Talk:Islam

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Minor Sects / Varients?

Initial section - 'islam is one of the world's fastest growing relations': every religion claims the same thing. The fact this sentence says 'one of the' suggests it could be one of many or one of few. I think this sentence should be removed as it is propaganda and not fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.201.64 (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

After years of studying the religions of the world, Islam included, I have noticed something odd. In Afghanistan, the Pashtun people seem to follow a different sect. While I see no mention or Spirits, Magic or Spellcasters in Islam, the Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan cling very much to these beliefs, on top of their Islamic ideals. A good example would be the dotted tattoos seen on Pashtun warriors' hands, believed to confer luck and skill in battle (Tattooed on by a "wise woman"). Or the ornamentation of trucks, believed to ward off evil spirits. I haven't seen these anywhere else I have traveled in the Islamic world (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia). I could be my ignorance, but are these "trends" common across Islam, or is this unique to the Pashtun tribe? The Tajik and Hazara tribes do not seem to hold these beliefs.SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army Infantryman (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It happens in many parts of the world. Islam in parts of Africa sometimes maintain similar traditional beliefs. It's also true for all the major missionary religions including Christianity, not just Islam. The orthodox beliefs of the "new" religion are mapped on to the older local beliefs. There's an article on it: Syncretism. DeCausa (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense now, sort of like a culturization of specified religions. I just found it odd that is was almost minor, and tribal specific. Though I do not agree with some of the Article's points, but thats a conversation for another Talk forum. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army Infantryman (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you probably didn't spend enough time with the Tajiks, Hazaras and the so many other ethnic groups in Afghanistan. They all believe in these superstitions. It relates to palm reading, fortune telling, or even witchcraft and Islam prohibits this. However, some ideas are allowed. Those trucks usually have the names Allah, Muhammad, and religious text, as well as eyes and other nonsense. Religious text do ward off evil Jinns because these Jinns are invisible spirits who walk around everywhere on earth, including in people's houses. We can't see them but they are there. According to Islam, they also live inside each human. But my point is that this has nothing to do with Islam or any other religion.--Chilum aw charrs (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Misinterpretation

• Jesus told his followers that he is soul of Allah (God). 100s of years later, the people who wrote the Bible or those who interpreted the Bible stated that Jesus is son of God. This is considered misinterpretation. See Son of man.
• Islam teaches that Jesus is soul of Allah (God). See Jesus in Islam and then Soul#Islam.--Chilum aw charrs (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This is all about the view of Islam, either a fact or not. It is stating that it is changed and corrupted, the word Tahrif itself doesn't mean "misinterpretation", but total change and corruption of sacred text. You can interpret that, but the definition of tahrif is "deliberately changing text". Not a 'unconscious' misinterpretation.

• "There are two kinds of tahrif tahrif ma 'nawi (corruption of the meaning), and tahrif lafzi, corruption of the words."-Jesus and the Cross: Reflections of Christians from Islamic Contexts, page VII
• "The technical expression is " tahrif," a word signifying to change, to turn aside anything from the truth. Then tahrif may be of two kinds : tahrifu'l-ma'nawi a change in the meaning of words; tahrif u'1-lafzi, an actual change of the written words."-The Faith Of Islam, page 237
• "Early Muslim authorities, he said, recognise in theory two forms of tahrif, corruption: viz., tahrif-i-lafzi, “ verbal corruption,” i.e., corruption of the text; and tahrif-i-ma'nawi, corruption of meaning or interpretation."-The People of the Mosques: The Study of Islam with Special Reference to India, page 263
• "Classically, tahrif was taken to mean a deletion or addition to the Bible's text, which encouraged the view that the Qur'an criticizes the faith of Christians and Jews."-Muslims and Modernity: Current Debates, page 166

The list could go on. It is just a vocabulary meaning, you can't alter that. Tahrif just mean the corruption of texts. Runehelmet (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

But you've altered it. It doesn't mean corruption of texts, which is a pov word, it means two possible things, a change in the actual text, or a change in the meaning of the text. To say that tahrif means total change and corruption of sacred text doesn't match the definitions you give above. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It does match the definitions above? Wich one is contradicting the meaning of 'change and corruption of text'? This dicussion is about if tahrif either mean "change and corruption" or "misinterpretation" by readers. And I haven't altered it. Runehelmet (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see a question or request anywhere in there.--Jacksoncw (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

"Karaite-Karaism or Karaimism"

