Jump to content

Talk:Islam: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Vital article|level=3|topic=Philosophy|class=B}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Article history
{{Article history
|action1=FAC
|action1=FAC
Line 62: Line 60:
|maindate=July 1, 2007
|maindate=July 1, 2007
|aciddate=2006-11-18
|aciddate=2006-11-18

|currentstatus=FFA
|action11 = GAN
|topic=Philosophy and religion
|action11date = 15:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
|action11link = Talk:Islam/GA2
|action11result = listed
|action11oldid = 1172512740
|currentstatus = FFA/GA
|topic = Philosophy and religion
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Religion|class=b|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Islam|class=b|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|class=b|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Theology|importance=Low}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=b|category=Philrelig|VA=yes|coresup=yes}}}}
{{WikiProject Spirituality|importance=Low}}
}}
{{banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{To do}}
{{To do}}
{{Not a forum}}
{{Outline of knowledge coverage|Islam}}

{{external peer review|date=April 30, 2007|org=The Denver Post|comment="quite impressed"; "looks like something that might have been done by a young graduate student, or assistant professor, or two or three"; "clinical and straightforward, but not boring"; "where important translations of Arabic language or fine religious distinctions are required, Wikipedia acquits itself well." Please [[Wikipedia:External peer review/Denver Post|examine the findings]].}}
{{external peer review|date=April 30, 2007|org=The Denver Post|comment="quite impressed"; "looks like something that might have been done by a young graduate student, or assistant professor, or two or three"; "clinical and straightforward, but not boring"; "where important translations of Arabic language or fine religious distinctions are required, Wikipedia acquits itself well." Please [[Wikipedia:External peer review/Denver Post|examine the findings]].}}

{{archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=90|index=/Archive index}}
{{Backwardscopy
{{Backwardscopy
|author = Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J.
|author = Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J.
Line 81: Line 85:
|title = Contemporary Islamic philosophy: Islam, philosophy, modernity, Western philosophy, Jamal-al-Din Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Iqbal, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic philosophy
|title = Contemporary Islamic philosophy: Islam, philosophy, modernity, Western philosophy, Jamal-al-Din Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Iqbal, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic philosophy
|org = Alphascript Publishing
|org = Alphascript Publishing
|comments = {{OCLC|697554244}}, ISBN 9786130678883.
|comments = {{OCLC|697554244}}, {{ISBN|9786130678883}}.
|author2 = Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J.
|author2 = Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J.
|year2 = 2009
|year2 = 2009
|title2 = Islam and modernity: Modernity, islam, sociology of religion, Islamism, Arab socialism, liberal movements within Islam, Islamic feminism
|title2 = Islam and modernity: Modernity, islam, sociology of religion, Islamism, Arab socialism, liberal movements within Islam, Islamic feminism
|org2 = Alphascript Publishing
|org2 = Alphascript Publishing
|comments2 = {{OCLC|630550858}}, ISBN 9786130220464.
|comments2 = {{OCLC|630550858}}, {{ISBN|9786130220464}}.
|author3 = Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J.
|author3 = Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J.
|year3 = 2010
|year3 = 2010
|title3 = Islamic view of Ishmael: Islam, Ishmael, Abraham, Rasul, God, Adnan, Muhammad
|title3 = Islamic view of Ishmael: Islam, Ishmael, Abraham, Rasul, God, Adnan, Muhammad
|org3 = Alphascript Publishing
|org3 = Alphascript Publishing
|comments3 = {{OCLC|686691889}}, ISBN 9786130836863.
|comments3 = {{OCLC|686691889}}, {{ISBN|9786130836863}}.
|bot=LivingBot
|bot=LivingBot
}}
{{Section sizes}}

{{Consensus|Current consensus for article style - <br/>Primary sources, particularly scriptures, alone are discouraged. <br/> Article is ideally to be in [[Wikipedia:summary style|Summary style]] but move extra content to its specific article rather than deleting it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam/Archive_31#Article_size_needs_reducing]<br/> Differences in transliteration can be listed when first introducing the word but then must be consistent throughout the article with the most commonly used form [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam/Archive_31#Terminology_consistency_2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles#Terminology_consistency]<br/>History section should focus on religious history rather than political history of Muslim states<br/>Images on Wikipedia are not censored.}}
{{Annual readership|days=180}}{{refideas

|Stats by ethnicity are missing; maybe start with [https://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/demographics-of-islam] or [https://www.learnreligions.com/worlds-muslim-population-2004480]?}}
}}
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
Line 102: Line 113:
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 28
|counter = 32
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(90d)
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Islam/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Islam/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
== Article reliability ==


<s>To the recent editor who just reverted, what makes you think that the article I cited was unreliable? It's only deemed as unreliable if I get a warning before I click publish. However, this wasn't the case when I added this article about birth rates of Muslims. [[User:ShawarmaFan07|ShawarmaFan07]] ([[User talk:ShawarmaFan07|talk]]) 20:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)</s>{{sock vote|LDas12345}}
== For some sects... ==

{{u|Slooppouts34}},
*Per [[WP:LEAD]], {{tq|The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its ''most important aspects''.}}
*Per [[MOS:INTRO]], {{tq|The lead section should briefly summarize the ''most important points'' covered in an article...}}
*Per [[WP:FRNG]], {{tq|To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is ''not broadly supported'' by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.}}
The notability and significance of people who reject Sunnah is negligible and the minority viewpoint is [[Islam#Other_denominations|covered]] in the body of the article appropriately with a single sentence. The lead should give proper weight and exclude fringe ideas. Can you self revert yourself until consensus can be demonstrated that such a sentence should be included in the lead? --[[User:Fauzan|<font color="2F4F4F">Fauzan</font>]]<sup style="margin-left:+0.5ex">[[User talk:Fauzan#top|<font color="BDB76B">✆ talk</font>]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.6ex">[[Special:EmailUser/Fauzan|<font color="BDB76B">✉ mail</font>]]</sub> 04:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
: I agree that "for some sects" should not be included; there are certainly people calling themselves Muslims who will not agree with Sunnah, as there are those who will disagree with just about any definition of Muslim you could try to write, but the number of people is going to be very, very, very small. Islam itself is a [[WP:SUMMARY|summary-style article]]; the lead is only a brief summary of the article so "for some sects" is IMO a waste of words where things need to be concise. It also violates [[WP:UNDUE]] by the implication that large numbers of Muslims reject Sunnah. — '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Bilorv|(talk)]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Bilorv|(contribs)]]</sub> 16:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
::The [[Quranists]] are a big enough sect to be notable. You simply just can't have false staements on the lead of the article. If balancing weight is the issue, then balance it by saying that "majority" do follow hadith. But the bottom line is: you can't put inaccurate statement.--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 01:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
*Fauzan's policy references (above) do not support his position. The quotes from WP:LEAD and MOS:INTRO would be reasons not to have a whole sentence on the [[Quranists]] in the lead (for instance) but they do not justify incorrectly stating that ''all'' Muslims folow hadith. Also WP:FRINGE is not relevant because that is about fringe scholarly views. It is not a fringe scholarly view that Quaranists ''exist''. That is undisputed. My only challenge on Slooppouts34's edit ([https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Islam&diff=639639102&oldid=639638868 here]) is that simply saying "a majority" suggests that the Quaranists are a larger number than they are, and would prefer something like "vast majority" as more reflective of the position - and have added that qualification. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 08:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} If that was the case, then all the articles would be have been awash with "most of" or "majority of" in every sentence. Now, any person walking on the street can claim to be a "Muslim", and his way "correct", yet we are [[Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Reporting_on_the_levels_of_acceptance|not going to include]] so fringe an idea in the lead, at least. There is always going to be disagreement between people regarding who is a "Muslim", in such a case Wikipedia should [[Wikipedia:VNT|parallel the most widespread view]], Wikipedia is not a place to establish the [[Wikipedia:Truth#A_place_for_minority_views|truthfulness]] of any statement. The bottom line is [[WP:N]]. Read the first post again. Do the (mainstream) Muslims regard Quranists as Muslim? Are Quranists notable enough? Provide references to [[WP:RS]], do not make unsupported claims.<p>Regarding consensus, ''you'' have to establish consensus to ''change'' the lead since there is objection. --[[User:Fauzan|<font color="2F4F4F">Fauzan</font>]]<sup style="margin-left:+0.5ex">[[User talk:Fauzan#top|<font color="BDB76B">✆ talk</font>]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-4.6ex">[[Special:EmailUser/Fauzan|<font color="BDB76B">✉ mail</font>]]</sub> 09:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
:::You're wrong on two counts. Firstly, in Wikipedia we do not determine who are Muslims by "mainstream" Muslim opinions. It is long-established on numerous articles that it is by self-declaration. For example, the [[ Ahmadiyya]] are referred to as muslims despite frequent objections of those editing from a mainstream muslim POV. Secondly, many articles do have the "most of" qualification. For example, the second sentence of [[Muhammad]] states "Muhammad is almost universally considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God to mankind", the "almost" to take account of Ahmadiyya. With regard to policy, as I sated above, you are using the quotes incorrectly. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 09:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::The lead of [[Evolution]] doesn't say <code>'''Evolution''' is the (possibly non-existent) change in the [[heredity|inherited]] [[phenotypic trait]]s (characteristics) of [[biology|biological]] [[population]]s over successive [[generation]]s, which is claimed to occur by scientists (but not all scientists) and disputed by many creationists, and some people other than creationists, although some creationists "believe in" evolution.</code> You can generalise things to concisely represent the vast majority. Something may be notable for its own topic — [[intelligent design]] is incredibly notable — but not notable enough to be mentioned in the lead of the main-topic article ("creationism", "intelligent design" etc. do not appear in the lead of [[evolution]]). [[Quranists]] may deserve their own article, but not be big enough to be discussed in [[Islam]].
:::::Having said that, I know nothing about Quranists: what percentage of Muslims are Quranists / reject hadith? I also don't object to adding "vast majority" (which is currently what's written) or another short phrase that makes it clear that the number of Muslims that follow hadith is far greater than the number who don't. — '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]''' <sup>[[User talk:Bilorv|(talk)]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Bilorv|(contribs)]]</sub> 10:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::That's a false analogy with [[Evolution]]. A better comparison is the current , lead in [[Chistianity]]: "'''Most''' Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God...". Anyway, since you don't object to "vast majority" we are in agreement! [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 10:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I'm ok with "vast majority" in the sentence. However, I would like to note that [[Sunni]],[[Shia]] and other sects have very different hadiths. (http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/2741/why-do-the-shia-have-different-hadiths)
--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 21:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Quran and Sunnah are not the only sources of Islamic teaching. Spiritual leaders or "Imams" have also played a significant role in the history of Islam especially Shia Islam and Sufi Islam. I think we should add this to the lead section as well. (Their teachings are no on par with the Quran though). And also, Quran is considered "revelation from God" not "verbatim word of God".[[User:Kiatdd|Kiatdd]] ([[User talk:Kiatdd|talk]]) 19:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Just passing by this talk page, I would like to say that most Muslims believe the Quran is the verbatim word of God. [[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] ([[User talk:Mbcap|talk]]) 23:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::the doctrine is called "wahy" which precisely means revelation (see page [[wahy]]), it is a well-known doctrine in Islamic theology.[[User:Kiatdd|Kiatdd]] ([[User talk:Kiatdd|talk]]) 20:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have just reverted [[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]]'s edit. That is too much weight given to an extremely tiny subgroup. Please discuss why you wish to have it included because you have provided no tangible policy based reasons. A search on google scholar, books and news showed this many results for "quranism or quranist";
*Google scholar --- 65 results and google scholar thought I typed it wrong (this reflects on how inconsequential they are) @ http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=quranism+or+quranist&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
As opposed to 1,940,000 results for search term "islam" @ http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=islam&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
*Google books ----- 388 results @ https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=google+scholar&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=9gmqVKv2O8mQ7Aab4oDoDg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbm=bks&q=quranism+or+quranist
As opposed to 16,800,000 results for search term "islam" @ https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=google&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=SgqqVJGzPOnY7AaVgIHgDg&ved=0CAwQ_AUoAQ#tbm=bks&q=islam
*Google news ------ 54 results @ https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=google+scholar&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=9gmqVKv2O8mQ7Aab4oDoDg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#tbm=nws&q=quranism+or+quranist
As opposed to 18,500,000 results for Islam

Search results on scholar, books and news as percentage of total for "quranism or quranist" (I know this is OR but I am putting it here to show how extremely microscopic this fringe view is:
*Google scholar --- 0.002%
*Google books ----- 0.001%
*Google news ------ 0.0003%

