Talk:Muslim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Peer review This article was externally reviewed (February 12, 2006) by The Independent.
Archive

Chronological Archives
Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

Contents

[edit] Immediate Edit Required

At the beginning of the second paragraph, "in addition to being a terrorist"... should probably be removed. It was added on the last revision, and is clearly not NPOV. -- 24.68.145.153 (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remove this. It deeply saddens me.

I find it funny that I posted this edit request half a year ago to remove an anti-muslim sentiment, now I'm adding to it to ask for removal of a pro-mulsim sentiment... it's clear that protected status gives an article no defense against trolls and only serves to inhibit legitimate contributors.. anyways, I digress, the following sentence should be removed from between the first and second paragraph of the article: "This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion." 24.68.42.1 (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The somali Word==plz add that

In The somali Language The word Muslim is pronounced Muslin with (N)the last instead of M

a muslim brother i hope write that in the first line on the article beside the urdu and other muslim languages


[edit] Somebody must change

After "Terrorist" is the definition of "Any Muslim." I wasn't sure how to report or edit it, so I've posted the complaint here. The link goes to "Infidel." The word must be changed.


[edit] Mon Dieu!

What is the reference to "Dieu, the French word for God" doing in the opening? marry cuzins That is completely unilluminating to me. And I know French! --Rschmertz 23:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That was introduced to help end an edit warring re God/Allah comparisons. Some editors had claimed that God is not Allah and others argued against that using French example. I've just removed it. -- Szvest 12:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®


[edit] Help with the dispute

Can someone please help with resolving this dispute by giving you comments Talk:Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_(expression). I will appreciate it. --- ALM 12:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Differences?

So how are Jews, and Christians different if they "submit to god?". It seems to me that this article is trying to prove that being Muslim is the best way to god. In my opinion, I wish everyone was "Muslim" because the terrorists don't get the true message of the Qur'an and I keep getting laughed at being a Muslim since I don't follow the rules. I know I get Gonah.. Ok thats not my point. In that case, what is abrahaminism? I read that this religion combines the "triad". What about Baha'I, i think it has some flaws. Dunno. Just trying to create discussion.

--• Storkian • 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

well yu should probobly think twice about your faith everyone will never be muslim..ridiculous how can u call it a religion? when there are extremeists killing people yur an ignorant person..yur going to hell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.161.79 (talk) 23:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedits

I thought that some of the added material was not quite English (we have editors who speak English as a second language working here) or unnecessarily wordy. I revised some sections. I think that I didn't make any substantive changes. The only thing that might be considered so is changing the sentence re takfir to say that many Muslims consider it non-Islamic, not that it IS non-Islamic. WP is not a scholar, can't issue fatwas, and can't say whether or not something is Islamic. All we can do is report what various groups of self-professed Muslims believe. Zora 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Persecution by Muslims?

I think the section Persecution by Muslims has to be relinked somewhere else because it does not seem to fit within the context of simply the Muslim category. That's like someone clicking on Catholic, and right after you learn about what a Catholic is, you see "The Inquisition and the Crusades". Also, I think the persecution by muslims should be merged into the ACTUAL article of Persecution by Muslims. just a thought! :) Iknowmyname 04:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I second. That section is grossly out of place. Historically Islam has been very tolerant towards members of other religions and it's absurd to have a section devoted to persecution when this is not the rule but an exception. That's why I'm removing that section of the article and calling it for discussion here before it's reinserted.Rosa 06:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Good call. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTF! ANDROGYNY?

ok, so i click on a link to androgyny... and i get muslim...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.158.114 (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

That was vandalism on Androgyny. It's been reverted. Kla'quot 12:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Clarificatio of the term "ISLAM"

Whilst it may be true that ISLAM existed before Mohamed, it must be clarified that the term itself means "SUBMISSION' and that anyone who submits themselves to GOD of any faith is truly islamic, or in english, "one who has submitted". True as it may be that Jesus was Islamic, the term in this particular case has been taken out of context. It appears that the people who follow the laws of Mohamed tend to imply that Jesus was following the laws of the Quran thus they are trying to imply that Jesus was Islamic from a MOHAMADEN or a Quranic context. Historically Jesus,his disciples and his other followers could not have been "Islamic" in the context of the Quranic Verses. Mohamed lived circa 600 AD well and truly after christ existence on earth. What is missing is that Jesus,his disciples and his other followers became ISLAMIC by the power of the Holy spirit and not of Mohamed or the by the words of the Quaran. This clearly reflects that Mohamed attempted to direct his people to teachings of the God Of David and to submit themselves to what we today and have always believed to be the ONE true God. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beirutbomber (talk • contribs) 02:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

b*******, this is a scientific encycopedia, i believe in science. this is not the place for religion or believes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.152.206.175 (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Should Allah be replaced by 'the God'

As is explained in the article, Allah means the God. Should the references in the body to 'Allah' be replaced as 'the God'.

