If not us, I doubt other people will keep the sunni part. Cunado1909:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Well then we need to rename the article as well to reflect it being a Sunni categorization. People not knowing its a Sunni categorization cant be used as a argument for not enlightning them, as it stands it gives the inaccurate impression that Shia use the same categorization. --Striver09:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Striver, this is a template on pages we can fully explain but on the templates we cannot... I'm sure Rashad Khalifa is sitting at home crying because he didn't make it on the template. Or, he's dead isn't he? Well, a great majority of Muslims are Sunni... so, they of course will get preferrential treatment on articles giving summaries of things. Secondly they are known as the "Five Pillars of Islam", not the Sunni Five Pillars of Islam. I think three of us agree on this... grenグレン09:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Then why not linking to a article that explains it better? Anyhow, im not demanding a huge explanatory dump, i just want it to show its a Sunni exclusive belife. And that can be accomplished with one single word. As for the Usul al din, do you think shias say "Shia usul al din"? Of course not, but i added "Shia" to clarify its a Shia exclusive belife. As for Khalifa, his branch cant be compared to the Shia branch regarding predominacne, he has a minority, Shia are the second largest. --Striver09:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
After looking at all the links, now I think the whole section of Shia Roots of Islam should be cut. The title links to a section within the Shi'a page, which is only another list of the roots with little more information. Each of the "roots" links to a page that is only a paragraph long that is not very interesting. The template is already huge enough. This should just be deleted.
And by the way, Shi'as do believe in fasting, pilgrimage, alms, and all those. What world do you live in? Cunado1910:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Cut the Shi'a section, cut the link to the five pillars. Have a non-linking header in the first section that says something like "Basic principles" or "Muslim beliefs". Since Shi'a share all of those, there should be no problem. Zora10:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Five Pillars is very well known introductory stuff... I don't think it should have to be removed... I see it all over, and that is even how I learned it in my world religions class. It seems silly because Sunnis are the biggest and the five pillars listed are not really disagreed with by Shia are they? Also the five pillars page talks about the Shia central beliefs... grenグレン10:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
As for the Shia section not being developed, its not an excuse for ommiting them.
It is correct that Shia belive in all the things included in the five "pillars", however, we dont bundle them that way. We have the first part included in the "roots" and the other four parts in "braches". I see no reason to only present the Sunni categorization and not present the shia categorization. Either we have both or none. Shahadah is neither among the roots nor the braches of the Shia categorization, it haves two "roots" that equiviale it. In the same maner, Sunni dont have the "root" of Imamat among the "pillars". Its biased to not included "imamat" as a fundamental part of (Shia) Islam. Either we have both the "roots" and the "pillars" and point out that its the categorization of the diffrent braches, or we just put them in a mesh and call the "Basic principles". But only the "pillars" without the "roots" is biased, and the "pillars" is not a shia categorization, no matter what some school book omits to inform of.
And no, the pillars dont talk about the Shia central belife, only the first of the five does that in a indirect manner. The other four are about the "branches" of the shia belife, not the "roots".
--Striver11:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Striver, there's nothing there in the first section with which the Shi'a disagree, it's just that they organize things differently. We don't have to organize things the Shi'a way. We really don't. There's not room in the template. Zora12:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing Shias disagree with, Shia are a minority, and the template is packed for space. (Personally I'd remove holy cities and replace it with the buildings area but vertical -- even though I still wouldn't add the Shia section). Striver, this is representative and doesn't misrepresent the Shia... I think 3/4 is consensus (and even if that changed for the time being it should go back to how it was)... so, I'd prefer that you yield and recognize this and change it back... if you want to bring in more discussion about this do... but for now I think it's pretty clear what should be done...grenグレン12:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Zora, you are correct int that there is nothing that the Shia dissagree with, and i agree that we dont have to organize it the Shia way, but to organize it only the Sunni way is biased.
Gren, the Shia are a minority, the second largest part of the Muslims. That is correct. Does that mean that they can be ignored? Remeber, its a sizable minority. If the problem is space, we can merge the most important points from both parts into something called "important principles". Maybe include the "pillars" and, prophethood, imamat and qiyamat. What do you think about that?
I have absolutly nothing againts having the ingredients of the "pillars", but i have something against labeling them as "the pillars of Islam" since it implies that only the Sunni view is relevant. And í also object to not including imamat somewhere in the template.
Somebody removed the "Sunni" and also "Ahl al-Bayt". This is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to imply that the sunni pillars are generaly accepted by all Muslims as the pillars of Islam. They are not! According to Shias, they are branches, not roots or pillars! Explain yourself.
Um... I've been reading and contributing to the talk page all day, as you have. The consensus is that the word Sunni should be removed. That's what I did. My opinion is still that the whole Shi'a section should be removed, so don't think you're the only editor.
Between all the pillars and roots, the only thing not acceptable to both Sunni and Shi'a is the issue of the Imamate, which is not ignored, it is the fundamental issue of the major division in Islam. I think Muhammad was referring to you when he said "Knowledge is but a single point, but the ignorant have multiplied it." Cunado1916:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Mini-Islam
I was looking at Mecca and saw the this template there... which, I know Mecca is strongly linked to Islam... but, we show nothing about Meccan life or pre-Islamic history. I think that this template should go into a section there but it is rather unwieldly to fit into a section since it is very long... so... does anything think it's a good idea to make a rudimentary little box Islam template for holy cities that are heavily related to Islam (and this could/should be done for other religions I think) but shouldn't really have the full length Islam template.... What do you think? grenグレン12:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Allah as a figure
I tried to take Allah off the list of figures. God is not a person, historical or otherwise. I added Ali and Abu Bakr which are actually the most important historical figures, and someone deleted them. What is this world coming to? Their names aren't mentioned in the 'companions' link. I'm going to bed, I hate wikipedia. I won't say that tomorrow. Cunado1916:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you. Allah is also used by Arab Christians, adding Allah to this template would be biased and inaccurate.Heraclius17:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Allah talks about the Islamic concept of God which is far more important in Islam than Bakr or Ali. It says important figures... figure is purposefully vague and although not the best way to describe a diety it does still work in my estimation. It doesn't matter that Allah was used by Arab Christians... Mecca was used by the Quaraysh... is that biased? I mean... The concept of God and unity inherent is that is of the utmost importance in Islam... It was rather arbitrary of you to change these things... please discuss this first. grenグレン20:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Part of the point is that Allah equals God. It would be like having God as a "figure" of Christianity or Judaism. People attacking Islam try very hard to make Allah as a separate God from the Christian God and I think that is why it is on the list in the first place. Cunado1907:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
good thinking, someone put Saladin on as a figure. but... wait a minute... how did Allah make an appearance again? you and your tricky editing! my sockpuppet will have something to say about that! Cunado19
Would you feel better if Allah is linked as "Muslim view of God" -- I have no problem with that... I am obviously not making my argument because I want people to think Muslims have a foreign and different God... but, because Muslims do have specific views of God. Let me try this... grenグレン16:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't know whether Allah should be in the template or not (and I don't know why someone needed to create the user "Cunado19's sockpuppet" just to participate in this debate), but the current version that people have been reverting to, that lists Allah after Muhammad, is just silly. Either he's included, in which case he gets top-spot as benefits a God, or he isn't included. It looks a little silly to squeeze him in between Muhammad and Ali, like he's just "another of those guys". — Asbestos | Talk (RFC)16:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, in my argument I wasn't taking into account that people really do try to say "Christians believe in God, and Muslims believe in Allah" -- I don't think that way so I don't take it into account. I think Allah should be included because of Muslim's theological views of God and their central importance... these debates have been central to Islam since the beginning and are far more important than Abu Bakr and Ali -- which is just to please different sectarians and although important to Islam are not central enough to be on this template. There can't be two Gods -- that is of the same classical conception -- therefore I have made it link to Islamic conception of God... so those who don't understand that Allah is just used as God in another language will... understand. Is that fine? It's central to Islam... if you feel you have a better way then please tell me... grenグレン16:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
The link for conceptions of God doesn't really belong in the figures list either. I agree that somewhere on the template there should be a link for Allah but just not under the figures or next to Muhammad and others. I was thinking that a section could be titled "beliefs" or "teachings" and under that could go concepts of God, all the current Shi'a roots, and maybe a few others.
