Talk:Muslim world

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
A note to all editors:
Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) Please keep off-topic discussion unrelated to the upkeep of the article to a minimum. Thanks!

Contents

[edit] ISLAM AND TERRORISM


[edit] polarities

"Desperate militant groups labeled as extremists" is hardly npov i would think

[edit] Iran and the Jews

The article says that Iran gives extraordinary rights to it's jewish population. Unless someone can document this I will remove the reference.

[edit] Economic Ethnic Summaries

Can we get some economic, ethnic and population summaries for countries normally considered part of the so-called Islamic World? Given how critical these issues are, it would be good to know.

http://nationmaster.com may have some good stats.

I deleted this paragraph:

Probably at no time since the Crusades has there been such a uniform level of tension between the Islamic and English-speaking world.
THee was no English-speaking world at the time of the Crusades. The nation of England spoke French. RickK 03:18, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
What? Didn't the events recounted in Robin Hood and Ivanhoe take place during a Crusade (see Richard the Lion-hearted)? Didn't Robin of Locksey speak English? Or Anglo-Saxon? --Uncle Ed 14:11, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic power

Although the impact of such a move would be less today, it demonstrates the power of the Islamic world acting in concert (in 1974, to support West Bank and Gaza Strip Arabs in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict), and the key role of religion and ethnicity in the politics of oil regions, with which the Islamic world very deeply intersects.

How does it demonstrate Islamic power? What sort of support did it lend to Palestinian Arabs? And what is the "role of religion and ethnicity" which this move relates to? --Uncle Ed 14:16, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Number of muslims

The number of Muslims is grossly exaggerated (interesting sign of..?) as usually, especially in North America and China: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html No more than 4 M (or 3) Muslims in the US max.

Mir Harven

[edit] 1979 shift

the paragraph: "In 1979 there was a big shift in the way the Muslim world dealt with the rest of the world. In that year, Egypt made peace with Israel, Iran became an Islamic state after a revolution, and there was an invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. A lot of things changed in that year. By 2001 the Soviet Union was gone, Jordan had also made peace with Israel, and on September 11, 2001 there were major attacks on the U.S. - which most people believe were made to drive the United States out of the Muslim world, especially Saudi Arabia. In many ways the events of 1979 led to the events of 2001." is speculation. pls. add proof.

I've removed the sentence "In many ways the events of 1979 may have led to the events of 2001.". This whole section needs editing still, though. Nloth 05:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

the paragraph: "Many believe that the Islamic World is fated to come into deeper conflict with the western world. At least one Islamic nation, Pakistan, has developed nuclear weapons, and others, e.g. Iraq, have attempted it. Weapons of mass destruction are likely to become easier to construct given the modernizing economies of the Islamic World." is also speculation, as well as inciting anger. A muslim might say it is not so. A non-muslim might take it as proof and act upon it. re George W. Bush

and finally, the link to msnbc is dead. no article can be found there. is it censorship? or an incorrect link?

Mohammed Arafa, Cairo, Egypt, 20/3/2004

[edit] Quality of language, quality of information, NPOV

Guys, this article needs a major overhaul. We have huge holes in many sections (particularly the history section), everything is written in a clunky style, there are some questionable historical statements (e.g. "Islam was also spread by war and colonialism, particularly of the powerful Ottoman Empire. Nations were conquered, and their inhabitants were given a choice to convert to Islam, or live as dhimmis, second class citizens." Although this does not contain any outright falsehoods, it totally misrepresents what actually happened, and oversimplifies a very complex series of developments. And policy differed between countries over treatment of non-Muslims quite widely.), and I am generally not happy about the tone and patchiness of the article. Beginning today, I am going to start rewording as much as I can, but there is so much information that needs to be filled in that there is no way I could do it all on my own.