Thanks, Monkeyblue 11:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No in Quran it is used as Allah hence it should remain as Allah because this article is related to Islam. --- ALM 11:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Allah is an Arabic word for "GOD", it is not pronounced as "the Allah" ( two words) to use the words "the God" (two words) would quite definitely implicate that there must be other gods too. In our beleif there is only one god —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.255.10.95 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought the opposite, the God suggests that there is only one in existence. eg. 'The desk' refers to a singular object, no others are referenced or exist in the sentence. Monkeyblue 11:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes you can be right, however to designate it to someone who is emphatically outsatnding, such as "God" it must me Italicized in writing and hence " the God "
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.255.10.95 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The Arabic word 'Allah' is understood by so many people to be the same thing as the English word 'God' that I don't see how it would help the article to 'translate' it. Plus the article gives a short definition of the meaning, so it doesn't need to be translated. By using it here we reinforce that it is the Islam concept and meaning that is being described. Please don't change it, and certainly not without getting agreement. Please do look at the articles Allah#Etymology and God#Names_of_God to see how difficult it would be to get agreement on any such change.
But perhaps someone should look very closely at that sentence ending "... however 'Allah' is the Arabic word for 'the God'." Is it a problem where the word strictly means "the god", but everybody knows it is used to mean 'God' (with a capital letter), in Islam only one, so that it is used as 'Allah' == 'God'? Or perhaps does it strictly mean "one god", as in "the one god".
Could the addition of the literal meaning be better handled by putting it into parentheses, something like:
This is often translated as "There is no god except Allah" ('Allah' is the Arabic word for "the God")
Shenme 09:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought the sentence "Allah means the God" was unusually placed, why explain that then go on using Allah without explaining why Allah was used in place of '[the] God' which is a simple translation. Yes it does differentiate the Islamic God from other religious figures. On that note, what would other religions' Gods translate to in Arabic?. Monkeyblue 11:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Some archived discussions:


[edit] From what I am reading:

  • "The Arabic name for God, Allah, refers to the God worshiped by Jews and Christians'" [1] — User:FayssalF
  • "The history of Allah is different from the history of God/god" — User:TheProphetess
  • "The word Allah was used before Islam for many different dieties" — User:Svest
  • "When Muslims refer to Allah, are they referring to the God in the Testaments? Indeed! Islam endorses Psalms, Torah, and the Bible - that these were the dinive revelations of Allah. But Islam also declares itself as a sort of "final version" of the same." -- User:TheProphetess
  • "When Arabic-speaking Christians pray, I understand that they invoke the name "Allah." — User:Svest
  • Talk:Islam/Archive_9#GOD_Vs_Allah


  • "[The] shahada doesn't mean 'there is no god but Allah', it means 'there is no god but God'" — User:Emilyzilch
  • "It's a matter of convenience, to distinguish between the Islamic god and the Christian God" — ?
  • "God for christians, Yahweh/Elohim/etc for jews, and Allah for muslims. I seriously doubt anyone would complain." — ?
  • Talk:Muslim/Archive_2#.27Allah.27_or_just_God.3F

In conclusion, I do not see any valid reason we should not (a) change Allah to God in this article or (b) change other articles to comply this articles decision.

The Arabic word "Allah" means God, to both Christians and Muslims in the middle east (the seat of the three major world religions). the Jews use the term Elohim, and in the old testament God reveals his name to Moses, Gods name is Yahweh, and Yahweh is God. Yahweh means "I AM WHO AM". There on mount Sianai he revealed himself.One can deduce then that the term God or Allah, does not refer to any particular deity! A Divine person from any religious flavour is known as "God". To say that the terms "Allah or God" are to be identified explicitly and uniquely with a particalur strain of belief would be inncorrect. Christians from the Middle east use the word "Allah" to refer to Yahweh.


Note: User:Svest is User:FayssalF. He/She provided the links to these talk pages.

Monkeyblue 11:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to update this page and Islam in 6 days Monkeyblue 03:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Please do. It's a fact. --em zilch 03:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


I've been sitting here for a long time trying to comprehend where this comes from:

I do not see any valid reason we should not (a) change Allah to God in this article or (b) change other articles to comply this articles decision.

I read the above quotes, and see much talk, some background, but little reasoning, or at least, little reason to make any change. I am very much taken aback at what I see as a lack of sensitivity in the above.