Since I've done a lot to the template and I've offended people already and called someone ignorant, I won't do any more big changes. I'll leave it to whoever wants to try. This is a high stress page and I'd rather be doing happy pages with empty talk pages. I think the template looks pretty good anyway, much better than 2 weeks ago. Cunado1915:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think arbitrarily removing Allah, one of the most important things in Islam was a little brash... but it's fine and I understand your point. And I agree that figure isn't the best... but... it should also be high on the template. If you have an idea just paste it here. grenグレン19:34, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Color
Cuando... I can assume good faith, I can't assume decent taste. Really... that is incredibly hideous... I am fighting myself to not revert really quickly.... you didn't discuss it... but, it's so garish... the "pukey color" is in fact a light green which does not resemble any of the puke I have seen... but, at least it doesn't remind me of a billboard in Hong Kong... why... whyy... whyyy... please explain this all to me... and... hopefully... losing will to stop myself from changing it back... discuss before you do changes like that man. Thanks. grenグレン20:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
It's OK, Gren. Now put that gun down, we can talk it over ... <g> I played around with Photoshop a bit. I took that same green that Cuando used, but greyed it out a bit, and then picked a lighter shade of the same for background. I think it's OK, but this may not get consensus. There are only a few more thousand shades of green to discuss. Let's see -- six digits in hex, that's 65,535 colors, of which a big chunk are green. Let the color wars begin! Zora22:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Pastel = Pukey
If you can help it, try to make changes instead of reverting. I just redid all the more minor things I did yesterday. It's a little hard to get "consensus" on this without actually changing the template. If you have an idea just try it, and improve on other people's ideas.
The background should stay the default grey in my opinion, cause the transparency doesn't work on some browsers like Internet Explorer, not to mention it just looks better. If it's grey then the white transparency is almost not noticeable.
The shade of green has to be light enough to still read both the black and the blue letters, and dark enough so that it doesn't look wimpy and like a Hong Kong banner. I thought my color was a good compromise (#00d50f), maybe a little too much on the Hong Kong side. Try this (#00aa0c). Cunado1907:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
New idea
Now the template's colors are a rather pukey pastel green and a nondescript purplish-gray. The objection to using dark colors is that the text can't be seen through them. BUT! I see now that all the section headings are straight text—no links, so! Why not make the drab purplish gray areas that pukey pastel green, and make the section heading area a fine green like the color of the flags of Libya or <begin inspiration>Saudi Arabia<implement inspiration> and make the text for those headings white instead of black? TomerTALK 02:16, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Implement it yourself. If you don't want it reverted then paste an example on the talk page, and I would suggest a small sample, not the whole template. Cunado1902:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I would, but I haven't been able to pinpoint a good RGB for the proper color. Suggestions? TomerTALK 08:14, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Crescent Moon (once again)
The current mosque silhouette is factually incorrect. Mosques that use the crescent moon symbol put the symbol on the dome (in some cases) and always on the tops of all the minarets. The current silhouette shows a crescent moon only on the dome and not on the minarets. I think they should be put on the minarets as well. Also, we should ask why we are putting crescent moons in the silhouette in the first place. Wasn't the whole point of this to avoid the crescent moon symbol? Now it is back. If it's back, then why don't we just switch from mosque silhouettes with crsescent moon symbols to just a crescent moon symbol? --Zeno of Elea00:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
OK...then we dont use cresent on the mosque either !!!
Anyways how about mixing Allah with the mosque , i.e. Allah in the shape of a mosque . ( From right to left )A separate minret on the right , followed by another minaret , then another minaret with a cresent for "shad" (dubling of sound) , ending with a dome . Farhansher05:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
A new user named Abu Dajjal put up a new mosque icon with a HUGE star and crescent on top, and inserted his mosque03 in place of Cunardo's mosque02. I've put the unvandalized icon back.
Since Abu Dajjal is a brand new user AND since Zeno of Elea has just been blocked for 24 hours AND since Zeno has a history of inserting stars and crescents just to upset people and since there has long been a suspicion that Zeno is in fact Penname, who has been blocked from editing for a long time ... well, I rather suspect that Abu Dajjal is Zeno, but I couldn't prove it without a look at the logs and IP numbers.
Personally, I must say that I thought that the huge star and crescent version was a bit amusing.. However, Mr. Dajjal should be aware that this is a encyclopedia, and we are not here to make any such jokes. These things only distract us from our purpose, and for good reasons most people don't appreciate it. -- Karl Meier12:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
For the record, the only times that I actually DID insert the moon symbol, it was for completely good faith encylopediac purposes, not to "just upset people" as Zora claims. I am still convinced that the moon symbol is the proper symbol for an encylopedia to use when a symbol for Islam is required, but long ago I gave up on the whole moon symbol issue. The giant moon on the mosque was funny despite what Zora says, and has nothing to do with me despite what Zora says. --Zeno of Elea09:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I reversed the order of Allah and Muhammad (it made no sense to have Allah after Muhammad), as well as Abu Bakr and Ali (again, there is no reason why Ali should be placed before Abu Bakr, whether you base it on alphabetical order or chronologically) and I added Saladin, quite possibly the most famous Muslim figure after the first century of Islamic history. --GNU4Eva13:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
alright, why were my modifications reverted? --18:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we should alphebetize the list of figures. Seems like the NPOV thing to do. Hey, maybe someone really does want Muhammad to go before Allah. By alphebetizing the list, we remove room for such POV insertion. --Zeno of Elea09:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Usool-e-Deen
Striver has translated "Usool-e-Deen" as "Roots of religion." This is an incorrect translation, unfortunately Striver is not the best translator. "Usool-e-Deen" means "principals of islamic religion," or "fundamentals of islaimc religion." "Roots of religion" just sounds silly and is a poor translation. --Zeno of Elea10:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I believe roots has just about the same connotations as fundamentals.... and I would hope it's not principals... at least not mean British ones with canes anyways. grenグレン12:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Again
Im telling, the title "Five Pillars of Islam" is missleading, it is NOT the pillars of Islam (Shia+Sunni), its the pillars of the sunni view of Islam! That title is inacurate and missleading, adding to the false notion that shia also belive in the "Five Pillars of Islam". Change it.
And Also, if "Sahaba" are going to be included, so needs "Ahl al-Bayt".
