Talk:Islamization

Conversion to Islam

The section of conversion to Islam should not belong here. Zoroastrians are not people of book in Islam. There are 4 books in Islam: Tevrat+ Zebur(Old testament), İncil(new testatemnt); and Quran. Zoroastrians are seen as mushriks (people who deny the unity of God) by Islam.Paparokan 23:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Debate

Statement "It is thought that French resistance to this lead to the rejection of Turkey in the 2005 European Referendum." makes no sense. The French were not voting on Turkey, or anything to do with Turkey.. they were voting on a Written Constitution to the European Union, but I think I understand what you mean so will re-phrase it. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If the term is used in a college textbook, and multiple ones at that, I'm sure that it can stay and be used on this website. It is in no way discrimanetory.

{{Totally disputed}}

It appears that there is an edit war between supporters of islam and those who are in Opposition_to_Islam called Islamophobic by the supporters of Islam. Many edits have been removing explaintions on what rules may compell a person to convert to islam. This includes links explaining islam to believers including the ruling on whether a Muslim man may marry a non-Muslim woman and vice versa [1] 7:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC-5)

Some writers believe:

Personally I'm not even sure this article should exist since it seems like little more than a stomping-ground for various islamophobes, but if it's going to exist than those of you who are responsible for its upkeep should at least try to not include blatant pov and factual inaccuracies. I'm not even going to touch on the other paragraphs, but just overlooking the fourth one down.

1. "During the Ottoman rule of Balkans, many christians were forced conversion to Islam." Asides from horrible English, this statement is blatantly false: conversion in the Balkans was not forced; otherwise you would have seen far more wide-spread conversion throughout Ottoman domains.
2. "To ensure their rule and domination over the indigenous Christian Serbian and Croat populations, the Turks forcefully converted the local policy under a policy of Turkification or Islamicization..." Complete lack of knowledge regarding the nature of the 15th century Ottoman state; this "historiography" seems like the juvenile rabble of an adolescent nationalist.
3. "...or applied intense pressure which was tantamount to forced conversion to create Islamicized Slavs (Serbo-Croatian: po-Turcenaci), the ancestors of the present-day Bosnian Slavic Muslims (Bosniaks)." What intense pressure? Who says it’s intense? Tantamount to forced conversion according to whom? What about the large segment of the Bosnian population that didn't convert? Complete disregard of modern knowledge about the etymology of "Poturi". Ridiculous and primitive disregard for differences in the concept of nationality between the middle ages and modern times.

Basically the paragraph is a joke, and every sentence contains at least two disputable components. I suggest those of you who are interested in this page remove it completely if you want to maintain any sense of credibility it has. Live Forever 17:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, The article was reeking of Islamophobia and I have made some unbiased changes. There was incorrect information given on the concept of 'Jizya' and self-made theories on the growth of Islam, such as the uneducated statement of 'high reproduction rates among muslims is the cause for growth of Islam.' Most of the theories described were penned by European orientalists during the Imperialist age to discourage the growth of Islam, and have now been unanimously rejected. I will provide citation to the new information handed in in a few days time. Besides this, may I inform everyone that the term Islamization itself is a derogatory term used by 19th century Orientalists. However I have not deleted the article. The person who wrote the article is clearly an islamophobe if he is sourcing his information from Le Pen! --Neonbulb.

Orientalism

A note on this pragraph:

Orientalists are attributed with the formulation that the successful conversion of non-Muslims to Islam was due to compulsion and "ill treatment of non-Muslims", such as by oppressive and discriminatory tax codes. Muslims point out that Islamic law does not mandate conversion to Islam, but that non-Muslims in an Islamic state are expected to pay a special tax, "Jizya" in return for protection by the state and right to refuse military duty during emergencies. In contrast, Muslims do not have to pay Jizya, but rather "Zakat" (a religious tax directed to charity rather than the state) and are required to defend the country during foreign invasions. Conversely, a tax code that warrants different tax classifications for citizens based on religious affiliations, a concept alien to modern Western democracies, leaves the Islamic system, vulnerable to presentist criticism. An alternative hypothesis forwarded is the gradual assimilation of Islamic culture by populaces in lands newly conquered by Muslims or demographically transformed through mass Muslim migration putting forward a gentler image of conversion through acculturation, religious education programs in newly conquered lands and marriages among Muslim conquerors/migrants and the local people.