We should not lightly expunge words that some people hold dear, merely because it is not an English word. I feel your proposed action borders on the same rationale as those editors who go about changing 'colour' to 'color' because the WP servers are based in Florida. The logical extension of what you are proposing is that the article Yahweh should be re-titled, every reference to Jehovah should be redone, including Jehovahs Witnesses, and onwards.

And what purpose does it serve to do this? How will reducing 'Allah' to 'God' help the article? Why must you reject "a matter of convenience", replacing it with a reductionistic provocation? Is puzzling many and infuriating even more worth it? Shenme 08:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that there should be system. The article must benefit from this system. A system that is followed throughout the major religious articles. Other articles, Judaism & Christianity, use the term 'God' -- the English translation of the original terms from Hebrew and Greek and neither of them even mention that God was written in a different language in their texts in their introduction. I do not understand the reasoning behind the use of the untranslated term in this (and related) articles when there is a translation that can be readily explained and understood. Thanks, Monkeyblue 10:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

These changes will take place tomorrow, 2007-03-10 Thanks, Monkeyblue 09:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Done Monkeyblue 01:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

See my response at User_talk:Monkeyblue#Muslim. Shenme 03:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: Muslim
Excuse the order, kept adjusting things and they all went out of order.
  • I'm sorry. How am I meant to wait for discussion when nobody is commenting. I replied to your comment and received no return comment. What was I meant to assume? Everyone disagrees with my idea because there was nothing further said?
If you felt that I didn't respond to your question then why didn't you tell me?
  • Allah — The main reason for the change is because Allah is just an/the Arabic word for God. This is not any specific god, just God. Whether or not it is related to Islam, Christianity, Judaism or another religion. Why would the latter just use God rather than just using the original words, their god-words carry significance too.
Arabic Christians, when praying, use Allah.
  • Removing Allah from the article will not reduce the quality of the English Language. It highlights (or adds) another connection to the word God. I do not understand the need to separate God from Allah, they should be interchangeable. Why not use the native term?
  • Loanwords — Loan words are "usually words for exotic concepts or ideas." God is not an exotic concept or idea.
Monkeyblue 03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in Muslim/Moslem

So I assume everyone will agree with this change - as now the information is more direct an actually has a cite, whereas before it was relatively indirect, had weasel words, and no cite, but just in case, here is what the section was before:

Until the late 1980s, the term Moslem was commonly used. Muslims do not recommend this spelling [who?] because it is often pronounced "mozz-lem" /mɒzlɛm/ which sounds somewhat similar to an Arabic word for "oppressed" (Za'lem in Arabic).[citation needed] The word is pronounced /muslem/ in Arabic, but often /mʊślɪm/ or /'mʌz.ləm/ in English. The word is now most commonly written "Muslim".

And after (I removed the ref tags so you guys can see where it leads):

Until the late 1980s, the term Moslem was commonly used. However, translated, Moslem is the Arabic word for "one who is evil and unjust."- thus the word is now most commonly written "Muslim". George Mason University article on why people use "Muslim"- the information can be found in the second and third paragraph The word is pronounced /muslem/ in Arabic, but often /mʊślɪm/ or /'mʌz.ləm/ in English.
Pros

  • No weasel words
  • Info more direct (rather than, 'Moslem sounds like ... which translated means ...' it's now 'Moslem means ...'
  • The last sentence is in a better spot
  • Sourced