And also, it could be asked: is this article really needed? We have articles already on Islam, so what exactly is the purpose of this one? Should it be covering the history of Islam (already covered in History of Islam), or the current political status of the Islamic world (already covered in Islam pretty well), or what? Is there any point to this article existing except as a brief definition of the term? Polocrunch 12:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Albania

Edits by Patterns Reverted I reverted edits by Patterns with respect to Islamic World and Balkan population. Justification given ". a) albania was mostly islamic after the fall of the ottoman empire and b) albania is the worlds first aethitst country. Same with bosnia. Gov is not islamic. Alb is no more isalmic than england" is irrelevant and POV. Albanian Communist regime was indeed ostentatiously aethiest, that however is not a logical argument that the population is not part of the Islamic world (any more than Russians ceased en toto being Orthodox Christian). Non or loose practicing cited in second edit also specious and highly POV. (Collounsbury 04:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

Albania's peaked at 70% while under Ottoman rule. I believe the main source for the inclusion of this article is the CIA factbook, that is in fact wrong. While a lot of Albanians can identify their religion, about 20 ~ 30 percent are active. Of those only about 15 percent are practising muslims. I worked for USAID there. Please do not add the revert again until you can find sources. Patterns 12:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I will continue to revert as your edits are tenditious POV. As you say "hile a lot of Albanians can identify their religion, about 20 ~ 30 percent are active." You seem to be under the mistaken impression that one has to be "practising to be counted as an adherent to the religion. This is certianly not the case elsewhere and in re other religions, and should not be applied willy-nilly to the Balkans and Albanian because one user has the idiosyncratic idea that only practising members of the religion "count." It is entirely appropriate to note in the text that some large portion of the population is not practising, it is not appropriate to merely delete reference to the population in the summary data. As for your working with USAID, who cares? You are not a "source" and your "belief" re the CIA factbook is irrelevant. None of the other data with respect to numbers of Muslims (or Xians) takes into account practising or not (e.g. Turkey/.e.g England), only ostensible adherents in some vague sense. This is merely a question of consistency. Now, if you have objective sourcing with respect to percent of population practising, say survey data, I would encourage you to add some text in the body re non-practising population in the Balkans - else leave your personal predilictions out of the article. (Collounsbury 19:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)).
I note that I also have personal experience in region, but I am not using myself as a source either. The issue at hand is one of standard reference practice. Reference materials do not 'subtract' data on religious believers based on supposed level of practice. Thus the CIA Fact Book data on the Balkans, Turkey, Europe do not get into the issue of whether the Muslims or Xians go to Mosque/Church or not. Patterns evident peronsal confusion in this area aside, it is inappropriate to apply the thinking to the Balkans/Albania when it is not elsewhere (for good reasons of inherent subjectivity, and general irrelevance as level of belief is a seperate issue).(Collounsbury 19:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)).
If uncited, you must leave OUT of wikipedia. I welcome you to put it again so I can request arbitration on the matter. Keep in mind the 3RR Patterns
What is uncited? Are you stupid? You keep vandalising based on an idiosyncratic reading of what should be included in religious population figures. None of the other population figures are cited, I may add. However, from the CIA factbook we get Albania 3,563,112 (July 2005 est.), of which 70 percent estimate on Muslim population. Balkans, we have, agree from CIA factbook Bosnia Herzogovina, 4,025,476 (July 2005 est.), 40 percent Muslim. Macedonia: 2,045,262 (July 2005 est.), 17 percent Muslim. Serbia Montenegro, 10,829,175 (July 2005 est.). 19 percent Muslim. That gives us an estimate right in the range of the figures given that you keep deleting on no more basis than your idiosyncratic and illiterate belief they should be, and more of a citation than any of the other figures. I await you to provide some citation re population figures and religious affilitation estimates being based on one person's personal observations. I can't wait for arbitration. (Collounsbury 05:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)).

[edit] Iraq with nuclear weapons?

Whoever wrote this needs to think again. It has never been proven that Iraq was even developing them and any attempt to say that they were is not a neutral viewpoint. I have removed Iraq from the "future" part and replaced it with Iran, which we know is deveveloping nuclear energy and possibly weapons.

[edit] Move this page

This page should really be called "Muslim World", considering it refers to Muslim nations, and not just nations ruled by the selective interpretations of the shariat - Any Objections?--Irishpunktom\talk 21:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no necessary implication in the phrase "Islamic World" of "sharia" or anything like it. Insofar as in English the Islamic World may refer variously to majority Muslim nations, nations with specifically "Islamic" governments, or merely the universe of territories that have some large portion of at least nominal Muslims living there, it is appropriate to keep. (collounsbury 22:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

No and Yes. There are no objections that the "Islamic World" has traditionally been called the "Muslim World". This is becuase the word "Islamic" means "Muslim". Islam is a noun, Muslim is the adjective associated with the noun. Becuase anglophones like to anglicize all the terms, they have created the term "Islamic", which was "Muslim" originally.