The comparison to the christianity page is not suitable for this discussion as nontrinitarians constitute a significant minority which itself consists of numerous different denominations. This is undue weight and also extremely fringe view that is too microscopic to consider. Editors should be reminded [[WP:FRINGE]] states; "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.". By making this edit which I have reverted Slooppouts34, you have given extreme weight to quranist opinion relative to its prominence in reliable sources. [[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] ([[User talk:Mbcap|talk]]) 03:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:[[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]], reiterate and revert. Thanks--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 03:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::I welcome any policy based objections, otherwise the article stays the way it is. [[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] ([[User talk:Mbcap|talk]]) 04:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::You've completely misunderstood policy and [[WP:FRINGE]] on this. That is all about conflicting scholarly (and not so scholarly) theories on a subject: there was no moon landing, the CIA did 9/11, the earth is flat. This is different. This is describing a religious belief and reporting the facts on what is believed. The only way [[WP:FRINGE]] would play here is if scholars disputed whether Quranists ''exist''. [[WP:FRINGE]], in an article about a religion, should concern fringe sources/theories ''about'' the religion rather than fringe sects ''of that'' religion. Grateful for other inputs. I'v opened a thread at the Fringe noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Islam [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 10:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::Slooppouts34: what are you trying to say? Are you saying that a faction of Muslims do not follow Muhammad? we need more clarification here! [[User:Kiatdd|Kiatdd]] ([[User talk:Kiatdd|talk]]) 17:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Thank you [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] for pointing that out. Yes, [[WP:FRINGE]] deos not apply here as it is not a scientific issue but a religious one. Even still due to the absolute insignificance of this group and the very little that is available in the way of sources, would mean it would not merit consideration for the lead per [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] ([[User talk:Mbcap|talk]]) 19:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::I agree they are no way significant enough to be referred to in the lead. The point here is different, however. It is factually incorrect for the lead to say, in effect, all Muslims follow hadith/Sunnah. It's just wrong. It needs to be qualified in some way: just as the lead to [[Muhammad]] says that muslims "almost universally" regard him to be the last prophet. It needs the equivalent of "almost all". [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 22:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::I see what you are saying but it still does not make a difference, because even mentioning, "that almost all muslims follow hadith" would give undue weight to quranists. [[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] ([[User talk:Mbcap|talk]]) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Even if there is one Muslim who identifies himself/herself as Quranist, then stating that "all Muslims follow hadith" becomes false. There are millions of Quranists, and they are heavy suppressed by extremists everywhere (e.g https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/islamofallah/4F86FUk8nhs) just as the case for [[Ahmadiyya]], [[Bahá'í Faith]] and many other sects in Islam. I've no problem with supression though, if you believe that should be the case on Wikipedia also--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 05:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


Slooppouts34 what you just attempted on the article page constituted vandalism. The introduction was destroyed and I immediately reverted. Please bear in mind that if you repeat this again, you will receive a level 3 warning. If you would like to make any changes to the lead please raise them here first with your sources. [[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] ([[User talk:Mbcap|talk]]) 05:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Islam|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->

<!-- End request -->
[[User:Teaspoon67|Teaspoon67]] ([[User talk:Teaspoon67|talk]]) 14:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/home/ is the new correct link for http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/home/ located in the external lnks section
:[[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Cannolis|Cannolis]] ([[User talk:Cannolis|talk]]) 16:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

== where is islamic terrorisim ==

i believe section for [[islamic terrorism]] and/or [[jihad]] must be added. <span style="font-size: 125%; font-family: New Times Roman;">[[User:KazekageTR|<span style="color:#FF8400">kazekagetr</span>]]</span> 15:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
:Actually, there is already a section on Jihad in the article. [[User:JZCL|'''JZ''']][[User talk:JZCL|''CL'']] 17:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

== ''Muslem'' ==

Please change MOSLEM to MUSLIM in the first line <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/117.198.94.18|117.198.94.18]] ([[User talk:117.198.94.18|talk]]) 12:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:{{done}} - <font style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; font-size:18px;">[[User:Ctg4Rahat|Rahat]]</font><font style="font-family:Calibari ITC; font-size:12px;"> ([[User talk:Ctg4Rahat|Talk]] * [[Special:Contributions/Ctg4Rahat|Contributions]])</font> 12:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

== Family Life ==

Under Family Life section, isn't sex with unconsenting female captives, really rape? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/140.32.107.150|140.32.107.150]] ([[User talk:140.32.107.150|talk]]) 22:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Yes of course. [[User:Thepigdog|Thepigdog]] ([[User talk:Thepigdog|talk]]) 05:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

== Slavery and genocide ==

I would like to add the following links

* [[Islam and slavery]]
* [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]]
* [[Armenian Genocide]]
* [[Assyrian genocide]]
* [[Persecution of Yazidis by ISIL]]

[[User:Thepigdog|Thepigdog]] ([[User talk:Thepigdog|talk]]) 05:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

:Where? [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 16:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

== Slavery in Islam ==

After I've read this article about Islam that was posted in Wikipedia. I have to bring up this statement that was part of the article.

"According to Islam, it is lawful for male masters to have sexual relations with female captives and slaves,[112] regardless of whether the slave woman gives her consent".[113]

There is no evidence stating that male masters are allowed let alone 'lawful' to have sexual relations with female captives and slaves regardless of whether the slave woman gives her consent. in Quran, Hadiths or Sunnah. That act is considered fornication or rape and it is heinous and sinful to have sex other than your wife. Unless you have find evidence that is stated in Quran, then by all means, I can't argue with facts.

What stated above is untrue and will mislead readers who are looking for information about Islam. Please remove it. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/50.149.185.215|50.149.185.215]] ([[User talk:50.149.185.215|talk]]) 21:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:In the quotes above you can see "[112]" and "[113]". Displayed in the article like this: {{dummy ref|112}}, these are [[WP:REF|references]] supporting the statements made. Unless you have [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] which say otherwise (and [[WP:OR|your personal analysis]] of the Quran doesn't count), the statements support what the sources say and should remain within the article. Not all Muslims agree on... well, just about anything, but Wikipedia reflects what is stated in sources, even if you personally disagree. — '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]'''<sub>[[User talk:Bilorv|(talk)]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Bilorv|(c)]]</sup> 09:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
:: The sources do not establish [[wp:due|significance or weight]]. I mean which reliable source includes details about slavery in a short summary about "Family Life" in Islam? I'm not aware of any other than this article. Additionally, one of the sources was being misrepresented (Islamqa.com), as it clearly explains at the end that there are "valid reasons" for a slave women to refuse her master's requests. <b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi]]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Wiqi55|55]]</font>)</sup> 19:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Then, why not add more detail from Islamqa.info/. That site has quite a lot of detail on what you can and cannot do with your slave girls; for example: "The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them."[http://islamqa.info/en/10382]--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 19:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
::::[[Women in Islam]] has its own article, so try not to go into too much detail, but a bit more than just the single sentence there would be fine. I would say that coming under the heading of "Family life" does not make it [[WP:OR|original research]], but have little opinion on whether the contested text should be included or not. — '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]'''<sub>[[User talk:Bilorv|(talk)]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Bilorv|(c)]]</sup> 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
::::: Adding more details would veer into historical and disputed information (not really suitable for a general section on Family life). Nowadays, Muslim countries forbid slavery. Also, the distinct form of slavery allowed in Islam is temporary, limited to wartime and the presence of POWs. It is off topic for normal everyday Family life. <b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi]]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Wiqi55|55]]</font>)</sup> 20:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::It is? Do you have reliable sources for that? Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not on [[WP:OR|an editor's opinions]].--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 23:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

::::::: [http://islamqa.info/en/10382 Hazrat Ali had 17 slave girls and Hazrat Umar also had many].

::::::: Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married.

::::::: A slave woman with whom a man has intercourse is known as a sariyyah (concubine) from the word sirr, which means marriage.

::::::: This is indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and this was done by the Prophets. Ibraaheem (peace be upon him) took Haajar as a concubine and she bore him Ismaa’eel (may peace be upon them all).

::::::: Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also did that, as did the Sahaabah, the righteous and the scholars. The scholars are unanimously agreed on that and it is not permissible for anyone to regard it as haraam or to forbid it. Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars.<ref>http://islamqa.info/en/10382</ref>

::::::: [[Maria al-Qibtiyya]] was one of the concubines/sex slaves of Islamic prophet Muhammad.

::::::: List of Muhammad's Wives and Concubines: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Muhammads_Wives_and_Concubines

::::::: Also see "Islamic State issues guidelines for sex slavery": http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-issues-guidelines-for-sex-slavery/

::::::: --[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 23:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
::::::: It is a wartime practice because its sources were limited to POWs and those born while both their parents are POWs. Here is a quote from a reliable source: "The classical shari'a reduced the means by which one could be lawfully enslaved to just two: birth from two lawfully enslaved parents or capture as a prisoner in a lawful jihad. All other forms of enslavement were abolished."(''The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought'', 2012, p.514). Moreover, most slaves were POWs as "those born into slavery formed a relatively small proportion of the slave population" (''Transformation in Slavery'', Lovejoy, 2011, p.16)[https://books.google.com/books?id=dXVFnHqhLvcC&pg=PA16]. It was also non-permanent: "Thus the slave in Muslim society was not condemned to live permanently in servitude; he had a chance of obtaining liberty in his life time in an age when the rule was more rigid outside the World of Islam." (Khadduri, ''War and Peace in Islam'', 2010, p.132)[https://books.google.com/books?id=UHWd6gLZsFIC&pg=PA132]. More recent sources suggest that not freeing a slave after the war is over should be considered a later development: "The Qur'an seems to establish a rule that at the time of the revelation only captives taken in a just war could be enslaved. [...] The Qur'an recommends actually freeing the captives after the war is over."(p. 45 onwards, ''Black Morocco: A History of Slavery, Race, and Islam'', Chouki El Hamel, 2012)[https://books.google.com/books?id=UwogAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA45]. Clearly slavery in Islam (at least for the abiding Muslim) is inextricably linked with POWs and war practices.

::::::: But I don't see [Toddy1]'s reply on how the Islamqa.com source is being misrepresented? It clearly states that a female slave could have a "valid excuse" for rejecting her master's requests (see last paragraph). Also, your recent addition is not accurate, and suffers from the same problem of citing one-sided or poor quality sources. In fact, a wife can stipulate in her marriage contract that her husband does not marry anyone else: "Granting the wife the right to stipulate that her husband not marry additional wives or take a concubine was a source of great power for the woman. It differed from the historical practice of the husband granting his wife the option of requesting a divorce in such a case, a practice known as tamlik ..." (Wahhabi Islam, Natan J. Delong-Bas, 2004)[https://books.google.com/books?id=-Uy4ZGwAOAgC&pg=PA147]. <b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi]]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Wiqi55|55]]</font>)</sup> 16:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::A few comments:
:::::::::*Is[[ IslamQA.info]] a [[WP:RS]]? That seems doubtful to me.
:::::::::*I don't see any grounds for saying this topic should not be under the heading "Family life".
:::::::::*Nothing Wiqi55 has said justifies removing the topic altogether - only grounds (perhaps) for amending the text. If the sources say there are circmstances when the wife or the concubine can object (I haven't checked) then that should be incorporated - not simply remove the whole thing.
:::::::::*I fail to see that slavery is only a "wartime practice" is a reason to remove it either. Firstly, there are enough wars around not to make it irrelevant - see Toddy1's addition for instance. [[Modern slavery]] is widespread including in Muslim countries, whatever the law of a country formally says. Secondly, it's not just POWs but also those born into slavery to whom this applies. There's a reasonably well-sourced summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Islam#Legal_status here]
:::::::::[[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 18:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::: It would be more suitable under "Jihad" or "Warfare". Probably "Family life during wartime". It is not a common practice in Islam today. Those born into slavery were a small proportion only, and usually become free whenever their parents (POWs) become free. <b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi]]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Wiqi55|55]]</font>)</sup> 00:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"''Copyvio of <http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/015-slavery.htm> <small>removed by [[Special:Contributions/117.203.124.93|117.203.124.93]] ([[User talk:117.203.124.93|talk]])</small>''" --[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 19:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

