Talk:Islam/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Six beliefs?

Since when has there been six? It's the five pillars, something I see no reference to in the article. Raven 00:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Five_Pillars_of_Islam is Sunni specific. It's mentioned under the Tenets of Islam section in this article. Wynler 00:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. The Five Pillars are basic Islam. http://www.islam101.com/dawah/pillars.html http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/pillars.shtml

Raven 22:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

210.187.7.122 (Anonymous) to Zora

Ok, I would have to say Zora: it's not your article but its everybody else's too. Gren, pls help!

This time, I don't really want to revert to my originals because I've read the article again and generally I would accept it as it is and perhaps it has been made more succinct this time. You win some, you lose some.

However, I think the article on Jhizya on the Dhimmis needs to be put in although briefly as you mentioned there is another link discussing on this. But I believe the Jizya tax NEEDS to be mentioned as it was a very important matter at that time.

Please let's NOT mention jizya tax, as it's covered in the main article, and it's a very contentious topic. It's an opening for the anti-Muslim bigots who come here and want to depict all Muslims as violent jihadis who oppress dhimmis. In fact, I thought it was one of the usual suspects who put in the bit re jizya.

I probably did crowd the paragraph on Syaria' since you say there is another link that covers it so I might consider putting it there. Anyway, thanks for summarizing that para.

You said : [I don't think I've added anything controversial -- I've just deleted lots of cruft. Furthermore, I suspect that none of the regular editors wrote it, so I don't think I will have hurt any feelings. At least I hope I haven't.]

No, I don't think you've heard anyone's feelings, Zora (at least certaintly not mine) but you shouldn't just be looking at regular editors. Many new readers like me stumble upon Wikipedia and this Islamic entry every day and they might have very useful things to add which I believe, IS the open spirit Wikipedia is based upon.

Going direct to the MAIN article on Islam and starting to edit it is not the most helpful thing to do. This main article has had thousands of edits since I put it on my watchlist -- might have been a year and a half ago. Most of the edits make it worse, not better. Everybody wants to jam everything into the main article! It gets way too long, and unreadable. This should just be a summary, a survey. All the DETAIL should go into what we call breakout articles. It's a shame that everyone gets so focussed on edit wars re the main articles, when there are so many things that NEED articles and don't have them. Biographies of caliphs, articles on famous mosques, palaces and citadels, biographies of poets, calligraphers, musicians, historians, theologians -- good articles, not just stubs. Everybody seems to have opinions about "Islam", but few people want to do work that requires actual research -- not just googling up material on the web, but buying and reading books. If you read Arabic and have a good library, anon, you could do valuable work on hundreds of articles, not just this one. IMHO, communicating the richness of Islamic civilization to people who don't know anything about Islam except lies is a good, kind, and necessary task. Zora 11:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You said : [Human fate established forty days before birth? Huh?) There were many confident proclamations of stuff that was just plain wrong, or contradicted by material elsewhere in the article. There was much pompous, bloated verbiage and bad English.]

Yes, the Quran states that human fate IS established forty days before birth. Which again underscores my point that orientialist or academics who think they know all about Islam should not be allowed to contribute as compared to real genuine and KNOWLEDGEABLE practising Muslims.

210.187.7.122 5:34 pm, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll defer to people who know more than I do -- and I often do -- but I don't think that means turning all the Islamic articles over to Muslims. That's just NOT OK by Wikipedia rules.
As for the forty days thing -- I can't find that in the Qur'an. I've tried various search sites. However, it is in a hadith from Muslim (1528). If you can't give me a reference to an actual sura and verse, I'm going to have to assume that your memory slipped a little here. If that's so, no shame; I've made some bigger mistakes myself. However, it does seem kinda unfair for you to assert that I'm too ignorant to be allowed to write on Islam when you yourself seem to have demonstrated some human fallibility. Zora 11:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Springcleaning

I just finished copyediting the article. I didn't do everything that needed to be done.

There is so much churn in this article that if you only look at the latest diffs (as I often do), you don't see changes made earlier. Hence various hands (probably anonymous) had filled up the article with pious references to the Prophet and sectarian or even bizarre statements. (Exact ratio of djinn to angels to humans? Human fate established forty days before birth? Huh?) There were many confident proclamations of stuff that was just plain wrong, or contradicted by material elsewhere in the article. There was much pompous, bloated verbiage and bad English.

The biggest problem left, IMHO, is all the material re schools, trends of thought, and remarks re contemporary Islam scattered throughout the article. All this material needs to be brought together in one place, and organized.

I don't think I've added anything controversial -- I've just deleted lots of cruft. Furthermore, I suspect that none of the regular editors wrote it, so I don't think I will have hurt any feelings. At least I hope I haven't. Zora 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, you're restoring material that is far from universally accepted by Muslims, or is badly written, or repetitive. OK, I guess we're going to have to go step by step.
First step -- statement that Qur'an was completely written down during the lifetime of Muhammad is not accurate. There are numerous, overlapping, and somewhat conflicting accounts. Hadith say that the material was recorded on various materials AND in the chests of men, that is, in their memories. One of the incentives for writing down the complete Qur'an is said to have been the death of many of the Companions, who were hafiz, and the fear that if many more were to die, some of the Qur'an would be lost. This account suggests that some of the Qur'an was not written down, but only memorized.

[I didn't write this statement. I added statements after that - the Siddhratul Muntaha bit.] -210.187.7.122

Second step -- The expanded statement re revelations is not necessary; it's covered by a preceding sentence. The article is already too long and verbose, and repetition makes it worse. Zora 14:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes I restored some of the material and made it more encyclopedic and neutral. If you need to make these changes that you said above, please go ahead. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

To the new editors

It is better to say "There is no god but God" than "There is no god but Allah" -- just because we have anti-Muslim bigots coming here claiming that Allah is not the same god as the Christian or Jewish god, but a different entity entirely. Using the word Allah in this one place just promotes misunderstanding.

Someone else changed my working in the "Symbols" section to read "Islam says". As Grenavitar tirelessly points out, Islam can't say a darn thing. It's various Muslims who proclaim what they believe is "true Islam". Since Muslims differ (often violently!) on what is true Islam, it is just not OK to use the phrase "Islam says". That puts Wikipedia in the position of declaring what is true Islam and what isn't. Wikipedia is not a member of the ulema and cannot give binding religious opinions <g>. Zora 12:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

"It is better to say "There is no god but God" than "There is no god but Allah" -- just because we have anti-Muslim bigots coming here claiming that Allah is not the same god as the Christian or Jewish god, but a different entity entirely." Zora, it is inappropriate of you to go around brazenly declaring that you will sacrifice accuracy and precision in an effort to enforce your POV on the rest of the world and protect wikipedia readers from the views of those who would disgaree with you (whom you so freely label "anti-Muslim bigots.") Who are you to tell Christians or Jews who their god is and what other reigions their god belongs to? And who are you to enforce your original research about which gods of different religions are the same? I could just as well argue that Allah is the same god as Ahura Mazda, the supreme diety of Zoroastrianism. After all, Islam is largely derived from Christiany/Judiasm, Christianity is largely derived from Judaism, and Judaism is largely derived from Zorastrianism. Here are some of the ancient names of Ahura Mazda: the All-pervading, the Creator (of life), the Majestic, the Greatest, the Best, the Just, the Merciful, the most Beneficient, all of which are also names of Allah. Here is the catch: Muslims believe that Zoroastrians are fire-worshipping pagans, and the early Muslims burned down Zoroastrian temples to no end. And, in contrast to Islam, Zorastrians believe that the Supreme Being is both good and evil. Muslims would hate for their God to be associated with pagan dieties, such as Ahura Mazda, or the Supreme Being of Hinduism. And yet all of these gods can be seen as one and the same idea, the "same god." Why do some Muslims like to insist that Allah is the same God as the God of Christianity, when the Christian trinitarian god is clearly very different, or that Allah is the same God as the God of Judaism when the "Hebrew understanding of God was frankly anthropmorphic"[1]? There are certain psychological reasons for why some modern-day Muslims insist that the gods of the prevailing religions in the West are the same as Allah. But the real issue here only concerns one specific part of the article, specifically the translation of the shahada. Should we translate it as "There is no god but God" (as Zora prefers) or as "There is no god but Allah?" There are different approaches to translation, and the proper approach depends on the context. Sometimes the best approach to translation is to sacrifice accuracy in order to convey a certain meaning. At other time the best approach is to uphold accuracy even if it requires using foreign words that are famaliar to the reader. The Arabic version of the shahada reads, "La ilaha il Allah." Literally translated, this means "No god but Allah." The Arabic word "La" means "No." The word "ilaha" is derived from the word "ilah" which is most accurate translated into English as "god." Now we come to the word "Allah." Should we leave it as it is, or should Zora impose her own POV interpretations at the cost of accuracy, and change it to "God?" The immediate problem with translating the shahada as "There is no god but God" is that it the same word "GOD" is used twice, wheras in the Arabic version two distinct words ("ilah" and "Allah") are used. It is misleading, therefore, to translate both as "god" while putting a capital letter for the second occurace. Arabic does not have the concept of capital and lowercase letters. And the shahada uses two phonetically distinct words here. For these reaosns, I changed "God" to "Allah." I do not think that Zora's protestations are well founded (rather, I think they are founded on personal attacks, prejudices and POV pushing), so I'm changing it back again. -- Zeno of Elea 14:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok "Zeno" let me try to explain something to you. It is not that difficult to understand. we are TRANSLATING a language here. "There is no God but Allah" is fine, but not translated. Do you think we should leave "Ilah" as it is ,and maybe "La" too? As you see this destroys the point of TRANSLATION. Please everybody watch out for this guy, he seems to be on a mission to misrepresent Islam. -Roc