There are objections to you saying that Islamic implies, "not just nations ruled by the selective interpretations of the shariat". All Muslims, even the secular ones consider themselves to be "Islamic". What I'm trying to get at is that Islamic, and Muslim are the same thing.

Bottom line: Let's change the name of the article to "Muslim World". Bless sins 20:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As to this idea that the Islamic World has "traditionally" been called the "Muslim World" that is pure bunk. A variety of terms have historically been used to refer to the Islamic world, none of which were "Muslim" (indeed adopting the term Muslim in English is fairly recent, previously Moslem and even more commonly "Mohammedan" or Musulemane (the latter from Turkish) were used.) The rubbish about "anglophones" is pure ignorant tripe, Islamic merely is an anglicisation, there is nothing peculiar to English about nativising terms (e.g. old Ottoman Turkish turned Muslim into Musulemane). (collounsbury 22:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC))
Islam is a religion, Muslim is a people. As such, Muslim world is the appropriate name. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Just curious: do you imply that a Muslim may not be a follower of Islam!!! --Bhadani 16:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Figures

The amount of Muslim in Pakistan is 157 million (162 million x 0.97).

All numbers form CIA factbook.

[edit] Adding India

When the page talks of parts of Russia, how can one ignore India? Undivided India was ruled for centuries by muslim rulers, and they built monuments like Taj Mahal though some believe that Taj Mahal was a Hindu Temple. --Bhadani 16:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Race

I found in the page : "Like Christians or Buddhists, there is no single Muslim race; the world's Muslims are connected only by the common heritage of a religion." This sentence is not correct, and should be modified. --Bhadani 16:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If such a simple fact is not correct, I am sure that the page may correct several other wronmg information. If such wrong information gets circulated, it shall lower the credibility of wikipedia. --Bhadani 16:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't undersatnd the problem. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no problem as such, if it were a repor or an essay in a school examination. We are building an encyclopedia, and as far as possible we should give correct information. Both Christians and Buddhists belong to several races and ethinic groups - they are not of one race as understood in anthropology. I will try to read the page more carefully so that we may remove POVs and incorrect information about the Muslim world. The world should know about the subject matter. I also thank you for involving yourself with this work - it is an important topic of human history. --Bhadani 16:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
By the way for understanding the problem, I would suggest you to read some good books on anthropology. You may borrow them from any good library. --Bhadani 16:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Bhadani what is your reason for adding npov, attention, and expert? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I have tagged the article with {{{{NPOV}}} {{{{attention}}}}