:Looking at this page on my watchlist, it is clear that the section on concubines and slavery is being argued over. One editor removes a section, only for another to revert. Please discuss the issue first on the talk page and once consensus is reached then edit the page accordingly. [[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] you do raise good points but you have to reference reliable sources. Last time I checked wikislam was not a reliable source. I also do not think we should remove the section all together as this issue has been discussed by classical scholars. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] has raised some sensible questions just above this post which once explored may help all those concerned here to move forward. A balance could be reached here and I am going off of what DeCausa has said, that the relevant section could be amended to better reflect reliable sources. I just had an edit conflict when posting this and I see Slooppouts34 that you have quoted a plethora of sources. These constitute primary sources and on wikipedia we try to use secondary sources. [[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] ([[User talk:Mbcap|talk]]) 19:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
::Slooppouts34: that's a weird point of view!, the sources available to me say that Islam (the Islam understood by Muhammad) admonishes slavery. Muhammad freed slaves by various means, he was not rich, a rich person named "abu bakr" ransomed them. Apparently after Muhammad, some people, or Muslims, or whatever you’d like to call them, returned to practicing slavery until slavery was abolished in the 19th century. There was an army of slaves in ottoman army, they were called mamluks.[[User:Kiatdd|Kiatdd]] ([[User talk:Kiatdd|talk]]) 04:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:::IMHO, stating that information under [[Islam#Family Life|#Family Life]] and linking the two together is definitely OR. [http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/295507/Islam/69219/Impact-of-modernism#toc69221 Encyclopædia Britannica] does not make any mention on slavery in its section on family life. The article is good as it stands. If correct, it may be addressed adequately in the article on slavery, giving proper weight. --[[User:Fauzan|<span style="color:#2F4F4F">Fauzan</span>]][[User talk:Fauzan#top|<sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk</sup>]][[Special:EmailUser/Fauzan|<sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail</sub>]] 16:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Kiatdd}} you are quite wrong. See [[Islamic views on slavery]] and [[Muhammad's views on slavery]]. The Qu'ran and the Sunnah regulated the institution of slavery, but neither prohibited it. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 17:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Fauzan}} [[WP:PAPER|Wikipedia is not paper]]: we can and do go into much more detail than the Encyclopedia Britannica. However, if you still maintain including the information under "Family Life" is [[WP:OR|original research]], then do you have an alternative title (assuming, just for a second, that the information is going to be included)? As a separate point can [[Islamic views on slavery]] be linked under the "See also" hatnote if the slavery text is added back? — '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]'''<sub>[[User talk:Bilorv|(talk)]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Bilorv|(c)]]</sup> 17:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:That website is in no way a [[WP:RS]] for Islam. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 19:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a problem of sources i think. In modern family life slavery has no place, first of all because is illegal in every country of the world. And again, and most important, Islam main page needs to be as representative as possible: is slavery preminent in the islamic families? If yes, show some sources, evidence, etc and we can discuss the fact; if not, slavery topics don't have the reason to be placed in “family life” section. It's simple as that. Even the Bible rule issues about slavery, but nowdays christian and hebrew family don't take slaves in their homes, nor they are allowed to do that by local or international laws.
[[User:CallAng222|CallAng222]] ([[User talk:CallAng222|talk]]) 18:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Bilorv}}, The link I provided was to the online ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' artice, which is around 30 pages (355 kB). Their section on Family life spans five paragraphs, quite longer than our articles 2 (or 3). If the topic is related, it is expected that the Britannica article mentions it. This was only an example; I am unable to find RS which link the two areas. ''If'' the information is anyway going to be included, it can be linked directly in the text rather than using a hatnote. As for another title, I don't have any hybrid in my mind, but again, we need something solid to base such a section on. In the meantime, [[ Islamic views on slavery]] can be added to [[Islam#See also|#See also]]. --[[User:Fauzan|<span style="color:#2F4F4F">Fauzan</span>]][[User talk:Fauzan#top|<sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk</sup>]][[Special:EmailUser/Fauzan|<sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail</sub>]] 18:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::OK, found [https://books.google.co.in/books?id=C229nbjq8TMC this], and only this. I am unable to ascertain now whether this is a widespread viewpoint or a fringe one, as this is the only source that talks about it in such a manner. --[[User:Fauzan|<span style="color:#2F4F4F">Fauzan</span>]][[User talk:Fauzan#top|<sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk</sup>]][[Special:EmailUser/Fauzan|<sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail</sub>]] 18:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Are you serious? It's covered in many sources including [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ixO4b6jlbLYC&pg=PA58&dq=%22The+context+of+marriage+in+Islam%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ove_VI7dBPCf7gbmuYDYCg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20context%20of%20marriage%20in%20Islam%22&f=false this] and the IslamQ&A.Info source already in the article. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 19:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::[https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GlqeC1ZFAUEC&pg=PA66&dq=%22In+fact,+slaves+are+also+considered+a+part+of+the+family,+so+while+a+man+may+have+sexual+intercourse+with+the+female+slave+that+he%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FPm_VNbuJMbO7gbqpoB4&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22In%20fact%2C%20slaves%20are%20also%20considered%20a%20part%20of%20the%20family%2C%20so%20while%20a%20man%20may%20have%20sexual%20intercourse%20with%20the%20female%20slave%20that%20he%22&f=false Here] is another. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 19:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::But the sources are irrelevant as to whether it should be in this section or another section. The organisation of an article does not need to be sourced. That is just editorial judgment. If it were otherwise then we would have to follow the organisational treatment of other encyclopedias. That is patently not the case. There are only two questions that need answering: 1. Do we have reliable sources supporting the proposition that Islam allows a man to have sex with his female slave. The answer is clearly yes, and in fact there is no reliable source that refutes that. 2. Is it related to family life? I can't believe anyone can question that. It relates to who ''within a man's household'' he may have sex with. To put it beyond doubt, the source I cited above explicitly says that the slave is considered a member of the family. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 19:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: {{re|DeCausa}}, actually the npov policy does mention the need to balance our take on a subject based on reliable sources, see [[WP:BALASPS]]. Moreover, while Islam allows men and women to own slaves, the only context where this is permissible is wartime, specifically Jihad (just war or holy war - as I quoted above). A short summary on family life is too general for such a specific context. It would also confuse people to use the word "slave" without explaining that Islam actually abolished most forms of slavery, including the most notorious [[natural slavery]]. <b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi]]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Wiqi55|55]]</font>)</sup> 21:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::BALASPS is a different point: the question is whether it should be under "Family life". The claim is that there is a need for RS to link it to family life which is not a BALASPS issue. As far as BALASPS is concerned this is a matter of Islamic jurisprudence which is often discussed in RS eg as i've cited above. It is a current topic of debate as to whether Islamic State's treatment of women prisoners is permissable under Sharia. Furthermore it is incorrect to say it is "only" permissible in wartime. It may be only permissible to <u>enslave</u> people in wartime, but they may remain slaves after the end of any war and their descendants may remain slaves in perpetuity. Finally, there is no need to qualify ghe word slave. A slave is still a slave even if she is only one ategory if slave. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 21:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::: [[WP:BALASPS]] is exactly the point. If other sources do not mention slavery in a brief description of family life then this is a good indication that we're giving it more weight then necessary, and may end up confusing readers. Also, slaves in Muslim society do not usually remain slaves in perpetuity, as the RS I quoted above explains: "Thus the slave in Muslim society was not condemned to live permanently in servitude; he had a chance of obtaining liberty in his life time ...". <b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi]]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Wiqi55|55]]</font>)</sup> 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::::According to Islam, a slave remains slave, and her new born children remain slaves unless her master, or her new master who bought her/them let her/them go free.--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 22:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: You need to support your claims by reliable sources, as I did. There were plenty of situations were obligatory manumission happened. And those born into slavery were a "small proportion" anyway. See the quotes above. <b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi]]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Wiqi55|55]]</font>)</sup> 23:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::::'''Muslims are told to live in the way of Muhammad by [[Sunnah]] and [[hadith]]. Muhammad was a slave owner and trader. Muhammad captured slaves in battle. Muhammad had sex with his slaves (One such example is [[Maria al-Qibtiyya ]]). Muhammad instructed his men to do the same as he did regarding female slaves. List of Muhammad's Wives and Concubines: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Muhammads_Wives_and_Concubines The Quran and hadith have many verses that make sure that Muslim men know they can keep female sex slaves: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/015-slavery.htm''' --[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 19:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Again, [http://www.thereligionofpeace.com this] is not a reliable source and anyone who thinks so is pushing an Islamophobic agenda or is not competent enough to properly judge sources. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 19:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::::And you second source is an open wiki. Have you read [[WP:RS]] at all? --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 19:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::The website has the verses with number, so it can easily be looked up in the Quran itself. The Website is not WP:RS and I'm not telling to cite it or pay attention to it's interpretations. The verses in Quran are quite clear regarding female sex slaves, & Muhammad's actual deeds (hadiths) are even more. The second source is also not an WP:RS and I know that very well. The second source is another open Wiki with cited sources in itself. --[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 19:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::C'mon, it's ridiculous. What is: Family Life (100yrs ago version)? There is no place in the world where slavery is still legal, so the discussion itself makes no sense. only emphasizing a vision really, really fondamentalistic and minoritary could fit with edit like this. Next stept what will be? We will go in the jewish and christian page writing what jews and christian coul do with slaves? C'mon guys seriously. [[User:CallAng222|CallAng222]] ([[User talk:CallAng222|talk]]) 20:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: There are places in the world where slavery is still legal. Many of them are poor countries, many Muslim countries and also some rich Arab countries among others. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (claimed as terrorists by most) captured territories and they allow slavery. See: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-issues-guidelines-for-sex-slavery/--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 20:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::And this article is about Islam as it is, not how you would prefer it to be.--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 20:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::No, this article is about a fondamentalist and outdated view of the religion. Like writing in Judaism page that a hebrew have the right to sold his daughter<ref>7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. Exodus 21:7-11</ref>Or in christianity that a christian has the right to beat his slave<ref>:And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. Luke 12,47</ref>Its accetable only following an islamophobic agenda that ignores the fact that muslim families (as for Christians and Hebrews) around the world are not the result of slavery, and that slavery itself is illegal in every country of the world, despite isis, lord liberation army and the mafia. [[User:CallAng222|CallAng222]] ([[User talk:CallAng222|talk]]) 22:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
{{od}}
Wikipedia has thousands of pages dedicated to history; something being "outdated" is not necessarily relevant. [[Islam#History|Look at the lengthy history section in this very article that no-one seems to be complaining about.]] Saying that Judaism/Christianity is similar is irrelevant — "[[WP:OSE|they don't do this in that other article]]" is not a valid argument and in fact, WP does have pages titled [[Christian views on slavery]] and [[Jewish views on slavery]]. Also, something being illegal is not equivalent to it not existing: I wouldn't imagine anyone here would nominate [[Illegal drug trade]] for deletion. — '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]'''<sub>[[User talk:Bilorv|(talk)]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Bilorv|(c)]]</sup> 22:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

:-I have nothing against Islam. I'm a Muslim myself. Portraying Islam in a way that is not factual is both an insult to Islam itself, and also against rules of Wikipedia. Islamic terrorist groups (some labeled as terrorists by all nations while others are by some nations) such as [[Boko Haram]], [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]], [[Hamas]], [[Hezbollah]], [[Taliban]], [[Jaish ul-Adl]], [[Al-Qaeda]], [[al-Nusra Front]] ..... and the list goes on, do hold a lot of territories.--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 22:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

:-Bilorv you said:"Also, something being illegal is not equivalent to it not existing". I agree, but this is something that must be proved. As I said: is slavery preminent in islamic families? If yes, show some sources, evidence, etc and we can discuss the matter. Otherwise we must stick to the facts.[[User:CallAng222|CallAng222]] ([[User talk:CallAng222|talk]]) 02:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

:-Muslim families vary greatly from country to country, and from family to family! For example, most Muslim families in Turkey vary greatly from the ones in Saudi Arabia. This article is about Islam as explained by Quran and Sunnah/Hadith (Muhammad' ways of life).--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 02:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

:-Yes but but on one thing they are all the same: they can not have slaves. Then your statements are not only placed beyond space and time, but also illegal in muslim countries, despite what Q&A web page can say. A speech like yours placed in the "family life" context so it is misleading and false. [[User:CallAng222|CallAng222]] ([[User talk:CallAng222|talk]]) 03:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

:-You would be suprised to know in how many Muslim countries slavery still exists. But that has nothing to do here. what you don't understand is that this article is about what is Islam's stance regarding slavery. It's not about what most Muslims choose to do. Most Muslims choose to disregard Islamic banking laws, hijab and many things--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 03:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
::Slooppouts34: If Shaykh al-Munajjid (Islamic q&a website) thinks that it is okay to have a slave he should...By Islam I suppose we mean the Islam understood and presented by Muhammad, after all he started off everything...let British broadcasting company glorify Shaykh's viewpoints. I have cited two sources,please review books by Tamara Sonn, Reza Aslan, Karen Armstrong, Angelika Neuwirth, Hussein Nasr, etc, etc and please review the comments by NeilN, Wiqqi, CallAng, Bilorv, DeCausa everyone here is trying to collaborate, you make it very difficult to work on this article.[[User:Kiatdd|Kiatdd]] ([[User talk:Kiatdd|talk]]) 04:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
:::We must be very cautious when we are dealing with online preachers like Shaykh al-Munajjid that are close to extremistic positions. Even if their's point of views are minoritary in muslim world - when not directly illegal, like the slavery thing - they use the web for theirs solitary preaching. This Shaykh in particular expressed appeals to loyalty to Isis, a terrorist organization. So, again, he express extremist point of views that are illegal not only in muslim world, but in every country of the world, and his close to terrorist organization. We must be very cautions about emphasing theirs point of views, because is extremistic, outside the modern muslim world, related to terrorist organization, and illegale in some cases.[[User:CallAng222|CallAng222]] ([[User talk:CallAng222|talk]]) 15:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Not surprisingly, Al-Jazeera with many staff joining from the BBC, declares the cyberShaykh as "one of most respected scholars". Look at his [[Muhammad Al-Munajjid|wikipedia page]].[[User:Kiatdd|Kiatdd]] ([[User talk:Kiatdd|talk]]) 21:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

===Break===
#Is it verifiable? The Q&A site and BBC say it is, but Kiatdd has sources which say otherwise.
#Is it related to Family life? Probably yes per DeCausa's sources. However, this may or may not be a mainstream viewpoint. It is however, definitely related to and can be included under Slavery.
#Is it due weight to present this here? Probably no. Most of sources (like the online Britannica entry I linked about) do not discuss it with family life. It is better to present it under slavery, as Bilorv hinted above.
#Is it relevant to this era? Might not be, but I think we ought to give weight to it as per RS. --[[User:Fauzan|<span style="color:#2F4F4F">Fauzan</span>]][[User talk:Fauzan#top|<sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk</sup>]][[Special:EmailUser/Fauzan|<sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail</sub>]] 15:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
:-The questions were thoroughly answered! move the online preacher's opinion to his [[Muhammad Al-Munajjid|own page]].[[User:Kiatdd|Kiatdd]] ([[User talk:Kiatdd|talk]]) 20:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
::-I think that even the "It is lawful for male masters..." part should be removed too, because slavery is illegal in modern muslim world, condemned - in every form, sexual or not - by relevant islamic authority; so, in fact, it is not permissible, as it is not lawful for a hebrew to sold his daughter or for a christian to inflict severe beatings to his slaves.[[User:CallAng222|CallAng222]] ([[User talk:CallAng222|talk]]) 09:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