OK, I changed the Five Pillars section to Practices and beliefs, put the Imamate into that, and then removed the Shi'a roots section -- all of which is a reference to just one article, in any case. Will this do? Zora19:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, but Allah being half-way down that list seems a little strange to me. Since you've re-named the section "Practices and beliefs", it seems that it would be appropriate to have Conceptions of God at the top. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC)23:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Well then, change it to Beliefs and practices, put Allah and Tawhid on top, then Five Pillars, then Imamate, then the practices (prayer, fasting, etc.). I'll try that, I guess ... Zora00:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, now i see. Well, as you know Zora, Caliphat is not a religious doctrine in Sunni Islam, that way there is no Caliph right now, but Imamat *is* a religious doctrine in Shia Islam, we belive that God chooses the Imam and there can not be a second time where there is not a divinly apointed Imam. So puting Imamat in the socioplitical section is incorrect, its as part of the faith as prophethood is. Further, Ahl al-Bayt is still missing. They are far more important than Sahaba are according to Shias. --Striver05:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I put the Ahl al-Bayt and Imam under major figures, since they're human beings. I took prophethood OUT of the major beliefs section, since it should be covered under Prophets of Islam. I hope THAT will do. Zora06:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I thought the addition of Saladin was good, actually, and then there's the fellow who's responsible for a great deal of today's Islamic religious practice, Al-Ghazali. He came up with a balance of legalism and Sufism that is still the traditional norm. He's not as well known as the early Islamic figures, but it could be argued that he should be better known. Zora07:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I think Fatimah is more important than Saladin, and I've never heard of Al-Ghazali. Although after Fatimah I have no ideas, so whatever you want. Cunado1912:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Zora, good, but not perfect :)
1) Not imam, imamate. Imam is a title, and its not the title im refering to, its the institution of imamat im refering to. The instiution of imamat is a fundamental principle of Shia Islam, as well as prophethood (note: not "prophet", but "prophethood")
2)Imam is not a person and should not be among "Major Figures". Its a fundamental belife. There has always been a Imam, Abraham (as) and somebody among his diciples, Moses (as) and somebody among his diciples, Muhammad (as) and somebody among his diciples and so on... However, Ahl al-Bayt are individuals and are correctly placed among "Major Figures" --Striver07:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you meant "Imams"? Like in the twelve Imams after Muhammad (as)? Thats one thing, the institution of Imamat is another thing. --Striver07:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I can live with this :) I did wish that imamate was in the belife section, but gues i cant have everything. --Striver09:08, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I understand exactly what you mean about the difference between Imam and Imamate. Take a look at the link for Imamate, which today I created as a disambiguation because previously it linked to an empire called Imamate. The information about the institution of Imamate is found under the Imam link, along with the 12 Shi'a Imams and information about the general use of Imam as a religious leader. Cunado1912:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Okay, it seems that all of the talk above about inclusion of a link to Allah was ignored... but, I like the progress... I have changed "Oneness God" to "Oneness of God" -- it looks the same but of isn't part of it and allah is... I don't see why this would cause problems and it addresses the problem of making Allah out to not be God, this separating it from other religions. grenグレン09:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it's looking good! I'm shocked that, after all these revisions, it has somehow managed not to scroll down over seven pages, nor list everybody there ever was. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC)
Since the only other suggestion to replace imams was Saladin, and nobody actually changed it, I'm changing Imams to Fatimah as mentioned above. Cunado1914:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Earlier I meant to do this. This is the image I was thinking about for the crescent, I had to make it myself. I make no guarantee to the perfect roundness of the crescent. Yes I realize there are issues with using the crescent. Cunado1915:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Thames, I'd appreciate it if you'd leave this on the template. Women in Islam doesn't cover Islamic feminism, which is an attempt to develop a form of feminism very specific to Islam and quite different from Western secular feminism. There's no reason to confine women's issues to one mention on the template. SlimVirgin(talk) 14:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
PS, I just looked at Islamic feminism and it's only one paragraph. I'm removing it from the template. Cunado19
Hi SlimVirgin. I didn't mean to be curt about the removal of Islamic feminism. I've encountered your work elsewhere around Wikipedia and respect the contributions you've made. My issue with the template is not the over- or underabundance of women's issues on the template, but rather size in general. Since Women in Islam had a section on Islamic feminism, I thought that the template could survive without a direct link to Islamic feminism. Regarding templates, I tend to favor an exclusionist position, including only the top-level overview articles as much as possible. Clearly, it's not an easy position to take, since many people feel that a wide number of articles ought to be included, so that topic areas they care about receive attention. However, we managed to get the template from here [4], to here [5], and I'm trying hard to keep it as slim as is practical. —thames18:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
(1) Following on my comments back at #New Idea, how do change the text color in the dark field to white instead of black? I looked at the editing help for the tables, and know how to do it in simple HTML, but everything I try messes it all up instead of making the text white. Helps? TomerTALK 19:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
(2) If anyone besides me likes this color scheme, can someone make the background transparent on Mosque02.png instead of white? TomerTALK 19:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
I hate that dark green. Loathe loathe. I do agree that darker headers with white lettering might work. Zora19:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The picture is actually transparent already. On Firefox browsers it looks fine, but for some reason Internet Explorer browsers don't know what transparency means on a *.png file. Maybe there's another file format that will work, but nobody has experimented yet. Cunado1903:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Pastel Colors Suck. :-p The green should really be a bit darker to set it off better now from the white. With your color scheme, black works fine for the text. Any word on a volunteer to transparentize the background on the mosque img? TomerTALK 21:22, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Color me pleased as punch! :-p TomerTALK 02:25, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Sects
Wow! This thing has changed a lot since I saw it last in July. So why were the sections on sects, and related religions taken out? --Tydaj15:01, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I made a new page for Divisions of Islam and put about one third of the template on it.
I took off the addition of Jizya and Dhimmi. They are both just references to the non-muslim tax and the status of non-muslims. This is a pretty minute detail, and the articles even say that they're not really used any more or important. The only place I've heard them brought up was when someone is trying to attack Islam, and they make it off as if they used the tax as a way of converting people (the tax excluded people from the military). So it didn't take long to realize that Klonimus put it on there not because it's an important aspect of Islam, but because all his edits to the Islamic pages are negative. And well, he says so on his user page.
And if you read his user page he proudly says that he has contributed to these:
Cunado, comments like "I'm sure he's hating Islam out of his love for Jesus or something" are inappropriate, ad hominem, and offensive. Please refrain from such comments, even when frustrated by the POV of other users. Thank you. —thames13:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree with the reasoning behind your deletion--jizya and dhimmi are rather minor concepts, when compared to the other topics included on the template.—thames18:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Imamate, Caliphate, History
I removed "Imamate" and "Caliphate" from the template. Both were piped links, to Imam and Caliph respectively. Those two articles are already covered under Islamic religious leaders, which is already in the template.
Furthermore, I think it's ludicrous the History of Islam remains so low on the template, squirreled away in the See Also section at the very bottom. The History article ought to be much more prominent, since it is a high-level overview article, more directly related to the Template:Islam topic than nearly any other article presently included. —thames20:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Stevertigo arrived, declared the template too skinny, and widened it to 190px. I took it back down to 150px, he bumped it wider again.
I put it at 160 px. He says, in his edit summary, that the template has to be wider to be consistent with other templates. Wha? I'm not aware that there's any Wikipedia law that says that all templates have to be the same size. In this case, all the links were fitted to a 150px template, and widening it to 190px just means that there's huge white space margins on either side of the links. That seems pointless.
Myself, I like skinny templates because they make it easier to lay out the article and read any sections next to the template. Zora21:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Criticism of Islam
Why is having "Criticism of Islam" relevant on the template, when clearly other religion templates do not have such an article featured on them? --a.n.o.n.y.mt23:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Religion templates dont have a criticism page , Cult templates do --kartik.nanjund
I'm fairly sure that it was put there by one of the critics <g>. It's not fair but ... there's an argument to be made that it's expedient. As we all know, the articles on Islam, Muhammad, Muslim, and Qur'an are often vandalized. It is possible that a prospective vandal might look at a page planning to deface it, click on the criticism link, and then go away feeling that his/her feelings had been sufficiently expressed. If the link suppresses some vandalism, then it might be doing some good. Is it? I dunno. Zora00:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
It may divert some pov warriors (maybe), but being someone that reverts a ton of vandalism everyday from Islam-related articles, I don't think it is working. :) I still maintain that it be removed to maintain uniformity with other templates and be fair. --a.n.o.n.y.mt00:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Well as zora said , it was added as a loly pop for vandals , the intentions were never to have same standards as with other religions, but to have peace of mind . But now it is one more article to watch . I dont know , may be its a blessing in disguise , or a devil in disguise . Idealististically , it shouldnt be here , b/c there arnt any anti- articles in ant religion templates . Just imagine "corruptions of bible" or "massacres by christians" added to christianity template .
A big reason for not having so much vandals is that their site was down for a long time . Thatswhy we didnt see much well cordinated attacks in recent past . Farhansher00:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
The logic behind trying to divert vandalism by adding a less relevant page has major problems. The ideal is to ensure that all articles found on Wikipedia are accurate, non-POV, etc. What had occurred instead was that the most POV article available about Islam made its way onto the Islam template. Why? Because editors would rather focus on the main article about Islam. And, this has given some editors enough leeway to make the Criticism of Islam article highly POV. Leaving such a highly POV article on the template legitimizes an article that should stand on its own merit. --JuanMuslim17:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, that article has been removed. My 2 main reasons are:
a. An article of that kind is not included in any other religious template
b. What makes that article so special? Out of the entire index of Islam-related articles, why should that one be featured? If anyone needs to access that article, they will use the index just like they would for any other topic. There is no need to put it alongside basic religious beliefs.