Under "Denominations/Other Denominations" there is currently an entry reading: "Karaite-Karaism or Karaimism a transitional religion between Mosaism and proto-Shiism, was brought from Khorezm to the Sabians of the Bosporan Kingdom (Southern Russia) after the Umayyad attack of 712AD. [sourced here: ]" I am doubtful of the accuracy of this assertion, of the designation of any form of Karaism as a denomination of Islam, and of the accuracy of the obviously strongly POV-problematic source cited; I note that nonetheless neither that source nor the Wikipedia page to which "Karaite-Karaism or Karaimism" is linked mention it as a denomination of Islam. Is there a reason to keep such an assertion on this page? Lyrelyre (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I will delete it. It is nonsense.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The edit history shows the text you mentioned was added by User:Budo, on 8 Nov 2012. Earlier versions were by User:Kaz, for example 16 Aug 2012. They are the same person. They are really talking about the Crimean Karaites - a group of Jews who for economic reasons claimed not to be Jews.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Nail polish in accordance with Islam

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Poland company has released to market nail polish systems O2M, which allows to nail comes steam. Nail polish is not inconsistent with the rules of Islam, but the water during ritual ablutions before prayer has touched every part of the face and hands. Before this invention, a Muslim is required to remove the paint before each prayer or nail polish only during menstruation, because then they don`t˙ go to prayer. Varnish containing polymer that is commonly used in eye leaflets, according to the Croatian daily Glas Slavonia.78.2.89.249 (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no questions or request, please specify how you wish the article to be altered.--Jacksoncw (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues with Johnleeds1

As mentioned in this talk page in the section immediately above and in my brief edit summaries, wikipedia policy is to avoid using primary sources as references, which the user Johnleeds1 has done numerously. Again, see WP:NPS. The user has also used such sources in lengthy quotations numerously. Once again, see WP:QUOTE.

Before this user came along, the article was already long enough (>120,000) when it should be more summarized (see WP:LENGTH and WP:SS) and the point had been repeatedly established about moving the history section away from political history. I removed much but not all of those history sections edits. If johnleeds1 wishes, he/she can move them to their own articles if applicable.

Johnleeds1, you mentioned to me that “If you want people to make changes please just consult with them”. I did send you a message in the brief summary and on your talk page concerning your edits, even though that is not required Wikipedia policy.

Johnleeds1, you also mentioned that “I spent months researching all this and you should have just asked before doing a mass delete.” That you spent that much time is not exactly relevant to if an edit stays or not. Sodicadl (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Answer to Sodicadl

Over the last few months, I have done a lot of work to tie the Islam page to the other pages in Wikipedia about Islam, chronologically. I only put links to the other articles on wikipedia about actual events agreed to by every denomination and the historians. These articles have an important bearing on the development of the different denominations, as most the differences between these denominations are political. They are not about the concept of God, as in many other religions, as the concept of God is well defined in the Quran. So they differ on politics i.e. who has the right to rule. That is why the History section has expanded. If you look at the Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) or the Judaism page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiasm) they are also long with lots of links to other pages. These are old religions, with lots of followers.

I would like to shift the history section more towards the development of the schools of thought and the early books. I also wanted to include a diagram to show the links between the early scholars. I have already done a lot of work in writing the Denominations sections and showing people how Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, Muhammad al-Baqir, Zayd ibn Ali, Jafar al-Sadiq, Abu Hanifa, and Malik ibn Anas worked together in Madina. How Al-Shafi‘i was taught by Malik ibn Anas. Ahmad ibn Hanbal was taught by Al-Shafi‘i. How Muhammad al-Bukhari travelled every where collecting hadith and why he did it. During the early Medina period all these imams studied together and the chains of hadith narration show this.

The academics divide the history of Islam into Mecca Period and the Madina Period for the Quran. Then the Madina period of the scholars, where the views of the scholars are very close and books like Muwatta were written by scholars like Malik ibn Anas. Then the Kufa period where the schools of thought begin to diverge taking into consideration the different ethnic mixes, urban populations, old Roman and Persian laws in those areas, the Greek ideas and the problems the jurists faced. Then to reduce the divergence, ash-Shafi'i proposed giving priority to the Qur'an and the Hadith (the practice of Muhammad) and only then look at the consensus of the Muslim jurists (ijma), and analogical reasoning (qiyas), which resulted in jurists like Muhammad al-Bukhari dedicating their lives to the collection of the correct Hadith, in books like Sahih al-Bukhari.

To shift the history sections to the history of Islam, we need to change the titles as currently they are focused to towards the political history. Shift them towards important early scholars and their early books. These early books are a snapshot in time.

In the History sections we could have titles like

Muhammad and the Quran

Early Scholars of Madina and Muwatta

Kufa and Baghdad - schools of thought and Hadith collections

Safavids and Salafi

Modern times

Then I could fit the history into the development of the denominations. The history has an important bearing on the development of the denominations.