Zeno make a good point here. It should be "no god but allah"--Wibidabi 13:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
we've been through this too often. If "Allah" doesn't translate to God, why do Arab Christians use Allah for "God"? If you're so sceptical, Zeno, that you think this translation inserts inaccuracy, where do you take the confidence to translate "ilah" as "god"? The translation is either "there are no ilah but Allah" or "there are no gods but God", but to translate either "there are no gods but Allah" or "there are no ilah but God" would be inconsistent, and would obscure the etymological connection between ilah and allah. dab (ᛏ) 14:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Why do Arab Christians say Allah? Because they are minority in an islamic majority region and have pragmatically learned over time that it is wiser to placate the Islamic majority, by not asserting or displaying contrarian beliefs than the ones prevalent in the region, than to challenge those beliefs. Its the same reason that western women put on the veil when they go to Islamic dominated regions.
The argument that Allah is the same as the Christian God is a Muslim belief derived from verses in the Qu'ran. Yet the Christian entity GOD and the Muslim entity Allah have radically different messages , character and personalities. If these 2 very different entities were the same then we would be dealing with a highly schizophrenic deity indeed. The Muslim retort to that is of course that the Christian belief is corrupted and their Allah is the correct one. Well Muslims can believe whatever the Qu'ran tells them they have to believe, but this is not reciprocated on the Christian side for the very good reason that the Christian Bible predates the Qu'ran and therefore the Bible has no statement as regards later ideologies like Islam, on the contrary it even forewarns against false ideologies with verses alluding to the False prophet.
So can we conclude objectively that they are the same God? No. We can only say that the Muslims claim that they are the same and Wikipedia should therefore clearly reflect that this is what Muslims and only Muslims believe and avoid any implications of sameness of Gods between the Christian GOD and the Islamic Allah . --Wibidabi 15:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's complete nonsense. Is the God of Origenes, Francis of Assisi and of George W. Bush the same entity? If so, he must be very schizophrenic indeed. This is not about theology, but about the word Allah. You can disagree about properties of God and yet use the same term. dab (ᛏ) 16:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Wibidabi's theory about why Arab Christians say Allah is ridiculous. The use of Allah amongst Arab Christians pre-dates Islam. Please see the Ghassanids. Yuber(talk) 17:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
It probably is true that He who Muslims call Allah is the same entity as the Christian and Jewish G-d. The word G-d in Hebrew is either אל El or אלהים Elohim (there is also the Tetragrammaton יהוה YHWH, but that is perceived to be a more personal way of referring to Him). It doesn't take a genius to notice the similarities between the words Allah and El/Elohim. Izehar 17:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
what do you mean "He"? What if I (or anybody else) believes that "existence" is not a property of this Allah/God/El 'entity'? Will that make the articles superfluous? No. It is about mental and semantic constructs (how "He" reflects in the human mind, if you like). Christians and Muslims agree that there is a "God", they just disagree about the details concerning his various revelations. This old "God/Allah" dispute is entirely beside the point. "Allah" is the Arabic for "ho theos monos", a concept expressed in English as "God". Just using the term "God" does not imply any sort of unity in theological opinions. We wouldn't have to point this out again and again if people did some minimal amount of research before "knowing better". dab (ᛏ) 17:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The Christian God is a concept created in the land of Israel by Jewish tribes , the Islamic Allah is a concept created by the bedouin arabs in arabia, and they are different entities who preach totally contradictory messages.
Furthermore all the following statements below are equally valid , it is all opinion and conjecture with zero evidence in favor or against any assertion. Its all superstitions and what one choses to believe , or in most case what one is indoctrinated to believe by decrepit and dogmatic ideologues with bony fingers.
  • There are no gods
  • There is a god
  • There are two gods
  • There are multiple gods
  • There are an infinity of gods
  • All of the above
  • None of the above

--Wibidabi 17:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


What is wrong with this Wibidabi? He appears o be talking to himself, because his stange cemantic arguments ahve no relevence to this article. It is not too hard to tell this guy's position on Islam, we all know it's a negative one. It is MY opinion that the hate in his heart leaves him in no position to write on this topic. I think he should look ito some sort of relaxation therapy. -Roc

Do I understand you to say, Wibidabi, that...
  • a) Muhammad had no contact with, or knowledge of, Christian and Jewish religious practices, and
  • b) Christianity and Judaism had no influence on pre-Islamic religious beliefs, and
  • c) The word "Allah" was coined by Muhammad? BrandonYusufToropov 17:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
What would be the point to try to answer questions that neither you nor I have any concrete evidence about what went on during Muhammad's time, (if he even existed at all), since neither you nor I nor anyone alive today was there. All the information we have from that time period is sanctified hearsay, in other words superstition. It is up to you, if you want to buy into it, like people bought into the idea that the Earth was at the center of the Universe and like people today buy into the superstitions we call religions, a sad reminder that culturally nothing much has changed over the past thousands of years.
All we can discuss is what is stated in the Bible and in the Qu'ran and notice that they are each describing radically different entities as their God, but more importantly that each makes fundamental assumptions about the ultimate cosmology of the universe that neither can prove.
Our job at Wikipedia is not to propagate superstition but to give a factual account on various topics. You want to argue that the Christian God and the Islamic Allah are the same , well neither you nor anyone else alive today has any evidence of that , you only have hearsay from the Islamic side, you do not even know what Muhammad really said on the subject as you were not there to hear it. You only have what people generations later said that he said. --Wibidabi 00:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Understood -- the questions I posed are not comfortable for you. I'm just looking for a clear indication that you are declining to answer them, or even to paraphrase the answers of the most highly regarded (non-Muslim) scholars who have invested their lives in the study of this period. BrandonYusufToropov 02:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, given that dab "knows better", it should be pointed out that in this article, either term; God or Allah can be used. Interestingly enough, Encarta uses the word God to refer to Him. Look at this article, look at how they translate the shahadah. Also, as you say that God is the English translation of Allah, then Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) may have some news on that (although that convention more properly refers to article titles). So far, theology has not become an issue. Izehar 17:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Both Christianity and Islam derive from Judaism - just thought you should know. Izehar 17:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to add that apart from Ghassanids there were also the Muntherites. Indeed, the name of the Jewish leader who also was the Highest Priest in Madina before Islam came was "Abdallah Bin-Saba". You'd realize that some comments above are full of original research (re Why do Arab Christians say Allah? Because they are minority in an islamic majority region and have pragmatically learned over time that it is wiser to placate the Islamic majority.) If Allah wasn't the same as Aramaic Alaha or Jewish Elohim than we would have been living in a peaceful planet. For more info, pls have a look at this Talk:Islam/Archive 9#GOD Vs Allah. Cheers -- Svest 19:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

"we've been through this too often. If "Allah" doesn't translate to God, why do Arab Christians use Allah for "God"? -- dab" No dab, we have not been through this at all. We are discussing translation of the shahada specifically. I did not say that "Allah" doesn't translate to God, so please do not put words into my mouth. I am discussing the proper way to translate a specific text, and just because a translation is correct does not mean that it is proper. --Zeno of Elea 07:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Note to trolls -- at least this vandal didn't mix venality with hypocrisy

  • Frankly, I found [this latest bit of vandalism] oddly refreshing. At least the troll in question wasn't lying about trying to, you know, actually present facts. "Just want this religion and all references to it gone, please."
  • Option One, of course, would be to avoid vandalizing the article in the first place.
  • If you ignore us on that point, though, trolls -- and I suspect you will -- could I ask the next vandal to consider a similarly forthright approach? Rather than pretending to edit the piece, I mean? BrandonYusufToropov 20:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Apologies to Zora From 210.187.7.122

Dear Zora

You're right, only the hadith mentioned the 40-day event and not the Quran. Must have slipped my mind, I was reading about it only the other day. How fallible am I compared to God. I am sorry. I have also changed my viewpoint. Muslims AND non-Muslims (everyone really!) may insert articles about Islam as long as they are correct. Keep up the good work and further extending your depth in Islam! May God guide you! Bye... (P.S. if you need to contact me for any reason whatsoever, my e-mail is : ezanih@hotmail.com) - 210.187.7.122

Thank you. That's beautiful. That's a lovely example of Islam -- says this Buddhist. Zora 05:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
"may insert articles about Islam as long as they are correct" seems to be a lie. I have inserted several verses from Quran (I actually own one, do you?) and they have all been deleted. Wikipedia is the most biased source on the net, no doubt. Truth gets suppressed in here.

You don't owe this dude no apology. You putting verses out of context is the hate in your heart for ISLAM manifesting itself on the internet. Don't you know that Islam is the most hated way of life on the World Wide Web?

May Allah guide you my friend. You look very determined and happy with the ill-conceived illusion about Islam being the most hated way of life ont the www. I think you owe an apology to Islam itself.

خرم Khurram 20:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

More copyediting

I went over the first part of the article. Someone is putting two spaces instead of one between words. This is distracting. Also, various editors who must speak English as a second language had introduced some ungrammatical or unnecessarily verbose edits. The one major change I made was to remove all the detail from Zakat. That is just TOO MUCH for an introductory article and should be left in Zakat. If you hit readers over the head with too much detail, they'll just tune out. Zora 07:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

request for advice

I posted this on the Qu'ran page as well. People have singled out three different translations of the Qu'ran: A.J. Arberry; Abdallah Yusuf Ali; and Ahmed Ali. I have not yet read the Qu'ran and would like a reliable and well-regarded translation. I would appreciate any advice. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"There is no god but God"

No one is disputing that Allah == God. This is only a matter of what is the best way to translate the shahada (there are many ways a sentence can be translated). For a comprehensive discussion of this issue, please Talk:Islam#To_the_new_editors. Please stop reverting "there is no god but Allah" to "there is no god but God" without further discussing this issue. In my humble opinion, anyone who continues doing this revert without addressing the issues raised in the talk page should be permanently banned from editing this article. -- Zeno of Elea 09:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for editing help with "Baha'i Faith"

Currently the editing of the Baha'i Faith entry (and related entries) is dominated by Baha'is, who take the opportunity to downplay criticisms and in general slant their information in predictable directions. Please consider this a call for non-Baha'i editors to come have a look at the site, and help ensure balance. Thank you. Dawud 10:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for the Muslim Guild. -- Zeno of Elea 15:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
What is that? Dawud 04:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits about rusul and nabi

Excuse me, I don't appreciate whoever keeps going right behind me and deleting the changes I make. Do you own the page? I was correcting and/or expanding some definitional clarifications and someone keeps deleting them. There was nothing controversial in the changes I was making, they were simply explanatory. I do not appreciate this whatsoever. Please stop and allow others to make some changes. I certainly was not being a troll, nor was I pushing any kind of agenda. 130.39.138.205 03:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Amira

  • Please provide citations for your sources to help with verifiability. See WP:CITE and WP:CITET for more information and examples. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-4 03:57

Lead-in

Can we come up with something neutral and informative for the lead-in without offending anyone? I think that's one of the things the article needs to be featured, but I'm afraid to touch the page due to the high reversion, vandalism, etc rates. Jibbajabba 21:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[I have deleted a great deal of bickering that had nothing to do with improving the article. I will of course not revert any restorations of text that someone finds germane to the purpose of this talk page, if any such text can be found in this morass. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)]

Religious incidents

Ok, why is the mention of the destruction of the World Trade Center and other islamic-based terrorism not listed here? It is like the Nazi Germany page not mentioning the holocaust at all. Jihad has consequences. You can bet those guys in those planes yelled 'allahu ackbar' as they went into the buildings. monty2

Nazi Germany didn't have a complex many-thousand year history based on their beliefs. When I checked Christianity, they *do* have a section which links out to some of the vulgar atrocities commited in the name of that faith Historical_persecution_by_Christians, but the article on Islam doesn't link to Historical_persecution_by_Muslims, (though there are links to Islamism and Jihad), so maybe we could use the christianity article as a template. As far as linking to relatively minor (when considering 1200 years of history) incidents like the WTC attacks, I think linking to all of the atrocities created by religions, in each religion's article, would probably not be optimal. Ronabop 09:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Can we link to the other atrocities done by Islam then, if you consider 9/11 a minor hiccup in the "peaceful" Islam?