{{{{expert}}}} in view of above discussion, and factual inaccuracies and absence of encyclopedic perspective. Jumbo Whales has created Wikimedia Foundation to build an encylopedia, and we shoudl combine our talents to create nothing less than that. Insha'Allah, we will do justice to this page. Please do not worry, God is great! Sukriya!!! --Bhadani 17:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please also see this: for an insight. Thank you, that is, Sukriya Bhaijaan! (Brother). I would love to contribute to Islam related pages as in my India we have Muslims more than in a number of Muslim states. It is all about one's depth of knowledge!!! --Bhadani 17:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Well even with this interest you have in this Islam page, if the only problem is one sentence, that is no reason to tag with three different ones. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Please confine your discussion to the topic and not on me - please abide by the general wiki-principles. By the way, my interest in Islam is not new - you may see a number of pages edited by me, and I have several friends in real life who are muslims. My interest in wikipedia is also not new - and I move around the wikipedia as a "volunteer editor" and wherever I notice compromise of wiki-principles, as also quality of contents, I stpe into to make suitablke changes. By the way, by “discussion”, I meant the discussion contained in the entire talk page tagging implicitly indicates the quality of contents as also the assistance required to make this page truly encyclopedic in the treatment of the subject matter. If required, you are welcome to place few more tags, as this will attract the attention of fellow wikipedians to come forward and render suitable assistance to make the page truly encyclopedic. --Bhadani 17:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I would also suggest that please refrain from passing on sarcastic comments on users, including me – always comment on the contents and not on the editors. --Bhadani 17:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
What sarcasm? I am not interested in learning about you here or what you want to contribute. I am saying that if the problem is only one sentence, there is no reason to use three different tags on the article. So can you please tell what your main concern is? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to help to improve the article to a better standard by tagging it suitably so that editors interested in the subject may contribute to make the page appropriate for an encyclopedia. In case, you wish me not to work on this page – ok, there are other avenues here where I may contribute – I understand some people suffer from “ownership-syndrome” vis-à-vis the pages in which they have deeply involved themselves. In case, you feel that the page has reached encyclopedia standard, you are most welcome to hold your views. Editors should, from time to time, read the following to get them mentally attuned to keep a mental frame suitable for encyclopedic writing: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability (policies), Wikipedia:Reliable sources (guideline), and Wikipedia:Cite sources (style guide), and stick to them. I trust that you shall readily agree. Still, I implore you to please remove POVs from the page. --Bhadani 11:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Bhadani this isn't about you and isn't about your contributions at all. Also these were my first few edits to the page so your ownership attack was completely unecessary and should be a little embarassing for you when you look at the edit history. I don't think the page has reached high standard, but I know enough about wikipedia not to add three different tags to an article and then not explain the details of it. Please read the policies first and then tell us what you find POV instead of trying to attack me for asking you a simple question. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
AE please do not read between the lines, I was talking in general terms and I would request you please refrain from further personal attacks. In case, you are so hurt, please take up the matter to ArbCom or other forum. It looks so childish - is not it? --Bhadani 16:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Who is hurt Bhadani and show me a personal attack that I made? You just said indirectly that I was suffering from "ownership-syndrome" when this was my first edit to this page. Yes, I think it is childish talking about me instead of the article. So why don't you answer my simple question? What do you find pov? I am not here to talk about you, but about the article but you keep using ad-hominems and talking about me rather than the article just to make things worse. So please just say what you find wrong with the article? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The distinction, in this article, between Jews and Arabs is clumsy and, moreover, difficult to make even if one were careful. It is impossible to consistently establish “Jewish” as an ethnicity or race in the scientific sense. Attempts to establish this have in fact supported the very strong likelihood that Jews and “Arabs” share a common genetic heritage in the Arabian Peninsula i.e. Jews were originally Arabs and many still are. This is not a difficult to see as there are “African black Jews, European white Jews, Asian Jews, Arab Jews etc. Also linguistics, posits a common Semitic origin once again the Arabian Peninsula (or the horn of Africa). Hebrew and Arabic are of the same language family. The evidence that “Arab” is a linguistic classification, not a racial one or an ethnic classification is overwhelming.

A Jewish woman can speak Arabic as here first language and give birth to Jewish children, so the linguistic distinction also fails. Most Jews do not speak Hebrew as their fist language.

The point is that the distinction between Arabs and Jews cannot be made since Jews can be Arabs and Arabs can be Jews. It does not logically stand. Once again the distinction being made in this article is lazy, clumsy, ill-founded and dangerous.

Let’s put more effort into it and say what we mean, for example: Why not say the Jews and the Muslims, or, the Jews and the Palestinians, or, the Israelis and the Palestinians, or, The Jewish Israelis and the Muslim Palestinians, or, the Jewish Israelis and the Jewish Palestinians, or, the Muslim Israelis and the Jewish Palestinians? However, religious tradition also holds both Muslims and Jews descended from Abraham. You get the point.

Could you provide references for your argument, please? While you argument for a common root between Arabs and Jews is plausible, I don't believe it negates the power of "race" in this conflict, so I'm not sure it is relevent. There are many examples of "race"-based conflict between ethnic groups that are much more closely related than Jews and Arabs (for example the conflict in the former Yugoslavia). Also, it would be excellent it you could sign your comments. Nloth 00:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

there is no such race as the jewish race though many would say otherwise such as nazi's

[edit] Moving the page

The page, as the discussion on the talk page and the contents explicitly and implicitly indicate, is fit for moving to Muslim people or some similarly named page – as the name of the page-name Muslim world is not appropriate. This shall remove the ambiguity about the contents of the page. This is just a suggestion for wider dissemination of information about the Muslim people. --Bhadani 12:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the page should be namd "Muslim" World. After all the inhabitants are called "Muslims" not "Islamics". Secondly, the term Islamic is up for debate. Several countries, such as Turkey, are fiercely secular, and belive in the complee seperation of Religion and State. Calling Saudi Arabia "Islamic" would earn you the wrath (metaphorically) of those who oppose Wahabbis; calling iran "Islamic" would earn you the wrath of those who oppose Shias. Yet no one denies that the inhabitants of each of those countries are Muslim.

Thirdly, this article includes the Muslim populations of France, U.S., Canada etc...yet there is nothing Islamic about each of those countries. Once again, Muslims are referred to as Muslim and not Islamic.Bless sins 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I support the move to change the name to "Muslim World"87.109.22.243 16:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you what?