I have put a diagram on the Fiqh page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh) of the relationship between the different early scholars but it may be a bit complex for the Islam page. But it shows that all these early scholars worked together and the chains of hadith naration also follow these lines.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC) --Johnleeds1 (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

At first glance, your proposals for the history section as well as that diagram look quite impressive in my opinion. I do wish there would be more editors on the talk page to share their opinion on this. Let us keep in mind that according to the link I sent, WP:LENGTH, articles with a length over 100 kb almost certainly need to be divided and this article has grown to 161 KB. My opinion on how to divide the history section is that I agree with how it is at the moment. The current sections are associated time periods like “Abbasid era (750-1258)” while having “Safavids and salafi”, for example, would restrict the topic where it would be difficult to include information like deobandis and barelvis. However, this is certainly worth discussing and I wish the other editors would give their input as well. However, what you just replied is not exactly relevant to what I posted. You did not “only” put links to other articles. What I did remove was for the reasons I mentioned three times already. Again, see WP:QUOTE, WP:NPS. Also, fyi, the protocol is to use indent (this button --> :) when replying on a talk page and to sign your comment (hit this button four times --> ~). Sodicadl (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll make a few comments:

• On the History section in general, I find it too long and out of scope for this article (even prior to Johnleeds1's recent additions). It's more of a history (i.e. a political history) of the Muslim world than a history of Islam. So, to a point, I a agree with Johnleeds1's comment that "I would like to shift the history section more towards the development of the schools of thought and the early books." I think it should focus much more on the doctrinal development of the various strands of Islam.
• But I don't think Johnleeds1's execution of that intent is satisfactory. The political history is being added to, not reduced. Also, I find a lot of the detail added is inappropriate e.g. "Umar improved the administration and built cities like Basra and canal and irrigation networks. To be close to the poor, Umar lived in a simple mud hut without doors and walked the streets every evening."
• Johnleeds1 does have a tendency to use primary sources (Quran and hadith) too much to support interpretative points. Mostly, their use doesn't conform to WP:PRIMARY.

In general, I think the history section needs to be be completely re-written. DeCausa (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Images take up a lot of memory, we could reduce the number of images. We could remove some of the images like the picture of the Tajik family

http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Celebrating_Eid_in_Tajikistan_10-13-2007.jpg/170px-Celebrating_Eid_in_Tajikistan_10-13-2007.jpg

There are 4 pictures of mosques in the Modern times section

May be remove some of the photos of mosques like:

http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/RoxburyMosque2.JPG/180px-RoxburyMosque2.JPG

http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/National_Mosque_KL_2007_pano.jpg/180px-National_Mosque_KL_2007_pano.jpg

I tried to develop the Denominations section and added the links between the different scholars to shift the page away from political history to the scholarly works of these early scholars. The page needs to be shifted towards the books of these early scholars so that people could find out the views of these scholars and do more reasearch. On the diagram I only put the books actually written by these scholars.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's images that are the problem, it's the use of templates (i.e. stuff that's between curly braces like {{this}}). Also, while I haven't personally reviewed your changes, I don't think the focus should be on early books and scholars, though I agree with the statement that it should focus on religious history over political. I'd rather have it talk about theology and ideas and events in terms I can understand than tell me about early scholars and books they wrote. (I'm sure I am missing something and misrepresenting Johnleed's position, so please correct me where I went wrong.)

I agree with what DeCausa said above about Primary vs. Secondary sources. The article should use secondary sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Al Qaeda

How is Al qaeda, a significant militant force and political player who's sole purpose is to advance the cause of Islam, mentioned nowhere on the page? --Jacksoncw (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"advance the cause of Islam" - that's a questionable statement... And Al Qaeda are obviously not as potent as they once were, btw. --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason why all information regarding Al Qaeda was excluded from the article? If not, would anyone be opposed to putting it being included?--Jacksoncw (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

When was it excluded? Please provide diffs. There's a difference to it being "excluded" and no one thinking it's particulaly relevant. It's a little like asking why the Christianity article hasn't got material from Anti-abortion violence or Christian terrorism in it. DeCausa (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's is a stark contrast between not only the number of Christian terrorist acts but also the prevalence from that of Islam. They are certainly few and far between as opposed to Islamic terrorism. However, I'v changed my mind and don't want to put it in the article.--Jacksoncw (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Triming

I just found that there is a huge number of templates on this article that are not been displaced properly because they have exceed the number of templates recommended to be used by an article.I have tried to remove the chart that uses Template:Familytree and recommend that it should be made as a separate template or moved to another relevant article. The article also need a major trim off and the heading "Rightly Guided Caliphs, Umayyad, Abbasid era (632–1258)" should either moved to the relevant section or it should be shortened. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

References blanked?