Agreed. If Christianity can mention Ireland, then we can certainly mention suicide bombings and planes flying into buildings here.GodHead 03:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello fellas. I see what you are saying. But if you are going to discuss Islamic extremism are you going to discuss the background of it or not. I mean Hitler II (formerly Monty2) is on a mission here. He does not want come up with any solution to any problem, merely to say over and over and over and over that "islam is bad". Hey Hitler II (Monty2) we get it you hate islam. If a serious discussion on islamic extremism and terrorism is going to take place then the causes of these effects should be discussed namely: imperialism and colonization, nationalism of which zionism is a form, and the neo-imperial practices of britan, france and the usa. Also, one should not forget pure, good old fashioned, racism when discussing western born islmic extremism as in france and britan of late and the usa with the nation of islam movement. Hey I'm not trying to excuse terrorism. But there are people out there like Hitler II (Monty2) who are bent on repeating the same old slogan over and over.

I think this article sorely needs to be written. There is great censorship in the muslim world which is why these articles have not been written yet. I can find little on the African slave trade even though it persisted into the 20th century and was far larger than the Western slave trade. (Anonymous User) May 24, 2006

Statement concerning interpretation

Assalamo Alaykom, This statement was presented in the page of islam

"Sunnis believe that ijtihad, or interpretation of Qur'an and Hadith is closed since 800 years."

This is wrong!

All Sunnis believe that ijtihad, or interpretation of Qur'an and Hadith is still not closed til now & untill the Day of Judgement (qiyama). Please take kare when you write about religion & specially Islam. thanks, Salamo Alaykom. -- unsigned by 196.218.12.203

There is a strong notion among many that the "gate of ijtihad" has been closed. Schact said "whatever the theory might say on ijtihad and taklid, the activity of later scholars, after the closing of the door of ijtihad, was no less creative of later scholars than that of their predecessors" in his famous Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. There is definitely a concept of closing of the door or gate of ijtihad, although, as the quote says its reality can be questioned. To state it as a universal reality would be off, but its discussion has merit. So, let's go by the scholarly sources and get a good mix of opinions and present them neutrally. gren グレン 08:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

More on Interpretation

With all due respect, Schact is a terrible source, largely discredited by later scholarship (see cites below). The original correction is absolutely right -- the 'gate of ijtihad' has never been closed. In the classical Islamic world (and until the present) a contraversy arose as to who was and is qualified to contribute to ijtihad, but the 'closing of the gates of ijtihad' is an essentially Orientalist notion inserted into Islamic scholarship by colonial and imperial scholars such as Schacht, Coulson, and Goldziher. What the colonial/imperial scholars were trying to portray was an Islamic system that was irretrievably broken. Hence a need was created: the replacement of the 'broken' system with a spiffy Western system, courtesy of the colonizers. It should be noted that eventually every system of law that was not Western was found lacking in turn, from Islamic to Hindu and so on. For more on the 'Gate of Ijtihad' issue, see Wael Hallaq, "Was the Gate of Ijtihad Closed?" (International Journal of Middle East Studies, 16, 1 (1984), pp. 3-41) For more on systematic Western decimation of Islamic and Hindu law, see Bernard Cohn, "Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge" (Princeton University Press, 1996). Ebzmiller 08:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)ebzmiller

Ah, I have seen and read parts of the article by Wael. I also agree that Schacht should be taken in context; although his book is still a respected source despite it being somewhat outdated. I am not making an argument whether there was a gate, whether the gate was opened, closed, or what. There is definitely a view of (mostly Sunni) Islamic intellectual stagnation from mid the second millenium. The view of "the gate of ijtihad" (and I'm not sure of where the term came from) is a real concept that should be addressed. I know scholarship has been moving more towards discrediting oversimplistic views, or at least adding to them... but. Well, Rudi Matthee when talking about this talked about the closing of the gate and said well yes, there was a degree of stagnation compared to the earlier developments but the stereotypical notion of all development just stopping was oversimplistic. He even used the Arabic term which I have since forgotten. My main point in all of this is to address the term. It is a term used by scholars to this day; although increasingly with reservation and to dismiss it would not properly represent the academic landscape. I am by no means against discussing the sources you bring up, but I am against ignoring that such a concept as "the gate of ijtihad" exists. gren グレン 09:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Uh, the interpretation on Qu'Ran has been done generations ago. It is generally considered a taboo subject. Stop lying.

-Re 'interpretation on Qu'Ran' -- This is not at issue, although your statement is incorrect in addition to being unsigned. Ijtihad as a method of legal interpretation (which is what is being discussed here) has virtually nothing to do with Qur'anic exegesis. Ebzmiller 15:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC) ebzmiller

-As to the other (clearly informed) comment by Grenavitar, I know its a complex issue and I'm not for ignoring it -- I think it needs to be described by both scholars and Muslims as what it is, and to acknowledge the very critical and possibly inappropriate role of the West in defining Islamic law as frozen in a 'primitive' state from which it required rescuing. From what I understand from Dr. Hallaq, he can find no mention of the closing of the 'bab il-ijtihad' in the sources until very late in Islamic history, and when done by qualified scholars ijtihad was encouraged -- I'll review some notes and find out how late the first mentions of this 'closing' are, but I stand by the statement that this was never an important issue in a pejorative sense previous to a colonial/imperial context of denigrating the Islamic (and other) systems in order to impose a colonial/imperial order in the name of 'progress'. This is not to say that the 're-opening' doesn't need to occur: it is to say that it may be easier to see the way to do that with a full understanding of the mechanisms by which the 'bab' became characterized as 'closed'. There is also an interesting question to be addressed: why is taqlid 'bad'? In the US we have the concept of stare decisis -- both taqlid and stare decisis are essentially the principle that unless there is a really distinguishing aspect to a case, or a really overwhelming jurisprudential reason, the previous reasoning stands. This insures, if not justice, at least the stability of the legal system as a basis of forming rational expections as to what constitutes acceptable behavior. The Islamic legal system did not persist for many hundreds of years because it was stupid and never worked, rather the opposite. I think any rational Muslim could look at the system that had been used successfully for X-hundred years and conclude that they had a good thing going. The reason I argue this point about the gate of ijtihad issue so vehemently in the context of Wikipedia is that as a basic reference I would hate to think that it would play into stereotypes of Islamic law as primitive, or that someone seeking more information would take Schacht as authoritative compared to later scholarship that has taken place since the realization of the dynamic of Orientalism and the importance of power relationships in how history is characterized. Ebzmiller 15:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC) ebzmiller


In the US we have the concept of stare decisis -- both taqlid and stare decisis are essentially the principle that unless there is a really distinguishing aspect to a case, or a really overwhelming jurisprudential reason, the previous reasoning stands. This is the very nature of Ijtihad as far as I understand it. The door of Ijtihad is never closed and it will never close either but in order to do Ijtihad one needs to be a master of eight essentials branches of islamic studies including previous laws (fiqh), arabic language, hadith and quran to mention a few. Any Ijtihad done by a person who does not possess these qualities is not considered legitimate sine it is believed that such a person does not have the required knowledge to reject the previous decisions.

خرم Khurram 16:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

To Anonymous editor

[personal attacks from 4.159.5.143, and responses thereto, deleted by —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)]

I'd like to call a Vote on a picture of Mohammed

There are contemporary and Historicals pictures of Mohammed, whether or not Muslims find this offensive is negligible. Wikipedia is supposed to be Secular.--GreekWarrior 19:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This post is on the Muhammad Talk Page. Please continue the discussion there.

INCREDIBLY LAZY EDITORS

OPEN LETTER TO THE INCREDIBLY LAZY EDITORS OF THIS PAGE:: HOW IN ALL THAT IS HOLEY CAN YOU JUSTIFY ALL THE BIGOTRY THAT IS SPEWED ON YOUR WEBSITE UNDER THE NAME OF FREE SPEECH. THE DISCUSSION BOARD IS SUPPOSED TO FUNCTION TO FURTHER THE KNOWLEDGE OF EACH SUBJECT. A PLACE WHERE HONEST IGNORANCE CAN BE CURED BY DEBATE AND SINCERE DISCUSSION. WHERE OPINIONS ON THE SUBJECT CAN BE ARGUED BACK AND FORTH. I LIVE IN THE USA WHERE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS CHERICHED LIKE A NEWBORN INFANT. I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN DISCUSSING RELIGION AND THEOLOGY SOME PEOPLE WILL GET OFFENDED. TRUST ME AS AN AMERICAM MUSLIM I KNOW THIS. BUT HOW THE HELL CAN YOU CALL A STATEMENT LIKE "Islam is poo" AN APT ARGUMENT. ANYONE WITH SUCH HATEFILLED STATEMENTS (AND THERE ARE PLENTY HERE) IS NOT INTRESTED IN DISCUSSION YOU ARE ONLY PROVIDING THEM WITH A PLATFORM TO SPEW THEIR FILTH. are there any Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, bahis or any one else out there who think that such hateful comments are inappropriate. or does everyone hate us. I'm loosing my hope in humanity --unsigned comment by: User:12.73.240.115

Those of us who've been here for a while get fairly cynical too. If you're upset because the article was vandalized -- well, it's frequently vandalized. There are lots of editors watching it, so it usually gets reverted quickly. We may want to request semi-protection, so that anons can't edit it. That might cut down some of the vandalism. If you're upset by opinions on the talk page -- well, we have to let everyone speak. Usually only obscene personal attacks are deleted. A lot of people love to hate, don't they? Sad. Zora 09:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
RE: OPEN LETTER. I agree that Wikipedia is a place for civil discussion with rational theses and well thought out arguments. Perhaps you can be the first to start! 1) By stop using ALL CAPS, 2) trying to build a rational argument yourself, 3) spell check, 4) proofread, and 5) no personal attacks. Thanks! And my kindest regards.--Muchosucko 15:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
it is true that this talkpage could do with some encyclopedicity. I would fully support some rule that would allow bigoted comments like those about an "academic battle against this vicious and wicked faith" below to be rolled back. We impose standards on the article. How about imposing some minimal standards on talkpages too? dab (ᛏ) 09:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting peoples additions?

OK, I understand Islam is full of things that believers of it don't want others to know, but this is getting ridicilous. Every addition that I've made I have backed up with DETAILS FROM THE QU'RAN or one of the books themselves! I have quoted the scriptures! What is wrong with you people to keep deleting these?

You must not write history or an encyclopedia according to other peoples feelings! This article must keep all the facts INCLUDING THE JIZYA and what the jizya is, what is a dhimmi, etc.