Any support or opposition to keeping it that way?Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with this?) 18:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made this section vaguer because the article being quoted is vague. It says that while the words "Muslim" and "Moslem" are the same for English speakers, they mean different things in Arabic -- but "Muslim" and "Moslem" are not different words, they are different romanized spellings of the same Arabic word. Surely the objection should be that the spelling "Moslem" suggests (not "is") a different Arabic word? But what word is that? The article says that in Arabic "Moslem" means "one who is cruel and unjust" -- but how can an English spelling mean anything in Arabic at all? Later on, the author of the article seems to change his mind, saying that it is the pronunciation with a z-sound (and not necessarily the spelling "Moslem") that evokes the other Arabic word. But what is this Arabic word? And is it evoked by the spelling "Moslem" or by some pronunciation (not specified) with a "z"? Is the similarity between the anglicized spelling/pronunciation and the other Arabic word perceptible? to whom? offensive? to whom?--Gheuf 19:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you're saying - although I have heard multiple times that Muslim is prefered (and I believe I have heard that 'Moslem' is considered offensive) - so I'm going to try and find a slightly better source (I'll cite both still)Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 04:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait. .. no I don't see what your saying.
  • how can an English spelling mean anything in Arabic at all?
What do you mean how is it possible for an english spelling to mean anything in arabic? Of course that's possible. Can one word mean one thing one place and a different thing another place? Yes. If you actuallky need examples I'll get some for you.
  • Later on, the author of the article seems to change his mind, saying that it is the pronunciation with a z-sound (and not necessarily the spelling "Moslem") that evokes the other Arabic word
The author says that when 'Moslem' is used - it is pronounced with a z.
"A Muslim in Arabic means "one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means "one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z."
I'm sorry - but that really kind of upsets me that you obviously didn't read the article (note the above quote, and note your comment: And is it evoked by the spelling "Moslem" or by some pronunciation (not specified) with a "z"?). I'm reverting essentially, although since a edit has been made after your edit, obviously I'll have to just go back and copy the code.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 04:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for interest in my comments. I'm afraid you have not understood exactly what I was objecting to. There is no need to be upset: I did read the article; but I do not think I expressed clearly what it is about the article, and the Wikipedia article as it is currently written, that I find vague.
I would like to start by making some distinctions that we should abide by in discussing this topic. First of all, we should always distinguish between a word, its pronunciation, and its spelling. I will try to write words in single quotes, spellings in double quotes, and pronunciations in IPA. For example, the word 'pool' is spelled "pool" and is pronounced /pul/.
We should also be precise about what we mean when we say that "one word can mean different things in different languages." In the sense needed here, I think what we really mean is "sometimes a word in one language and a word in another language sound very similar." For example, the English word 'pool' (meaning "a place where you swim") sounds a like lot the French word 'poule' (meaning "hen") -- in a sense, the sounds /pul/ "mean" different things in the two different languages. That is to say, the two words have similar 'pronunciations'.
In this particular case, we have an English word 'Muslim' (borrowed from the Arabic) that has (or has had) two different spellings: "Muslim" and "Moslem". It also has (or has had) two different pronunciations: /'mʊs.lɪm/ and /'mʌz.ləm/. Given this information, the first part of the Wikipedia article that does not make sense to me is the sentence: "Until the late 1980s, the term Moslem was commonly used." This is misleading since later on in the section the word 'Muslim' will be contrasted with the words 'Musulman' and 'Mohammedan'. The sentence therefore seems to suggest that the term 'Muslim' has dropped out in favor of one of the other two words. But this is not the case. Really what is meant is that the 'spelling' (as opposed to the 'term') "Moslem" was used, but that since 1980 it has fallen out of favor.
The next sentence in the Wikipeida article also seems vague to me, for reasons which I would like to explain. In order to do so, I'd like to start out with some general concepts about what it means to borrow a word from one language into another. We may take as an example the English word 'bas relief'. This word is borrowed from the French. In French it is pronounced /barəljɛf/, but in English it is pronounced /'bɑ rə'lif/, because its pronunciation has been 'anglicized'. That is to say, when we borrow foreign words into English we often adapt them to our way of pronouncing so that they cease to resemble their source word in various degrees. In fact, the new pronunciation may come to sound like a totally different word in the original language. The English pronunciation of 'bas relief', /'bɑ rə'lif/, for example, sounds sort of like the French words 'barre l'if', meaning "cross out the yew!".
Let us imagine for a moment that the word 'bas relief' will one day become so thoroughly naturalized into English that instead of retaining its French spelling "bas relief" it will take on a new spelling that better reflects its pronunciation in English: "bah releef". Would it make sense to write: ""bah releef", when translated, means "cross out the yew" in French"? No. This sentence is almost meaningless: the English spelling "bah releef" cannot MEAN anything in French. At most, it can stand in for a word ('bas relief') that has a pronunciation (/'bɑ rə'lif/) that resembles the pronunciation (/barə lif/) of another expression in French ('barre l'if'). To say that "bah releef" the English spelling 'means' anything in French is absurd.
And yet this is exactly what has been done in this article. It says: "Translated, Moslem is the Arabic word for "one who is evil and unjust."" This is what I meant by saying that an English spelling cannot mean anything in Arabic. You quite rightly point out that "a word can mean one thing in one language and another in another": but, as I discussed before, this means that two words may have similar pronunciations. It is meaningless to say that an English spelling "means" something in French, or in Arabic. At most we should say that the spelling "Moslem" evokes some particular Arabic word -- just as "bah releef" might evoke the French words 'barre l'if'. In order for the article to make sense, this word should be given.
Of course, one last complication does present itself. This is that Arabic is written in a foreign alphabet (the Arabic alphabet). When we import Arabic words into English and wish to write them down, we are obliged to rewrite all of the words in our own (Roman) alphabet. This process is called 'romanization'. It is because of competing systems of romanization that the original Arabic word 'muslim' (spelled مسلم) has been imported into English with two different spellings : "Muslim" and "Moslem". The different vowel-letters result from different choices in how to romanize the Arabic vowels 'damma' and 'kasra'. "Muslim" and "Moslem" ended up as alternative English spellings for the English word 'Muslim' because they are alternative romanizations of the Arabic word 'Muslim' from which the English word is borrowed. This is why the second sentence from the Wikipedia article is so confusing to me. If you translate some Arabic word romanized as "Moslem" as "one who is evil and unjust", you are obviously not taking "Moslem" as the romanization of 'Muslim' مسلم. So what word ARE you taking it as?
All of the problems of which I am complaining can be found in the article you linked to, as well. Ms. Chen writes: 'A Muslim in Arabic means "one who gives himself to God,"" Clearly here she intends "Muslim" to be a romanization of the Arabic word 'Muslim' مسلم -- all is well and good. But then she goes on to write: "By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means "one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z." It is impossible for me to tell what the word "Moslem" is here: a transliteration of some Arabic word (not given)? (If so, then it makes sense to say that it means "one who is evil" but I wish the word had been given.) the English spelling "Moslem"? (If so, it does NOT make sense to say that it means "one who is evil", as I have discussed above.) Or the English pronunciation /'mʌz.ləm/? (In which case, she probably means to say that the English pronunciation /'mʌz.ləm/ SOUNDS LIKE some Arabic word (again not given).)
I hope this makes clear why I do not understand the objection being made. I do think it is important for people to understand issues that are sensitive to others; but this article only obfuscates that important issue by presenting an unclear and incoherent account of the facts.-Gheuf--68.174.182.117 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok now I kind of see where your going with this - although even with that I think that what you had left was too vague. I found here (google cache of pdf also found here in the non cache form on the 9th (and last) pages, "“Moslem”: an incorrect spelling of the term Muslim. Whilst it may seem that there is only a

