Talk:Hispanic and Latino American Muslims

Factors for conversion

"Factors for Conversion" is unnecessary and POV, removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.252.114 (talk • contribs)

A response

It is from another Wikipedia article, which attributes it to an unnamed scholar. If it is indeed from a scholarly publication, then it is not POV and ought to remain. For now, the removal drastically reduces the content of the article, so I will restore it until we can get more properly-sourced info.--Rockero 15:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberation theology

An interesting idea would be to examine whether liberation theology has played a role in the growth of Islam among Hispanics and Latinos. It could be argued that liberation theology in its more radical and unusual forms can be somewhat similar to Muslim views of Jesus, where Jesus is no longer presented as the one Lord and Saviour, but is instead transformed into a kind of socio-political liberator, just merely a prophet among others who is no longer considered to be God. ADM (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Islamic belief

This article does not include acceptance of Islamic theology as a basis for conversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.145.125 (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Misc. Criticism

And the point of this article is...?

You could just as easily write one line in the Latino article saying "there are muslim latinos." The only reason I can think of to dedicate an entire thread to the existance of a negligable group such as this would be islamic proselytism - which is clearly what is happening here.

Citing (defunct) islamic *missionary* groups like LADO only to remind readers that they "exist" serves little no other purpose than advertisement.

And seriously is there any real reason to go into such depth to report a minority within a minority? Do latino-muslims matter? Are they facing some kind of noteworthy persecution? Do they have a notably different culture worth reporting? Are their numbers large enough to be considered consequential by anyone other than islamic missionaries?

Nothing in this article even begins to suggest that is the case. There is nothing here to talk about. Why not have separate articles on "latino-buddhists" "latino-sikhs" "latino-scientologists" "latino-Stargate SG-1 fans" I'm adding a VFD --67.163.191.97 13:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A response

Just because Christian Spain and Portugal have had a bitter relationship with the Muslim Moor invaders during the 15th century (Reconquest) and that their people are taught to be anti-Muslims ever since, doesn't necessarily mean all Latinos are ignorant of Islam and think that embrace the religion is bad. So what if they're Latinos and practise Islam? Islam is a religion, not a race. There's no Spanish Inquisition now and its not that all of them are bad. So, Latino Muslims deserve to be recognised.--209.103.213.254 16:44, June 9, 2009 (UTC)

This article lies

What the hell is this article about?

"Latino Muslims are Latinos whose religion is Islam. Latino Muslims are also known as Hispanic Muslims. Latino Muslims have a long history in Spain[1]. Islam was first introduced to Latinos by the Moors."

This is false, it's trash. First of all "Hispanic" and "Latino" are not synonym words, so you should explain that this stupid misunderstanding just applies in the United States.

After this, "Latino Muslims have a long history in Spain". Just LOL. First of all, the ones in Spain were never called "Latino Muslims" (and no, they didn't dance reagetón). If you want, they were Hispanic Muslims, because they were in Hispania, but not, in any case, Latino Muslims.

In addition, these muslims from Spain were kicked more than 500 years ago, and the "Latino muslims" that nowadays claim to be their heirs have nothing to do with them.

"Islam was first introduced to Latinos by the Moors". Yeah sure, 1200 years ago Spain was full of "Latinos", and "Mexican-Americans", and "Chicanos", and they were eating tacos and drinking tequila when the muslims came and converted them to the Islam.

What's all this trash about, seriously? There were muslims in Spain, but they were kicked 500 years ago. The Spanish-speaking people that nowadays are Muslims, are just like those blacks from the US, that have recently converted to Islam as a personal choice, not because they have any muslim ancester nor any tradition in their family of being muslim.

And LATINO is a contraction of LATINOAMERICANO!! Therefore in Spain there are no LATINOS, but Spaniards or Hispanics (inhabitants of Hispania). Stop spreading the ignorance in the Wikipedia please. Onofre Bouvila 17:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this article REALLY necessary?

Muslim Latinos are estimsted at most 200k of 50 million (0.4% of the community, less than 0.1% of US).

'Historical links' are a red herring. I've seen estimates of 2% north African DNA in Spain. Most American Hispanics are not fully Spanish, so their level of Arab DNA on average would be negligible. Spanish identity in its moderm form came from defeating the Moors. By the way - not all Muslims are Arabs, not all Arabs are Muslim.