I have been trying to add things on here for ages, but to be honest it is hard, I will keep up the academic battle against this vicious and wicked faith, but the Muslims gang up together like they do with suicide bombings and stop anything that dares to question their so called prophet. --GreekWarrior 18:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The Qur'an is a primary source and it is original research for us to interpret it. Also, keep your disparaging comment about our Muslim editors off of article talk page. gren グレン 19:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
You know full well Islam is not as peaceful as Christianity, it is the only major religion that does not subscribe to the Golden Rule, it doesn't have anything in it like Sermon on the Mount, or the Beautitudes, or 'Turn the other Cheek'. Where is there anything that peaceful in the Quran? The Quran is a book of hate, I find it offensive, and I want you to remove certain verses that offend me. --GreekWarrior 19:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
So if Muslims are offended by having a picture of Muhammed up, its ok? But if your offended by having verses from the Qur'an up, its not ok? And since is subscribing to the Golden Rule a prerequisite for being a peaceful religion? Pepsidrinka 19:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course the Golden Rule is a prerequisite for a peaceful religion, how on earth can you not expect it to be? Muslims are allowed in the Quran to lie and deceive people. They do this often, Islam robs mankind of it's humanity. --GreekWarrior 19:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
My philosophy professor was in a debate about whether God was needed for morality. He was arguing the atheist side, that it was not needed to have objective morality, against a Christian. When it came to the Golden Rule he used the example of wanting to have sex with your neighbors wife. You may want it but does she? Now is this the essence of the Golden Rule? Probably not... I never thought of a loophole to it in my time at Church. However, does a religion need an explicit Golden Rule to have morality? The whole Golden Rule thing is silly and I haven't seen it used by anyone but the rather non-notable Ali Sina.
I don't know if Islam is less peaceful than Christianity. It's difficult to tell what is religion and what is socio-economic situation. Muslim per capita GDP is much lower than Christian. So, I don't know... that's why we research. Personally I interpret Christianity as more peaceful than Islam... but that's how I was raised. I try to provide a complex view to represent the reality. gren グレン 19:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
We can all tailor hypotheticals to fit our arguments, but they are irrelevant, practical application is the real test. In regards to Islam, it is a vicious and wicked faith, and it is against all bounds of human logic, in Islam, a woman bearing her hair is haram, but her husband beating her up is halal, does this not defy human logic? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the oldest part of morality, it is a code to live by, if it is removed then simply in moral terms you can do what you like to people. Islam is a vicious and wicked faith, and Mo was a vicious and wicked man. I will keep on fighting against Islam.--GreekWarrior 19:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
This is not the place to continue that fight. gren グレン 01:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If this helps any, from what I can see on his talk page GreekWarrior appears to have gotten the boot. --Kizor 20:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed external link

I just removed these external links:

First of all, the red and black text on bright green used on those links is so harsh and difficult to read, that I don't expect readers of this article to going there and get anything useful out of that site. Anyway, Wikipedia is NOT a link directory. --Aude 14:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not generally, but after a lot of skirmishing editors here decided that instead of links to INDIVIDUAL Islamic sites, which were very hard to police, we'd just have links to directories. The directories you deleted are non-commercial and however hard to read they are, some people have found them useful. They only take one line and they cut off a LOT of criticism about "why can't I list my site". I put the links back. I hope that you'll consider leaving them up after hearing our reasons. Zora 20:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the well reasoned explanation. Makes good sense. --Aude 22:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Important development

I think we should let everybody know about this:

Grand Ayatullah al-Udhma Yusof al-Sanei has just declared suicide bombing as Haram: [2]

I think this is a very important fatwa that must be circulated.--Zereshk 22:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It's sad that this statement had to be made. It goes without saying that suicide bombing is haraam. By the way, don't add the fatwa to the Islam article. joturner 22:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Im not going to add it here. It was just to let all editors know, should they need to specifically quote it somewhere.--Zereshk 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
But it should be added to Islamist terrorism .F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it definitely doesn't belong here. gren グレン 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

al aqsa??

Can anybody upload a good looking picture of Kaaba or Masjid al Haram , & put it in place of Aqsa mosque . I am not very knowledgeable on copy-right issues , so I dont know what to do. F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Spring clean

I just went over the article and deleted a whole buncha cruft that various determined POV warriors and linkspammers managed to insert without being noticed by regular editors. There's so much churn due to vandalism that it's easy to overlook changes. No major changes, just a lot of tiny one. Notable sneaky corrupters: the Fonsvitae spammer and Edip Yuksel's tiny Qur'an-alone group. I think this article is a strong candidate for semi-protection -- only letting registered editors with more than a certain number of edits have write privileges here. Zora 10:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

70.50.245.101

  • This person is incredibly anti-Muslim. He is ruining this article by editing in propaganda. Can't anyone put a stop to this? Pure inuyasha 21:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


  • Why don't you mind your own business? Get a life! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.130.228.70 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC).
  • I'm going to assume that you are 70.50.245.101 so I'm just going to comment on that unwarranted attack on my person. I'm bringing this up because on wikipedia you are NOT allowed to make biased and hateful messages about anything. your edits qualify as biased and hateful, maybe even racist. Pure inuyasha 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Iconoclasm

Under the "God" section of the article we find: "No Muslim visual images or depictions of God exist because such artistic depictions may lead to idolatry and are thus prohibited. A similar position in Christian theology is termed iconoclasm." Technically, iconoclasm is the destruction of idols and religious icons, thus making it's reference an illegitimate parallel to idolatry. It must be noted that "idolatry" itself is also a term used in Christian theology. I recommend the deletion of: "A similar position in Christian theology is termed iconoclasm." If a more "christianized" synonym of "idolatry" is wanted in the article, then I recommend something along the lines of: "No Muslim visual images or depictions of God exist because such artistic depictions may lead to idolatry or iconolatry." The distinction between Muslim and Christian terminology isn't appropriate as definitions of both "idolatry" and "iconolatry" can apply equally to both religions.

I'm just tossing this out there. I know religious articles usually suffer from much vandalism and debate so I won't add my suggestion to the main article. I'll leave that to those who edit this article regularly. Either way, the term: "iconoclasm" doesn't make sense when used as a synonym to: "idolatry". Duffer 15:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"Muslims hold that the Qur'an available today is the same as that revealed to Prophet Muhammad and by him to his followers, who memorized and wrote down his words"

Might be some good ideas on how to change this. There's considerable evidence that it was modified heavily and abridged shortly after mohammed died. At least some form of scientific truth should be added. Also, this article needs a lot of description of terrorism in islam through the ages.206.103.66.134 09:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't have to do with any arguements, concerning the 'political correctness' of this page... I'd just like to say that I, personally, don't speak/read arabic and i was hoping someone that knows how some of these words are pronounced could show people like me. For instance the names of the holidays and things of that nature. I don't want to bring up Islam in an arguement/debate and butcher the names of Islamic celebrations and make myself look ignorant and ill-informed. Just a suggestion, good luck to everyone on further expansion on this topic (as well as others). --Kamikazi 17:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Islam family-tree

Hello, great article. Here a suggestion:

I think this article needs a chart for Islam, a 'family-tree' with branches Sunni, Shii, Sufi, Wahabi, etc. Such an overview will help readers to understand these traditions and where to locate the many details that are connected to Islam. As an example, there is such a chart on the Christianity page: see Image:Christian-lineage.png. It mentions the main traditions, their relations, summarizes their history, the years of splits (different colors) and commonalities (same color).

-- ActiveSelective 10:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Owww, sorry! I just found out there is such a chart already, on the Divisions of Islam page: Image:Divisions_of_Islam.jpg
--ActiveSelective 10:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Well then, in that case I suggest: 1. to put this same image in chapter "Schools (denominations)" of this article; 2. to add "Main article: Divisions of Islam" just below the heading of that chapter, like in other chapters; 3. to consider enhancing the image by adding more of a time-line in the chart (like in the chart on Christianity) and make it show which of these many traditions are largest in number of believers.
-- ActiveSelective 11:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism Portal page?

I removed " { { Terrorism } } " from near the top of the article because regardless of mass media in the West, which builds this bridge between Islam and criminality, this is NOT what Islam is about. Report all you like about criminals in Islam, however they have always been and will always be at most a tiny and despised minority of the 1.2 to 1.6 billion Muslims.

Sorry for any mistakes I make, I don't know much about Wikipedia. Thanks. 24.86.203.199 15:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Islam is linked with terrorism whether you like it or not. I realize that these people are a minority, however, the fact remains that all around the world, innocent people are being victimized by terrorists who draw their inspiration directly from the Muslim scriptures. They didn't just make these ideas up themselves. If you wish to promote ignorance then please do so on your own web page, not the Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.18.35.37 (talk • contribs) 18:20, Jan 20, 2006 (UTC)


As a commited atheist having no stake in defending religion whatsoever, I object completely to the above unsigned statement of an anonymous user.
The inspiration of acts of terror is not religion. The inspiration of terrorism is the history of being colonized, being exploited for oil, being discriminated against for not being christian or white, being victims of undemocratic regimes which are supported (if not instated) by "civilized" countries, seeing western made weapons in your face. That is the inspiration, that's where the act originates from. No-one needs to be religious for that, but only needs to be human and feel sick seeing the unjustice done to the people in the colonies.
Every act of terrorism (through which victims believe they can revenge themselves and kill the bloodthirsty imperialist beast) always expresses itself through the vocabulary of the ones committing it, but does not depend on the vocabulary. If terrorism comes from the Arab colonies, then it has an Islamic vocabulary. When retalliation came from the Vietnamese, it had a peasant vocabulary. If retalliation comes from Columbia, then it will have a christian vocabulary. And the retalliation that came from the Weather Underground, had an American vocabulary. It is not about the words people surround their actions with, but what made people come to these actions in the first place. You'll have to look beyond the decorum for that.
To you too: If you wish to promote ignorance then please do so on your own web page, not the Wikipedia.
--ActiveSelective 19:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
ActiveSelective, you have completely missed the point. As much as we all enjoyed reading your vague and clichéd bromides about victimization and colonial aggression, the fact still remains that there are numerous passages in the Muslim holy writings that endorse terrorism, and the history of the Muslim faith is soaked in blood. These statements should not cause any controversy as they are well documented in numerous sources, and supported by the historical record (try this article from salon.com as a starting point Islam: Religion of the Sword?). Now, are there also passages in the Muslim scriptures that would seem to support an opposite view? Yes there are; the Quran, like most religious texts is painfully contradictory. However, these internal contradictions do not negate the fact that those Muslims who use the Islamic scriptures to promote terrorism have just as much scriptural authority as those who argue the opposite point. Finally, if you choose to respond, here is a piece of advice: try actually thinking about what you are going to say for a few moments before reflexively spouting off a series of banal platitudes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.18.35.37 (talk • contribs) 20:21, Jan 20, 2006 (UTC)
Instead of responding to these naïve statements, I suggest we all comply with Wikipedia's anti-civility policy and ignore this statement; let him wallow in his ignorance. joturner 22:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not my intention to violate Wikipedia's anti-civility policy. I would draw it to your attention that nowhere in my post did I make any false allegations, make any sort of personal attack, or use profane or vulgar language. In your post, however, you implied that I was an ignorant male ("let him wallow in his ignorance"). You do not know me, and you do not have any idea as to whether or not I am ignorant or male. Perhaps you should read the anti-civility policy yourself. All I have tried to do is point out the fact that Islam is inextricably linked with terrorist violence, and that there should be some mention of it somewhere on this page. I realize that many of you are embarrassed about these connections, but you must not let your personal biases influence this encyclopedia. This is a NPOV issue. Now, if you wish to respond to anything that I have said, I would invite you to do so, but please, deal with the facts, and do not resort to personal attacks and empty rhetoric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.18.35.37 (talk • contribs) 22:41, Jan 20, 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous IP User, it seems as though you are over-analyzing my comment. I'm not saying you're ignorant about everything; I believe you are ignorant (read: "wrong") on this subject matter. I did not intend to say that you were a man; it is perfectly reasonable English to use just one gender pronoun when saying both is cumbersome.
You have disagreed with a user who has removed the {{Terrorism}} template off the Islam article. By doing so you are implying that you believe Islam is linked to terrorism. And on second thought, that is exactly what you said. Regardless of your intentions, proof, etc., the statement clearly would attract extreme disagreement and eventually escalation to incivility. Judging by the sentence in which you said "try actually thinking about what you are going to say for a few moments before reflexively spouting off a series of banal platitudes" and also your most recent in which you said "but please, deal with the facts, and do not resort to personal attacks and empty rhetoric," you have already begun that escalation. I was simply trying to say in a rather peaceful way that we should take the necessary steps to prevent this from happening. joturner 04:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with joturner that Mr./Ms. Anonymous needs to calm down! However, despite the unecessary rudeness, he/she/it may have a point about making at least some mention of radical Islam's ties to terrorism. I mean, joturner would you deny that such ties exisist at all? That being said, I think I should reiterate: Anonymous, take a chill pill! What do you all think? 24.130.228.70 05:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't disagree that the Qur'an may have some verses that hint at a level of violence. However, it is often Islam specifically that is singled out for inciting violence, when in fact all three of the Abrahamic religions (and others beyond those three) have hinted at violence in their respective religious texts to a degree comparable to that of the Qur'an. To me, it appears as though Anonymous User is doing the same thing; singling out Islam as the violent religion. joturner 05:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
What a discussion -- lot's of fire here! Now, I don't mean to offend anyone here, and I realize that this is a sensitive subject. Yet, I must admit that after reading the comments of our notorious anonymous friend, I was a bit suprised to go back and see that indeed there is no mention of Islam and it's association with terrorism. I think that the user Joturner has made a fair point about other religions often getting a free pass while Islam is singled out, but since she seems like a reasonable person I would ask her and others to consider the following two points:

1.) If you feel that there is inadequate mention of the violence linked with other religions then you should be talking about it on their respective discussion pages, not this one. Correct?

Inadequacies on another page do not mean that we should repeat those same inadequacies elsewhere so that every page can be equally inadequate right?

2.) We can't just pretend that Islam is terrorism free. Our world news scene today is dominated by stories of terrorists who are inspired to do their dirty work by ideas they got from the Qu'ran, and from the study of Muhammad's life and work. Is that statement incorrect? Are these people not devout Muslims who probably know more about the faith than many of us? Again, I would ask all of you to read my comments in light of what they are: an honest attempt to ask questions and discuss issues that need to be brought up. I am not attempting to smear the faith or its followers. I would like to hear your feedback. NetCruiser 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

(1a) Correct: wikipedians don't like inadequacies.
(1b) Incorrect: when it is general policy not to mention terrorism at other religion pages, then that policy should also apply on the islam page. So the making an exception to that policy on the islam page is even more inadequate.
What is worse, the POV that everything nowadays has to be linked to terrorism in some way or another has gotten such a hold of all the FOX viewers mind, that the neutral not-linking-of-everything-to-terrorism is presented as a filthy partisan POV. How distorted!
Let me show you in my answer to your last question:
(2) "We cannot pretend George W Bush is terrorism free either, after killing 80,000+ Iraqi civilians, Abu Graib, and Guantanamo Bay. If you want to start adding links to terrorism, then set priorities first and start with the biggest terrorist at this moment. Or do you not respect NPOV?"
--ActiveSelective 20:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Active, good points. I agree with much of what you said. However, in light of recent world events I think it is naive to imply that all religions are equally guilty of promoting terrorist violence. I don't know of many people who have been killed by Hindu suicide bombers. Nor do the mass killings rampant in the Old Testament seem to be encouraging many Christians to go and do likewise. Now perhaps you are correct in your assessment of George W. Bush, but that discussion does not belong on the Islam page. George Bush might indeed "be the biggest terrorist at this moment" but that is irrelevant to this discussion. If Islam is the inspiration for countless terrorist acts around the world then there should be at least some mention of it on the Islam page (maybe a link in See Also?). If George W. Bush is also associated with terrorist activities and this can be documented in the same way Islam's connections can be, then I will support you in adding some mention of that to his page. Finally, I don't care for your language when you say, "filthy partisan POV." Nowhere in my post did I characterize the people who have contributed to the Islam page as having a "filthy partisan POV." In the future I would appreciate being shown the same degree of respect and courtesy which I try to show in my dealings with others.NetCruiser 21:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
NetCruiser -
I don't think we should add sections about violence in every religion. I don't see that as neither inadequacy or censorship, but instead an as unnecessary addition. If you want, we can encapsulate all that information into one article, Violence in religion.
On your second point, I do not intend to pretend Islam is terrorism-free. However, I must say that terrorists who claim to use the Qur'an to back up their actions are clearly misguided. For every ayah that could possibly be used to support their actions, there are probably twenty to condemn them. Using the Qur'an to support terrorism would be like me using the United States to back up a claim that slavery is essential to building a successful nation. As ActiveSelective stated (in a little more ardent tone), the notion that terrorists could be more devout than other, peaceful Muslims is a rather absurd idea that is the product of collective bias. No one has ever called Eric Rudolph or Timothy McVeigh "Christian terrorists", and yet everyday Islam is being connected with terror in this manner. Could it have been that Mohammad Sidique Khan had depised democracy as he said? Could it have been these kinds of personal values, and not religion-back values that motivated him? Maybe Christians aren't committing too much terrorism in the name of God because Christian-majority countries hold the most power. They can get what they want more easily (see War in Iraq, War on Christmas, over Religious Holidays in Hillsborough County, FL). Maybe the unity entrenched within each religion is enough to cause some people from all religions to take things too far.
And yet, none of these are considered. Instead, the collective bias (notice how I'm trying to avoid "media bias") is that Islam itself promotes terrorism.
Lastly, I would hardly call the 9|11 hijackers good Muslims, considering they spent a considerable about of time during the last months of their lives gambling, drinking alcohol, and hiring prostitutes in Las Vegas [3]. More devout Muslims? I think not.
P.S. NetCruiser, I mean no harm in my comments. I understand that you are simply bringing up a topic for discussion and I understand you were not trying to offend anyone. I simply believe those statements are incorrect. About the relevancy you mentioned, we really should be talking about adding the Terrorism Portal template to the article. Since, clearly we have diverged significantly from the main topic, I feel anything is game. joturner 22:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest making a "Controversy" section like many articles have (a less generic name would be preferable of course). That section can cover not only terrorism and Islam but people like Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter who essentially think Islam is evil, and maybe briefly cover the topic of radically different interpretations of the Quran with a link to a main article.

By no means should the above mentioned template be on here; if it had to do with Muslim terrorism or controversy in the Muslim world, it might be more acceptable. Even then I would question its inclusion in this particular article, but at least then there would be a legitimate argument for its inclusion... Jibbajabba 21:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jibbajabba: a section on Muslim terrorism is appropriate, even I would say, necessary, whereas a general terrorism link is not. If we don't add any mention of terrorism, then it begins to look like it is being intentionally ignored -- the proverbial elephant in the room -- which would just fuel the fires of those who wish to attack Islam in general. 24.130.228.70 21:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This definitely can and should be done (a lá the Christianity article). joturner 22:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
No it shouldn't. We already have Criticism of Islam article for positions to argue that Islam is related to terrorism and and article on Islamist Terrorism. All of this criticism can go to the criticism article. This has been ignored in this discussion. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually I did realize that those articles existed, but by "a lá the Christianity article", I meant that a little bit about the subject should be mentioned on this page, but links to that article and Islamist terrorism would be included. That's exactly how it's done when mentioning persecution on the Christianity page (although I must admit it talks more about Christians being on the receiving end of persecution rather than the other end). joturner 22:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes and I think that the Christianity article could be a lot better. The addition of those sections just messed up a good article (a former featured article) and are often vandalized. The Islam article is a very good article because it is factual and not opinions; we have separate articles for that. At this time we don't need to be like the christianity article but instead that article needs to be cleaned by its editors. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'll retract that. The section is unnecessary. joturner 22:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, it would probably be vandalized more often than it is now if it had such a section (which is saying a lot as we all know) and it would just be out of place with the general flow of the article. I was trying to find some sort of compromise, but after giving it some thougt, seeing "Islamist terrorism" in the "See also" section (or wherever) is enough to get the attention of those interested in reading about such things. Jibbajabba 23:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
(to Netcruiser) First of all, I am sorry. I was not suggesting you were saying "filthy partisan POV". What I was trying to do was to point out that we should be aware of propagandist phenomena like the immensly popular FOX TV affecting the general political climate. Being aware of such phenomena, helps us to balance their POV, helps us to write articles in a NPOV way, saves us from automatically linking islam to terrorism like the neocon news network continually does. The words represented the tone of the typical TV host calling its critics names (not your tone). I am sorry that I was not clear on that point. As you can see in all my other discussion contributions on this page, I also follow courtesy.
I don't know of many people who have been killed by Hindu suicide bombers [...] Christians [...] George W Bush - That is what I meant. This is a consequence of the general climate of linking terrorism automatically to islam.
If Islam is the inspiration for countless terrorist acts [...] - The very first question should be: Is it? Is it the inspiration for terrorism? Depending on the answer, and only after answering it, can we decide to link this page to terrorism. We should not give in to suggestions upfront.
In my contribution above I (tried to) make clear that islamic ideas are not the inspiration, but being-oppressed is. The most suicide bombings occur where people are oppressed most (Palestina). Suggesting that islam (and not oppression) is the inspiration for terror, implies that suicide bombings occur more or less evenly distributed among all 1.2 billion muslims on this planet and not located to the places of inhumane darkness. As you can see, that is not true.
I am an atheist, not a muslim. I can smoke pott freely (here in Holland) and visit prostitutes without being busted. Why I care about linking this article tot terrorism? Because it is utterly unscientific, untrue and an insult to wikipedia. -- ActiveSelective 22:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Even the Hebrew page on islam does not make this link. (which, I understand, is more of an authority than some single user like me)ActiveSelective 12:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know very much about wikpedia (I haven't even made an account yet!) so I guess you guys know best about what does and does not lead to vandalism and I will gladly defer. But, all I was trying to say before was that whether or not these people are accurately interpreting the Qu'ran or whether or not they are actually authentic Muslims or not, doesn't take away from the fact these terrorists are very vocal about their religion, and therefore are certainly associated with Islam. That being the case, it seems like not making ANY mention of this fact on the Islam page (not even a link!) just makes those folks who run the page look like they don't want to face the facts. Maybe a section on common misconceptions about Islam? That would address the issue in a positive way, but would avoid the "elephant in the middle of the room" syndrome that I brought up earlier? What do you think? 24.130.228.70 23:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
There is a link in the See also section. joturner 00:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

about 6 articles of belief in Islam

im new here just came across your site just wanted you guys to know its 5 pillars of isalm and 6 articles of faith

Tablets of Abraham

Not sure about terminology here: does the Suhuf-i-Ibrahim ('scrolls of Abraham') refer to the Tablets of Abraham ? My hunch is that it does. Also, I can find virtually no (reliable) information about them (got the reference from [4]) - probably because they are lost (according to the editor who mentioned them in the article). MP (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont exactly know about the origins of this belief , but I've heard it so many times since my childhood [5]. 10 Suhuf to ADAM , 50 Suhuf SETH , 30 Suhuf to Enoch , & between 10 and 30 to Abraham . I think out of all these, only Suhuf-e-Ibrahim are mentioned in Quran .May be its in some hedeeth book , like Tabari . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor changes

In "Other beliefs" section , we had angels , which have been discussed in "Six articles of belief" section , then we had jinns , to which I have given a link in "See Also" section . Third one was magic , & I really dont think it can be considered a part of belief .