The references in the article were not showing up, or is it just me? Checking the history of the article, this happened after the Allah template was added. I tried removing that and previewing and the references showed up again. I am not sure it has to do with the number of templates as I tried deleting the other templates and previewing and the problem still remained. Sodicadl (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I had an experience of this. And in my understanding this happens when the templates on a page exceed to a greater number and usually one gets a message
* Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.
as there are alot of templates on this articles and the length of the article is also huge so this is by far the reason for the references to not show up and one might note that it happens only at the bottom of the article making the templates at the end of the page not to be included. So if the templates on the page are reduced i believe the problem can be solved. --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sunni Barelvi

There is no mentioning of Sunni Barelvi Movement in the Article.which is significant movement in the world with in Islam.The picture showing various movements in the article does not show Sunni Barelvi as movement. Shabiha (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of significant movements which weren't mentioned here. My guess is that this is because it's a general article on Islam, so only the most visible differences (Sunni-Shi'a-Ibadhi, fiqh madhahib, etc.) are included, whereas specific articles (Sunni Islam, Shi'a Islam, etc.) will break down the various sub-groupings. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pork

I came to this article to find out why Muslims don't eat pork. I couldn't find anything at all in the article! When I was about to give up, I noticed the Islam and animals link in 'See also', but that too only seems to devote one line to the subject. Am I missing something? The avoidance of pork seems to be a well-known fact about Islam and has been covered recently in the UK news because of the adulteration of supermarket meat products. Should there at least be a paragraph covering the issue? Sionk (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's covered (briefly) in the Etiquette and Diet sub-section of the Law and Jurisprudence section. The Etiquette and Diet sub-section has a "see also" to the main article: Islamic dietary laws which gives the Qu'ranic origin of the prohibition on pork. DeCausa (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, spotted it, thanks :) Sionk (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Diagram of early scholars and their books

I put the diagram of the early scholars and their books back because you could link off it to all the main early scholars and their books. It graphically represents the links between the early teachers and their students and their books and is the foundation to understanding the links between the sects and the chains of narration of the hadiths. Most importantly it shows that the early scholars all worked together but unfortunately these days, their followers do not get on with each other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This diagram is already on the fiqh page. The jurisprudence section like other sections on this page is only supposed to be a summary. On an additional note, it is formatted awkwardly. Sodicadl (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we get some consensus from editors as to whether to keep this diagram or not? I suggest it be removed for the reasons mentioned above. Johnleeds1, again, do not take this personally. Sodicadl (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I gave thirteen days for a reply. I take it no vocal opposing arguments to this. Sodicadl (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I support removing it, not only because it's too detailed for this article but also because the relationships between the named individuals is unclear and confused but also because there is a lack of WP:RS to support it. DeCausa (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I could not reply. I was busy the last few days and did not get a chance to reply. Currently the whole section on Islam in Wikipedia is about politics and the history of the Middle East. It has very little actual content on Islam or the early books about Islam and literature on Islam and the scholars in Islam. It is all about people arguing about the political history of the Middle East, that in many cases has very little to do with the literature on Islam. I put this diagram on to show the readers the early books that were written, when they were written, who they were written by and what they are called. The literature we have about Muhammad (hadith) were also passed down these chains of narration. This diagram is central to understanding the denominations in Islam and the links between the most important early scholars in Islam. I have included references and could easily add more references. No one has said that the links are wrong because these are accepted chains of narration of hadith. These are the links between the teachers and their students in early Islam. It shows the oral transmission of the sayings of Muhammad until they were recorded in the books. I have formatted the diagram so that it fits more easily. If anything this diagram reduces the politics and just shows people that the scholars that the Sunnis and the Shias follow actually worked together. Its a recorded fact in history and there are hundreds of books that show this. So far the whole section on Islam on Wikipedia is just political history of the Middle East. Even the first comment by Post-FA say: "The History section still needs to be shifted a bit more in the direction of religious history away from political history. It also needs to be integrated better internally; some sections do not flow properly" shows this. I have changed the formatting so that it fits better, I could change the formatting further so that it fits better --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear what the diagram is meant to be showing. It is also unclear what the sources are. I notice that it fails to mention Mohammed's clerk Muawiyah. Not at all a neutral POV.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Johnleeds1 had asked me to take a look at the discussion here. I'm trying to understand what exactly is going on with it.

Johnleeds1, can you state a justification for including the diagram in maybe just one or two sentences?

DeCausa, can you envision a way to cite the diagram? I'm asking because I honestly don't know, but you have mentioned reliable sources regarding it. Is it possible to provide sources on diagrams?

Toddy1, is your only issue with the diagram POV issues or is it more? If the POV issues you have raised can be amended, would you still be opposed to including the diagram?