There is not even an article for Catholic Hispanics or White Atheists. Those groups are far more of note to an encyclopedia. Indiasummer95 (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Responses

There are articles such as History of the Jews in Latin America and Christianity among Hispanic and Latino Americans. They should be kept as is rather than merged on Wikipedia. There is enough detail. The information is enough to standalone. --LatinoMuslim 14:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a significant confluence of three notable subjects. The article needs more sources, but the subject itself is notable. an article on catholic hispanic americans would likely be too redundant to hispanic americans, but if any articles like that are missing, they could be written as well. I dont see how we could write an article on white atheists in the US.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Latin Americans vs Latino Americans?

I don't think that Latino Americans and Latin Americans are synonymous. Currently, the article begins with "Latino Muslims are Latin Americans whose religion is Islam." --JuanMuslim ^1m 15:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed

Latin Americans would be someone from Central/South America, if you are Latino and convert to Islam it makes you a "Latino Muslim" not a "Latin American Muslim". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.103.213.254 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But wait...

Is this article based on Latino converts to Islam? Several countries in Latin America have a sizeable arabic minority (Lebanese, Syrian and Moroccan). Thre are indeed mosques in the old countries. Maybe a mention of this could be made? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.62.132.173 (talk) 05:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

This type of information should go with the article Latin American Muslims.--LatinoMuslim 15:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Point of view issue

This is nothing but a piece of writing made to impose a generalised point of view and a highly misleading article at best. The author violates the naming policies of wikipedia by using an arbitrary term to refer to people. I changed all the "Latino" mentions to "Latin American" but still the article sounds extremely biased. The author tries to make the reader believe that ALL Latin American people agree to be called "Latinos" which is certainly not the case. Just like Onofre Bouvila points out the article doesn't make it clear that "Latino" doesn't mean "Latin American". The official status of the former is people of Latin American descent living in the US. It is incredible that this article has existed for so long without a serious propose for deletion.--Scandza (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A response

The article on Latino Muslims has been updated to give a clear idea between the differences in terms Latin Americans and Latinos. From the article on Latin America - "For the ethnic group in the United States which consists of people of Latin American origin, see Hispanic and Latino Americans." Therefore, there should be two articles. One about Latino Muslims and another about Latin American Muslims. I have now started the article about Latin American Muslims. Thank you for your recommendations. --LatinoMuslim 14:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes, I just moved the article to "Hispanic and Latino Muslim" since, as far as I know, both terms are officially used.--Scandza (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the main difference between the two terms has to do with the Spanish language and common history to Spain. According to the definition of Hispanic on Wikipedia - "During the modern era, it took on a more limited meaning, relating to the contemporary nation of Spain." Brazilians, for example, are Latinos, but are not Hispanics because they speak Portuguese and relates to Portugal. So, I prefer the term Latino to include people of Latin American descent. And, most Latinos are Hispanics. --LatinoMuslim 00:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Latinos and Moors? What?

The Moors were Berbers who were later Arabized, when the Arabs conquered North Africa and raped everybody. Latinos are a mixed race people from the Americas (Indigenous American, White Spanish, and Black African). Whatever Moorish/Arab heritage they may have would have to be from whichever Spaniards may or may not have had some Arab blood as a result of the Arab conquest of Spain, and it would be extremely watered down today if it survived into the modern Latino population (and it would be almost undetectable in a genetics test).

So, what is this nonsense? This sounds like more pseudo-militant propaganda to gain converts in the Hispanic community and in jails, in the same way that Muslims try to woo African Americans by calling Islam a religion for the black man (even though Muslims established the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, and even though black men are still slaves to this day in some Arab countries).

So, my question is, why does Wikipedia endorse this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hierosolimitanum (talk • contribs) 03:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A response

Wow, thanks for that revisionist lesson in history and hysterics and that misinformation on genetics. What always amazes me when reading these articles, is the refusal of discussants to actually read the article and its references before adding their opinions. To quote from reference #4 The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 83, Issue 6, 725-736, 04 December 2008: "Admixture analysis based on binary and Y-STR haplotypes indicates a high mean proportion of ancestry from North African (10.6%) and Sephardic Jewish (19.8%) sources." The interpretation is that on average, 10% of genes from inhabitants of modern day Spain are North African in origin and another 20% are Sephardic. The WP article author who includes this fact adds their own commentary with the word 'merely'. Of course, anyone familiar with genetics would realize that 10% and 20% are actually quite sizeable and support the contention that modern day inhabitants of Spain continue to have a significant genetic legacy from Sephardic and North African inhabitants of the past... hardly the watered down wishes that Hierosolimitanum attempts to push.Kitkat21 (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Genetic data