Also I have removed some links in see also section , the ones which were present in template or else where in the article . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The Lebanese Muslim professor who visited my "Ideas and Values in the Humanities" course to lecture on Islam did not use the word "peaceful" in defining the word Islam. For that matter, he did not say "to the will of God," either; he said it meant "submission."

In my opinion, articles on certain subjects, especially certain religions, certain politicians and certain celebrities can never work in an encyclopedia compiled by writers not trained in professional standards of neutrality and objectivity. Look at what you've been saying about this article, with its "bloated verbiage" and "bizarre sectarian statements", and look at what happened to your George W. Bush article. It's hopeless, and just makes Wikipedia look ridiculous.

are you talkiing to me !!

New Symbol

I suggest a new symbol to be used for all wikipedia islam articles. that mosque-like structure is getting old. i suggest a stylised fivepointed star. WoodElf 12:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Old"? Is that an argument? Hmmmf. I resolutely oppose. (why is a mosque not stylish, by the way? The most prominent things 'stylish' in Arab culture are the colourfull mosques with the stylishly drawn Arabic letters and mathmatical mosaics on the roofs) -- ActiveSelective 12:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Joturner's Comment

Joturner wrote the following under the "Terrorism Portal" discussion: "No one has ever called Eric Rudolph or Timothy McVeigh "Christian terrorists", and yet everyday Islam is being connected with terror in this manner."

Muslims often attempt to make this analogy, however, it is clearly false. Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh had to violate the Bible's explicit and implicit commands when they did their dirty work. They also had to run counter to the example of Christ. Muslim terrorists, however, can call upon numerous passages from the Qu'ran and various Hadiths to validate their actions. Muhammad was also an incredibly violent man. Please don't say that I "don't understand real Islam." I know how to read. If you would like me to cite the references from the Qu'ran I will do so, but I think that you know them already. These are facts, not opinions. This analogy fails miserably. If you have any sort of response that doesn't involve calling me, either directly or indirectly, "ignorant," or "bigoted," I would love to hear it. RussianBoy 20:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Muslims have to violate "dont kill unarmed civialans" command when they kill common people . But then....the other side is doing the same thing , so its more like "never mind religion" condition . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW how about calling Hitler "Christian terrorist" , Sharon "Zionist terrorist" , & GWB * ahem * ...."Evangelist war crimnal" . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Like F.a.y. said, terrorists are in violation of the Qur'an as well. As I said in my other post (in case you didn't read the entire thing) they are far from good Muslims. Drinking alcohol, hiring prostitutes, and gambling in Las Vegas just prior 9|11 are in clear violation of Islam. And I know Rudolph and McVeigh are in violation of Christianity. What I am saying is that we don't refer to someone's religion (or race, gender, etc) every time we mention someone's occupation. When introducing myself, I don't say I'm a Muslim student. I don't expect my mother to greet people by saying she's a Christian teacher. And George W. Bush isn't addressed as Christian President George W. Bush. But often times were "Muslim" terrorists are mentioned, they are referred to as Islamist or Islamic terrorists. That extra modifier causes many people to associate Islam with terrorism.
I don't need you to cite passages from the Qur'an that mention violence. I know they exist in the Qur'an although in my eyes, they promote only violence only after reasonable provocation. But what you fail to mention is that the Bible has verses that appear to promot violence as well. Take for example the following from the Book of Exodus:
"And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren." (Exodus 2:11)
"And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand." (Exodus 2:12)
Is the Bible promote gratuitous murder? Judging by those verses, one could say so. But that is only a small excerpt from the Bible and therefore that assessment would most likely be incorrect. As I believe I said in my original post, many religious texts involve violence. In the same way you cannot look at one or two petty thefts in a man's life and say he's a disgrace to society, you cannot look at one or two (or more) verses of a religious text and say it promotes violence. That same arguement goes for your portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him); he was not a violent man. Although I know you did not want me to, RussianBoy, I am going to say that you do not understand the real Islam. If you think the terrorists are not violating Islamic law, you are wrong.
May Allah bless you in this world and the Hereafter. joturner 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


RussianBoy, you claimed that Prophet Muhammad (p) was an "incredibly violent man". I have absolutely no doubt that you are amongst the group of people who hate Islam before you read. This is just one type of bias and is similar to those who love an ideology/religion/belief before they read. You claim that you know how to read, and I have no doubt that you do; but I am very certain that you are selective about your reading. This can be changed. In essence, it may very well be the case that people such as Joturner are wasting their time with you. Before learning about religion, and Prophet Muhammad's struggle to create a perfect society in accordance with God's commands, you need to do what many people need to do: learn how to use your intellect. Intellect is a strong guide for many issues. Intellect instructs you to be free of unfounded bias. Intellect guides you to analyse a subject in the correct order, and in its entirety. With comments such as yours, it is clearly evident that you have failed to this. It also clearly indicates your intentions. Of course, your comments have been repeated by many people throughout the centuries, and they have been answered by people time and time again. For the mean time, I shall make it clear that all of Prophet Muhammad's battles were defensive, not offensive. Secondly, one of Prophet Muhammad's objectives was a peaceful society. The evidence for this is in absolute abundance. Please clear your prejudices before you contribute to an encyclopedia. I advise that you read War, Peace and Non-violence: An Islamic Perspective by Ayatullah Muhammad Shirazi. Adamcaliph 00:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

RussianBoy stated: "Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh had to violate the Bible's explicit and implicit commands when they did their dirty work." I do not agree. There are a lot of explicit and implicit commands telling Christians to do a dirty job.
1. As a hot-headed angry Jesus Christ himself violently chased out the money-hungry traders from the holy temple, smashed their trade goods, and --since no-one likes their trage goods to be smashed-- must have gotten himself into a fierce fist fighting... Jesus Christ the prophet setting an example for human kind... this could very well be interpreted by Christian terrorists like Rudolph and McVeigh to mean that the earth (a holy temple built by God) must be cleansed (with fierce hate and violence) of unholy tradesmen.
2. There are passages in the Bible where Christ is telling the believer to sell his robe and buy a sword to fight injustice, etc.
The point I want to make is not that Christianity is terrorism. I only want to say thet terrorists (already being terrorists) can "find" their "ligitimacy" anywhere: from Christian texts to Islam texts, from liberal texts to fascist texts. This means that we (wikipedians) should not connect Christianity (or Islam) to terrorism, but that we should look at the causes of terrorism (colonization of the Middle East, or social exclusion in the USA) and understand that terrorism will always vocalized in a local vocabulary: an American in Christian vocabulary, an Arab in Islam vocabulary. Wikipedians should not make the mistake of substituting the form (religious vocabulary) for the content (the societal cause of terrorism, and the terrorist act itself).
-- ActiveSelective 12:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


OK guys, I must say that you all have done what I had hoped you wouldn't do. To repeat myself, I don't doubt that the majority of Muslims condemn violence, and that there are many Islamic schools of thought with various and conflicting interpretations of the Qur'an. My point, however, is that there is an important distinction to make: the minority groups in Islam who resort to violence are not an aberration to Islam but in fact can legitimately claim to be working within the basic parameters of Islamic Jihad, whereas the Christian terrorists must betray the explicit teachings and example of Jesus Christ. In the temple, Jesus did not kill anyone, and we have no reason to believe that he got into any "fierce fist fighting," as you put it. Now, if he had his Qur'an with him at the time, he might have behaved differently, perhaps turning to 2:190-193, "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you... And slay them wherever ye catch them... And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God..." Instead, when he and his disciples are accosted in the garden by armed men intending to do lethal violence, he tells Peter to put his sword away, and heals the man whom Peter wounded. How about 8:59-60: "Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly). They will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of God and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know..." All I am saying here is that those are strong words. Keep in mind, the Qur'an was supposedly dictated directly from God and is completely perfect. Finally, to the person who said that Muhammad wasn't violent, perhaps you should consider reading the earliest biography of the prophet Muhammad, written by Ibn Ishaq in the second century of the Islamic era, translated into English under the title The Life of Muhammad by A. Guillaume and published by Oxford University Press in 1955. It contains gems like this quote, attributed to the Prophet, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power." (369) Hmmm.... or how about the many examples of the Prophet ordering assassinations? (See pages, 551, 550, 672, etc., etc., ad nauseum.). So in conclusion, I would just like to ask you all to stop saying the Qur'an is a "peaceful" book. It isn't! I can give you a dozen more quotes if you want to press the issue. Now, are there also "peace loving" quotes? Yes there are. I guess God contradicts himself in your world. Fair enough. RussianBoy 18:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's why nobody wears, "What Would Muhammad Do?" bracelets!24.130.228.70 18:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

When do we pay so much attention to someone who is probably just a chrisian missionary? He calls himself "Russianboy". People often bring this extremist crap here and they really don't know anything about the bible especially being so stupid as to lie and call it a peaceful book. Stuff in there will show you just how sanguine christians really are. Russianboy's rant shows that christians are getting more miserable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:70.50.122.30 (talk • contribs) .