I'm just trying to comprehend it myself. A diagram technically seems like an image and I admit that in all my time on Wikipedia, I've never even reviewed policies regarding that kind of stuff. But I was asked, and I do take an interest in Islam related articles, so I hope my questions could also help sort this out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

@Johnleeds, and all, do you think the diagram could perhaps be the core of a new expansion article? I could see having the diagram in an article called something like Writings of early Islamic scholars and then have a paragraph or two in this article, summarizing the diagram and linking to the new article. Thoughts? ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Toddy1, the diagram is about books and their authurs and their teachers. These scholars are at the core of every denomination in Islam and it shows the links between them. It is not about politics. There are no books written by Muawiyah. Additionally Muawiyah did not establish a school of thought. If you look at the denominations further down in the article these scholars are critical to the denominations and this diagram just puts the links between them in a diagram format. It shows where they sit chronologically. I could change it and add references. Thats no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleeds1 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I could not possibly have guessed that the diagram was about the books and their authors and teachers. Only eight of the many boxes contain the words "wrote" or "book". I have reproduced your most recent draft of the diagram below so that people can see what I mean.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

yes, what do the lines actually mean? I had an exchange with JohnLeeds1 on my talk page on that point a while back and it never became clear except that it was a mixture of relationships as perceived by JohnLeeds1, as far as I could see. (A taught B, B was father of C, C was written about by D). @MezzoMezzo: that's the problem. This appears to be WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTH. The array of connections have been brought together by JohnLeeds1. I doubt whether a diagram such as this could be properly sourced (in Wkipedia terms) as it is inventive. DeCausa (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you just colour code the diagram. Many of the imams on the left are also followed by the Shia in that order. The teachers of Abu Hanifa are also shown, as are his students. So are the teachers and the students of Malik. Looks like a schools of though and their development diagram. --194.176.105.138 (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

During the time of Muhammad there was the Quran. The text in the Quran was witten down and was later compiled into a book form. But muslims also follow the Hadith, which are the sayings of Muhammad. Showing how he acted, prayed and administered the state. These sayings were memorised and orally transmitted down these chains of narration until they were recorded in the Hadith books. Additionally as the state expanded there were legal issues that Muhammad did not encounter, but future jurists encountered. Schools of thought were then set up recorded how these early jurists resolved those issues. I tried to colour code it at first, but as the Imams on the left are also highly regarded by the Sunnis too. There was no such distinction between the Sunnis and the Shias at that time. They all worked together. Scholars like Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr taught both the scholars the Sunnis follow and the Shia follow. Ja'far al-Sadiq was Qasims grandson. The schools of thought are named after five Imams and therefore I just coloured those five boxes light green. There are also other books written by some of the other scholars like Muhammad al-Shaybani but currently there are no wikipedia pages for their books, therefore I did not include those books. I have formatted the diagram better now, so it should look better on the page. There are many more detailed diagrams than this e.g. at http://theislamicevidence.webs.com/ The one I put up is a simplified version --Johnleeds1 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• You say you have "formatted the diagram better now" - I have no idea where that better version is. Please could you add a wikilink to this page to the sandbox you are using to develop the diagram.
• It does not matter whether Wikipedia has an article on a book - if you think the book is significant, put it in.
• I assume that Ali ibn al-Husayn (a.k.a. Zayn al-'Abidin) is mentioned because her is regarded as the sources on the Saḥīfa al-Sadjadiyya. I can understand why Ali ibn Abi Talib is mentioned - he is regarded as the source of Nahj al-Balagha and other books. But there seems no reason to mention Hassan ibn Ali, and the reason for mentioning the rebel Hussein ibn Ali is either political (which you say the diagram is not) or that he was Ali ibn al-Husayn's dad (which seems a poor reason).
• The diagram needs to make clear the connections between people and books. The version below mostly fails as far as common people are concerned (though Imams will no doubt see the connections).
• If you are going to provide colour coding, you need to provide a key to help non-Imams.