The article says: "The spread of Islam was also due particularly to the powerful Ottoman Empire. Nations were conquered, and their inhabitants were given a choice to convert to Islam, or live as dhimmis, protected second class citizens practicing an officially accepted religion.

The Ottoman Empire came to an end in 1918 when Turkey lost control of the bulk of the Arab World, which it had ruled for centuries and in which it had suppressed most of the traditional norms of Islam. The United Kingdom and the United States supported Arab independence, but France insisted on retaining control of Lebanon and ultimately Syria. This, plus the status of Kuwait and Palestine, and the later partition of India, remain major sources of global tension to this day. Islam allows oppressed Muslims to practice Jihad, struggle against aggressors."

This is amazingly false. The Ottoman empire did not spread islam. It was one of many Muslim Kingdons, and unlike several others, from its inception to it's demise it ruled over lands which were previously Muslim, with the exception of the Balkans. --Irishpunktom\talk 12:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That the United Kingdom and the United States supported Arab independence is flawed too. What about Kuwait and Saudi-Arabia? Raphael1 02:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

I rolled back as major deletion of contents were done by an editor without discussing the contents. Such deletions are not expected to be carried out at wikipedia, we have a system here. --Bhadani 15:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The discussions on that removal are right above this --Irishpunktom\talk 15:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page:

Dont act as a proxy for other POV warriors, the information you are trying to add by force is false. In wikipedia we should always remove false information. "The spread of Islam was also due particularly to the powerful Ottoman Empire. Nations were conquered, and their inhabitants were given a choice to convert to Islam, or live as dhimmis, protected second class citizens practicing an officially accepted religion." - That statement is utterly false, the only place the ottomans took Islam was to the balkans. Unless you are saying that Islam is predominantly a balkans based religion you must conceed this is false. It then proceeds to speak about Twentieth century politics, nothing about the history of Islam in the Muslim world, nothing about where most Muslims come from - It short, its false information which has no place. Now, Why would you want the section on the denominations removed? Its verifiable, and acorrect, and I don't understand what you want to remove it. Please explain --Irishpunktom\talk 15:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you to discuss the matter with on the talk page of the article. I am moving this to the talk page. You are also welcome to cite sources which do corroborate with your contention. --Bhadani 15:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I know about the discussion - let the consensus be reached before you delete massive contents. --Bhadani 15:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The info is false. We need correct sources before it can be added. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Its hardly massive, its a false section. We should be working under the obligation that unsourced patently false information should be removed. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Please listen to reason as advised by SlimVirgin, and I would quote her: "Never disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Read Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability (policies), Wikipedia:Reliable sources (guideline), and Wikipedia:Cite sources (style guide), and stick to them even when it's killing you." Thank you. Happy editing and cheers. --Bhadani 15:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The part added is original research. We don't keep information that's false and without a source in an article. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Always assume good faith. In case, you have verifiable sources to claim that it is original research, please cite your sources. I would suggest you to please always assume good faith, and give that editor benefit of doubt. We are building an encyclopedia, and not advocates in a court room. --Bhadani 15:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
According to that, I can add a paragraph to the George Bush article that says he is really a democrat and no one can delete it. The person adding the information needs sources Bhadani. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that you may add "cite sources" if you do not agree, some one shall surely cite sources. Instead of edit warring, this shall solve the problem for the time being. --Bhadani 15:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest you not to disturb the sequence of discussion, as that is not in good taste. Please also do not give such irrelevant examples - in case, you really belieive that the other editor/s adding contents is acting in a manner he/she is not expected to add, please initiate suitable action - no one claim that he is a master of everything under the sun. Why can not you allow another editor to add another version of the position as may have been obtaining in those times. --Bhadani 16:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
And, like wise, a person can delete the information that Bush is President of USA, and the person deleting the iformation is not required to prove that his deletion was correct. AE you can not mis-argue in this way - I suggest let all the information should be there. However, in case, you want that only information liked by few should be there in any page - that is the outlook of the wiki-community - I am sure that some one shall update the information. --Bhadani 16:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I have not stopped anyone, and this example is relevant. And any person deleting that Bush is president, has many sources against him. And I'm not arguing for information "liked by some", I want correct information. This is actually an encyclopedia and being accurate is the outlook of the community. So if any editor is after adding information that has never even been heard of before, he should have proper sources. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Note