Why did you delete my comment? What the heck?!?!?!? Also, genius, the word sanguine means cheerfully optimistic. I think you meant to use sanguinary. 24.130.228.70 20:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Anonymous, I am a bit puzzled by your comments and actions. First you delete someone else's comment about the possibility of WWMD bracelets, which was pretty funny, and then you accuse me of a "rant.". Let's see here, in my "rant," I responded to someone else's argument directly with a counter argument of my own, using specific examples from relevant texts, which I cited as fully as I could. Now in your, "non-rant," you accused me of being a "christian missionary [sic]" (ad hominem, I guess?), called my well reasoned arguments "extremist crap," said that I didn't, "know anything about the bible [sic]," even though you had just accused me of being a "christian missionary [sic]," called me "stupid," called me a liar, and then said that "christians [sic] are getting more miserable," all while failing to respond to even a single one of my arguments, or provide any evidence for your asserstions (such as when you called me a "stupid" liar, for example). Finally, you failed to sign your post. Yes, I guess I am the one who is "ranting." Perhaps I should delete your comment like you did to that other guy? Please, if there is anyone who has anything intelligent to say, I would love to hear it.RussianBoy 19:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot to point out this great line in Mr. Anonymous' "non-rant," "He calls himself 'Russianboy'." What is the story there? It's my screen name! I should have put in my first post, "She calls herself 'Joturner!'" I guess that adds some weight to your "arguments!" This is completely out of control! RussianBoy 19:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it would probably be more appropriate to say "He calls himself 'Joturner!'". joturner 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were a lady for some reason. My mistake! RussianBoy 05:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Finally, to the person who said that Muhammad wasn't violent, perhaps you should consider reading the earliest biography of the prophet Muhammad, written by Ibn Ishaq in the second century of the Islamic era, translated into English under the title The Life of Muhammad by A. Guillaume and published by Oxford University Press in 1955. It contains gems like this quote, attributed to the Prophet, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power." (369) Hmmm.... or how about the many examples of the Prophet ordering assassinations? (See pages, 551, 550, 672, etc., etc., ad nauseum.). So in conclusion, I would just like to ask you all to stop saying the Qur'an is a "peaceful" book. It isn't! I can give you a dozen more quotes if you want to press the issue.
Well its always better to keep the discussion to Quran & authentic hadeeth . A. Guillaume was a christian missionary , he did what missionaries do best . Collect all unauthentic references from here & there , & call it earliest biography , which it isnt . He mixes authentic traditions with unauthentic ones , & the whole west reads it as what Ibn Ishaq wrote . Later F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 20:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
F.a.y., I would agree that the Qur'an and the Hadith would be the most authoritative sources. But with regards to the reliability of Guillaume's translation, it is still being published by the Oxford University Press, and is described officially by the university press in the following manner: "Alfred Guillaume's authoritative translation of the Sira of Ibn Ishaq presents in English the complete history of the life of Prophet Muhammad. No book can compare in comprehensiveness, arrangement, or systematic treatment with Ibn Ishaq's work." Now, you and I are not professional scholars (well, perhaps you are, I don't know) but I find it hard to believe that the people at the Oxford University Press would continue to publish something that is as misrepresentative as you claim. Where do you get your information? RussianBoy 05:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
(to last anonymous) Now you are a missionary too. How is an anti-Christian attack better than an anti-Muslim attack? Please, keep your contributions focussed on the wiki-article, and stop adding these personal attacks! Go to the arguments, and stop using labels like "stupid" etc. Let me show you how to keep a discussion civil and scientific:
(back to the discussion) Well, as an atheist I think all religions are contradictory to the bone, in everything. In both Christianity and Islam there are peaceloving quotes and violent quotes, there are passages that say "A" and quotes that say "not A". This contradictory nature of religions make statements about religious texts always partly true and partly wrong.
What should wikipedians do? (according to me) The important thing is to always give the context in which a text is interpreted. Because it is the person in that context that has chosen certain phrases from a religious book, gave it only a certain interpretation to make it fit his perspective on that context. In other words, the context says more about the actions taken by a reciting person than the multi-interpretable religeous texts do. By leaving out the context and by isolating phrases on itself, the explanation power is lost.
For example, the religiosity of suicide bombers does not explain the suicide bombing. On the one hand, killing oneself and killing other persons is condemned in all the Abrahamic religions. On the other hand, there are passages and traditions that make someone a hero if they die in course of battle. Then again, no Bible, Quran or Torah ever used the words "suicide bombings". In other words, taking a text angle on these issues does not explain the phenomenon. Taking a context angle on them, however, does explain it. For example, the context of living in dictatorships supported by the West, or poverty countries economically isolated by the West, does explain the hatred of the persons (religious or not) towards what they think is West.
An article on Islam should be on Islam - and not on the random contexts in which random people give random interpretations to random parts of an islamic text. If you really want to focus on terrorist content with an islamic form, then add your info to Islamic terrorism. If you want to focus on terrorist content with an christian form, then add your info to Christian terrorism. Also on those pages, however, you should not confuse form for content and content for form. You can say "terrorism is violent and has an islamic form sometimes" which is true, but not the fashionably confused "islam is violent and has a terrorist form sometimes".
-- ActiveSelective 20:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
ActiveSelective, I see what you are saying, and there is a lot of truth to it. However, let's not get too carried away with the "randomness" of these Quranic interpretations. After reviewing the Christian/Jewish scriptures and then reviewing the Islamic scriptures, an objective person would have to conclude that the Islamic scriptures give far more support to religious violence then do the Judeo-Christian. I just don't see how you can argue otherwise. Comparing your examples of Biblical support for violence with those supplied from the Quran by RussianBoy, one has to say that his are far more conclusive. This theory also seems to cash out in practice. If you go to the Wikipedia entry on terrorism, you will find three Christian terrorist groups listed, and one Jewish terrorist group listed. Contrast these numbers with thirty-six different Muslim terrorist groups. Now, reading your previous posts, I realize at this point in the discussion you would argue that this overwhelming majority of Muslim terrorist groups stems more from socio-economic circumstances than from any religious motivations. I would counter with the fact that the same Wikipedia article (terrorism) cites only three Hindu terrorist groups -- only three groups from a population that is also poverty stricken and oppressed. Furthermore, when you say that these terrorists are motivated by poverty and oppression, how do you explain the actions of those that fund them? Finally, if social circumstances are the exclusive determinant of terrorist activity, then why do we not see more terrorist activity coming from the millions of oppressed and impoverished Christians around the world, living in, say, African or South American nations? What about those Christians that have struggled under the persecution of oppressive states like China and the Soviet Union? I have enjoyed the dialog so far, and hope that it might continue. Mcb197 00:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The Scriptures - "But the Islamic scriptures are more violent than Christian/Jewish/..." I have three things to say about that.
1. If it has more violence potential, it is only a matter of degree. There are many things in common between the Scriptures: the stoning of homosexuals is recommended in all three books Torah/Bible/Quran. The rest is a variation on this violent theme in more/lesser degree. Most important, however, is not what is on-paper but happens off-paper. In Saudi-Arabia the 'crime' of homosexuality is physical punishment. In the USA it is not an official law (maybe George Michael might beg to differ) but I can show you very Christian places in Texas and N&S-Carolina where homosexuality means you will get a good beating.
The question is: what makes this violence potential on-paper an actual violence off-paper? In the above example it is a matter of urbanization, or the lack of it. Where masses of different people live together, they learn that perseved differences are not that important. Even in conservative Saudi-Arabia, in the city of Riyadh, there is one neighbourhood where homosexuals can have their own night life (more or less isolated from view) where they are safer than in some small Christian towns of Carolina. Socio-economics play an undeniable part in the interpretation of religious texts - if religious text play a role at all.
2. Back to the text itself: there are more violent phrases in the Quran? But there are also much more charity rules in Islam: the shakat (share a third of your property with the poor) and the ramadan (feel how it is to be poor and grow solidarity). How do you balance that?
3. Most of all: measuring violence in religious text is a hard thing to do. A very hard thing because of the metaphores, the many contradictions, the many interpretations, the language and meanings that have changed overtime, and the thing only being a paper text. If you would ask me which belief is the most violent, I would not know. If you would force me to choose one, I would hesitate but finally choose the philosophy that convinces victims to: "accept pain, not fight back, if you are hit then just turn the other cheek and accept more; it is better to keep the moral highground, be tortured, help your enemy, and let him hang you on a wooden cross with nails through your wrists, than to use a sword and cut off the bastards ear in order to stop the violence." Imagine what violence this philosophy leads to! A few examples. Telling slaves they should be obedient, accept being slaves, and turn the other cheek when they are whipped - like on the Christian American slave owners did. The Catholic church covering up the mass abuse of obedient little boys in Catholic school who have turned the other cheek too often - like has been revealed recently in the USA, and which is a good founded tradition in Catholic Ireland. The list is endless: colonialisms all around the world by Christian powers telling exploited to be obedient and turn the other cheek, Apartheid in South Africa by Christian rulers telling Africans to be obedient and turn the other cheek, the Christian advice to Jews to not resist the Nazi terror but turn the other cheek, etc. If you really really really want to link terror to texts, than all this terror is linked to the nonviolence in the Bible. What if Jews and African slaves and Catholic boys had the Quran 2:190-193, "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you... And slay them wherever ye catch them... And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God..." (quote from Quran according to RussianBoy - I hope it is correct) This would have stopped a lot of violence, saved a lot of people. Therefore, the measuring of violence in a text by counting the violent words is an absolutely flawed method. You have to look at the context.
Terrorism - In all times, there has been one consistancy in terrorism and one consistancy only. It was always the ruling party who determined what to call 'terrorist'. And they never called their own violence 'violence' and their own terror 'terrorist'. The CIA? The CIA is a very violent organization specialized in organizing, financing, and executing terrorism. They even managed to instigate overthrows of a democratic chosen governments, the ultimate terrorist dream. In Chili it helped Pinochet to take the throne. Same way it helped its agent Noriega to throne in Panama. Same way it overthrew the Iraqi government and placed Saddam Hussein (in the 50s). Same way it helped Osama bin Laden (in the 80s). Why has everyone forgotten this? Why has everyone forgotten this? The CIA should top the list of terrorist groups, but it isn't there. Why is that? CIA did more damage than the thirty-six different Muslim terrorist groups beneath it did. The terrorism list is not a good argument in general, and especially not a good argument this discussion on religion.
The paradigm today of calling some things 'terrorist' is utterly POV and unscientific. Just like some very terrorists may not be linked to terrorism (CIA), some non-terrorists must be linked to terrorism. Saddam? He must be linked to Al-Qaeda. I hope this bastard will rot in hell in a very painful way... but the link of Saddam to terrorism was simply not true. It has even been proven wrong. Now this ruling pradigm says: "Islam? It must be linked to terrorism." Links are being made that are not real, and real links are being denied.
--ActiveSelective 11:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you quote me as saying, "But the Islamic scriptures are more violent than Christian/Jewish/..." While this does capture the idea that I was attempting to convey, I never used that particular combination of words and so I would appreciate it in the future if you would only put quotes around my exact words.

In your last post, you begin by apparently admitting that yes, the Islamic scriptures do have more, “violence potential,” as you put it: “If it has more violence potential, it is only a matter of degree.” Then, however, in later paragraphs, you distance yourself from this stance, and argue that in fact it is the Christian faith that has more violence potential due to the fact that it explicitly condemns violence, even when provoked: “If you would force me to choose one, I would hesitate but finally choose [as having more violence potential] the philosophy that convinces victims to: ‘accept pain, not fight back…’” You go on to say, that, “If you really really really want to link terror to texts, than all this terror is linked to the nonviolence in the Bible.” So now the Bible promotes terror by explicitly condemning violent acts? Sir, with all due respect to you as an intelligent man (and clearly you are), this is bordering on the nonsensical. If you had strong examples of Biblical passages encouraging violent behavior I would imagine that you would have used them by now. It appears that since you do not have any, you have tried this tactic where you equate non-violence with increased violence.

You mention the law that all homosexuals should be stoned, and point out, correctly, that it is present in all three religions. Yet it is only in the Christian scripture that the aforementioned law is explicitly overturned. A reoccurring theme in the New Testament is the replacement of the old Jewish law with the new. Therefore, if you can find any Christian church sanctioned examples of homosexual stoning, those individuals would clearly be in violation of the scripture, whereas the same could not be said about those Muslims who choose to do so (it’s a pretty safe bet that the lawmakers in Saudi-Arabia have studied Islamic scriptures far more than you or I have). Furthermore, you say that the homosexual stoning example is, “a matter of urbanization, or the lack of it” and then go on to say that homosexuality is a crime in Saudi-Arabia. Are the government officials in Saudi Arabia not sufficiently urbanized?