::Muslims are told to live in the ways of Muhammad, which are [[Sunnah]] and [[Hadith]]. Muhammad was a slave owner and trader, Muhammad captured slaves in battle and Muhammad had sex with his slaves (such as [[Maria al-Qibtiyya]], Rayhana bint Zayd ibn Amr, Al-Jariya, Tukana al-Quraziya ....). Most Muslims choose to disregard Islamic banking laws, hijab and many things. We have to portray Islam as it was portrayed/narrated by Muhammad (PBUH).--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 23:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

:::Even the [[Quranist]]s who disregard [[Sunnah]] and [[Hadith]] know that male masters can have sex with female slaves, as it's written even in the Quran verses, such as Quran (33:50), Quran (23:5-6), Quran (4:24), Quran (8:69), Quran (24:32), Quran (2:178), Quran (16:75).--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 00:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

An online extremist preacher that is ideologically related to tettorist organization represents only himself and his ideas; if Slooppouts34 want to follow his teachings, as he sais, literally with respect to slavery and human rights, then he has a serius problem and could even be dangerous. Modern day Islam is not related to slavery:

Address of Mohamed Ahmed El-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar

CEREMONY FOR THE SIGNING OF THE JOINT DECLARATION OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS AGAINST SLAVERY
http://www.globalfreedomnetwork.org/grandimam2014/

Islam is not a monolithic entity placed outside space and time. Laws and jurisprudence have changed with time, and schools of thought; only an extremist and very stupid view of religion could try to turn back time - and not surprisingly seek the path of terrorism and violence. But Wikipeda can not follow their ideology and place it over modern day laws in muslim world.
It would be a crime against human rights and humanity himsef. We should not help the spread of their ideas that are bloodying the world. [[User:CallAng222|CallAng222]] ([[User talk:CallAng222|talk]]) 10:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

:{{u|Dustylappss}}, it would be helpful if you could show that most mainstream sources choose to include it under family life rather than slavery. --[[User:Fauzan|<span style="color:#2F4F4F">Fauzan</span>]][[User talk:Fauzan#top|<sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk</sup>]][[Special:EmailUser/Fauzan|<sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail</sub>]] 04:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

::Having sex can produce babies, who would be part of family. A sentence or two about it on the main page are warranted. For the same reason why we are keeping the information about marriage on the main page and not moving it over to [[Women in Islam]] article.--[[User:Dustylappss|Dustylappss]] ([[User talk:Dustylappss|talk]]) 06:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

:::{{u|Dustylappss}}, that is your own [[WP:OR|personal assessment]] about the topic. The information about marriage is on the main page since it is directly related to Islam, and is in accordance with [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. The information about lawfulness of male masters is related to slavery as per sources, and per [[WP:SYNTH]] belongs to slavery, not to family life.<p>Again, you have not cited sources to support your viewpoint. --[[User:Fauzan|<span style="color:#2F4F4F">Fauzan</span>]][[User talk:Fauzan#top|<sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk</sup>]][[Special:EmailUser/Fauzan|<sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail</sub>]] 06:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
::::i agree with Fauzan. [[User:CallAng222|CallAng222]] ([[User talk:CallAng222|talk]]) 07:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

::::: {{u|Fauzan}}, this is what {{u|DeCausa}} told you when you asked him the same exact question above: "Are you serious? It's covered in many sources including [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ixO4b6jlbLYC&pg=PA58&dq=%22The+context+of+marriage+in+Islam%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ove_VI7dBPCf7gbmuYDYCg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20context%20of%20marriage%20in%20Islam%22&f=false this] and the IslamQ&A.Info source already in the article. [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GlqeC1ZFAUEC&pg=PA66&dq=%22In+fact,+slaves+are+also+considered+a+part+of+the+family,+so+while+a+man+may+have+sexual+intercourse+with+the+female+slave+that+he%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FPm_VNbuJMbO7gbqpoB4&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22In%20fact%2C%20slaves%20are%20also%20considered%20a%20part%20of%20the%20family%2C%20so%20while%20a%20man%20may%20have%20sexual%20intercourse%20with%20the%20female%20slave%20that%20he%22&f=false Here] is another. Is it related to family life? I can't believe anyone can question that. It relates to who ''within a man's household'' he may have sex with. To put it beyond doubt, the source I cited above explicitly says that the slave is considered a member of the family." I totally agree with {{u|DeCausa}}.--[[User:Dustylappss|Dustylappss]] ([[User talk:Dustylappss|talk]]) 08:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::Slavery is illegal in modern muslim world, then the whole argument does not make much sense. All religions have rules about slavery, but being something of the past, it is spoken in the historical sections related to this ancient practice now fallen into disuse.[[User:CallAng222|CallAng222]] ([[User talk:CallAng222|talk]]) 08:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Slavery is illegal in modern good muslim world. Bad muslims like Pakistanis commited enslaving of Bengalis in Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971 and still enslave bengalis in Pakistan (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2858775/Paying-debts-brick-brick-Pakistani-modern-day-slaves-trapped-lifetime-hardship.html), Boko Haram in Nigeria sells school girls into slavery (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/08/girls-held-by-boko-haram-face-auction-life-as-sex-slaves-if-rescue-fails/), Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant commits enslaving in Iraq, Syria and levant(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30573385). Saddam enslaved Kuwaitis during gulf war, and there are many Islamic countries where slavery is still widespread. In Islamic Republic of Mauritania, there's slavery openly even today (http://thinkafricapress.com/mauritania/alive-and-well-mauritania-slavery-and-its-stubborn-vestiges) and there are countless Arab countries where slavery continues and will continue. What we can do here on this article is: seperate good secualr muslims such as Bangladeshis, Turkish, Malaysians, Indian muslims, from the bad ones such as Pakistanis, Arabs and most other muslims--[[User:Thankcocoa|Thankcocoa]] ([[User talk:Thankcocoa|talk]]) 22:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS: cherry-picking and omiting all the bad parts from Quran and Hadith, and reflect Islam in the best way possible here.--[[User:Thankcocoa|Thankcocoa]] ([[User talk:Thankcocoa|talk]]) 22:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::{{u|Dustylappss}}, DeCausa did point out sources, but mainstream sources do not cover discuss slavery under family life. That point is covered under slavery. --[[User:Fauzan|<span style="color:#2F4F4F">Fauzan</span>]][[User talk:Fauzan#top|<sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk</sup>]][[Special:EmailUser/Fauzan|<sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail</sub>]] 14:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::::Fauzan, your personal analysis of what is considered a mainstream source doesn't count. There are reliable sources that explicitly states that slaves are part of family, as pointed out by Dustylappss and DeCausa. Now some sources may choose to even not cover the fact that Muslim men can marry up to four wives, and even more if the wives happen to die.You cannot do cherrypicking here to make Islam look more Westernized.--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 23:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::That slaves are part of modern family life must be tried; even because one of the sources clearly states the fact that slaves and concubine we're part of the family ''in premodern times'' - agreeing with the mainstream sources. If this is not proven, that part will be removed and placed in the historical context to which it belongs.[[User:CallAng222|CallAng222]] ([[User talk:CallAng222|talk]]) 07:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Since the Quran, Sunnah and Hadiths allows sex slaves, it's part of Islam regardless of whether it was practiced in the past or present. And as proven above, it is highly prevalent in Islam in modern times. Although it's common sense that if a master has a child with a slave, that child is considered a part of the master's family, there are also reliable sources that explicitly states that slaves are part of the family. We just cannot censor the Quran, Sunnah and Hadith. Because if we do, then we are not representing Islam here fully.--[[User:Dustylappss|Dustylappss]] ([[User talk:Dustylappss|talk]]) 20:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

*The BBC source, which you cited in support of the statement that slavery is part of currently accepted Muslim practice, says the following: "[S]lavery is effectively illegal in modern Islam. Muslim countries also use secular law to prohibit slavery. News stories do continue to report occasional instances of slavery in a few Muslim countries, but these are usually denied by the authorities concerned." Seems to me that this contradicts the point it is being cited for. [[User:NawlinWiki|NawlinWiki]] ([[User talk:NawlinWiki|talk]]) 20:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
**Even the second link they provided ([https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ixO4b6jlbLYC&pg=PA58&dq=%22The+context+of+marriage+in+Islam%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ove_VI7dBPCf7gbmuYDYCg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20context%20of%20marriage%20in%20Islam%22&f=false this] explain the fact that slaves and concubine were part of islamic family life ''in premodern times''. [[User:CallAng222|CallAng222]] ([[User talk:CallAng222|talk]]) 21:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

:The BBC source clearly says "Islamic [[sharia law]] accepted (and accepts) sex slavery" It's not practiced widely just like marring four wives is not practiced widely.http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml#h2 --[[User:Dustylappss|Dustylappss]] ([[User talk:Dustylappss|talk]]) 21:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

== Ahmadiyya ==

Ahmadis are Muslims. Pakistan is the only state to have officially declared the Ahmadis to be non-Muslims as they do not regard the Prophet Muhammad to be the final prophet.--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 22:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
:<s>I'm sorry - I don't understand the problem. [[Ahmadiyya]] is listed in the article as a denomination of Islam, under [[Islam#Other denominations]]. — '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]'''<sub>[[User talk:Bilorv|(talk)]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Bilorv|(c)]]</sup> 09:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)</s>
:Oh, I see. Your edits were [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Islam&diff=642846588&oldid=642829621 reverted]. Have you looked at [[WP:UNDUE]]? Ahmadiyya, while a branch of Islam, should not be mentioned all over the article - this gives the impression that they are more significant than they are. Any details which are not important enough to be mentioned in Islam (see [[WP:SUMMARY]]) should be listed at [[Ahmadiyya]], as [[Ahmadiyya#Pakistan|details about Pakistan]] currently are. — '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]'''<sub>[[User talk:Bilorv|(talk)]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Bilorv|(c)]]</sup> 09:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

::Ahmadiyya are a sect with at least 30 million followers, and they do not regard the Prophet Muhammad to be the final prophet. As such, the lead of the article should not say that all Muslims regard Prophet Muhammad to be the final prophet as that would be incorrect.--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 22:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

:::[[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]), please comment.--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 22:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Islam|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Article states that currently, no government follows Islamic law, as all deal in "usury or government bonds". What is wrong with government bonds? Article seems to equate them with usury ("no risk").
<!-- End request -->
[[Special:Contributions/5.51.49.70|5.51.49.70]] ([[User talk:5.51.49.70|talk]]) 20:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
:See [[Usury#Islam]]. Islam forbids charging interest, as did Christianity at the time (and for quite a while after). [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 20:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.<!-- Template:ESp --> — <code class="nowrap">&#123;&#123;U&#124;[[User:Technical 13|Technical 13]]&#125;&#125; <sup>([[Special:EmailUser/Technical 13|e]] • [[User talk:Technical 13|t]] • [[Special:Contribs/Technical 13|c]])</sup></code> 20:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

== Normal Islam and guns ==

I've heard that normal Muslims aren't allowed to own guns according to their teachings, but I can't find it in this article. Shouldn't it be in there?--[[Special:Contributions/98.217.232.155|98.217.232.155]] ([[User talk:98.217.232.155|talk]]) 04:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
:Where have you heard this? I imagine many (most?) Muslims will object to guns, but Wikipedia only accepts information backed up by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], so everything said in its articles can be [[WP:V|proved to be true]]. Additionally, Wikipedia has a lot of pages (about 7000) relating to Islam — this article has nowhere near enough room to contain all the information on the subject. If there are Islamic rules and teachings about guns, they might be included in another, more specific article on Wikipedia. — '''[[User:Bilorv|Bilorv]]'''<sub>[[User talk:Bilorv|(talk)]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Bilorv|(c)]]</sup> 18:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

::Guns didn't exist during Muhammad's time. So definitely not found in Hadith/Sunnah or Quran.--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 02:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

== False Statement ==

Please fix this line: " Muhammad (c. 570–8 June 632 CE), considered by most of them to be the last prophet of God. An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim."

The Qu'ran openly states that Muhammad is the final & last prophet of God. "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things. (Qu'ran, 33:40)" Therefore, all Muslims must consider him to be the last prophet, otherwise, they're not Muslims by definitions and their beliefs would contradict the Qu'ran. Thanks. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/23.91.171.246|23.91.171.246]] ([[User talk:23.91.171.246|talk]]) 01:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:[[Ahmadiyya]] are a Muslim sect with millions of followers, and they do not regard the prophet Muhammad to be the final prophet. They believe [[Mirza Ghulam Ahmad]] is the last prophet--[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 02:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

::Anyone could self-identify themselves as "Muslims" and believe in whatever, however, it does not mean anything as the Qu'ran itself and being the central text of Islam, clearly states that Muhammad is the final & the seal of the prophets. Reading the above line may give someone with no prior knowledge of Islam an ambiguous message. At least, it should be clearly mentioned that the Qu'ran considers Muhammad to be the final prophet of God, regardless of whatever group believes in. ([[Special:Contributions/23.91.171.246|23.91.171.246]] ([[User talk:23.91.171.246|talk]]) 02:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC))

:::As Christians will be familiar with, differences over the interpretation of holy texts does not invalidate your membership to the general religious group. You may disagree with them, but they are still Muslims. Wikipedia is not a place to settle internal religious conflicts. [[Special:Contributions/184.175.41.10|184.175.41.10]] ([[User talk:184.175.41.10|talk]]) 23:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Islam|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Under the "family life" section, relations with captives/slaves are only allowed after marriage.
<!-- End request -->
[[User:Jkslfkjsdklj32o|Jkslfkjsdklj32o]] ([[User talk:Jkslfkjsdklj32o|talk]]) 07:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:You'll need to provide a source for that. [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 08:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

::[http://islamqa.info/en/10382 Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married] --[[User:Slooppouts34|Slooppouts34]] ([[User talk:Slooppouts34|talk]]) 08:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

== Slavery and "Family Life" -- request for comments ==


Should the "Family life" subsection of this article include the statement "It is lawful for male masters to have sexual relations with wartime female captives and slaves.", or should that information be given elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as in [[Islamic views on slavery]]?