Criticism of Islam is one of the major, comprehensive Wikipedia articles about Islam. It is highly relevant to the subject at hand. The same is true for other religions and templates. Defeciencies in other templates are not just cause for introducting defeciences here. -- Zeno of Elea04:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Balance & NPOV in other templates is the reason for introducing balance in Islam template . Same standards should be applied to all religions .Farhansher05:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Deficiency or not a deficiency? What makes an article or template deficient? The article on Criticism of Islam is certainly not comprehensive and is certainly deficient in many ways. The fact that articles criticizing Christianity or Judaism are not found in their templates doesn't make them deficient. The reality is that the information found in any "Criticism of..." article is merely recycled information that can easily be found in the main article within a section called "Criticism." --JuanMuslim17:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Umm, I seriously would not get into a revert war over this... It may not be even but I don't think it's bad to have the article linked in the template. It may be uneven but as long as the criticism article is encyclopedic it shouldn't be a problem. grenグレン06:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
In fact, I think I support having it there. If the issue arises with any other religions I'd be glad to lend my support for the addition to their templates since I realize consistency is a part of overall NPOV. I won't revert Farhansher since this isn't a case of blantant innaccurate POV but... I do hope we can come to a peaceful solution on this. grenグレン06:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
If such articles are linked from other major religion templates , I have nothing against having it here too . We should follow the same standard for all . Farhansher07:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
If the problem is that I there is no "criticism of.." on other templates regarding various religions, I suggest that the editors concerned about that should go and add it there. As Zeno pointed out "Defeciencies in other templates are not just cause for introducting defeciences here." -- Karl Meier10:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
And I noticed that it's not just the islam template that has a "criticism" link on it. The "Christianity" template also has such a link. -- Karl Meier11:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
First of all, a template on a religion contains the articles involving fundamental concepts of it, not anti-Religion X. Secondly, the Christianity template has no such link, Karl. I find that many are eager to link the article because they have made it a personal web page for expounding their views on Islam, when just about any other article related to Islam can take it's place on the template. Please give a reason why that article deserves a special place. --a.n.o.n.y.mt11:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
The article is not quite a personal essay by Karl et. al, but it does have problems. Template of religions are about that religion. Criticism of a religion is response to that religion. I don't think we can say they're not integrally linked. It's not a special place -- the article is for broad aspects relating to the religion. So, we don't put waqf because it's scope is small, but criticism has the scope of the whole religion. Through criticism you learn about the religion and it should be neutral... so I do think it's pretty related and not just a special place for the article. grenグレン06:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Gren's above comment, and one of the other reasons why I think that the article should be included, is simply that I believe that the "criticism" article is about a subject, that might interest a lot of our readers. If it has NPoV issues or other problems then these should of course be addressed, but I don't think it's a good reason to exclude it from the template. Also, to aviod any misunderstandings, the Christianity template did actually have a link to the "Criticism of Christianity" article, at the time when I wrote my last comment here. However, I was removed a few hours later, for a reason that I don't agree with. -- Karl Meier13:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Please post the link for the revision history showing us that the Criticisms of Christianity article was once on the Christianity template. I was unable to find it in the revision history for the Christianity template.--JuanMuslim17:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I have one question. What makes that link deserve a special place when just about any other Islam-related article can be added? --a.n.o.n.y.mt18:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I have got another question . What makes only Islam template special for an "anti" article , when it is not present on any other religion template . There was one reply above , by Karl . And my answer would be that you should be interested in this more than me , as you have shown your interest in one such article here . I have never been interested in finding loop holes in somebody's belief system . So until people editing other religion pages ( christianity , Judaism , Hinduism ) arnt comfortable with such articles in templates , I dont think it should be included here either. Farhansher20:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I understand your misgivings and while I don't really agree I figure they should be addressed. In that regard I have placed a message at template talk:Christianity and template talk:Judaism about this. We shall see if any users from there come to discuss this and maybe the community on a broader scope than just Islam-related-editors will help there to be a clear concensus.
Juan, I see no reason why a well written criticism of atheism wouldn't merit acceptance on its template if it is accepted on all of the religions. I have never wanted to start the criticism articles I have only dealt with them as a reality. If you create it and it's any good then I don't see why it'd be different from the other criticisms. grenグレン17:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The Islam article has a link to the Criticism of Islam article. The article as a link from the Islam template calls too much attention to a poorly written article. As mentioned before, there's not a Criticism of Atheism article. And, there's not even a template for atheism. I guess its a subject largely ignored by Wikipedians. Editors can make any article important or insignificant. --JuanMuslim17:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
What I think Zeno (rightfully) points out is that there doesn't have to be a precedent set on other articles yet for change. Criticism articles are a new reality here on wikipedia and I do find your problems in the short term and small scale to be good points. However, we also need to look at this in broader terms. You don't want criticism of Islam prominent when it's not so for other religions, well... what is your view if it was on other templates? If Zeno could organize on other pages the inclusion would you agree to a certain condition when you think it could be added? Say, if Atheism, Judaism and Christianity all have criticism pages and then you can add them all to the template at once. We don't need to have an answer for right now, you could help to find an answer pending other events maybe. Tonight we had two edits with no summaries reverting this... this shouldn't be something that turns (continues) to be a a reverting match. Please discuss this maybe in terms of other events, Juan, AE, Farhanser... is your opposition to any criticism on any page or just because so far it's only to Islam? I tried to get other editors from the other template pages to come but that did not seem to work. Please discuss this. grenグレン04:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I am opposed to criticism on any template; religion articles should give important articles about beliefs only. Although, if it is added to the other ones; I will not oppose this one. Zeno, didn't discuss last time before she added it. I think the lack of response from editors on other templates means that they don't support it either. I don't blame them. When any other important article could be added to the template; we don't really need this particular one. --a.n.o.n.y.mt11:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Yep... it does and it seems to have been there for quite a few days. I did see that when Zeno added Criticism of Christianity to that template it was removed. So, we'd need consensus on all of these things for all of the templates I suppose. Template:Christianity not having criticism is different from what they just did... which was actively reject what Zeno put on. So, if there are changes in those templates then it can be discussed here again I suppose and we'll see what's going on. grenグレン07:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
The edit with to the template is a good idea. The CSS for the template needs to be tweeked a little to set the a:link, a:visited, a:active properties to the color white. I guess my only concern with the new way is that it seems that it would be better if the look of all the headers were consistent. --JuanMuslim04:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Mr. Muslim is right. I deleted the link. Personally, I don't think it needs to be on the template, but if you insist, just find a better place for it so the colors look good. Cuñado - Talk06:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I just took a look at Aqidah. It is an extremely short article, not all that informative, and lopsided in its presentation (it's Sunni and Hanafi, mainly). I don't think it merits a place on the template. Zora08:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I've editted the article on aqidah, and I think its in a much better position to be on the template now. Let me know what you think, and I'll see how I can edit it. --JuanMuslim06:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be better to state Islamic Creed rather than aqidah because the other terms listed within the beliefs and practices section have been translated to English. Also, let me know if you think the words Islamic Creed would be better at the top or bottom of the beliefs and practices section. --JuanMuslim12:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I liked the look of the previous template. For Fiqh perhaps Islamic jurisprudence. For Sira perhaps Life of the Prophet or Biography of the Prophet (sirah refers to his actual life, not books written about him) --JuanMuslim18:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
2 . In major Figures , Ali & Abu Bakar can be included in Companians . Similarly , Ali & Fatima can be included in Ahl-e-Bait . Mahdi is a prophet of Islam . So if others agree , I think these names should be removed .
3 . Islamic Jurisprudence can be replaced with just "Jurisprudence" . After all we wont add a link to any other form of Jurisprudence to Islam template .
4 . Sira can be replaced with Biographies of Muhammad , or Prophet's Biographies.
5 . Sufism isnt a division , its more like a branch . Its a popular concept that sufism is something away from or opposite of sharia , which usually isnt the case . And body who is a Sufi , usually also happens to be a Sunni or Shia . So I think a better word would be branches of Islam , rather than Divisions .
6 . A link to Science should also be added in Sociopolitical aspects . The article isnt that good at the moment , but I or somebody else will work on it in near future .