--Toddy1 (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It is true that the scholars after whom the names of the schools of thought are based were taught by the same scholars. Everything leads back to Muhammad. But JohnLeeds1 it will be better if you reduce the number of squares and provide a better description. Putting it in a diagramatical form does break the myth that these schools of thought are distinct. As it has been said many times, the islam section should be focused towards the fundamental question like what islam says about why the earth was created, why are humans here, how will humans be judged and how was sharia formulated and why. --194.176.105.138 (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There is published material on these people. There are many books on this by scholars. Mrs Bewley has translated many books from that period, some are on her website [13] and this page [14] from a book that is being published also shows these people. There has been a wikipedia page The Seven Fuqaha of Medina since 2006 listing the seven fuqaha' who were largely responsible for the transmission of knowledge of Madina and Muhammad. Malik ibn Anas who lived during that period and wrote the oldest book in Islam after the Quran also talked about them. These people predate the sects in Islam. If you search on "The Seven Fuqaha' of Madina" there are many books on this . I included people like Aisha on the diagram because many of them were taught by Aisha. Scholars like Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr are also very critical, as much of the knowledge we have about Muhammad in both Sunni and Shia books is narrated from Aisha through Qasim to Abu Hanifa, Malik and Jafar. Aisha and Ali did not write any books them selves. The books about them were written by other authurs, hundreds of years later. I only included the books actually written by these people in their boxes. Therefore I did not put the Hadith books in Muhammad's box, as they were written later. I included Zayd ibn Ali as the Zayids follow him. Zayd ibn Ali did not write any books but he worked with Abu Hanifa that is why the Zayids followed the Hanafi books. Since all these chains go back to muhammad all these sects and schools of thought believe in the same articles of faith and pillars. I could reduce the number of boxes and make it easier to understand. This diagram was in the Law and jurisprudence part of the page. The denominations are distinguished by the jurists they follow. Therefore if the Law and jurisprudence part was just above the denominations, with this diagram in it, it will provide the reader with a better understanding of the denominations too. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If you add Abu Hurairah it should make it comply with POV as he used to live in the mosque in Madina at the time of muhammad and took notes and that is why there are so many hadith narrated through him. --194.176.105.138 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sodicadl why do you object to this diagram. This diagram shows the people behind these schools of thought, fiqh and the denominations. Many of these divisions are about people. The Salafi take the first generation of Muslims as exemplary models. The Sunni follow the books of the four imams Abu Hanifa, Ahmad bin Hanbal, Malik ibn Anas and al-Shafi'i. The various shia branches are distinguished by which brother that branch follows. There are hundreds of books on this and I could add the references. To truely understand these divisions you have to see the links between these people. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The diagram is a lot better now than when we first discussed at the beginning of the month. Maybe in a few weeks time you will have improved it to such an extent, that Wikipedia readers who are not imams will understand what you are getting it. I think you are on the road to doing that - but the diagram has a long way to travel before it is useful. There is of course then the question of what you could do with it on Wikipedia, and the question of whether it is synthesis. Maybe you could write a book and get it published?--Toddy1 (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a useful diagram for showing the early books. Why don't you put it up? It's improved a lot since we started debating. --194.176.105.132 (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

John Leeds asked me to comment on the latest version of the diagram. This is difficult.

• There is a clear need for a diagram that shows the different branches of Islam, and their relationships. That need is met (imperfectly) by File:Islam branches and schools.svg and File:Divisions of Islam.png John's new diagram does not meet that need in its current form.
• I think there is a need for a diagram explaining the less-than-obvious relationship between the "great men" and the books that were attributed to them but not written by them. I had imagined that John's diagram would end up doing this. To some extent it does this, but if this is the intention, it needs simplifying. It contains too many of the intervening steps, so the message is lost on the user.
• John' diagram does show the links between different figures in the development of Islam. If it could be turned into a template, which readers could use to navigate from one article to another, then readers might find it instructive. The diagram really needs to be fitted into an article that discusses the links. I am fairly sure that the top-level article on Islam is not the right place to discuss these links. But if such an article existed, I would have no objection to the template being on the side on the article on Islam.

--Toddy1 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Toddy I tried to divide it up on the sects like you said but the further back you go the closer the scholars worked and the closer their ideas. You find that in Madina their ideas and views were very close. Then as time passes and the further you get from Madina the views and the literature diverges. There has been 1400 years of divergence. Therefore I had to stick to the facts and actual scholars and their actual books written by them, rather than fiction. You have to stick to the facts and be honest. These books are a snapshot in time and show the views of the author. All too often other people wrote books hundreds of years later, saying that a scholar hundreds of years earlier had such and such a view. That assumption is not always correct. Therefore I had to put down the scholars, the dates they were born and died, where they taught and what they them selves wrote. One has to stick to the facts and be honest. --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The diagram we are discussing