Reproduced from the talk page of User talk:Irishpunktom

QUOTE
Blanket reverting

Do not blanket revert a good faith edit that has added useful material, merely because you dislike some of the other changes. David | Talk 20:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I do agree. Before major deletion of contents, please discuss on the talk page. --Bhadani 15:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Please note that your indirect reverts tantamounts against the spirit of wikipedia. Please assume good faith, and avoid such deletion of contents. --Bhadani 15:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Unquote --Bhadani 16:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what your discussion has to do with that. David was talking about another article. This addition to the article has no sources.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
This has been brought here so that other editors may understand the nature of the editor involved in edit-warring and deletion of contents. --Bhadani 16:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
"Nature" of the editor can be found in his history, we don't need something like this being added everytime he reverts somewhere. Assume good faith Bhadani. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedians are integrated and you have to understand the editor involved well. I know that a senior editor like you should not encourage such edit-warrings. I always assume good faith, and I also know that you are doing all this with utmost good faith. Please try to understand that good faith is a two-way lane, and not a one-way affair. My intention was to give that editor a chance to tell the other side of the story, which you with your standing here in trying to kill. Anonymous, please do not do that - please allow the editors to tell the truth - please do not use your standing and height of respect you command here to influence the contents of pages. We are building an encyclopedia from a global perspective, and not from the perspective of an individual. Please give the other editor the benefit of good faith. Thank you - enough for to-day, bye. --Bhadani 16:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
No one is standing here to kill. The other editor can tell his story without having you making it worse for Irishpunktom. Or without having yourself involved in reverting. Please assume good faith and don't do this to other editors, because it's just like a personal attack against them. An encyclopedia from a global persective doesn't have to be wrong in it's information. The original research policy is very important, please read. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I have read them repeatedly, I would also request Annonymous that you too keep yourself revised and updated of trends here. I love Irishpunktom, yesterday we ate a lot of grapes together, some are still there, would you like to have some? --Bhadani 17:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I am sure that apart from reading, you could also understant them, at least most of them? --Bhadani 17:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The information is false, it is clearly false, and it is unsourced.

|

Here, compare the ottoman empire on the left - at its height in 1683, with the caliphate in 750 in the middle, with the Muslim world as whole, the subject of this article. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Muslim world is about the geography, history, and culture - everthing integrated in one - unsourced, un-encyclopedic map is not going to take us anywhere. We are building the Project from a global perspective, and it should reflect the truth and nothing else. In case, you are sure of the verifiable sources (of repute), you are most welcome to update the info, no one shall be there to stop you. But, by bashing a fellow editor-administrator, that is, me to be a PROXY of POVs pusher shall adversely affect your reputation as a reasonable editor. An administrator no so friendly to you (as I am to you) shall step in, and initiate actions in conformity with wiki-policies, and you shall suffer. I do not want you to suffer, my friend. And, on account of my other interests in wikipedia, I shall not be able to watch these pages, I am removing them from my watch list. Insha'Allah, we shall meet again sometime somewhere. May God bless you! --Bhadani 15:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Bhadani, All of those maps are from Wikipedia Articles, and they are sourced on ottoman empire, Caliphate and Muslim World respectively. I apologise if I offended you, but, you must realise that the information was simply wrong, and Netscott required me to prove a negative, which is not how Wikipedia should work. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesia, seemingly?

In Indonesia, the growth of various groups allied to those seemingly responsible for the Bali bombing most of which have been invisible, has been marked. It is expected that executions of perpetrators of that attack, which hit mostly citizens of Australia, will polarize that nation further.

What groups is it? Seemingly, is it MMI(Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia/Indonesiam Mujahidin Assemmbly)? They always reject that that allegation, Even Amrozi (The bomb maker) himself reject that he is connected with MMI. Except they were from the same culture. Fellow Indonesian Muslim202.69.101.170 04:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicts with Israel: WP:WEASEL

The Conflicts with Israel section badly needs re-writing. I've added a WP:WEASEL tag for the moment. I'll give it a go if no one else wants to tackle it. Nloth 05:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? You give no specific example(s) of why you did this. It seems to me that the editors have made every attempt to be fair: (a) use of "some" to distinguish from a blanket statement of all; (b) an example of Muslim cooperation with Judaism; (c) an example of Jewish cooperation with Islam; (d) explicitly stating that many Muslims distinguish between zionism and Judaism. (Danaidh 04:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