'''*[[Islam]] is defined by [[Quran]], and also by the teachings, normative example and way of life of [[Muhammad]] which are [[Sunnah]] and [[Hadith]]. Muhammad was a slave owner and trader, Muhammad captured slaves in battle and Muhammad (like many other Islam's prophets[http://islamqa.info/en/10382]) had sex with his slaves (such as [[Maria al-Qibtiyya]], Rayhana bint Zayd ibn Amr, Al-Jariya, Tukana al-Quraziya and many others [http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Muhammads_Wives_and_Concubines]). Both Quran (verses such as Quran (33:50), Quran (23:5-6), Quran (4:24), Quran (8:69), Quran (24:32), Quran (2:178), Quran (16:75)) and hadith[http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/015-slavery.htm] allow male masters to have sex with female slaves. Islamic [[sharia law]] accepted (and accepts) sex slavery [http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml#h2 ] In modern times, most Muslims choose to disregard Islamic banking laws, hijab, praying 5 times a day, having 4 wives, and many things. And though it's common sense that if you have children with slaves, they are part of your family. There are many reliable sources such as this: [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GlqeC1ZFAUEC&pg=PA66&dq=%22In+fact,+slaves+are+also+considered+a+part+of+the+family,+so+while+a+man+may+have+sexual+intercourse+with+the+female+slave+that+he%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FPm_VNbuJMbO7gbqpoB4&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22In%20fact%2C%20slaves%20are%20also%20considered%20a%20part%20of%20the%20family%2C%20so%20while%20a%20man%20may%20have%20sexual%20intercourse%20with%20the%20female%20slave%20that%20he%22&f=false], that explicitly state that sex slaves are considered part of family according to Islam. 1 or 2 sentences about it are warranted in the "Family life" subsection of this main article. We ought represent Islam as it is. Slavery is widespread in present time in Muslim world, as evidenced by the acts of ISIL[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30573385], BOKO Haram[http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/08/girls-held-by-boko-haram-face-auction-life-as-sex-slaves-if-rescue-fails/), ], Taliban[http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,201892,00.html], Pakistan[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2858775/Paying-debts-brick-brick-Pakistani-modern-day-slaves-trapped-lifetime-hardship.html] and many others. In Islamic Republic of Mauritania, there's slavery openly even today [http://thinkafricapress.com/mauritania/alive-and-well-mauritania-slavery-and-its-stubborn-vestiges]. Prominent Saudi religious authority recently called for slavery to be re-legalized there as it's explicitly permitted in the Quran[http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2003/11/saudi-religious-leader-calls-for-slaverys]. Egypt, Indonesia, Sudan and Yemen are some other Muslim countries where slavery still exists today[http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Slavery#Modern_Day]'''--[[User:Dustylappss|Dustylappss]] ([[User talk:Dustylappss|talk]]) 22:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

*Mohamed Ahmed El-Tayeb, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar CEREMONY FOR THE SIGNING OF THE JOINT DECLARATION OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS AGAINST SLAVERY http://www.globalfreedomnetwork.org/grandimam2014/
*Professor Bernard Freamon teaches courses on modern-day slavery and human trafficking at Seton Hall University School of Law in New Jersey and also specializes in Islamic Legal History:...Rather, the verses(''of the Qur'an'' ndr) contemplate the advent of a slavery-free society through the vehicle of emancipation. [http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2014/11/05/isis-says-islam-justifies-slavery-what-does-islamic-law-say/ ISIS says Islam justifies slavery - what does Islamic law say?]
*Muslim leaders and Scholars worldwide in their Open Letter to Baghdadi (regarding slavery and other things), point 12: The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.[http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/ Open Letter to Al-Baghdadi].
*Most traditional sources do not include slavery in normal family life of Muslims.
*Slavery is illegal in every mouslim country.
(small summary, sorry NawlinWiki :-D )
[[User:CallAng222|CallAng222]] ([[User talk:CallAng222|talk]]) 22:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

*The principal point of a Request for Comment is to seek input from editors other than the six or seven who were involved in the discussion above. [[User:NawlinWiki|NawlinWiki]] ([[User talk:NawlinWiki|talk]]) 22:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would want to see what reliable secondary sources say first. If Fox News says something about Boko Haram, I wouldn't extrapolate that to Islam more generally. Distinguishing fanatical Islam from mainstream Islam may be a way to get some of material in with appropriate weight. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 06:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:I think you would want to consider countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Turkey, all of who are incredibly progressive Islamic countries as opposed to just considering Muslim 'extremists'. To use these points on slavery and sex slavery in the context of Islam '''as a whole''' is [[WP:FRINGE]], while if want to make some small corner and point out that this is in existence amongst modern Islamist extremist, who justify these beliefs through parts of the Quran, then perhaps it could work. [[User:Prasangika37|Prasangika37]] ([[User talk:Prasangika37|talk]]) 19:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Responding to this request for comment. I don't agree with putting it into this article. I think it's [[WP:FRINGE]] at ''best''. Especially since you're naming ISIL, Boko Haram, other fanatical groups as your sources. Those are not Islam, those are actually all assaults on Islam. You are forwarding their radical / oxymoron style Islam. I think CallAng222 provided clearer sources, and isn't focusing on terrorist or other sources that are committing genocide against their own people. If you actually read about Muhammad, you see that he preached against slavery, and worked towards abolishing it. Arabia was a very different place back then. Are we going to say female circumcision is an Islamic practice too? Because that was also, along with slavery, something Muhammad preached against and tried to put a stop to. It is not Islam.--[[User:SexyKick|<font color="#00BFFF ">'''Sexy'''</font>]][[User talk:SexyKick|<font color="#347235">'''Kick'''</font>]] 23:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad had some 30 wives and plenty of sex slaves. Islam looks be very bad if it's defined by his way of life which are [[Sunnah]] & [[Hadith]]. So please remove [[Sunnah]] & [[Hadith]] from the first paragraph of this article.--[[User:LalaResne|LalaResne]] ([[User talk:LalaResne|talk]]) 00:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

:Muhammad's military career was painfully very similar to ISIL. He beheaded his opponents just like ISIL. For example see [[Battle of Badr]]. Furthermore [[List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations|more than 50% of the Muslim world]] is led by extremists. I sugest what Prasangika37 suggested, that we mention that Islamic laws allows sex slavery [http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml#h7][https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ixO4b6jlbLYC&pg=PA58&dq=%22The+context+of+marriage+in+Islam%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ove_VI7dBPCf7gbmuYDYCg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20context%20of%20marriage%20in%20Islam%22&f=false] and that sex slaves are considered part of family [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GlqeC1ZFAUEC&pg=PA66&dq=%22In+fact,+slaves+are+also+considered+a+part+of+the+family,+so+while+a+man+may+have+sexual+intercourse+with+the+female+slave+that+he%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FPm_VNbuJMbO7gbqpoB4&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22In%20fact%2C%20slaves%20are%20also%20considered%20a%20part%20of%20the%20family%2C%20so%20while%20a%20man%20may%20have%20sexual%20intercourse%20with%20the%20female%20slave%20that%20he%22&f=false]. But it's rare in incredibly progressive Islamic countries as Prasangika37 pointed out.--[[User:LalaResne|LalaResne]] ([[User talk:LalaResne|talk]]) 00:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

:: [[User:LalaResne|LalaResne]] should be ignored. No contributions to anything. Account seems to be created by someone just to badmouth Islam. I am a muslim and I agree that criticism is everyone's right but this kind of comments are pretty underhand and borderline trolling. myths about 30 wives, beheadings in Badr and all that. Pretty bad try at hijacking the decision. On the topic under discussion I would like to say that Islamic "slavery" should not be mentioned in Family life as such. We should create a separate section for it and explain the concept using the page already created for slavery. This will allow some perspective. [[User:FreeatlastChitchat|FreeatlastChitchat]] ([[User talk:FreeatlastChitchat|talk]]) 08:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

:'''Comment''' - Can I ask if this article is about Islam as written about in the canonical texts and teachings of the faith or is the article about the "ideal" version of Islam. This would help us to decide which way to go. If the article is about most people's ideal version of Islam then I agree this section has no place in the article. However, if the article is about the former reason, then yes it will have to be included. Islam's canonical texts sanction the act of intercourse with whatever one's right hand possesses. This was put into practice by the early Muslims up until the dissolution of the Ottoman empire. [[User:SexyKick|<font color="#00BFFF ">'''Sexy'''</font>]] your point regarding Female circumcision hold some truth. There is definitely a strong voice against it at the moment in the west and some Muslim majority countries. However, it has to be said that female circumcision is a strong part of Islam. Muhammad never discouraged its use but on the contrary either made it obligatory or recommended, depending on which school of Islamic Jurisprudence you follow. Majority of the worlds Muslims are Sunnis. They take their learning from either one of four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, them being; Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and Shafii. The Hanafi and Shafii school deem female circumcision as obligatory, whereas the Hanafi and Maliki school views it as recommended. Of course if the article is about people's ideal version of Islam, then there is a point to be made regarding the discounting of these views. [[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] ([[User talk:Mbcap|talk]]) 12:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat, refrain from making personal attacks. Being a Muslim, I know that most Muslims are taught from a very young age to never question their religion, and be blindfolded bigots. That said, in battle of Badr, two captives – Nadr bin Harith and [[Uqba ibn Abu Mu'ayt|‘Uqbah ibn Abū Mu‘ayṭ]] were beheaded by [[Ali]] (the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad) on Muhammad's order.[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-ppPqzawIrIC&pg=PA129]

Now '''some''' of Muhammad's sex partners!:

Some Muhammad's Wives:

* 1. Khadija
*
* 2. Sawda
*
* 3. Aesha
*
* 4. Omm Salama
*
* 5. Halsa
*
* 6. Zaynab (of Jahsh)
*
* 7. Jowayriyi
*
* 8. Omm Habiba
*
* 9. Safiya
*
* 10. Maymuna (of Hareth)
*
* 11. Fatema
*
* 12. Hend
*
* 13. Asma (of Saba)
*
* 14. Zaynab (of Khozayma)
*
* 15. Habla
*
* 16. Asma (of Noman)

Some of Muhammad's concubines/slaves:

* Mary (the Christian)
* Rayhana
Muhammad's 4 devoted followers who who "gave" themselves to satisfy Muhammad's sexual desires.

* Omm Sharik
* Maymuna
* Zaynab (a third one)
* Khawla

'''Zaynab of Jahsh was originally Muhammad's adopted son Zaid's wife. The fact that Muhammad took her for himself has been problematic to many people, Muslims included. (God does not break His Own Word and He never changes His mind. Now read Sura 33:36-38).'''

'''Aesha was only eight or nine years old when Muhammad took her to his bed. According to Hadith, she was still playing with her dolls. This facet of Muhammad's sexual appetite is particularly distressing to Westerners.'''--[[User:LalaResne|LalaResne]] ([[User talk:LalaResne|talk]]) 00:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
::[[User:LalaResne|LalaResne]] is again trying level best to hijack this discussion. I have made no "personal" attack. I merely pointed out the trend in your edits and account info which is there for all to see. You however have made the so called personal attack, but even then I don't mind. The discussion is about slavery and what kind of content should be created here. your tirade has NO VALUE and your input is ZERO to the issue. All you are trying to do is hijack this discussion. I would like to call you a troll but I will do that after three or more of your unsound disturbances. Please read the very first line of talk page. It says that is not a forum to debate the issue. This is a talk page to generate content. And as your edits show that you are only trolling and giving no input(even negative input or criticism is good as it allows editors to form an opinion) I am pretty sure you are ignorable when it comes to making a decision. [[User:FreeatlastChitchat|FreeatlastChitchat]] ([[User talk:FreeatlastChitchat|talk]]) 03:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

:::FreeatlastChitchat, I don't want to dignify your desperate comment by replying to it. Mbcap, I agree with you.--[[User:LalaResne|LalaResne]] ([[User talk:LalaResne|talk]]) 07:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:[[User:LalaResne|LalaResne]] does seem to have a serious axe to grind and agenda, making it a little hard to even listen to. At the very least any mention of this stuff should be maybe 1 sentence at best. 'There was a precedent of slavery within aspects of the Quran, but is not represented in Islamic culture as a whole'. We don't want to draw a false equivalency here between Islam and slavery, or even worse Islam and sex-slavery. Its fringe stuff. We don't spend paragraphs talking about the one-off comments in Deuteronomy about stoning women and so on in an article about Christianity. [[User:Prasangika37|Prasangika37]] ([[User talk:Prasangika37|talk]]) 19:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