Muhammad (570–632) taught the Quran and advised his companions `Abd Allah bin Masud (Died 650) taught Ali (607-661) fourth caliph taught Aisha Muhammad's wife and first caliphs daughter taught `Abd Allah ibn `Abbas (618-736) taught Zaid bin Thabit (610-660) taught Umar (579-644) second caliph taught Abu Hurairah (603 – 681) taught Alqama ibn Qays (died 681) taught Hussein ibn Ali (626–680) taught Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr (657-725) taught and raised by Aisha Urwah ibn Zubayr (died 713) taught by Aisha, he then taught Said ibn al-Musayyib (637-715) taught Abdullah ibn Umar (614-693) taught Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr (624-692) taught Ibrahim al-Nakha’i taught Ali ibn al-Husayn Zayn al-Abidin (659–712) taught Hisham ibn Urwah (667-772) taught Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (died 741) taught Salim ibn Abd-Allah ibn Umar taught Hammad bin ibi Sulman taught Muhammad al Baqir (676-733) taught Farwah bint al-Qasim Abu Bakr's great grand daughter Jafar's mother Abu Hanifa (699 — 767) wrote Al Fiqh Al Akbar and Kitab Al-Athar, jurisprudence followed by Sunni, Sufi, Barelvi, Deobandi, Zaidiyyah Shia and originally by the Fatimid and taught Zayd ibn Ali (695-740) Ja'far al-Sadiq (702–765) Ali's and Abu Bakr's great great grand son taught Malik ibn Anas (711 – 795) wrote Muwatta, jurisprudence from early Madina period now followed mostly in Africa and taught Abu Yusuf (729-798) wrote Usul al-fiqh Muhammad al-Shaybani (749–805) Al-Shafi‘i (767—820) wrote Al-Risala (book), jurisprudence Ismail ibn Ibrahim Isma'il ibn Jafar (719-775) Musa al-Kadhim (745-799) Ahmad ibn Hanbal (780—855) wrote Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal for jurisprudence and hadith books Muhammad al-Bukhari (810-870) wrote Sahih al-Bukhari hadith books Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj (815-875) wrote Sahih Muslim hadith books Muhammad ibn `Isa at-Tirmidhi (824-892) wrote Jami` at-Tirmidhi hadith books Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni (864- 941) wrote Kitab al-Kafi hadith book followed by Twelved Shia Ibn Babawayh (923-991) wrote Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih jurisprudence followed by twelver Shia Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari (874–936) wrote Maqālāt al-islāmīyīn, Kitāb al-luma, Kitāb al-ibāna 'an usūl al-diyāna Al-Ghazali (1058–1111) wrote The Niche for Lights, The Incoherence of the Philosophers,The Alchemy of Happiness on Sufism Rumi (1207-1273) wrote Masnavi, Diwan-e Shams-e Tabrizi on Sufism Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (1201-1274) wrote jurisprudence books followed by Ismaili and Twelver Shia KEY: Some Of Muhammad's Companions KEY: Taught in Madina KEY: Taught in Iraq KEY: Worked in Syria KEY: Travelled Extensively Collecting The Sayings Of Muhammad And Wrote Hadith Books KEY: Worked in Iran

Edit request on 9 April 2013

Some Muslim authorities, especially among the Shi'a and Sufis, distinguish between the "greater jihad", which pertains to spiritual self-perfection, and the "lesser jihad", defined as warfare

Sunni claim this aswell, as much as the shia and sunni, check your own sources :) thanks in advance Abouantar (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pol430 talk to me 14:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2013

Hi, this is regarding the main Islam article. I just wanted to bring to your attention the fact that the Arabic translation of 'prophets' (as given in the Prophets section of the article) is wrong, as it gives the Arabic word's singular form. The pluralised form of 'نبي' is in fact 'أنبياء'. You can check this in the Hans Wehr dictionary (p.1105), the Aratools website (http://aratools.com/) as well as google translate. So please change the Arabic text in the aforementioned section to 'أنبياء'. Thank you. Kafir Madrus (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you also provide the English pronunciation of أنبياء, because it's certainly not pronounced nabī (as the article would say if I made the edit). ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, so I would say the correct romanisation would be anbīa or anbīa', with the apostrophe to indication the 'ء', which is pronounced as a glottal stop. Personal I would include the apostrophe, otherwise the word could be أنبيا, but I am not sure if wikipedia has some sort of standardised way in which romanisation of Arabic is done. Hope this helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kafir Madrus (talk • contribs) 21:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done: assuming good-faith as I am not familiar with the Arabic language. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Rigorous?

There's nothing rigorous in religion, certainly not the Abrahamic ones. Suggest text in the "God" § be redacted to "rigid monotheism". Rigour is a property of modern intellectual sectors such as mathematical rigour Still think this is wrong/misleading but per edit I just made to rigor this would be valid in the sense of "hard" which is not what "rigor" in works of the mind means in a modern context. It would be inconsistent not to support the usage that doesn't fit there here where it does. "Exacting" or the like would obviate the equivocation. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It's you who is mistaken, in particular assertion is not refutation. Suggest as you do not appear to be a native speaker of English that you defer to those who are on matters of English usage. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I read you post on Talk:Rigour. This made it clear that you had no idea about religion in the real-life world. You could only understand it in the context of the film Star Wars.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th edition, pub Oxford University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-19-860572-2 page 1233:

• Rigourous (1) extremely thorough, exhaustive, or accurate. (2) (of a rule, system, etc.) strictly applied or adhered to > adhering strictly to a belief, opinion, or system (3) (of weather) harsh.
• Rigorism extreme strictness in interpreting a law or principle > The Roman Catholic Church doctrine that in doubtful cases of conscience the strict course is always to be followed.