You discuss the CIA and its alleged links to what you would term terrorist activity: “The CIA should top the list of terrorist groups, but it isn't there.” You make this claim despite your later assertion that, “The paradigm today of calling some things 'terrorist' is utterly POV and unscientific.” I will overlook that for now. With regards to the CIA’s involvement in terrorist activities, even if you could conclusively demonstrate that the CIA is directly responsible for more terrorist activities than every other terrorist group combined, it would still be irrelevant to our discussion. This thread was started in order to examine whether or not the Islamic scriptures are more pro-terrorist than the Judeo-Christian. The CIA is not a Christian organization in any sense, and so I don’t see why you bother to bring this into the conversation, except perhaps as some sort of red herring.

I will return briefly to your assertion that, “The paradigm today of calling some things 'terrorist' is utterly POV and unscientific.” This is a very popular viewpoint in our day, but I really don’t think it holds much weight. My dictionary defines terrorism in this way: “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.” If a person or group fits those criteria then they are guilty of terrorism. Where is the ambiguity there? If that makes the CIA a terrorist organization, then fair enough.

You write that, “The terrorism list is not a good argument in general, and especially not a good argument this discussion on religion [sic],” but you fail to explain why it is such a poor argument. You simply state that it is. Do you believe that many of the terrorist groups listed there are fictitious? Do you think that many of them have been wrongly placed under the Islamic heading? If not, then I don’t see how you can criticize my using that list to demonstrate a connection between Islam and terrorism. Do you believe that the overwhelming majority of Islamic terrorist groups on that list is just a coincidence?

Lastly, you write: “Saddam? He must be linked to Al-Qaeda. I hope this bastard will rot in hell in a very painful way... but the link of Saddam to terrorism was simply not true. It has even been proven wrong.” This stance has become fairly well accepted over the past year or so, but there is an increasing amount of evidence to the contrary. In Deroy Murdock’s January 13, 2006 article from the ‘’National Review Online’’ he outlines some of this evidence, along with powerful evidence to suggest that Saddam was not the great secularist that many believed him to be.

In conclusion, A.S., I do not feel that you have responded to the arguments I made prior to your last post. You made some claims about the root causes of terrorism, and I presented some reasons why I believe your analysis to be incorrect. You then proceeded to talk about everything but my arguments, instead choosing to explore the CIA’s activity and your theories on how non-violence actually is the root cause of violence. Nowhere did you directly take on my arguments. In the future I would suggest that you do so, and if you don’t have any counter-arguments, it is acceptable to say, “Well you know MCB, you might have a point there,” and we can call it a day. I won’t think any less of you. Mcb197 17:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Might i add, this entire arguement is based on ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS [ie not accurate, nor 100% correct] versions of the Quran. It is best when someone looks to the Quran for other than jsut reading [such as studiyng, etc] that he use the arabic version, which is unchanged, might i suggest ordering one from egypt, or lebenon, saudi arabia edits thier books. Don't know arabic?..oh well, learn it. You don't do trigganometry without learning algerbra, you don't study a religioun revealed in arabic, without first learning arabic, that much should seem obvious.[i am refering to the first part of the argument, of course :)] - cronodevir


(to Mcb197) Wow, please, hold your horses. Stop twisting my words! You completely missed my point by doing that, and therefore you criticism doesn't counter anything.
The word "if" in "if it has more violence potential..." means that I am not saying Islam has more violence. What part of 'if' is not clear? I was only showing that if you were given the benefit of the doubt and I would suppose your assertion were true that Islam has more violent passages, then still we would have to conclude that it is actually not at all that different from other religions. (an important conclusion, since the people wanting to label Islam as 'terrorist' are coninually portraiting it as a different kind of religion) The "if" is a conditional reasoning -a very commonly used logical formulation actually- and not an assertion on my behalf. Even the word "potential" is conditional. I also stated before that Christ was violent now and then (I've been brought up with the Holy Book before I turned atheist; my Brazilian uncle was one of the liberation theologists). So stop saying that I admit to the nonviolence-interpretation of the text while I clearly do not.
The same thing with my Christianity-has-more-violence-example. I did not say Christianity is nonviolent. You and others continually emphasize how very 'nonviolent' the Christian texts are supposed to be as opposed to texts from Islam. Well, I say: if you were right and if I should see the nonviolence-interpretation as the correct interpretation of Christianity, then I see in the history of Christianity how your nonviolence has destroyed people's self-defence against great evil and great violence (making slaves accept violence, and passively standing-by at the Holocaust). How 'nonviolent' is your nonviolence now? Even a selected 'violent' passage of the Quran is many many times less violent than your 'nonviolent' passage of the Bible. The Quranic verse encourages people to actively stop the violence, while your Biblical quote wants to accept violence. If you hold on to the nonviolence-interpretation of the Holy Book, then you should take that nonviolent passivity during great evils as your responsibility. My question "do you really really really want to link terror to texts..." was a double warning: (1) do you really want to carry your part in helping slavery and Holocaust by your historic abstaining from "violent" obstruction of such great evil?
According to me, however, the two religions are interchangable: nonviolent passages can be taken from the Quran and violent passages can be taken from the Bible. Also the Quran has its nonviolence-interpretation, and the Bible has its violent interpretations. To me there is no difference.
You, however, prefer the one because it is supposedly 'less violent' (which can actually mean 'more violence'). A preference based on taking the text out of its context from which it usually gets its meaning. However, the liberation theologists used the exact same text in the 1970s but in a different context, and they organized peasant protests, blessed Christian peasant resistance against an injustice poverty system, and some peasant preists learned their community how to handle guns. Therefore, the second part of the double warning: (2) do you really really really want to disregard the context from which texts get their meaning? How unscientific. There are so many interpretations due to so many contexts in which texts come alive.
About the terrorism list, you ask me: "Do you believe that the overwhelming majority of Islamic terrorist groups on that list is just a coincidence?" No, I said, it is not a coincidence. Just like it was not an coincidence that the official Brazilian terrorism list of the 1970s contained a lot of liberation theologists. It was also not a coincidence that not a single Muslim organization was on that Brazilian list, by the way. Another example, it was not a coincidence that the official terrorism list of the 1650s contained Christian 'terrorist' sects of Lutherians and Calvinists, and Jews who called themselves free thinkers or freedom fighters and referenced to the Holy Scriptures when they battled with the Catholic authorities. Again, it was also not a coincidence that not a single Muslim organization was on that list either. Yesterday it was the Calvinists, today the Muslims, and tomorrow who knows what.
Why is it not a coincidence? The selectiveness of labeling something officially 'terrorism' has always had one consistancy: the labeling is done by the ruling party who gets to choose what is and what is not called 'terrorism'. Today it is USA, yesterday it was the Brazilian government, centuries ago the Catholic church, etc. The terrorism list is not a good argument here because it guarantees little about what is or is not 'terrorist'. The list today leaves out the 'God Bless American' CIA of which almost all officers are Christians who solomny swore on the Bible to protect their country, whose leader is a Reborn Christian, and all are paid by "In God We Trust" tax dollars. Just as it left out the Christian Brazilian secret police in the 1970s, and the Catholic Inquisitions of the 1650s. These secretive terror organizations are as much (or as little) Christian as Al-Qaeda is Muslim.
In conclusion, you can state your own particular nonviolence-interpretation of the Holy Book, but that is just not good enough. In every religion I can easily find a dozen other interpretations; especially in Christianity! You can say yours is best, but I can show you dozens of others stating the very same.
Even your method of criticism is utterly unfair: you emphasize a particular version of Christianity which 'must' be regarded as the 'true' Christianity and the many others are 'false' interpretations. However, you allow yourself to overstep this particularity when it comes to Islam: then you make statements about Islam in general, regardless of particular interpretations.
Well, my logical reasoning above shows: OR your nonviolence-interpretation of Christianity is incorrect (then Christianity is violent), OR your interpretation is correct (which makes Christians denounce the resistance against slavery and Holocaust and cheer "turn the other cheek! turn the other cheek!", which makes Christianity even more violent). Allow a little violence or a lot of violence, but Christianity can never escape being violent in some form or another. Say again, Islam was violent?
The newly invented word 'Judeo-Christian tradition' is also utterly strange. Christians have supressed, abused and slaughtered Jews throughout all centuries. 'Judeo-Christian' is a bad joke.
Since this discussion is not about revising the wiki-article anymore, we should continu it elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a discussion board.
--ActiveSelective 11:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Since this discussion is not about revising the wiki-article anymore, we should continu it elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a discussion board [sic]." Looking through this talk page, you didn't seem to have a problem using it as a discussion board previously. It would seem that since you are unable to respond to any of my original arguments, you have resorted to calling off the discussion. Why can't you just admit that maybe I have a point? Your whole idea about terrorism only being the product of poverty and oppression was completely destroyed by my original post, and then after I picked apart your red herring of a response, you come back with more of the same. I have already explained to you why the CIA is not relevant to this discussion, and yet you keep talking about it, making statements like, "...the list today leaves out the 'God Bless American' CIA of which almost all officers are Christians..." Would you care to explain how you got this information? When you are finished, would you care to explain how, even if every single person associated with the CIA, all the way down to the washroom attendant, were a Bible-thumping fundamentalist it would be in any way relevant to our discussion? And then when you are finished with that, please explain why you continue to call the CIA a terrorist organization, even after you made the following statement: "The paradigm today of calling some things 'terrorist' is utterly POV and unscientific." You say things like, "The newly invented word 'Judeo-Christian tradition' is also utterly strange. Christians have supressed, abused and slaughtered Jews throughout all centuries. 'Judeo-Christian' is a bad joke [sic]." Is this statement a "bad joke?" Do I really need to explain this linkage? You persist in holding to the idea that, "Even a selected 'violent' passage of the Quran is many many times less violent than your 'nonviolent' passage of the Bible [sic]." Go ahead and read that sentence again, and let it sink in: "Even a selected 'violent' passage of the Quran is many many times less violent than your 'nonviolent' passage of the Bible [sic]." This is amazing. If there are any objective parties out there that wish to agree with that statement, I would invite them to do so now.

Sir, you have now twice refused to deal with my arguments, instead choosing to lead us down numerous rabbit trails in your inane attempt to defend the Islamic faith at all costs, refusing to admit even the most painfully obvious linkages between Islam and terrorism. When you have butted up against that to which you have no response, you choose to throw out red herrings. If you ever do think of any sort of response that actually addresses my criticisms, I would love to hear it. If not, then I wish you the best of luck as you continue your Muslim apologetic crusade. (At this point please, please don't respond with, "But I'm an atheist! I have no stake in religion!" You might very well be an atheist, I don't know you, but I do know what you do on Wikipedia, and you clearly, for whatever reason, are very interested in defending Islam. Again, I am not questioning your commitment to atheism. I don't know why you are so interested in Islam, but you clearly are. (At this point I'm feeling a, "No! I am just interested in defending truth!" coming on! Perhaps, accusing me of being "unscientific," one of your favorite pet-insults, would buttress your argument nicely?)) Mcb197 15:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)