::[[User:Prasangika37|Prasangika37]] All I'm try to say is what I said in my first comment: Islam looks be very bad if it's defined by the way of life of Muhammad, which are [[Sunnah]] & [[Hadith]]. So remove [[Sunnah]] & [[Hadith]] from the first paragraph of this article and problem is solved. Quran's verses such as [http://quran.com/23/6 this] clearly states that man can have sex with wives and sex slaves. As [[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] pointed out, sex slavery used to be a part of Islamic Culture until Ottoman Empire. Sex with female slaves is allowed in the canonical texts and teachings of Islam [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ixO4b6jlbLYC&pg=PA58&dq=%22The+context+of+marriage+in+Islam%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ove_VI7dBPCf7gbmuYDYCg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20context%20of%20marriage%20in%20Islam%22&f=false] It's nolonger part of Islamic culture because slavery is banned almost everywhere in the world.--[[User:LalaResne|LalaResne]] ([[User talk:LalaResne|talk]]) 20:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
:::To imply that to practice Islam means that one either supports or is associated with sex-slavery is [[WP:FRINGE]] though and its generally just bad scholarship. If you looked at common encylcopedia articles on Islam, the 'family' in Islam, and books on the subject, would we find that sex-slavery was a main thing talked about?? Perhaps what you can do is find a good, reliable source on the subject and provide a small quote from there? [[User:Prasangika37|Prasangika37]] ([[User talk:Prasangika37|talk]]) 22:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

::::[[User:Prasangika37|Prasangika37]] "Outside of the institutions of marriage and concubinage, however, the Qur'an views all other sexual relationships as illicit." [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ixO4b6jlbLYC&pg=PA58&dq=%22The+context+of+marriage+in+Islam%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ove_VI7dBPCf7gbmuYDYCg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20context%20of%20marriage%20in%20Islam%22&f=false] lol.--[[User:LalaResne|LalaResne]] ([[User talk:LalaResne|talk]]) 22:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess, last comment I'm going to make here on the RFC because, while I assumed good faith with LalaResne at first, I agree with FreeAtLastChitChat that he's really just trolling and here to propagate. [http://www.mwlusa.org/topics/violence&harrassment/fgm.html This] is what I read about FGM. The evidence is truly that FGM and Slavery were pagan Arab practices, that Muhammad made strides and efforts against. Muslims do not take slaves, Muslims do not consider women to be slaves, and ISIL is not Islam. They are murdering a significant, unknown number of Muslims, and committing genocide. Islamic scholars and Imam's are condemning their actions. [http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-23/why-dont-muslims-speak-out-against-isis ISIS and Al Qaeda Are FAKE Muslims], [http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/condemning-islam-is-the-wrong-course/2015/02/09/b4eb521e-b085-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html Obama's speech], and [http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Feb-28/248767-isis-destroys-sufi-shrine-earns-criticism-from-jihadist-figure.ashx the destroying of Sufi's] and [http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/isis-killing-shiites-more-important-than-killing-jews/ this on Shiites] should be read. Any face of Islam that stands against them is the most important priority for them. Anyone who believes in God instead of them = bad. But LalaResne, I think we can just play some Super Smash Bros on the Nintendo Wii U and, if I win, you can put down the stick and back away from the horse. ;p [[User:SexyKick|<font color="#00BFFF ">'''Sexy'''</font>]][[User talk:SexyKick|<font color="#347235">'''Kick'''</font>]] 15:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

:Both male and female circumcision/genital mutilation are nowhere to be found in Quran or hadith and therefore are not part of Islam. Sex slavery is clearly allowed in many verses such as [http://quran.com/23/5-6 Quran verse 23:5-6] in the Quran itself! Hadiths are the deeds of Muhammad (PBUH) and therefore have sexual slavery. Muhammad had many sex slaves, such as [[Maria al-Qibtiyya]], [[Rayhana bint Zayd]], Al-Jariya, Tukana al-Quraziya ... Muhammad did execute his opponents & traitors by beheading[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-ppPqzawIrIC&pg=PA129], that's why it's in Islamic [[Sharia]] laws and this practice continues to date in many parts of the Muslim world such Saudi Arabia which justifies beheading by Islamic law (See [[Capital punishment in Saudi Arabia]]). Slavery is banned in most parts of the Muslim world today, and therefore you are expected to marry the sex slaves before having sex with them. In every Islamic country, there is at least one extremist group and therefore they make up a large chunk of the Muslim world (See [[List of designated terrorist organizations]]). Muhammad (PBUH) did free many male slaves after they converted to Islam, many of those slaves remained slaves of Muhammad willingly afterwards and went to battles with Muhammad.--[[User:LalaResne|LalaResne]] ([[User talk:LalaResne|talk]]) 05:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
::[[User:LalaResne|LalaResne]] you are seen as a user with agenda so you won't get much weight during the decision. feel free to quote as much of your POV agenda as you want. I am quite sure that this discussion will serve as a pointer if you try to insert your POV into other Islam related topics from now on. Thank you for making your intentions clear btw. [[User:FreeatlastChitchat|FreeatlastChitchat]] ([[User talk:FreeatlastChitchat|talk]]) 07:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

*Dailymail, wikiislam are not even fair sources. [[User:Fundarise|Fundarise]] ([[User talk:Fundarise|talk]]) 03:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

:::Sexual slavery is in the Quran, and hence is part of Islam. Until a new prohet alters those parts of the Quran because of new messages of God (Allah), or claims that Muhammad made mistakes/typos in writing down the Quran. [[Salmaan Taseer]], governor of Punjab, was assassinated by his own security guard Mumtaz Qadri, who disagreed with Taseer's opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy law. The killer claimed afterwards “I am a '''slave''' of the Prophet and the punishment for one who commits blasphemy is death.” While he was being taken to court, thousands of people, including lawyers in large numbers, showered bags full of rose petals on him and raised slogans in his favour.[http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-contest-over-true-muslims/] I think we should ignore hadith (deeds of prophet Muhammad) and not use it to justify sexual slavery in Islam, because who really is Islam's last prophet is highly disputed. Millions believe that [[Mirza Ghulam Ahmad]] is the last prophet of Islam, and his [[ Ahmadiyya]] sect is the fastest growing sect of Islam yet --[[User:Cleatword|Cleatword]] ([[User talk:Cleatword|talk]]) 06:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There has never been consensus on these entries in Family life, as we can see from here [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Islam&offset=&limit=500&action=history 19:36, 4 October 2014‎ Helpwoks] starting from this insertion then there has always been an edit war. Some of the users that pushed those entries are now banned for being multiple accounts or POV pushers. [[User:CallAng222|CallAng222]] ([[User talk:CallAng222|talk]]) 02:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


:@[[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]]. I think he's tryna talk to you. Your welcome. [[User:Ivebeenhacked|Hacked]] ([[User talk:Ivebeenhacked|Talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Ivebeenhacked|Contribs]]) 22:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
== Muhammad last law bearing prophet of God or last prophet of God? ==


::@[[User:ShawarmaFan07|ShawarmaFan07]] You need to read [[WP:RS]]. Wikipedia has rather strict rules for reliable sources. Just finding an Internet page that says something is not enough. Before you continue Wikipedia, it would be good to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 23:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
User FreeatlastChitchat changed Muhammad's status and replaced "considered last Prophet by most" with "last law bearing prophet" [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Islam&diff=645715968&oldid=645285921]. Now it seems as if all Muslims consider Muhammad to be "last law bearing prophet" only, but that's not true, vast majority of Muslims consider Muhammad to be the '''last prophet''' and don't consider [[Ahmadiyya]] to be Muslims. They are not even allowed to perform Hajj by Saudi law.--[[User:LalaResne|LalaResne]] ([[User talk:LalaResne|talk]]) 07:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
:Good example of personal animosity, bigotry and cheap shots lol.I take you to task in the discussion above and you try to question my edits. Good work boy. Anyways. I changed the wording because all muslims consider the Holy Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him to be the last law bearing Prophet, there are no naysayers in this; some may consider him more than that but no one considers him less, but saying last prophet will create edit disputes and long talkpage debates. As my goal is to take Islam back to Featured status I want the article to be stable and without daily wars. therefore I changed this.(my edit summary shows this also if you bother to read it). You are free to dispute this change if you want. [[User:FreeatlastChitchat|FreeatlastChitchat]] ([[User talk:FreeatlastChitchat|talk]]) 08:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2024 ==
::I figured that only [[Ahmadiyya]] consider Muhammad (PBUH) to be "last law bearing prophet," and [[Mirza Ghulam Ahmad]] to be the '''last prophet'''.--[[User:LalaResne|LalaResne]] ([[User talk:LalaResne|talk]]) 09:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Islam|answered=yes}}
:::You figured wrong. This is wikipedia , an encyclopedia, so you should not "figure" something and then start a debate. Try to read about something before just coming on with your personal views, especially given your recent contribution to discussion. ALL muslims consider the Holy Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him to be the last law bearing Prophet. Ahmadiyyah included. Also you are wrong on the second count too. [[Ahmadiyya]] do not consider [[Mirza Ghulam Ahmad]] to be the '''last prophet''', they consider him to be a deputy prophet to the Holy Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. [[User:FreeatlastChitchat|FreeatlastChitchat]] ([[User talk:FreeatlastChitchat|talk]]) 11:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
For any image that depicts the prophet, angel and gods face should be removed because in islam it is very disrespectful to do so because it encourages idolatry, or the worship of physical objects. This is inconsistent with the Muslim faith's monotheism, which teaches that God alone should be worshipped.
whenever i see these i feel disrespected as i myself am muslim and a follower of islam i find it wrong to just see ancient paintings of something and immediatly think its right without background checking it with an actual muslim thank you for reading this and goodbye. [[User:Fnafkidfrom2014|Fnafkidfrom2014]] ([[User talk:Fnafkidfrom2014|talk]]) 23:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTCENSORED|not censored]]. [[User:FifthFive|FifthFive]] ([[User talk:FifthFive|talk]]) 23:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)


== Wrong information about Islam ==
::::I'm always supporting my claims with reliables sources. You are mostly using personal analysis, bias and personal attacks throughout. Ghulam Ahmad is regarded by mainstream [[Muslims]] as a [[heretic]], for claiming to be a non-law-bearing (or deputy) [[prophet]] after [[Muhammad]], whom mainstream Muslims believe to be the final prophet sent to guide mankind.[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8711026.stm] ISIL, BokoHaram, Alqaeda etc are considered rogue Muslims by many. But Ahmadiyyah are not considered Muslims by the vast majority of mainstream [[Muslims]], and therefore are not allowed to do the Hajj pilgrimage.--[[User:LalaResne|LalaResne]] ([[User talk:LalaResne|talk]]) 00:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Islam is oldest religion in the world, please correct it , the first prophet was Adam ( from life start of Human Beings ) and the last was Muhammad:
:::::Good try at hijacking the discussion. YOU created this section, YOU created the title of this section. now LOOK at the title of the section which YOU created and tell me how in the name of all that if holy does your most recent comment add anything to it. If you want to talk about the inclusion of [[Ahmadiyya]] then feel free to make a new section or add to one that is already created. This section, which YOU created is about the rank of the Holy Prophet peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. I already made my reasons clear, negate them or agree with them if you want and then tell me what are your reasons for doing so. DO NOT hijack the discussion. tbh why are you even trying to troll? You tried to cheapshot, I caught you, go back to your life? [[User:FreeatlastChitchat|FreeatlastChitchat]] ([[User talk:FreeatlastChitchat|talk]]) 03:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The first prophet, considered the father of the human race. His story teaches about forgiveness, obedience, and patience.
{{od}}
Muhammad
Majority of reliable sources state that Muhammad is considered the last prophet by Muslims. The current sentence will be rectified with immediate haste. Please discuss here, together with your list of reliable sources as to why it should be changed. [[User:Mbcap|Mbcap]] ([[User talk:Mbcap|talk]]) 20:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The last prophet, who received a divine gift of revelation through the angel Gabriel. Both Sunni and Shi'a Muslims believe that no new prophet can arise after Muhammad.
Idris (Enoch), Nuh (Noah), Hud (Heber), Saleh (Methusaleh), Lut (Lot), Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaq (Isaac), Yaqub (Jacob), and Yusuf (Joseph) etc there is more then one lakh messenger from God till the last [[Special:Contributions/117.254.233.106|117.254.233.106]] ([[User talk:117.254.233.106|talk]]) 00:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:The article already states that Muslims believe this. WP is not in the business of stating religious beliefs as facts - regardless of which religion it is. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:Every scholarly source states otherwise. On Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources state. [[User:SKAG123|SKAG123]] ([[User talk:SKAG123|talk]]) 23:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)


== Title ==
: Muslims believe that Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses (Judaism), and Jesus (Christianity). However Judaism, Christianity and Islam are very different. God (Allah) reserves the right to change his decision and send as many prophets as he wants. Ghulam Ahmad is the last well-known prophet of Islam yet, and there may be more to come. Maybe there were more prophets before and after Ghulam Ahmad as [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-24/an-pakistan-court-sentences-british-man-to-death-for-claiming-t/5218518 this] one, but they were slaughtered by Muslims.--[[User:Cleatword|Cleatword]] ([[User talk:Cleatword|talk]]) 06:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


The title for Fasting should have a / then say Sawm. I know this form my religion being Islam. [[User:Ali.kazimiA|Ali.kazimiA]] ([[User talk:Ali.kazimiA|talk]]) 20:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
== Wife beating ==


== Incorrect Fact On Islam ==
Recent changes have been about wife beating. Please discuss here to reach a consensus. The points to be discussed seem to be neutral text and sourcing, if someone thinks other things should be discussed for example inclusion of section, they can join too. [[User:FreeatlastChitchat|FreeatlastChitchat]] ([[User talk:FreeatlastChitchat|talk]]) 09:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi ! How Can You Just Say That Islam Was Spreading Father Due To The Fertility Rate ? Theres Thousands and Thousands Of Reverts Across Globe And Reverting Rate Was Much Higher. That fertility Fact Was Too Descriminating and Replicating Propaganda Myths . So I Request Someone Who Can Access The Edit Section Of This To Edit The Part . Thanks So Much [[User:ItsTrueNow|ItsTrueNow]] ([[User talk:ItsTrueNow|talk]]) 11:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Get consensus here before removing what already there, when there objection for removing. Just like you can't remove the Ahmadiyya religion from here without consensus even though they are not Muslims.--[[User:LalaResne|LalaResne]] ([[User talk:LalaResne|talk]]) 20:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
::LalaResne. If you delete information that you regard as redundant, you have to remove the citations for that information. You cannot just leave the citations as if they back up other statements.--<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 21:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


:According to the latest study conducted by the Pew Research Center, conversion does not play a significant role in the population growth of religions, including Islam. The study states that the primary factors driving this growth are fertility rates and median ages. The source is included in the demographic section. If you have any new research sources suggesting that Muslim population growth is mainly due to religious conversion, please share them along with the sources. I have reverted your last edit as it was not supported by a source. [[User:Durziil89|Durziil89]] ([[User talk:Durziil89|talk]]) 12:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I have no problem with your edit. I left a citation that says the same thing that Quran as well as several hadiths condone wife beating when required, and that many Muslim women acknowledge it and have no problems with it.--[[User:LalaResne|LalaResne]] ([[User talk:LalaResne|talk]]) 21:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


== Infobox issue ==
As usual, this page is used to carry out an agenda. We sho


On behalf of @[[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]]'s request, I will make a discussion regarding the "separation from:" parameter and its value within the infobox, I am inviting @[[User:Sinclairian|Sinclairian]] and @[[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] to join the discussion.
Jihad Hashim Brown — the head of research at Tabah Foundation, which specializes in the interpretation of Islamic law ..... But he argued that in Islamic law it is “absolutely unlawful” to abuse a wife, injure her, or insult her dignity.