I like the template with the changes to the major figures template. Perhaps, that section could include the sublist List of Muslim historical figures from the List of Muslims article. Also, a person has only one life. That is their sirah. but people may write about their life that would be biographies about that person. Kinda like the difference between sunnah and ahadith. Sunnah is the actual traditions whereas ahadith are the recordings of his traditions/sunnah. And, yup, there are Sunni Sufis and Shia Sufis. There are also Sufis who have have clearly disassociated themselves from Islam as well. --JuanMuslim15:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Just for info, I posted the following on thames' talk page:
Thames, I like the way that you organized the Islam template. But I really really liked the green and white visual style. If possible can you keep this organization, but widen and keep the old visual style. :) Thank you --a.n.o.n.y.mt20:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I could certainly do that anonym. I have one question, which is how to link an article from the header, using the old color scheme. The template as it stands now is able to link Divisions of Islam and Aqidah as headers. If we go back to the old scheme, they will look terrible as blue/purple links against the dark green background. Is there an alternative? —thames20:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
AE was there any perticular reason for putting Ali , Abu Bakar & Mahdi back in template . I mean a lot of other sahaba are important too , Omar , Uthman , Hamza , Hasan , Hussain .... I dont see any reason why only these names should be mentioned in template . And yes , how about the changes I made . F.a.y.20:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Farhanser, whatever you think is fine for the template - go ahead and do it. :) I will see what you have done after you are fully complete. Then we can talk if there are any concerns. Thank you. --a.n.o.n.y.mt20:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh I see what you did now. Nice idea. I support it all except for the link to the List of Muslims. Aside from that it's great. The links are barely noticable. Good work! --a.n.o.n.y.mt20:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
That was a very creative solution Farhanser, good work. I have two concerns: the header links aren't very visible. This might be remedied by making the green slightly lighter/grayer (although I know how touchy everyone is about the color scheme...). And I still think the template is too wide, leading it to visually dominate articles, and detract from the actual text of the articles. —thames01:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I tried using Biography of Muhammad and Life of Muhammad on the template but neither make much sense when you got Muhammad on the list. The article on sirah needs to be updated. It's not totally accurate. For example, learning about the sirah (his actual life not biographies; he lived only one life) of the Prophet is according to the consensus of scholars an obligation. And of course, to learn about his life, you would refer to literature about his life (bios). But that could also include audio and video.--JuanMuslim09:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Not only that, it's not showing up in my browser (Firefox) at all. Myself, I don't think there's any need to fiddle with the mosque. Cunardo did a good job. Zora18:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, it just takes forever to load. I'm sorry, but that is unbalanced and ugly to the eye. PLEASE leave Cunardo's mosque. Zora23:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I like the image we currently have. it's simple and pretty. hehe. Also, higher columns from left to right would be better if we had to choose the image. --JuanMuslim07:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Ali AbuBakar
Any particular reason for adding Ali & Abubakar , when there names are present in Companians list . They are very important people , I know , but there are lots of Sahaba that are equally important . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c19:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe they are being put in because they are the first caliphs, of the shia and sunni branches respectively. I'm not sure if it's an apt comparison, as the role of the church differs between Christianity and Islam, but on Template:Christianity St. Peter is not included, despite having founded the Church. —thames20:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I added that. I guess two reasons. By whatever standard they are the best known people besides Muhammad. And the pages for family/companions of Muhammad are actually really short articles with not much information. They were both on the template for a long time along with Fatimah Zahra. I didn't notice anyone took them off until today. Cuñado - Talk03:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Divisions of Islam is linked in the template. It's just not very visible because of the dark green color of the headers. Click on the "branches of islam" header and it will take you to the divisions of islam article. This is one of the reasons why I don't like the current template color scheme.—thames17:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I get it. I prefer just having the regular link, but maybe other people are smarter than me. We spent many agonizing debates over the color scheme, so if you change it, it better be amazing. Cuñado - Talk09:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Khwarij is not a major division, only a small historical sect. Definitely not very important either as the current small Ibadi community is the only that is related to them. Please stop trying to add it in bad faith. --a.n.o.n.y.mt18:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Balancing conservative POV (Jihad and Political Islam)
Sociopolitical Aspects includes both Political Islam and Jihad. Both phrases portray a conservative and quite controversial view of Islam. I think adding a link to Liberal Islam will improve NPOV.
I made this comment a week ago in the POV section. Hope more people will notice this time. =) --Zeeshanhasan03:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Removing the span comment?
The template is displaying with a /span comment afterwards. This seems to have appeared recently. I tried reverted to what I thought was a non-broken template, but the /span is still there. I'm stumped. Any HTML whizzes here? Zora00:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Might have something to do with me first adding the Liberal Movements Within Islam link to the template last week, and then removing it, at a.n.o.n.y.m.'s request. Please see my comments in the "POV" section and the "Balancing conservative POV (Jihad and Political Islam)" section of this page. If you agree with me that the link should be there, please say so. --Zeeshanhasan11:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Well let's just wait for discussion on this. I requested that so everyone could see it rather than it being added in an old talk section. --a.n.o.n.y.mt20:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
After considering this addition to the template, I find that it's redundant with the more general overview article on Political Islam. There are non-liberal political movements within Islam that do not have a place on the template--having only Liberal movements is unbalancing. I think it should be removed, because the link to Political Islam suffices. —thames19:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I have to disagree. In my view, most of the Political Islam article itself is quite one-sided (except for the opening paragraphs, to which I contributed heavily). For the most part it only talks about political Islam in the sense of Islamism; there is no mention of any Muslim leftist movements, even though there are many such political parties all over the Muslim world such as the Baath party. Political Islam needs extensive editing to be made more balanced. In the meanwhile, since Political Islam is included in the template, I think that Liberal Islam does a good job of balancing it.
--Zeeshanhasan05:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Re-read my comment above and realized that the better solution is to correct that awful Political Islam article. So I have started editing Political Islam to make it more balanced. Hopefully I will be done within a week; at which point I'll remove the liberal Islam link from the template. --Zeeshanhasan06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Have extensively edited the political Islam article over the last month or two. I'm still not satisfied with it, but it's good enough now that if no one objects, I'll remove the Liberal Islam link from the template. --Zeeshanhasan18:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I included a link into muslim holidays, because I was looking for Eid-ul-Adha and did not know how to find it because I did not know how it is spelled; I think many people are interested in the holidays that Muslims around them are celebrating and I hope this can help users to find information about these holidays more quickly.--Robin.rueth07:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I do... I think that it's not one of the most important things about Islam and the template is for the most important things. I also think that the template should only go on pages with room for it. If you put it on Islam in Iran it's going to mess up a bunch of nice pictures... which I believe are more important. grenグレン?06:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Islamic studies
I would like to replace the link to Islamic studies in sociopolitical aspects to Muslim culture. The content of the two articles is similar, and culture seems to me to be much more central to sociopolitical stuff than any academic study. Also, Islamic studies is difficult to clean up due to a POV-centred debate as to whether or not it's referring to secular POV or Muslim POV. --Zeeshanhasan17:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It could be argued that there is no such thing as Muslim culture. People claiming to be Muslims may have completely different "cultures". And of course the anthropological concept of culture is itself problematic. This is your hobbyhorse, Zeeshanhasan -- please don't try to write it into Wikipedia. Zora17:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I think neither of the articles are done very well, but I would choose Islamic studies first. Actually I would vote for deleting Islamic studies altogether, not replacing it. Cuñado - Talk18:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason for the Islamic studies link is that the article about Islamic studies links to all the Islamic arts and studies and is better than having a link for Islamic musics, calligraphy etc. separately. --a.n.o.n.y.mt20:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I did put it back. Arsath needs to get some consensus on this before making a change. I'll leave a note for him. Zora21:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Majority of the muslims wouldn't agree a mosque symbolizes ISLAM, its the Shahada, that symbolizes Islam, thats why it is on the flag of Saudi Arabia, to show that it is the birth place of Islam, to me that picture of the mosque looks more like the Taj Mahal than anything else. We should consider changing it. I dont see anyone disagreeing with the image I put than the creators of the current mosque image. Need I say more Mystic12:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid I don't agree. We picked green because it is usually believed to be a particularly Islamic color, and we had long debates over just which green to use. I don't like the turquoise. But I'm not going to revert immediately -- I'll wait for the other editors. Zora12:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Image, if we dont have anyone else opposing other than the creators of current image shall we change it to this?
I think this looks vibrant and compels the reader to take a look at the rest of the template.