Trying to be "fair" isn't the point. Have you actually read what WP:WEASEL talks about? You asked for examples - here's one: Some, but not all Muslims see this as a fight against Judaism or Jews. - the page WP:WEASEL says: Here are some weasel words that are often found in Wikipedia articles (but shouldn't be):"Some people say..."
"explicitly stating that many Muslims distinguish between zionism and Judaism" is a problem in itself, unless it is backed up with sources. For instance, if it could be stated that "according to a report in xxxx, xx% of Muslims distinguished between Zionism and Judaism" that would be fine. Nloth 23:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uploaded new image

I created a new image, using the blank maps provided by Vardion. I felt the old map was blurry, the blue ocean was distracting, the borders were obtrusive, and Azerbaijan did not have the exclave of Nakhichevan noted as part of its territory. Ekrub-ntyh 20:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wesley Clark

I think that the quotations from General Clark are inappropriately POV and as such should be deleted. The US, like China,and other countries with signfigant millitaries almost certainly has plans for war with every other major country. I am certain that the US has plans for both a conventional or a nuclear with all of those countries, and that those plans would surely involve invasions, at least on a theoretical level. Is there an "Iran Plan," you bet. Are there hundreds of variations on the "Iran Plan," yes. Does this mean the United States "plans" to invade Iran. Maybe. Does it mean the United States intends to invade Poland or France, no. I'm going to wait a few hours, then I am going to remove the section on General Clark, or provide a balance. If anyone has comments or agreement, please post them on my talk page or here. --V. Joe 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the reports. They actually say that the US had planned a campagin to invade those 7 countries. It is saying that plans weren't just contigency plans - they were part of a US policy. (It's unfortunate that the actual sources for these comments aren't available and we have to link to second-hand reporting of them, though) Nloth 23:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not a world view

Folks, I added the following tag:

The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view.
Please improve the article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

I added it because the Muslim World is a predominantly South Asian/Indonesian based Population. Old India (Pakistan, Bangla Desh, Sri Lanka & India) and Indonesia accounts for around one half of the entire worlds Muslim Population. As it stands, the article *appears* to be arab-centric. There should be more on the varying Sharia systems in the Indian Sub continent, and the Indonesian model of Islam (Considering it is the nation with the largest Muslim Population). Feel free to remove the tag if you disagree. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Bias

Is the "future" section some sort of joke? Best way to democratise the world? Replacing consitutional monarchy with representative democracies? More like replacing democracy with theocracy. I can't believe this has gone un-noticed. Anyways, perhaps the whole section should be scrapped. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Regardless of religion and current rule system, all nations are moving towords a democracy, and for one reason or another, the nations economy is the primary reason. No religion can claim to be the best at moving towords a democracy, it's the collective human nature that causes the push, religion has a choice of adapting to a democracy or rebelling against it, the greater the religions emphasis on discipline as a virtue the stronger it is at rebelling against democracy. Another measure would be the emphasis a religion places on conversion over peace.[Maya] 14:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-contradictory

"The Muslim world is a term given to the world-wide community of those who adhere to the religion of Islam. " Well they are Muslims or the Muslim community.... Just to enforce the contradiction there is map of "Nations with a Muslim majority"... Oh yes, there's no article about a "Christian world" Ericd 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim vs Muslem

What is the difference (is there a difference?)? Both are used. Masa 03:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future

".. South West Asia have the potential to create new clusters of tiger economies of 1st century." Should this be "tiger economies of the 21st Century"? Masa 03:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is Malaysia included as a country with a strong current of secularism? 59.167.9.220 00:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nations with a Muslim majority appear in green, while nations that are at least 50% Muslim appear yellow. Huh?? This quote is from the map showing Muslim distribution in Africa. And I always thought 50% + was BY DEFINITION a majority. (snide remarks omitted)

[edit] Confused

"Nations with a Muslim majority appear in green, while nations that are at least 50% Muslim appear yellow."

Forgive me, but doesn't mojority mean more than 50%?

[edit] Image

Does anyone else think it's a bit misleading to have the image show only nations that are near 50% Islamic (yellow) and "majority Islamic" (which to my mind could include 51%) (green), and all other nations in grey? This would seem to underrepresent how widespread Islam is throughout the world, as I'm sure there are many nations with Muslim populations amounting to anywhere between 0 and 50% of the population. I'd say a map with more than three visible gradations would be more informative, but I don't know how to make such a map myself. Kasreyn 01:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/u/s/Talk%7EMuslim_world_6304.html"