First of all, I've been skimming this article and the [[History of Islam]] in order to find the information regarding the separation of Islam from ancient Arabian (possibly just Meccan) polytheism, and from this article alone I found no indication or evidence to support this particular information to be kept in the infobox. But I do, in fact find some information regarding the relationship between Muhammad early religious activity and Meccan paganism, but it is still ambiguous and cannot explain the whole idea of Islam being parted from Arabian polytheism.
Shaykh Faraz Rabbani issued the following fatwa:


This is why I insisted on removing the data, until a clear and unequivocal information is given and included in this article alone. I advocated the use of Infobox in any article, but not if the information given by the infobox is misleading or contradictory with the content of the article, I heavily discouraged the policy of adding or keeping unsourced information in the infobox. [[User:Mhatopzz|Mhatopzz]] ([[User talk:Mhatopzz|talk]]) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
“No, there is absolutely no place in Islam for abuse of one’s spouse–whether physical, spoken, or emotional. All abuse is haram.”
:See [[WP:CITEREF]]. My objection was to your deletion of references to the Separations section, and the three references it contained which back up the assertions of that section. Meanwhile, the article you deleted the link to, [[Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia]], contains references that back up that assertion. That said, I will have to defer to other editors: I am traveling for the next few weeks for holiday, and Internet connectivity will be questionable starting in an hour or two. Good luck. [[User:Jtrevor99|Jtrevor99]] ([[User talk:Jtrevor99|talk]]) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Okay, I agree with the separations section, but the separated from section does not reflect the article (see [[MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE]]), the particular claim that Islam is separated from Arabian polytheism is not described at all within the article, and infobox is supposed to be made to summarize the whole article, not to add something up. That is why I said, this particular claim needs a source and mention as well, if not well then remove it, and that's it. Hope everyone understands. [[User:Mhatopzz|Mhatopzz]] ([[User talk:Mhatopzz|talk]]) 23:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Just chiming in as a random person but I completely agree there’s no source or anything to back up that Islam is separated from Polythiesm of any kind and it’s an entirely false and made up claim. It’s a completely Abrahamic religion so this must be removed from the infobox and I support your removal. Thanks [[User:Rafnator9|Rafnator9]] ([[User talk:Rafnator9|talk]]) 16:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I support its removal. {{tq|But I do, in fact find some information regarding the relationship between Muhammad early religious activity and Meccan paganism, but it is still ambiguous and cannot explain the whole idea of Islam being parted from Arabian polytheism.|q=y}} With sources that contrast the two faiths, it might come down to what they mean by "separated": (1) some adherents gradually modified elements of the faith until it was a distinct religion? or (2) among the population, Islam appealed to more and more adherents until the population comprised two distinct groups? I think common wisdom says (2) is true. I agree, we'd want some sources that explicity spell out (1), if it's going to be in the infobox. My two cents. <small><sub>''signed'', </sub></small>[[User:Willondon|Willondon]] ([[User Talk:Willondon|talk]]) 17:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Abrahamic religions also separate from polytheism. They do not fall from heaven.
::::The separation from Polytheism is basically common sense and should fall under [[WP:BLUE]]. Where else does Islam come from then? [[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 04:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::That's nonsense, people usually start with believing one god before they started associating with others. And again I'm not talking that we should cite it, I only highlight the problem is the infobox is to summarize the article, and the given information is not in the article, your claim in the comment below proves no evidence, I just reviewed the section and I still found no such information, not even a clear and unequivocal. I believe [[WP:BLUE]] are for specific stuff that are crystal clear and universally known, but this is an exclusive infobox, and it should not be stuffed with information not provided in the article. [[User:Mhatopzz|Mhatopzz]] ([[User talk:Mhatopzz|talk]]) 14:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::The article pretty much states that it originated and separated from Arabic polytheism in the section "Muhammad and the beginning of Islam (570–632)"? You do not need to cite the sky is blue. If Islam does not derive from Arabic polytheism, from what is it deriving? [[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 04:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|You do not need to cite the sky is blue.}} Yes, but we're talking about infobox, and [[WP:BLUE]] are definitely not made for specific informations in an infobox, unless such information is found within the article, and your claim proves no evidence. [[User:Mhatopzz|Mhatopzz]] ([[User talk:Mhatopzz|talk]]) 14:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:I see no objection to remove it as long as it is done for good reasons.
:The only scholars who claim that Islam began as a Christian sect are from the [[Revisionist school of Islamic studies]]. Evidence for their claims are lacking at best if not outright diametrically to a vast majority of primary and secondary sources. Wang, Shutao. in: ''The origins of Islam in the Arabian context''. MS thesis. The University of Bergen, 2016. explains the issues pretty well on pages 21-23. So, if not from polytheism, where does Islam come from?
:Your arguement is that we should simply leave it open because there is no explicit statement. Please note that basic calculations or combining two logical propositions are not Original Research [[WP:CALC]]. Likewise, obvious examples do not need to be cited ([[WP:BLUE]]). Both Muslim sources as well as Western sources agree that Islam parted from Arabian Paganism by asserting that the Arabs should worship only Allah and not any other deity. I do not see how this claim (separated from Arabic Polytheism) can be wrong except from a religious point of view, which violates neutrality ([[WP:ABRAHAMICPOV]]).
:If there is good reason to doubt the general consensus that Islam derives from Mecca and that Mecca was predominently polytheistic, I agree with the removal, but if not I object to that. [[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 04:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]], I think it would have merit to supply an inline citation for this particular entry in the infobox. And, I must admit, I am not quite sure that the reasoning here is sufficiently rudimentary as to avoid [[WP:SYNTH]]—but to be clear it is just unsurety presently. Moreover, [[WP:BURDEN]] seems to apply. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 04:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::An inline citation would certainly solve the discussion. However, some citation requests cannot be met. Not because they are not true, but because it is not a statement found. The explicit statement that Islam separated from pre-Islamic paganism is surely such a statement. We can find various thesis discussing the Revisionist school of Islamic studies attempting to debunk that origin, but we will hardly find a properly published paper containing this exact statement. Here, I also want to point out to [[WP:FACTS]] especially [[WP:PEDANTRY]]. [[WP:CK]] is also relevant here.
:::I do not think that "Controversial claims" from the WP:CK guidline applies, as it is not a religious claim, but a historical claim touching upon potential religious sensitivities. Not a clear citation as much, but given that I may errorneously presume that something is common knowledge while it is not; I would like to drop " by Yehuda D. Nevo, Judith Koren Review by: Gabriel Said Reynolds" accessable on Jstor, as an overview of the discussion of Islam's origin.
:::What I do see as a valid arguement for a removal is that pre-Islamic polytheism also entails monotheistic elements. They did believe in a High God, although in contrast to the monotheist, likely not interfering with human-life. Christian and Hebrew terms are also mentioned in pagan writings, such as "cherubim" (archangels). I would suggest to consider alterantives and improvements first, before we remove it for weak reasons such as "insistence" or "lack of citation", when a citation becomes rather nit-picking. My bold change now was to move from polytheism to paganism, as the latter is broader defined. Alternatively, I could also imagine to insert "Pre-Islamic Arabian beliefs" instead. But removing the origin of Islam in its historical context runs danger to censorship ([[WP:NOTCENSORED]]). [[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 21:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]], if there's no statement that can be found in RS, then we can't ourselves make an equivalent statement. That is a very basic distillation of [[WP:NOR]]. I respect the work you do a lot, but the argument you're making for your position here is trivially problematic. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 21:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I see it more as a form of censorship, as I said, I do not see a reason to cite trivial information. But I also have other things to do, as long as there are no blatantly wrong informations added, I can accept, though with disappointment, the removal of a statement which is simply common knowledge. [[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 21:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I hope you take me in complete sincerity when I say I understand your frustration. However, the basic reply that is usually applicable—and I would say especially applicable here—is that just because a statement is trivial to you, does not make it so for others that may be reading. You should already get that, as if it were trivial to everyone there wouldn't be such strong concerns over whether it is being censored. The citation isn't for your own benefit, it's for those who do not necessarily have the acclimation that you do. That is why verifiability is important. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 21:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I do not take it personal or anything, and I do see your point. To be honest, I had doubt about me reverting too, but a second thought and a look through the guidlines, I decided to revert it.
:::::::I do not insist on my addition though, but it still leaves a bitter taste. The Islam info-box is now the only one of the Abrahamic Religion which hides its origin. Even Judaism has a claim of its Yahwistic/pagan origin.
:::::::More than the removal of content, I am afraid the implications for why such a claim is disputed in the first place may bother me even more. Because it makes no sense on an academic level, but makes heartbreaking sense on a social one. I am afraid that the separation from "paganism" leads some people to the errorneous conclusion that Islam's truest identity is "pagan" (see also the [[Allah as a lunar deity]]-hoax). However, the opposite is the case: Separation from a previous belief means always a rejection of it to a certain degree, just as early Christians rejected the Greco-deities, Muhamamd separated because he rejected pre-Islamic polytheism.
:::::::It is disheartening to see that people feel pushed to defend themselves as well as how it poisons academic discourse.
:::::::Considering the broader context, the inline citation might really be a necessity because the context of the statement is by far not as obvious as I thought it would be. [[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 22:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Are you sure that there is no comparable tertiary source that makes a plain statement of this kind we can use? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 22:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I will have to look it up, after the holiday season. It needs to be a good one too then though. [[User:VenusFeuerFalle|VenusFeuerFalle]] ([[User talk:VenusFeuerFalle|talk]]) 00:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Agreed. I'll look too, though I can't promise anything at present. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 00:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
=== Sourcing ===
I did some research last night. I only wanted to present results if I had at least a couple sources, since I do not want to engage in cherrypicking or the appearance of such, but barring the chance that I do not return to this, I wanted to at least show the solid attestation I did happen to find:
* {{cite book | last=ʿAẓma | first=ʿAzīz al- | title=The emergence of Islam in late antiquity: Allah and his people | publisher=Cambridge University Press | year=2014 | isbn=978-1-139-41085-4 |pages=48–49, ''passim''|quote=For the purposes of the present investigation, two registers are of special pertinence. The first is generic. A generic history of a supreme deity, including Allāh, would consider in comparative compass the rise to primacy, eventually to indivisible divine remit, of one among deities emerging from a polytheistic universe to attain exclusive and indivisible divine status, in a movement that was to be recapitulated structurally in the Paleo-Muslim period of Muḥammad and his immediate successors. [...] This was an area that, in the late sixth century, still saw the persistence of a generic polytheism, forming a series of geographical and religious enclaves of Arab polytheism alongside a variety of Christian, Jewish and, possibly, Judaeo-Christian denominations and conceptions, so far of uncertain physiognomy. Both polytheism and ambient monotheisms were equally pertinent to the emergence of Allāh as a monotheistic deity: the former pertinent to the religious transformation of the pagan Arabs, in some ways analogously to the cultic transformations of Israelite religion to Judaism.}}
<span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 19:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2024 ==
[http://seekershub.org/blog/2010/10/muslim-scholars-on-spousal-abuse-%E2%80%9Cin-islamic-law-it-is-absolutely-unlawful-to-abuse-a-wife-injure-her-or-insult-her-dignity%E2%80%9D/ Muslim-scholars-on-spousal-abuse: in-islamic-law-it-is-absolutely-unlawful-to-abuse-a-wife-injure-her-or-insult-her-dignity]