slight difference in spelling between “Muslim” and “Moslem”, if “Moslem” is pronounced “Mozlem” or “Muzlim” then this creates serious distortion of the true meaning of Muslim in Arabic." Just so you know (it seeemed like you were curius in your second to last paragraph as to what the author was refering)Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 21:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

However that may be, the Wikipedia article as currently worded is still nonsense. And I don't think the article you have linked to is a reliable source, either, not because it has false information, but because it is impossible to tell whether its information is false or correct. It says that "Moslem" "means" "one who is cruel or unjust" "especially when pronounced with a z-sound". Setting aside the question of whether it is the spelling or the pronunciation that is being attacked (or the spelling because it seems to suggest the pronunciation), it is still impossible to evaluate the author's claim that the Arabic word "Moslem" means "one who is cruel" because the romanization and the hints given for the pronunciation of the word are so vague. I do not have an Arabic dictionary handy, but I do have a Persian dictionary. (Persian has lots of Arabic loanwords.) In it, I was able to find the Arabic loanword mazlum ﻣﻇﻠﻮم‎ meaning "oppressed". Is this the word Ms. Chen was referring to? If so, her claim was false: the word doesn't mean "one who is cruel" but "one who is oppressed", the opposite meaning. Or was Ms. Chen referring to a different word? If so, was she right in its meaning? How can we know? It is irresponsible in an encyclopedia to make claims that are unverifiable.-Gheuf--68.174.182.117 21:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Nonono, I provided the other article because you said you were curious - wasn't planning on citing that. And your persian dictionary should be left out of this - I don't care if persian has lots of arabic loanwords - there are still differences, and it's crazy to think taht she was refering to a persian war. The statement is verifiable - she says, "Mozlem means" - I'm not seeing the problem here. By the way, are you shemme? You said, "Thanks for interest in my comments." - when shemme was the only one besides me who posted - so if you are, please sign in and identify yourself - signing as "Gheuf" with an IP could be considered stalkpuppeting (however obviously since you said "my comments " I'm not going to do anything, but I'm just saying as a percausion you may want to just remember to sign in. If you forgot to say "my comments" then it would look like more people were interested in changing it than in reality)Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you wanted to cite the new article, the article you have ALREADY cited is not a reliable source, because its information is not verifiable. She says "Moslem means" -- this is not verifiable because it does not identify any particular Arabic word. It uses an English spelling to suggest a pronunciation which suggests an Arabic word. I thought I had made this clear in my previous post. To put it as simply as possible: I cannot tell whether she measns the Arabic word maZlum or not.
You are quite right to point out that Arabic words can change meaning when borrowed into Persian. But the issue is not what this particular word means in Arabic or in Persian, but whether Ms. Chen's article can pick out any particular word at all.
I have no idea what a "shemme" is. I signed my posts Gheuf because I forgot to log in those two times.--Gheuf 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Now that I look more closely at it, all the problems I have pointed out were actually ABSENT from the original version of the text: "Muslims do not recommend this spelling [who?] because it is often pronounced "mozz-lem" /mɒzlɛm/ which sounds somewhat similar to an Arabic word for "oppressed" (Za'lem in Arabic)". This mentions a particular Arabic word (Za'lem), maintains the distinction between spelling and pronunciation, and makes clear the relationship of the English pronunciation and the Arabic word ("sounds somewhat similar"). All of these elements were eliminated in your edit, where you changed 'Moslem sounds like ... which translated means ...' to 'Moslem means ...', claiming it is "more direct." I don't know whether it is more direct, but it certainly is nonsense.
Of course, the original had its own problems, which some people indicated by attaching the superscript phrases "weasel words" and "citation needed" to the passage. It was felt that the claim that was being made (however coherently) was not backed up by evidence. "Many Muslims," but which? "sounds similar", to whom?
I applaud the attempt to make these generalities more specific by citing a particular source. But the source you cite lacks evidence just as much as the original Wikipedia article did. "But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam," writes Ms. Chen. "Many followers"? how many? which ones? Since this article is so full of "weasel words" itself, it is ironic that someone would cite it for the express purpose of getting rid of them.