--Toddy1 (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Islam template

Is there a reason why the Islam Template is not collapsed by default? Otr500 (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of the "An overview of the major schools and branches of Islam" diagram

An editor has removed the "An overview of the major schools and branches of Islam" diagram today.[15] Please can we have a discussion of whether it should be deleted or whether it should stay. This diagram replaced an earlier one "Some of the major movements in Islam".

An overview of the major schools and branches of Islam.

Some of the major movements in Islam.

The diagram is very imperfect in that it does not mention two of the Islamic sects commonly mentioned in the press: the Salafists and the Wahhabis. In that respect the older one is better. However the older one does not mention the Twelvers, who are so often promoted on Wikipedia, almost as if they were the only Shias.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Reason

There are 3 reasons why i reverted Adjwilley. Firstly the MOS was wrong, at 530 px the image took up the entire screen. Secondly, i removed original research from the first paragraph. Thirdly the second part i removed i moved to the Zaydi article, so i see no reason to have duplicate information accross two articles. Pass a Method talk 20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Responding to your concerns: The reason the images are large (they take up less than half a screen on my laptop) is so that the text in the images is readable. Make them too small and the major branches/schools image becomes useless. There are other more elegant ways to adjust image size than forcing a certain number of pixels, so we can work on that. On your concern about the original research, could you please specify what precisely is original research? If you're talking about the paragraphs that have the Quaran quote, you'll notice that the quote is to illustrate a point, but the bulk of the material (eg. Sunnis accepting the first four caliphs after Muhammad) is supported by the Oxford Islamic Studies Online source. Lastly, on having duplicate information across several articles, I would point you to WP:Wikipedia is not paper. We don't have to worry about saving paper, and it's ok to have some of the same information in multiple articles, especially if it's a brief and relevant overview of some of the larger branches of Islam like the paragraphs you blanked. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not remove the part about the four caliphs. Its still there. As for adding content about all the sub-groups, that would be a counterproductive thing to do, because if we devote time to Shia subgroups, we're gonna have hanafis demanding their subgroups covered, then Ahle Quran to have theirs covered, then all the Sufis have theirs covered and it would simply be a mess. Pass a Method talk 21:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, that sounds like something I would say :-) In this case, however, we're talking about the two largest subgroups of Shi'a (the second largest branch of Islam). Comparing that to Sufis (many of whom identify as either Shi'a or Sunni) isn't really fair. Anyway, here's what I'd like to do. My main concerns here are preserving the cited and relevant information and making sure the picture is readable (which it is currently not on my screen). For the picture, I suggest we experiment and make use of the Upright=1.x option, which should make it bigger, but not make it take up all of your screen. On the Sunni paragraph I'd like to add back the bit about the caliphs being elected, which was cited to a secondary source, but leave out the Quaran quote. On the Shi'a section, I'd like to add back some of the information in the paragraphs on Twelver and Zaydis, condensing the Twelver information to one paragraph instead of two. How does this sound to you? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine with the pic, i'm cool. I dont mind adding back the Sunni bit wthout the original research. Regarding the Shia, i dont mind it condensed, but i hope you remember that there are other Shia groups which have more historical significance than Twelvers such as Ismailis who had the Fatimids. Also there are some diacletical groups with much historical significance such as the Mu'tazilites. Lets work it out as we go along. Pass a Method talk 07:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

But please remember that size is not necessarily a determining factor. WP:WEIGHT says that viewpoints are featured "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Pass a Method talk 09:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, i dont see why you feel the need to be so repetitive. The sentence you want to re-add is also in the Shia section. Pass a Method talk 09:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I enlarged the images to where the captions are readable on my screen. I used the Upright command. The 3.0 can be changed (eg. 2.5, 1.5, etc) to make the images larger or smaller. If you wanna check and make sure that they're not taking up your whole screen again that would be great. I'm no expert on images. I'll get to the other stuff in a bit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Military

The following section states women, children and civilians but the reference only says women and children. "In Islam there is also no compulsion in religion, as stated in surah Al-Baqara 256 in the Quran[110][111] and there are clear limits imposed, for example, in war Muhammed prohibited the killing of women, children and civilians.[112]" Please add additional references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.242.232 (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Heading image change (suggestion)

I suggest that the article main image at the top is changed to this image, the featured image of this topic.

Perhaps it would be better to change it to this image, which is much more suitable to the article scope as it is a much better visual renedition of what the caption says the purpose of the picture is.

I would suggest this be done quickly as the current image is useless as a visualisation of the article subject and is clearly VERY low-quality. This would definitely lower the aesthetic of the actual article.

--Zkrjebril92 (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)