{{Edit semi-protected|Islam|answered=yes}}
Also other scholars like Imam Khalid Latif, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Imam Zaid Shakir, made the same statesment. [[User:CallAng222|CallAng222]] ([[User talk:CallAng222|talk]]) 07:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
In this article it is written that MUHAMMAD SAW is the founder of islam which is not true . Muhammad saw were the last messenger of ALLAH SW. according to Quran & sahih Hadith. [[Special:Contributions/106.215.131.199|106.215.131.199]] ([[User talk:106.215.131.199|talk]]) 14:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:ESp --> we characterize Muhammad based on [[WP:reliable sources|reliable sources]]. We consider scripture and other traditional religious works to be [[WP:primary source|primary source]]s, and as such generally do not cite them directly. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 15:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:17, 1 January 2025

Former featured articleIslam is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleIslam has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 1, 2007.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 11, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 20, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 20, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 11, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 3, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 22, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
January 9, 2008Featured article reviewKept
July 30, 2010Featured article reviewDemoted
May 20, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
August 28, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of November 18, 2006.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Article reliability

[edit]

To the recent editor who just reverted, what makes you think that the article I cited was unreliable? It's only deemed as unreliable if I get a warning before I click publish. However, this wasn't the case when I added this article about birth rates of Muslims. ShawarmaFan07 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of LDas12345, see investigation)[reply]

@Jeppiz. I think he's tryna talk to you. Your welcome. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 22:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ShawarmaFan07 You need to read WP:RS. Wikipedia has rather strict rules for reliable sources. Just finding an Internet page that says something is not enough. Before you continue Wikipedia, it would be good to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies. Jeppiz (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2024

[edit]

For any image that depicts the prophet, angel and gods face should be removed because in islam it is very disrespectful to do so because it encourages idolatry, or the worship of physical objects. This is inconsistent with the Muslim faith's monotheism, which teaches that God alone should be worshipped.

whenever i see these i feel disrespected as i myself am muslim and a follower of islam i find it wrong to just see ancient paintings of something and immediatly think its right without background checking it with an actual muslim thank you for reading this and goodbye. Fnafkidfrom2014 (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. FifthFive (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information about Islam

[edit]

Islam is oldest religion in the world, please correct it , the first prophet was Adam ( from life start of Human Beings ) and the last was Muhammad: The first prophet, considered the father of the human race. His story teaches about forgiveness, obedience, and patience. Muhammad The last prophet, who received a divine gift of revelation through the angel Gabriel. Both Sunni and Shi'a Muslims believe that no new prophet can arise after Muhammad. Idris (Enoch), Nuh (Noah), Hud (Heber), Saleh (Methusaleh), Lut (Lot), Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaq (Isaac), Yaqub (Jacob), and Yusuf (Joseph) etc there is more then one lakh messenger from God till the last 117.254.233.106 (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article already states that Muslims believe this. WP is not in the business of stating religious beliefs as facts - regardless of which religion it is. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every scholarly source states otherwise. On Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources state. SKAG123 (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

The title for Fasting should have a / then say Sawm. I know this form my religion being Islam. Ali.kazimiA (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Fact On Islam

[edit]

Hi ! How Can You Just Say That Islam Was Spreading Father Due To The Fertility Rate ? Theres Thousands and Thousands Of Reverts Across Globe And Reverting Rate Was Much Higher. That fertility Fact Was Too Descriminating and Replicating Propaganda Myths . So I Request Someone Who Can Access The Edit Section Of This To Edit The Part . Thanks So Much ItsTrueNow (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the latest study conducted by the Pew Research Center, conversion does not play a significant role in the population growth of religions, including Islam. The study states that the primary factors driving this growth are fertility rates and median ages. The source is included in the demographic section. If you have any new research sources suggesting that Muslim population growth is mainly due to religious conversion, please share them along with the sources. I have reverted your last edit as it was not supported by a source. Durziil89 (talk) 12:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox issue

[edit]

On behalf of @William M. Connolley's request, I will make a discussion regarding the "separation from:" parameter and its value within the infobox, I am inviting @Sinclairian and @Jtrevor99 to join the discussion.

First of all, I've been skimming this article and the History of Islam in order to find the information regarding the separation of Islam from ancient Arabian (possibly just Meccan) polytheism, and from this article alone I found no indication or evidence to support this particular information to be kept in the infobox. But I do, in fact find some information regarding the relationship between Muhammad early religious activity and Meccan paganism, but it is still ambiguous and cannot explain the whole idea of Islam being parted from Arabian polytheism.

This is why I insisted on removing the data, until a clear and unequivocal information is given and included in this article alone. I advocated the use of Infobox in any article, but not if the information given by the infobox is misleading or contradictory with the content of the article, I heavily discouraged the policy of adding or keeping unsourced information in the infobox. Mhatopzz (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CITEREF. My objection was to your deletion of references to the Separations section, and the three references it contained which back up the assertions of that section. Meanwhile, the article you deleted the link to, Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, contains references that back up that assertion. That said, I will have to defer to other editors: I am traveling for the next few weeks for holiday, and Internet connectivity will be questionable starting in an hour or two. Good luck. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I agree with the separations section, but the separated from section does not reflect the article (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE), the particular claim that Islam is separated from Arabian polytheism is not described at all within the article, and infobox is supposed to be made to summarize the whole article, not to add something up. That is why I said, this particular claim needs a source and mention as well, if not well then remove it, and that's it. Hope everyone understands. Mhatopzz (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just chiming in as a random person but I completely agree there’s no source or anything to back up that Islam is separated from Polythiesm of any kind and it’s an entirely false and made up claim. It’s a completely Abrahamic religion so this must be removed from the infobox and I support your removal. Thanks Rafnator9 (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support its removal. But I do, in fact find some information regarding the relationship between Muhammad early religious activity and Meccan paganism, but it is still ambiguous and cannot explain the whole idea of Islam being parted from Arabian polytheism. With sources that contrast the two faiths, it might come down to what they mean by "separated": (1) some adherents gradually modified elements of the faith until it was a distinct religion? or (2) among the population, Islam appealed to more and more adherents until the population comprised two distinct groups? I think common wisdom says (2) is true. I agree, we'd want some sources that explicity spell out (1), if it's going to be in the infobox. My two cents. signed, Willondon (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abrahamic religions also separate from polytheism. They do not fall from heaven.
The separation from Polytheism is basically common sense and should fall under WP:BLUE. Where else does Islam come from then? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense, people usually start with believing one god before they started associating with others. And again I'm not talking that we should cite it, I only highlight the problem is the infobox is to summarize the article, and the given information is not in the article, your claim in the comment below proves no evidence, I just reviewed the section and I still found no such information, not even a clear and unequivocal. I believe WP:BLUE are for specific stuff that are crystal clear and universally known, but this is an exclusive infobox, and it should not be stuffed with information not provided in the article. Mhatopzz (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article pretty much states that it originated and separated from Arabic polytheism in the section "Muhammad and the beginning of Islam (570–632)"? You do not need to cite the sky is blue. If Islam does not derive from Arabic polytheism, from what is it deriving? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to cite the sky is blue. Yes, but we're talking about infobox, and WP:BLUE are definitely not made for specific informations in an infobox, unless such information is found within the article, and your claim proves no evidence. Mhatopzz (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no objection to remove it as long as it is done for good reasons.
The only scholars who claim that Islam began as a Christian sect are from the Revisionist school of Islamic studies. Evidence for their claims are lacking at best if not outright diametrically to a vast majority of primary and secondary sources. Wang, Shutao. in: The origins of Islam in the Arabian context. MS thesis. The University of Bergen, 2016. explains the issues pretty well on pages 21-23. So, if not from polytheism, where does Islam come from?
Your arguement is that we should simply leave it open because there is no explicit statement. Please note that basic calculations or combining two logical propositions are not Original Research WP:CALC. Likewise, obvious examples do not need to be cited (WP:BLUE). Both Muslim sources as well as Western sources agree that Islam parted from Arabian Paganism by asserting that the Arabs should worship only Allah and not any other deity. I do not see how this claim (separated from Arabic Polytheism) can be wrong except from a religious point of view, which violates neutrality (WP:ABRAHAMICPOV).
If there is good reason to doubt the general consensus that Islam derives from Mecca and that Mecca was predominently polytheistic, I agree with the removal, but if not I object to that. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VenusFeuerFalle, I think it would have merit to supply an inline citation for this particular entry in the infobox. And, I must admit, I am not quite sure that the reasoning here is sufficiently rudimentary as to avoid WP:SYNTH—but to be clear it is just unsurety presently. Moreover, WP:BURDEN seems to apply. Remsense ‥  04:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An inline citation would certainly solve the discussion. However, some citation requests cannot be met. Not because they are not true, but because it is not a statement found. The explicit statement that Islam separated from pre-Islamic paganism is surely such a statement. We can find various thesis discussing the Revisionist school of Islamic studies attempting to debunk that origin, but we will hardly find a properly published paper containing this exact statement. Here, I also want to point out to WP:FACTS especially WP:PEDANTRY. WP:CK is also relevant here.
I do not think that "Controversial claims" from the WP:CK guidline applies, as it is not a religious claim, but a historical claim touching upon potential religious sensitivities. Not a clear citation as much, but given that I may errorneously presume that something is common knowledge while it is not; I would like to drop " by Yehuda D. Nevo, Judith Koren Review by: Gabriel Said Reynolds" accessable on Jstor, as an overview of the discussion of Islam's origin.
What I do see as a valid arguement for a removal is that pre-Islamic polytheism also entails monotheistic elements. They did believe in a High God, although in contrast to the monotheist, likely not interfering with human-life. Christian and Hebrew terms are also mentioned in pagan writings, such as "cherubim" (archangels). I would suggest to consider alterantives and improvements first, before we remove it for weak reasons such as "insistence" or "lack of citation", when a citation becomes rather nit-picking. My bold change now was to move from polytheism to paganism, as the latter is broader defined. Alternatively, I could also imagine to insert "Pre-Islamic Arabian beliefs" instead. But removing the origin of Islam in its historical context runs danger to censorship (WP:NOTCENSORED). VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VenusFeuerFalle, if there's no statement that can be found in RS, then we can't ourselves make an equivalent statement. That is a very basic distillation of WP:NOR. I respect the work you do a lot, but the argument you're making for your position here is trivially problematic. Remsense ‥  21:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see it more as a form of censorship, as I said, I do not see a reason to cite trivial information. But I also have other things to do, as long as there are no blatantly wrong informations added, I can accept, though with disappointment, the removal of a statement which is simply common knowledge. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you take me in complete sincerity when I say I understand your frustration. However, the basic reply that is usually applicable—and I would say especially applicable here—is that just because a statement is trivial to you, does not make it so for others that may be reading. You should already get that, as if it were trivial to everyone there wouldn't be such strong concerns over whether it is being censored. The citation isn't for your own benefit, it's for those who do not necessarily have the acclimation that you do. That is why verifiability is important. Remsense ‥  21:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not take it personal or anything, and I do see your point. To be honest, I had doubt about me reverting too, but a second thought and a look through the guidlines, I decided to revert it.
I do not insist on my addition though, but it still leaves a bitter taste. The Islam info-box is now the only one of the Abrahamic Religion which hides its origin. Even Judaism has a claim of its Yahwistic/pagan origin.
More than the removal of content, I am afraid the implications for why such a claim is disputed in the first place may bother me even more. Because it makes no sense on an academic level, but makes heartbreaking sense on a social one. I am afraid that the separation from "paganism" leads some people to the errorneous conclusion that Islam's truest identity is "pagan" (see also the Allah as a lunar deity-hoax). However, the opposite is the case: Separation from a previous belief means always a rejection of it to a certain degree, just as early Christians rejected the Greco-deities, Muhamamd separated because he rejected pre-Islamic polytheism.
It is disheartening to see that people feel pushed to defend themselves as well as how it poisons academic discourse.
Considering the broader context, the inline citation might really be a necessity because the context of the statement is by far not as obvious as I thought it would be. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that there is no comparable tertiary source that makes a plain statement of this kind we can use? Remsense ‥  22:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to look it up, after the holiday season. It needs to be a good one too then though. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'll look too, though I can't promise anything at present. Remsense ‥  00:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

[edit]

I did some research last night. I only wanted to present results if I had at least a couple sources, since I do not want to engage in cherrypicking or the appearance of such, but barring the chance that I do not return to this, I wanted to at least show the solid attestation I did happen to find:

  • ʿAẓma, ʿAzīz al- (2014). The emergence of Islam in late antiquity: Allah and his people. Cambridge University Press. pp. 48–49, passim. ISBN 978-1-139-41085-4. For the purposes of the present investigation, two registers are of special pertinence. The first is generic. A generic history of a supreme deity, including Allāh, would consider in comparative compass the rise to primacy, eventually to indivisible divine remit, of one among deities emerging from a polytheistic universe to attain exclusive and indivisible divine status, in a movement that was to be recapitulated structurally in the Paleo-Muslim period of Muḥammad and his immediate successors. [...] This was an area that, in the late sixth century, still saw the persistence of a generic polytheism, forming a series of geographical and religious enclaves of Arab polytheism alongside a variety of Christian, Jewish and, possibly, Judaeo-Christian denominations and conceptions, so far of uncertain physiognomy. Both polytheism and ambient monotheisms were equally pertinent to the emergence of Allāh as a monotheistic deity: the former pertinent to the religious transformation of the pagan Arabs, in some ways analogously to the cultic transformations of Israelite religion to Judaism.

Remsense ‥  19:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2024

[edit]

In this article it is written that MUHAMMAD SAW is the founder of islam which is not true . Muhammad saw were the last messenger of ALLAH SW. according to Quran & sahih Hadith. 106.215.131.199 (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: we characterize Muhammad based on reliable sources. We consider scripture and other traditional religious works to be primary sources, and as such generally do not cite them directly. Remsense ‥  15:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]