Not only does Ms. Chen's article have the same problems as the original Wikipedia text, it actually adds NEW vague statements to vague statements, destroying a coherent account of the similarity of one Arabic word (Za'lem) to an English pronunciation associated with the spelling "Moslem", and replacing it with the nonsensical statement "a Moslem in Arabic means "one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z." In the Comments to the article an Arabic-speaker going by the name of "anas nemmassi" describes this sentence as " an unhappy mistake, because the word Mozlem مظلم as you are referring to it is an adjective of the noun zalam which means darkness of night." In other words, even if we try to interpret the sentence as sense rather than nonsense, it turns out to be false. He then goes through and lists all the possible words she might have meant that either sound like Mozlem, or mean "unjust". In other words, her statement is not verifiable, and if it is, then it is false.--Gheuf 14:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to change the paragraph to:
"The ordinary word in English is "Muslim", also spelled "Moslem", pronounced /'mʊs.lɪm/, also /'mʌz.ləm/. The word is pronounced /muslem/ in Arabic."
which seems about all we have evidence for. (I assume that "1980" can be removed, since it is not found even in the "source" for the paragraph.)--Gheuf 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
First:How Do You know that it doesn't have any connection to any word - by saying moslem means, she says that it does, once again your persian dictionary isn't the final word on this - in fact it doesn't even have a say.
Second - The reason the statement changed is because I was trying to find a source for it - and I found nothing relating to that statement, which is why the info changed.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your speedy reply. To answer your second point first, I understand that you altered the Wikipedia text in order to find a source for it; as I thought I had explained above, the new source is worse than the old text.
As to your first point: Perisan dictionary or no Perisan dictionary, "Moslem", when "translated", does not mean "one who is cruel and unjust" in Arabic. Even if the statement were rephrased to make sense, it still would be false. Why are you so adamant about this? Do you have a particular Arabic word in mind? Then by all means mention it! If you DON'T know any Arabic word that means "one who is cruel and unjust" than why are you making claims about something you don't know about?
To be absolutely clear, I've copied here the Comments made on Ms. Chen's article. The comments were originally in all caps, so I've altered the capitalization. I've also made the transcription of ظ consistently as capital Z. (The author of the comment starts out with Z but later changes to D.)
"I would be really pleased if you let me correct a mistake that occured in this article.
[...]
"-"By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means "one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z." which is an unhappy mistake? Because the word moZlem مظلم as you are reffering [sic] to it is an adjective of the noun Zalam which means darkness of night time.
"-I noticed that a [mix-up] happened concerning the word moZlem/moslem? in which the author of the article is reffering [sic] to the term ظالم "Zalem" (one who mistreats; one who op[p]resses; one who is unjust) which is the subject noun of the verb "Zalama" (to mistreat; to op[p]ress; to be unjust). The two are derived from the noun "Zolm" ظلم
"[Here is a table of the words discussed:]
"-Darkness
-مظلم adjs pronounced "mo[Z]lem"
-ظلام noun pronounced "Zalam"
"-The unjust
-ظالم noun of the subject pronounced ["Z]alem["]
-ظلم verb pronounced "[Z]alma"
-ظلم noun pronounced "[Z]olm"
"I don[']t know if the mix[-up] was done intentionally by the author or it was just a lack of knowledge about [the] Arabic language. Thank you"
A friend referred me to Lane's Lexicon online, Volume 5 pp. 205-208, where these words can be looked up. (This is a lexicon... of ARABIC!)--Gheuf 15:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
No I don't havea specific word in mind, but the point is if the article says it can be translated - you don't need the word - "why are you so adamant about this?" - psh, I could ask the same of you. And as far as the specific word goes (even though again, the word is optional) - I don't know how to translate the sounds of "moslem or mozlem" to arabic - since it's a different alphabet - that's what makes it so difficult to find one. I might get back to this later, I just happened to be on the computer - that why I could reply quickly, but alas, now I must go for a bit.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 15:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I wrote "Why are you so adamant about this?" since it is inappropriate to call your personal motives into question. For my part, I know it may seem trivial to split hairs about words, their spellings and their pronunciations, but if we are not careful about how we use words, there is nothing left to separate truth from error.
As to the specific point at hand, you haven't really addressed any of the issues I brought up. I've already shown that some of the text in the Wikipedia article is at best false, and at worst unverifiable (which is really very much worse). I'm going to implement the changes I proposed above; if you don't like them, please don't revert them: add a true statement to the article -- or at least a statement that is capable of being either true or false.--Gheuf 16:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong info in the main page could anybody help?