Should we have a vote? please make your comment. Mystic15:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The creator of the image?? There were a dozen editors who all contributed to the talk, all contributing ideas, and we agreed on the mosque. Please read through the talk pages. I'm reverting. Cuñado - Talk21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
You are reverting what? I dont quite understand. I havent made any changes to revert. Anyway is there any rule in wikipedia that says ones established you cannot change the image of a Template? Its time for a change dont you think? A mosque is not the correct representation of Islam, its the Shahada, Read my comments above. The belief in the Shahada is what makes a person a follower of Islam. As a Muslim I very well understand this and which symbol should represent Islam. There is no point we edit warring over this. We should remember that wikipedia is an evolving encylopedia, and good changes should be welcome. Mystic15:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I like Mystic's image, (except the fact that it has been way too compressed and contains artifacts clearly visible to the naked eye) and I agree with his argumentation. Even though I haven't got much clue about Islam myself, I can tell that his arguments are proper. Just my $0.02. DarkPhoenix19:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that comment, someone reverted right before I wrote that, and I thought you had re-inserted the shahada image. For issues that have been very controversial and debated at length, and a fair compromise reached, it is very annoying for someone to come along out of nowhere and make a huge change. And by the way, I've often been such an individual, so I know how you feel. A version of the Shahada, along with many other ideas were already discussed and voted against. If you can get support from a lot of editors then you can change it, but right now nobody agrees with your new image, and it has nothing to do with who made the mosque (actually I only edited someone else's idea, it was more like the contribution of 3 editors). Cuñado - Talk17:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi sorry for not replying for so long, I'm busy with exams, anyway I also understand how you would feel if you were to loose the image you created. Thats not the point here, what should represent Islam as a whole. Christians believe in the Cross as a symbol of Jesus's (pbuh) ultimate sacrifice, so it has lot of meaning, but a Mosque doesn't represent Islam. During prophets time mosques were just humble mud brick buildings with a sand floor, only during modern times mosques were made prominent and as huge structures. Its true a good muslims life revolves around the mosque, provided a mosque is available. But no person would be a muslim without the Shahada. There is no obligation to use my image here, if anyone has a better image of the Shahada it could be used. The other point is just because nobody is supporting my cause doesn't mean everyone is against it!! They maybe just too busy to respond. Shall we change the image and see if anyone would object to it? Thanks «₪Mÿš†íc₪»13:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
NO, don't change it. I object strongly. The mosque image was decided by a wonderful collaborative effort. People tried things, they batted ideas and images back and forth, it was collegial and fun, it was the way things SHOULD be. Let's keep that. Also, the mosque image is just right for the template; it doesn't call attention to itself, it doesn't overshadow the text. Mystic, your image is too fancy, too distracting, and you're pushing it because it's yours. Surely there are many other articles that need graphics work. The photo at Jilbab is terrible. Perhaps if we had a good drawing? Like the one at Salwar kameez? Can you do that? Zora14:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Zora, I object to the rude language you have used here. You certainly seem to justify the allegations against you in the arbitration commitee. This is one of the several occasions that you have failed to assume good faith on me. IF YOU COULD READ CAREFULLY, I have clearly stated that There is no obligation to use my image here, if anyone has a better image of the Shahada it could be used. Its not about putting my image there, its about having the correct representation. I agree with Cunado on this. If there was a cresent with the Shahada it should be considered, if lot of people think my image is too fancy and distracting (I dont see Aishwaraya Rai or Karen in the image!!). Please kindly note I am not looking for a graphics designing job or something. If you desire you may find a better picture for the Jilbab article your self. Please understand I will not tolerate people being not nice to me and making false allegations. I appologize if I have failed to assume good faith (please point me out if I have.). «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T)17:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the pride of who made whatever image. Read above on this talk page and you'll see several ideas. I would prefer the crescent moon, which is the symbol normally used for Islam, and I would gladly replace the mosque for it. I even voted for the Shahada written in the form of a crescent moon, but I put aside my personal desires because some Muslims vehemently opposed using the crescent. Cuñado - Talk15:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the image is rather ugly, jarring colors and image artifact is bad. I do think the mosque is the most aesthetically pleasing option... although I think only the shahadah might be better... but... I don't think we have any great images of the shahadah that fit well. If someone could get a pretty semi-calligraphic SVG of it I'd go for it. I also think it brings out the fact that Islamic culture in many places has tended to elicit reactions with words moreso than imagery like Christian culture. That is way oversimplified but it's a good point that Oleg Grabar brought out when I heard him lecture about the Dome of the Rock. In any case bring on a nice shahadah and then we can re-discuss this issue. But, also... let's assume good faith.... and be friendlier... if Zora came across as harsh try to forgive her. You weren't around for the first consensus on this issue... it was hard fought with many edit wars and a hard time... and therefore breaking it down without a new consensus is not a happy thought. I'm sure she didn't mean to make false accusations. grenグレン07:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
We should just go back to the crescent. It is the most recognized, international symbol of Islam, just as the hammer and sickle is for Communism although it actually symbolizes the Soviet regime. 68.166.50.14215:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Image Change 2
Hi everyone I have created an image of a masjid with the shahada, since some of you seem to like the masjid, this image will not compromise what you like and have the shahada also in it.
Just did a test on this, how do you people think the new template looks compared to the old one? Please make your comments.. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T)17:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Did you make that? I'm very impressed. I'm sorry to say that I would prefer the mosque which we've had, or the shahada in the form of a crescent. It is a good image, but I think the template image needs to be simple. Look above on this page where all the other religious templates are posted and you'll see that all of them are very simple. Cuñado - Talk04:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a lovely logo, but I'm with Cunardo. The simpler logo works much better in the Islam template. Could we at least display the new logo in the article on the Shahada? It would look very pretty there. Zora04:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Like Zora and Cuñado said, the image looks very good, but I think it's too good, too complicated for the Islam template. joturner04:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Like they say - nice picture, but too complicated for the logo. It tends to attract the eye, whereas the mosque is nice and insconspicuous. Maybe if the pattern was only barely visible, preserving the overall moseque outline? Or how about writing the Shahada between the minarets of the mosque picture? Flammifer15:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your compliments people, thanks a lot.. I am not the sole creator of the design.. This is an ancient caligraphical design that is found in some masjids (including Masjid al-haram if I am not mistaken).. I have only borrowed it, put a gradient effect and modified the size to include in the template. So the credit should go to the ancient artists. Anyway those who have commented have missed my initial point. The main idea is to have the Shahada in the logo (see the previous discussion).. so by anymeans its going to look complicated.. Could anyone suggest a solution?
Your work is quite nice looking but I too agree with others and think that the current logo is best. Wikipedia is secularneutral and the shahada being in a logo spread across all Islamic/Muslim articles strikes me as being counter to the secularityneutrality of the encyclopedia. Netscott11:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You have a very good point in saying wikipedia is secular, but unfortunately could it apply to a religion related article? Did that strike you? , I think you didn't think about it did you? «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T)12:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, if a given Wikipedia article on any particular religion is not written/presented in a secularneutral way you can be sure that it will be edited (perhaps not immediately) to ensure proper NPOV. It is for this very reason that Islamic honorics (like pbuh) are not found (outside of quotes, etc.) in articles that discuss figures like Muhammad. Netscott12:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Mystic asked me to give my opinion, and here it is: I prefer this in the first place, or even better, if it can be made green. In second place, i would vote for a tie betwenn the Shahada mosque and the regular mosque. I hope this helps, thanks for asking. --Striver11:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
As per the arguments and comments above and below I think we have some consense to have Shahada for the template image, we will include it in the template. Thanks for all you comments. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T)14:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Mystìc put into place the template he's created by citing consensus to do so (in comments above). So looking at the comments from other editors in the section of talk regarding his new template let's actually examine the truth:
In fact this list wasn't intended to be a running total of who was for and who was not for but merely what that state of affairs was at the time User:Mystìcfalsely claimed consensus when he put into place the Shahada based template he created. In the meantime others have either added their own names or the names of others or changed their status since. User:JBull12 hadn't expressed his/her view at the time this list was formed, only later (whereupon User:Mystìc added him/her). Netscott14:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear netscott, please be nice in addressing people and try and be civil all the time, Your title for this section sounds very rude. The users Anonymous editor and Striver are for it.. They didn't disagree with me.. They have only mentioned that they dont mind either..That could be counted as for it.. You seem to have deliberately left out Aminz from your prepostorous vote count here..I am not going to add him in the count, as it is not my idea to have a vote count. And please understand Consensus is not established based on who is for it and who is not for it!!! It is based on whether they are against it for a valid reason and or for it for a valid reason. Specialy in an open encyclopedic discussion like this. Because anyone can drop by and stop a good cause for no reason. You cant be counting all the baseless arguments here.. As far as I am concerned the image has not changed iconicaly it is still a mosque. Why dont you give a valid reason for your disagreement before reverting again.. And we need not make this discussion a heated debate, I'd prefer a friendlier polite discussion. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T)18:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I am all for polite discussion but not when those with whom I'm discussing communicate in false terms. Perhaps English is not your native language and if that is the case then you're calling your deciscion to change the template based upon consensus is evidence of your lack of understanding of that term. I've made my arguments against your new template here along with other fellow editors who at this point along with myself do not support changing the current template to your new one. As far as counting for your new template the last two editors you've mentioned... following your logic they could just as easily be counted not for.... thereby they can sooner be considered neutral. Netscott18:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Surely English is not my native language, I dont see a problem with my English I understand what is consensus..Anyway thanks for your offer to help me understand. If you read carefully you would've understood that you dont have to take all the irrelvant arguments (a case has to be made to make it valid) to achieve a consensus. You still havent given your reasons to disagree. DO YOU HAVE A REASON. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T)18:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Who's to say whether an argument is not valid? Every point made against your new template appears as valid as the next. Your comments strike me sooner as an example of the utilization of weasel wording. Netscott18:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Your vote count here is unrealistic and you have struck a valid "for it" count just because you choose to interpret otherwise.. And you dont seem to be including all the "For it" votes either. You still havent answered my questions in BOLD.. Whats your reason to disagree.. You still havent given a valid reason to disagree.. I still have to say the image hasn't changed iconically it is "STILL THE SAME MOSQUE" only it looks better than the current one.. I can only think that you are against it because you dont want it to look better for some unconcievable reason. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T)05:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Have you not been reading the arguments? I've already expressed that 1. the Shahada image is not neutral and 2. your particular image is not a universally recognized symbol of Islam (in fact it appears that outside of yourself, no one else has ever seen the Shahada Mosque image previously). These are both very valid points but be sure to read the other comments that are not for your new template so that you may better understand why there is no consensus to adopt it. Netscott05:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Your arguments are totally insensible, How could it be not neutral? this is the Islam template so the image has to be islamic!!! so according to your argument even the mosque cannot be used.. because it is not neutral, so your comment that it is not neutral only amounts to nonesense!! I never said the image is the unversally accepted symbol of Islam, its not.. nor is the mosque!! All relgions use a symbol that is important to them in the template, Shahada is the most important symbol for muslims its not the mosque since some user like Zora and Cunado prefered the Mosque I included the Shahada in the mosque. Please read the previous discussions we had on this before you barged in to the discussion!! If your arguments were based only on your two points provided I have to sadly say its very idiotic«₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T)10:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all, can we all calm down? There is no need to be so angry and no need to be flinging accusations around. After all, even if accusations are accurate, sometimes it's better just to sit on them for the sake of general peace.