After reading the The American Journal of Human Genetics article and the authors' interpretation, I have edited the WP article to cite the appropriate interpretation the authors provide regarding their genetic study. I have quoted them to remove any doubt regarding the appropriate interpretation of 11% North African ancestry. Second, I have removed the tangential/off topic (and unsourced) statements regarding discrimination against Berbers (which I do not deny, but also do not see how it directly relates to the topic that was being discussed) and their ancient Judaic history. I fail to see how the Judaic history of some Berbers has any relevancy to the genetic issue. If you read the scientific article, freely available as a pdf, they identify the genetic ancestry as North African (I have adopted this convention) and there is no discussion of any large scale migration of North Africans back when a significant number of Berbers were Jewish to explain the 11% North African ancestry in modern day inhabitants of Spain. If someone wishes to add this back, they will need a reliable source otherwise these opinions are merely unreliable original research (or more correctly, original opinions). I welcome further discussion. Kitkat21 (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"Eight centuries of war"

"They were expelled by reconquering Catholics of the Peninsula in the 15th century through a process called Reconquista, after eight centuries of war." Really? This is sooo ugly! The Muslims established Al-Andalus (Andalusia) were humanity flourished there! Science! Art! Music!.. "Eight centuries of war"? Give us a break will you? Christian royalties and nobles were ENTRUSTING their DAUGHTERS to live with Muslims Arab families to ATTEND and STUDY in our Islamic UNIVERSITIES back then! "Eight years of war"? Really? This anti-Arab anti-Islam trash, and truth-altering nonsense, just to favor the ‘Western view point of EVERYthing’ we are witnessing here and there, including Wikipedia, is sooooo disgusting! Grow up! WHY OH WHY?.. would you say "Eight years of War"????? Instead of mentioning the truth? That Iberia flourished during the Islamic presence in Hispania?? Where is our ~eye blinding and bright~ GOLDEN AGE when you people WHERE LIVING IN THE "DARK"AGES" and herding pigs in the rest of Europe?? The Reconquista started at the VERY FAR END of that history! Surely, Ferdinand and Isabella didn't live 800 years!! What are they? Vampires?? >:( (This is vomit inducing shit... I wouldn't even touch that article... ). Greetings from Dubai.. to the worthy.. ONLY! Rewayah (talk) 11:47am, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

.. and yes, I AM A Wikipedia heavy visitor, I use it a lot, AND I AM NOT HAPPY WITH WHAT I'VE READ!! Clean your mess! Rewayah (talk) 2:11pm, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposals

Merge with Islam article?

Wouldn't this be better merged into Islam? I can't see the content expanding much more than this.

EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME 23:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Refer to the Latino template. Maybe better merged with an article about Hispanics and Religion. --JuanMuslim ^1m 03:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point to this article, barely any information. I do however agree that it should be/could be inside Hispanics and Religion. ☭ moizkhan 21:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on merging

Discuss: Merge Hispanic and Latino American Muslims to Hispanic and Latino American.18:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Thegreatdoiliu (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly reject - This merger is strongly rejected for all the same reasons that articles such as History of the Jews in Latin America and Christianity among Hispanic and Latino Americans should be kept as is rather than merged on Wikipedia. --LatinoMuslim 14:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Err: what merger proposal are you voting on? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, I think your questions are a little sarcastic, am I right?--Peaceworld 18:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - I really don't see why this needs to be merged. I think there is enough detail. The subject matter itself is relevant enough to standalone and Hispanic and Latino American is long enough. There is no need to make it longer.--Peaceworld 18:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, the current article would be much longer than the current religion section of the Hispanic and Latino American article and therefore give it undue influence. Further, the other article is already quite long as pointed out by Peaceworld. Kitkat21 (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, per the already stated reasons that this article is detailed enough already and would make the religion section of the target, and the target itself, too large. Also, I think it's likely that there's more material that could be added to this article. BTW, I notice that the nominator didn't give a rationale for the merger. SamEV (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is a perfectly good standalone article, would excessively outweigh the whole merge destination, and the originator has given no justification. Can we even keep the proposal open lacking an opening explanation, or is this just wasting time? I'm going to WP:BEBOLD and remove the tag from the articlespace until such time as someone does a proper merge proposal. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Updates I made to LALMA references

I added updates on references related to the LALMA organization. KGodoy (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)