84.13.33.161 11:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 25/2/2007


Could any one help? I have tried to join and edit the part that is factually and historically wrong with your article with prosecution of Zoroastrians in Iran and any non-existence clashes. I have put previously a comment in the ‘Talk section’ and have also joined to edit the page. However, perhaps due to my lack of familiarity with computer or any other reason I have not been successful. It seems to me in this instance Wikipedia act more like any biased western media that when print something it never retract and worse because you do not have public face there is no one to contact. So please remove the incorrect line. There are ‘No prosecution of Zoroastrians in Iran’ except the 1300 years ago when Arab brought their religion into Iran. Present constitution indicate that Zoroastrian, Christian and Jewish faith should have representation in parliament. Moreover Iranian hold dearly their pre-Islamic heritage, this shown in our ceremony like Shabe Yalda and our New Year time and celebration and so forth. Finally, all of all of Iranian sees Zoroastrian as part of fabric of our society and the hardship that at present being experience by Iranian is the same for all irrespective of their religion.

Thanks

To edit a page, simply hit "edit this page" at the top of the page. As long as you cite your information (and don't remove correctly cited information) - your good.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with this?) 12:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Mr Folsom

I would be grateful if you put the REFERENCE for two statements that you have put in this web site, a) prosecution of Christian during the Sassanid eras’ and b) prosecution and violence against my fellow Iranian (Zoroastrian). Additionally, in the top of the main page that you refer to, I can’t see any edit button, or as I said before may be my understanding of how the web site works is stinks. However, how can I prove the negative because even the person that written the erroneous lines did not put any reference to his/her bogus info. Thus if you can I appreciate that kindly remove the erroneous lines.

Many thanks

Excuse me? I didn't add any information - if you read what I did all I did do was correct information when the article talks about the differences of Muslem/Moslem... I think I should probably take this up with you on your talk page, but please remember to sign your post with four tildes]]. If the information is not refernced, you have a few options. The best would be to put {{fact}} next to the uncited statement - this will create this ... [citation needed]Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 00:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


اگر می خواهید این صفحه را ویرایش کنید، باید به سیستم وارد شده باشید. اگر هیج حسابی ندارید باید یک خدیدی بسازید. پس می توانید صفحه را ویرایش کنید. اگر بسیستم وارد شده نباشید نتوانید این صفحه را ویرایش کنید --Gheuf 22:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah I now see that what you were talking about. The passage you objected to was not on this page at all, but on the page on Sassanid Persia, where it says: "Under his reign the collection of the Avesta, the sacred texts of Zoroastrianism, was completed, heresy and apostasy were punished, and Christians were persecuted." Why did you complain on this page? you should have written a note on the Sassanid Persia page itself. That page is NOT protected, so you could just edit it by clicking "edit this page" same as you clicked "edit this page" to edit THIS page.--Gheuf 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pork?

Can Anyone Explain to me why muslims can't eat pork? [[Wrestling Maniac]] 12:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Islam and pork - Islamic dietary laws - Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3 v52

Change this to "3:52"

Done. Monkeyblue 04:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Somebody needs to explain the split between Sunnis and Shiites and the death of Iman Hussein. To many sunnis shiites are traitors, is that the major opinion within the group? Indonesia is mainly muslim.User_talk:Dale4sail

[edit] Table

can someone fix the table -- it is all screwed up, and I am too new to know how to fix it. It looks very bad. Wisconsin96 19:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

TADA! Thanks for the heads up - some vandal had reworked a template with anti-muslim ... vandalism. Sigh... Well all it needed was a quick revert.Daniel()Folsom |\T/|\C/|\U/|(Can you help me with my signature?) 20:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note on "worshippers of Christ" in this topic.

I'm a Christian that just wanted to understand more about Islam and Muslims, so I was reading through this page. This is my humble contribution; do with it as you see fit.