Secondly, while I like the new design by Mystic, I don't think it's likely to be terribly recognisable to non-Arabic readers. On the other hand, the template already says "Islam" in big letters above it, and this design is a good reflection of three important elements of Islamic civilisation, to wit, the mosque, stylised calligraphy reflecting religious statements, and the Shahada. So on the whole I've changed my mind and I think let's go for it.
Thirdly, I must say that I think the idea that the design should be "neutral" is a complete red herring. The design has to symbolise Islam in some way; that's almost incompatible with being neutral, in the rather extended way it's being defined here.
Fourthly, I don't think the non-shahada mosque shown here is all that much better or more indubitably Islamic than the shahada one.
Fifthly, I still think 'Allah' in Arabic calligraphy would be the best, simnplest and most recognisable image to use. Neither do I quite understand the big objection to the crescent or crescent and star, which have undeniably been used as Islamic symbols (cf the Red Crescent, plus most minarets and any sort of 'Id-related decorations, at least where I live), and are also simple and recognisable.
I don't think Zora was using rude language (which was an accusation Mystic made earlier), while he himself is using bold text to force through an invalid point. The argument that "this is the Islam template so the image has to be islamic" is nonsense. This is an encyclopedia, and the audience is just about everybody. The image in the template therefore has to represent something that is most uniquely identified with Islam by the general audience, not by muslims, as they do not own the Islamic articles. squell13:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you User:Squell for that reasoned explanation which perfectly refutes User:Mystìc's earlier comment that my argument was idiotic. Also thank to User:Palmiro for the calm down comment. The fact that no one owns a part of Wikipedia is a very important point and as such it's essential that editors conduct themselves based upon that fact. As far as User:Palmiro's claim that an argument for neutrality is a red herring, that too is completely false when in reality the net total sum of bias on Wikipedia is to equal neutral. Squell and myself are not the only editors that have expressed these sentiments in these general regards as Bahá'í editor Cuñado himself stated (in the section below) who is or isn't a Muslim is irrelevant to this discussion.Netscott14:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I fully agree with Palmiro's third observation! What I mean is that the design itself has to be a good visual cue; once observed, it should be easily associatable with Islam when encountered again; it doesn't have to be theologically "perfect". IMHO, Mystic's design is still a good visual cue, and most here seem to agree that, aesthetically, it is an improvement. The lesson to take home from this discussion is probably that no committee is ever going to win any design awards :o) squell18:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Guys I moved your discussion down here as I believe this will deviate my discussion from Image change to something else. What you are arguing on separate from what I want in that discussion. I left your comments relevant to image change in that section if you think what I did is inappropriate please feel free to revert it thanks «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T)15:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The Shahada is as Muslim a symbol as the Cross is Christian, or the Star of David is Jewish, or the Aum is Hindu, yet these religious symbols are used in templates of their respective religions, so the idea that it contravines some Wikipedia policy is demonstratively false. Further Wikipedia is NOT secular, it is neutral. --Irishpunktom\talk13:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I do agree that I was mistaken in saying that Wikipedia was secular (and not simply neutral) however I disagree on your other point. In terms of articles on Christianity and Judaism their templates are composed with symbols and not actual words. Therein lies the difference. Netscott14:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
This is English Wikipedia, those "words" are Calligraphy, the primary art of the Muslim world, and it is of itself a symbol in much the same way that the Cross and Star of David are. These are only words to those who can read them, and on an English Wikipedia, that will be very few people indeed. Further, the Shahada has been used as a symbol elsewhere, and is even featured on the Flag of Saudi Arabia. The Crescent moon, or star and Crescent, are not particularly Islamic. --Irishpunktom\talk15:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well despite the fact that I know that you aren't a big fan of Wikipedia self-referencing it seems odd that the Islamic symbols and star and crescent articles (and others I'm sure) say that symbol is is commonly regarded as a symbol of Islam. Even ambulances in muslim governed areas (ie: Palestine) utilize a red colored version of that symbol much like areas that are of Christian heritage utilize a red cross. Your contention that the symbol isn't very Islamic seems sooner to be based on original research. Netscott15:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
If I may butt into your conversation, crecent and the star were symbols of the ottoman empire not of Islam, Incidentaly the ottomans were muslims and the symbol is still widely used in the middle east...But not as an Islamic symbol.. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T)16:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I doubt either of you would argue that this particular symbol is fully representative of Islam either no? With the exception of Mystic no one on this talk page has mentioned ever seeing this particular symbol previously. What about finding a truly universally recognized symbol? Netscott16:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I have said all along that the star and crescent is by far the most recognizable symbol of Islam (technically Sunni Islam, which is the majority). Most people would not associate the Shahada with Islam if they saw it. The outline of a mosque is the only symbol that is both instantly recognizable as representing Islam, and universal within Islam (not any particular sect). It's also conveniently simple, where an artistic calligraphy is too detailed. Cuñado - Talk16:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with those in favor of the crescent moon and a star. It may have been a symbol of the Ottoman empire but it is universally recognized. The Shahada alienates non-Muslim and non-Arab speakers because they are unable to recognize and/or read it. What is the use of a symbol that cannot be universally recognized? As far as the five pillars of Islam are concerned, Shia muslims believe in them as well so that can be considered. I dare say a bunch of pillars will make the symbol look more like a pantheon than anything else. I also like the calligraphied Allah that is currently in use. All Muslims believe in a supreme being with that name (He is the same God that the Christians and Jews believe in and we are all equally loved by him but I'll save that discussion for another topic). I don't think the Shia's would mind the crescent moon..it reminds them of Abbas ibn Ali who was known as 'Qamar-e-Bani Hashim' or moon of the tribe of Bani Hashim. Also, what about a picture of the Kaaba. That is a universal symbol of Islam.Parihan19:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I think what is important is that the symbol is universal and also identifiably Islamic. It is true that the Star & Crescent has more currency noewadays as the undoubted symbol of Islam, but it is in fact an Ottoman symbol (or at least became widely recognised as an Islamic symbol by its use by the Ottomans). Shias don't use the star and crescent (as much). As for the outline of a mosque, that is just too vague, as many oriental religious buildings, such as Sikh Gurudwaras, Hindu Mandhirs, Bahai places of worship etc. all have arches and domes, so a picture of a mosque is not suitable in my opinion. I think the Shahada is identifiably Islamic and also universal. The idea that it is writing as opposed to a symbol and therefore not suitable, does not appreciate the nature of Islamic calligraphy. In Islamic symbolism, Arabic calligraphy has a more symbolic status rather than textual, as the Islamic prohibition of the depiction of animate objects led to the development of calligraphy in this way. Calligraphy is, in Arabic, more image than text, so a calligraphic representation of the Shahada is, I think, the most suitable option. Tanzeel20:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with shahada in general and shahada mosque in particular. Wikipedia happens to be an encyclopedia designed to be understandable by laymen. Very few visitors of the English Wikipedia will appreciate shahada, let alone understand what's written. We must stick to universally identifiable and easily recognizable symbols, like crescent and star. An argument can be made that it is not recognized by all Muslims, but in the absence of an obvious and perfect solution, we must settle for the best that we can get. PecherTalk14:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay As per the count many people who commented here agree that the new image looks better than the current one. So that is good enough consenses to change the image.. Secondly I dont think people need to understand what is written in the image.. If the mosque without the