This is from my point of view a very weired definition which I have never heard before. Who wrote that and could the person provide reference? I have studied Middle Eastern Politics for years, including the Edward Said Orientalism controversy but this is neither referenced, nor does it sound academic to me at all. --Arabist 10:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A side note to the ever present claim of Islamaphobia..one should take a look at the entrys for Americanization and westerniaztion..those articles DO NOT begin with a denouncment Of anti-american-phobia.. In short this article has (like many Islamic article) been politically edited, i would suggest removing the first two parts (chap 1 and 1.1 ).

India

A paragraph on Islamization in India in the past and present and its effects would be nice. Zulfikkur 04:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No sources, POV, neologism... this article deserves the "least likely to be a featured article" award

Does someone disagree? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds of "citation needed" tags.

These tags make the article unreadable and amount to vandalism by someone who seems to disagree witht he decision not to delete the article. Don't be a sore loser. If you think something is wrong, talk about here, don't make the article unreadable. I am also removing the "factual dispute header" because it refers to the talk page, but there are currently no factual disputes discussed here (all of the factually disputed items have been removed)Grz77

19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly "hundreds" but there are quite a few unsourced statements. I didn't add the original requests for citations but I can see why they are there. I have reverted. Perhaps we should just use the 'articles with unsourced statements' tag. --Lee Hunter 22:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That will also work, I am making the change. I have never seen an article with a 'fact' tag after almost every sentence. It makes it ugly and unreadable. Grz77 00:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Hopefully this article is more useful now, still needs a lot of work but I hope I have raised the bar for quality and set the tone at the least.--Tigeroo 09:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would wish that someone from the Wiki team decides to delete some of the unreferenced text entirely. Much of this stuff is opinion rather than fact. Removing it would be more beneficial than anthing - the only reason I am not doing it is that I don't want to be told that I am vandalising the article. --Arabist 10:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought your edits today were a big improvement and I'd encourage you to go ahead and delete stuff that's not supported by citations. --Lee Hunter 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Lee Hunter, thanks for your welcome message and your encouraging words... Will certainly continue working on this and other related sites. Greetings, --Arabist 19:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference, please note

Could those of you who edit or edited parts of the article please make sure that you provide references for your texts. Please also ensure that references work - I have found several ones on this page which either all refer to the same page number (in which case you have to change the "name" of the reference slightly in order to refer to different pages in the same book), or simply to a book without any page numbers, which is slightly useless because in this way everyone can reference any statement by refering to a book which nobody knows and where nobody can verify the content. It is really important in an article about such a politiced topic to stick to certain rules. Greetings,--Arabist 13:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Merged with Spread of Islam

Please note that a major chunk of this article has been merged with the article Spread of Islam. The article is left to deal with the neologism and increased observances of existing communities.--Tigeroo (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Did everything get moved? Arrow740 (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything that no longer appears in this article.--Tigeroo (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

"Although one can never speak for an entire community or people" sounds a bit weasly... 202.89.153.149 (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No detrimental effects?

Although it is true that islamification / islamisation has consistently resulted in overreactions from conservatives and christians, this article mentions absolutely nothing about the perceived downsides of islamisation. Additionally, it treats it as purely an intra-islamic idea, which is almost entirely the opposite of what the average person thinks of when they hear the word.

This article simply seems to suffer from the idea that you should remain completely neutral, instead of pointing out both the good (greater unity, greater social order, and perhaps increased cultural vigor) and the bad (violence, non-extremist support for islamisation as opposed to solely extremist groups, and the problems of western, far eastern, and african governments in finding ways to accommodate islamisation without losing their own values). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.211.87 (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A good model

A good model for what this article might become is Christianization. Certainly, as it stands, it is whollly inadewuate, an embarrassment to Wikipedia.Historicist (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing good in this world

The articles doesn't shows that islamization never made good things, in this world. Poverty, corruption, violence ever became bigger, not smaller, after islamization. See the case of Iran. In 1977, before the Islamic Revolution, average Iranian was richer than an average Portuguesel. Today, average Iranian is more than three times poorer than a Portuguese. And Portugal hasn't any oil.Agre22 (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)agre22