Basicaly, the following text in the "Muslim" article should be reviewed and possibly changed at the following line:

"If the term Christian is used to describe the followers and worshippers of Christ, then 'Mohammadan' implies worship of Muhammad."

I say this for the following reason: as a Christian, I do not consider myself a "worshipper of Christ". I have faith in, and therefore worship God (no matter how you want to name Him, albeit The Lord Almighty, YWYH, Jehova, Allah, et al) through faith in Christ's death and resurrection. This is why Christians pray to God asking it in the name of Christ, rather than praying directly to Christ.

Therefore, Christians are not "worshippers of Christ". However to me, the term "followers" is perfectly correct and acceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.176.47.127 (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

From what I've heard and read about, quite a few christians do indeed start there prayers, "Dear Jesus" - and I think most people would say Christians worship Jesus Christ - I mean they do call him their savior, but regardless, god is not analogous with Muhammed - rather, Jesus is.danielfolsom 03:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The idea of the Trinity is that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are all persons of one God. To say that you worship God "no matter how you want to name him" and that this God is not one and the same as Jesus is Arianism, and not Christianity in the sense in which the term is usually understood.--68.174.190.51 22:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I worded this too strongly. I don't want to say that to be a Christian you have to believe in the Trinity. Does "Christianity" imply "worship" of Christ? Does "Mohammedan" imply "worship" of Muhammad? I don't know. (Certainly "Arianism" does not imply worship of Arius!)--68.174.190.51 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but Lutherans don't worship Luther, Calvinists don't worship Calvin. The word Mohammadan is not problematic because of that analogy. It's problematic because it's jut not the word Muslims prefer to be called by. So user:0.176.47.127 is right - that spurious argument should be replaced with the real issue. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

First off, you can't equte Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. with Muslims, because at the end of the day, Calvinists, Lutherans, etc. are still Lutheran Christians, Clavinist Christians etc. You're basically comparing apples and oranges with that argument. It is problematic because by definition because of the place that Muhammad holds in Islam, vice the position that Christ holds in Christianity. Christians worship Christ by definition as that he is part of the Trinity. The only branch of Christians that don't follow this dogma are the Unitarians, who still represent a small minority of all christians world wide. Muslims do not worship Muhammad. While he may be al-insam al-kamil, the greatest example for man to follow, he is not al-Qudoos (holy) in the same way that a Christian would view Christ, in that he is not God. Walbe13 (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The analogy is entirely precise. The fact that Lutherans are a subsection of Christians is irrelevant. The point is that the name "Lutheran" simply refers to the particular theology. It implies nothing about God. The same terminology applies to other beliefs, for example Zoroastrians are followers of Zoroaster and Manicheans are followers of Mani. Neither faith belives that these people were God. You are taking the exception ("Christian") and making it the rule. The term simply implies that a person is a follower of a particular prophet (or in some cases philosopher - eg Platonists, Marxists etc), nothing more. Paul B (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ASTARGHFIRULLAH

I went to a page on muslims and it said that "God" is the meaning of "Allah". This is wrong. "Allah" has no translation.In Islam there is no "God", only "Allah". I can not change it so plz may a brother muslim do this.


H@R5H M@NI4C 10:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)MuhammudH@R5H M@NI4C 10:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved from above the talk into a topic Monkeyblue 11:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed this and have come to a consensus on this topic -- mainly to the opposite. Please see:
Thanks, Monkeyblue 11:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong to say that Shiia or Sunni are not Muslims

All brothers and sisters know if you accept Allah you are a Muslim whether you are Sunni or Shia. Both face to Mecca to pray and both believe in the Prophet and I think that entire section questioning whether a Sunni or Shia is Muslim should be entirely removed. There aren't even any citations in that section. It must be some obscure minority group that thinks that Sunnis or Shiis are not Muslims. It's so unimportant and not even worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeilaStar (talk • contribs) 09:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] edit needed

yeah, there are some offensive comments at the beginning of the "Muslim and mu'min" section

It's right under "Muslim and mumin" and I'd get rid of it but the page is locked. 24.62.208.188 (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim means Peace

The word Muslim does not etymologically define "one who submits to god" it defines "One who is at peace". "Mu-Salaam" root being Saa, Laaam, Meem, (Salaam). Nuwaubian Hotep (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The root as listed in Wiki is currently correct, derived from al-silm not al-salaam. Walbe13 (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies

There is conflicting information on this page, one of these is in the first section, at the end.

Currently, the number of Muslims is estimated to be 1.3 billion.

The second inconsistency is in the "Islam" section.

there are an estimated 1.4 billion Muslims

There might be more... not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.160.167 (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)