caligraphy was identifiable as a symbol of Islam then there is no doubt a person can understand that this image of a mosque with the caligraphy could be understood in the sameway. The other fact is Arabic caligraphy is always associated with Islam. So that argument is preposterous..The second preposterous argument is Laymens reading an encylopedia on the internet.. The image here has not changed iconicaly from what had been there.. THAT IS TO SAY IT IS STILL A MOSQUE.. One may argue it looks like the pantheon, the previous image looked like the Taj Mahal to me.. Please understand this image was considered in the place of the current one not to compromise the interest of the people who like a mosque as symbol of Islam and the ones who like Shahada as the symbol of Islam. Thanks «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T)15:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, the shahada mosque leaves many readers, myself including, scratching their heads and wondering what on earth they are seeing. The image must not attract attention to itself so as to distract attention from the article's content. PecherTalk16:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Aum is much better known worldwide as a symbol of Hinduism than shahada is known as a symbol of Islam. I don't know if there is any Hindu symbol that could be compared to aum in this respect. PecherTalk16:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Is that squiggly thing in the template on the right an aum? Because I don't think most people worldwide would recognise even what script (I'm taking it it's graphic?) it is, never mind know it for a symbol of Hinduism. Whereas the shahada will be familiar to anyone who has ever seen the Saudi flag, for example, and I suspect far more people will recognise the Arabic script than this (what is it?). The shahada-mosque, on the other hand, while an extremely cool image looks to me unlikely to be recognised as either shahada or mosque by most people not familiar with Arabic. How about "Allah" in arabic script? That would be instantly recognisable, surely? Palmiro | Talk17:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you know any better-known and more widely recognized symbol of Hinduism than aum? "Allah" or whatever in Arabic script will be recognized only by those who speak Arabic; "Allah" has a further problem of not being a symbol in the first hand. Others will only see that the script as Arabic, that's all. Do you really think many people who cannot read Arabic can tell one word from another, let alone remember all the curls on the Saudi flag? PecherTalk18:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Few will be able to read the Shahada here, or will recognize the resultant graphic as a mosque. The current design is just fine, and is naturally associated with Islam.Timothy Usher19:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think on reflection that the symbol is fine as it is, there is not such a need to change it and I agree that perhaps the Shahadah will not be internationally recognised by non-Muslims, which is necessary. In view of this, provoded the structure looks distinctly like a mosque rather than a gurudwara, then i think that's fine. In case not, then I think a star and crescent would be best suited for the purpose of a symbol, despite reservatuons against it. Just thought I'd give my opinion. I don't mind too much anyway. Tanzeel19:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed again and again. Including the Shahada on the template is not acceptable in a neutral encyclopedia, like it is not acceptable to include statements such as "Jesus is God" on the Christianity template. I believe that the crescent is the natural choice, as it is the symbol of Islam that is recognised by most people, and the symbol used by the majority of islamic countries. -- Karl Meier19:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mystic. The Shahada is totally acceptable because it is a symbol of Islam. The Star and Crescent, while recognizable and used often, are technically not appropriate. I think Muslims should be consulted here, and since I am one, and Mystic is one, we have more of a right to decide what belongs there than a non-Muslim. The encyclopedia must be neutral, but this entry is detailling our beliefs, and our belief is in the Shahada. Symbols, while accepted by some, are technically not within the confines of Islam, and thus its usage would be hypocritical in such a setting. If you want, you can note that some Muslims went against the religion and took a symbol, but that is all. -- JBull1219:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
JBull12, try not to represent a billion Muslims. And who is or isn't a Muslim is irrelevant to this discussion. Cuñado - Talk23:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone please tell me what is wrong with using the calligraphied Allah? It is well recognized, unlike the crescent and star it is not associated with any one country, and unlike the silouette of a mosque it is not ambiguous. If folks can recognize the Om in Hinduism, they can recognize the Allah in Islam and as mentioned earlier calligraphy is beautified Arabic script used as symbols. So for those of you hungering for a "symbol", you have one already. Honestly, we have better things to do than to argue about what represents Islam like maybe portraying Islam in a positive light on Wikipedia. Parihan22:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As I've said twice before, the hammer and sickle symbolizes one country, but that doesn't stop anyone from using it in the communism template! Let's use the most widely recognized symbol! 68.166.50.14216:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I want to point out that the Arabic wikipedia page on Islam uses the outlined mosque on their template, and they use the Shahada in the form of a star and crescent as the first image on the page. I think if the image in the template should be changed, it should be to this. Cuñado - Talk20:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Disagree, didn't you wonder why the mosque silhouette is what's used on the Arabic Wikipedia's template? The fact that the Islam article you've linked to is locked makes one wonder as well. Netscott21:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I concur with this star and crescent suggested by Cunado19. It's the "best of both worlds" as it's the star and crescent that is universally recognized and associated with Islam and it has the Arabic text others have mentioned. joturner22:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Part of a series?
"Part of a series" implies there is some co-ordination by some group of every article to which the template is stamped. Is there such a group? ...and if there were, do the rules of wikipedia allow such a group to control a subset of wikipedia articles? The template is intended as a navigational aid, not as a stamp of approval upon an article. Would not "Related articles on..." be a more approriate lead-in? --JimWae05:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I would go on but I'm getting tired of cutting and pasting. If you want to reform the terminology of wikipedia then you can, but you need to start on the policy pages and not on this template. I happen to like the wording of "part of the series on..." Cuñado - Talk07:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it sounds good, if it's inaccurate, it's inaccurate, and shouldn't be used. We're an encyclopedia, not a collection of euphonic lyrics. --Cyde Weys07:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It is inaccurate. There's no such thing as an "article series" on Wikipedia. The word "series" implies a topological ordering, which our articles simply don't have. Our articles are an amorphous web that link to each other through the nav template. It's not a "series", it's a "see also". --Cyde Weys07:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
What does that even mean? An hour ago was the first I'd even heard of this issue. Where do you want me to express my ideas generally? --Cyde Weys07:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Errr, my view is that we shouldn't use "part of a series on...", but rather, something to the effect of "other articles on..." Is that what you're looking for? --Cyde Weys07:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to a better wording if you think it's terribly inaccurate, but you should realize that not everyone shares those views and you should probably be arguing on some kind of policy page because it affects several dozens of articles. I didn't mean to start a fruitless debate here. I haven't seen a better wording for it and I see no problem with the current wording. Goodnight. Cuñado - Talk07:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking of the usage of the word series in terms of an expression like, "there was a whole series of articles on Islam". Doesn't that make sense? Netscott07:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Talk 13:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thanks a lot.. I am not the sole creator of the design.. This is an ancient caligraphical design that is found in some masjids (including Masjid al-haram if I am not mistaken).. I have only borrowed it, put a gradient effect and modified the size to include in the template. So the credit should go to the ancient artists. Anyway those who have commented have missed my initial point. The main idea is to have the Shahada in the logo (see the previous discussion).. so by anymeans its going to look complicated.. Could anyone suggest a solution?
![[1]](http://www.suedasien.net/images/themen/islam/bekenntnis.gif){kind=link}
