Talk:Islam

Forced Conversion Since most of the growth of islam is due to forced conversion, weshould have a section discussing this, both historically and in the C21.

Template:Vital article

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

An angel presenting Mohammed (upper left) and his companions with a miniature city. In the Topkapi Palace Library, Istanbul.

The following image has severe copyright problems. This image is in the public domain because its copyright has expired. This applies only to Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years. But it does not applies to countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus more then 70 years. Some of these countries are:

• Ivory coast
• Columbia
• St. Vincent and the Grenadines
• Mexico

The author is also not known and the image is copied from a site www.zombietimes.com. Hence, we can't afford such an image whose copyright is disputed on this extremely important and vital article.Septate (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't insult our intelligence by raising a copyright argument against a historical image, Septate.—Kww(talk) 13:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not insulted so called your intelligence, because I am also a part of wikipedia community. Its right that I have a particular bias for this image but that does not mean that I am making pointless argument. Just click on image and read its licensing status. You will get the answer.Septate (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your argument is pointless. Images from the 14th century are not copyrighted in the United States. Only US copyright law applies to Wikipedia, as that is where the servers are located.—Kww(talk) 17:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Septate, Kww is of course right. But even if he weren't the copyright term for Ivory Coast is life + 99 years; for Colombia is life + 80; for St Vincent is life + 75; for Mexico is life +100. The valid copyright certificate on the image states "This work is in the public domain in the United States, and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less." A 14th century image is not an issue in any of those countries, even if it were the case that the law of Florida didn't govern this, which it does. Your deceptive editing has just got you blocked: I assume this is one of your all too obvious tricks rather than an honest mistake. DeCausa (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why this picture was made or funded by the Ottomans, this painting represents an event that never happened, no Angel came to the Prophet Muhammad with a city. If this painting is to be utilized then put it up on the page of the Ottoman Empire...this painting has nothing to do with Islam in any way...its not a dome...note a verse...not a mosque...not a page...not a map...its place in Islamic Art would even be controversial...using this picture to represent Islam is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.119.118 (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Missing Denomination

Under the "Denominations" sections there should be a 4th section about the "Ibadi" denomination and a link to its page on Wikipedia.

While Ibadi appears to be the smallest denomination, it is a distinct 4th denomination (perhaps there are more) and should be here for completeness. It can be seen on the denomination demographics map to the right of the section, but there is no text, nor is there an appropriate link.

(This article appears to be locked from editing; if it weren't I would simply add it myself.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.198.8 (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The Ibadi are mentioned in the "Other denominations" section of the article, with a link to the article on them. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

An adherent of Islam is called a Muslim. THAT is not right!

Not every adherent of Islam calls himself a Muslim. A Muslim follow the 5 pillars of Islam. Some groups and mystical branches of Islam reject these externals. They refer to themselves not as Muslims even though they are Islam belonging. Also look the mystical definition of Muslim and Muumin. An example of a group who belongs to islam but dont call themself muslim are the minority of Alevis living mainly in Turkey. Sorry for my bad english. --2.244.185.238 (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Wikipedia sticks with academic sources, which usually refer to mystical groups by their parent religion's name, barring some radical difference and seperation. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

"Fastest growing religion"

The lede had previously maintained for a good while that Islam was 'arguably' the fastest growing religion in the world. It was recently edited to read that Islam is "the fastest growing religion in the world". I had reverted it back, but it was changed again saying that some source calls it such. One of the sources actually say that Bahai are the world's fastest growing religion. Ideally, a source concerning demographics like the report from Pew Research should be used. But no credible source meant fastest growing religion, rather if anything they meant fastest growing 'major' religion since nobody has info on every random little religion. "Arguably fastest growing major religion" is most objective. Little disappointed that statement was allowed for so long. Sodicadl (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe it states fastest growing major religion, I am not sure of numbers for Bahai but I wouldn't think they are a major religion, than again not sure what constitutes that I assume major world influence and numbers so for that reason I suppose you could argue Islam has been the fastest growing Major religion in the past X years — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.172.92 (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The claim that "Islam is the fastest growing major religion" should either be removed or should be provided with accurate sources. The sources that are included currently hardly back up this claim. The first source, an article on Foreign Policy is not accessible, the user must pay to be able to read it. eventually I was able to get ahold of it and the article does not prove sources to back up it's data. The second source, on PBS, seems to me like an propaganda article, with just like the first no sources to back up their figures. The last source, an article on the US News website written by Thomas W. Lippman, was written in April 7, 2008, This source is far to outdated and the claims made in this article are not backed by sources but are merely his own personal opinion. The sources provided do not suffice and should be removed, this is very sloppy. People should cite accurate sources like The CIA World Factbook for instance. Tamazgha12 (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Topkapi image

Note: Islam does not officially recognize any images of the Prophet Muhammad, or any other prophet, it does not officially recognize any images of Angels, it does not officially recognize any images of Satan...therefore wikipedia should remove all images that do not come up to Islam's standards...furthermore any obscure painting made anywhere in the world that depicts the Prophet Muhammad or Angels or even Satan should not be recognized as official by anyone182.182.99.129 (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia content may describe but isn't dictated by religious ideology. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This has been discussed over and over and over. Wikipedia is not an Islamic encyclopedia. Should we tell readers to not eat red meat on Fridays, or to not eat beef ever, or to not worship anything? No, because this encyclopedia merely presents information instead of telling people what religion to follow. If someone is too much of a bigoted fanatic to deal with that, whatever their beliefs are, they don't have to visit this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Who ever said anything about Wikipedia being an Islamic encyclopedia...I only said that any image made anywhere in the Muslim World depicting the Prophet Muhammad or Angels should not be treated as official by anyone. I believe it is a duty to be neutral and fair about Islam, instead of advocating the rights of some obscure Topkapi paintings and the so-called last "Ottoman Caliph of Islam"...great injustice is being done and many issues that are not related with Islam are being promoted in an unfair manner.182.182.70.7 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

And who died and made you caliph? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson what dont you understand go to a nearby mosque meet Muslims talk to their leaders they will tell you that images of the Prophet Muhammad and some Angel giving him a city is nowhere to be found in "Islam" at all and are imagination of some deluded artists living centuries ago, their paintings mean nothing to contemporary Muslims at all.182.182.93.247 (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

So we should only portray a historical institution as its youngest adherents? 1400 years of tradition should be excluded in the face of what only modern persons believe? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson if u are goin to put in an unfounded unknown picture of the Prophet Muhammad in thi article then you'd better put the old Gospel of Barnabas's picture in the Wikipedia's Christianity page because that too is unfounded and unknown to Christians...are we even now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.0.196 (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If you think this is about getting even, you should leave, per WP:BATTLEGROUND. The Gospel of Barnabas was known to Christians for centuries, as well as atheist, Jewish, and others, and all honest scholars of any religion will tell you that it borrows language from Dante, indicating that it was written after the fourteenth century -- well too late for anyone to honestly regard it as legitimate. Only someone lying for his own gain would claim that it's legitimate. If you had tried to argue that the Book of Enoch should be mentioned in the Christianity article, I wouldn't have a problem with that since it is accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. The Gospel of Barnabas was never accepted by any group Christians, while the picture of Muhammad was accepted by (at a minimum) medieval Persian and renaissance Ottoman Muslims. Do you know which Caliphate was one of the largest, the second longest lasting, and one of the most influential? The Ottomans. Whether or not any thinks they were legitimate or illegitimate doesn't matter -- they are one of the most noteworthy cultures to identify as Islamic. To not include anything of theirs would be like not including anything Roman Catholic in the Christianity article, or not including anything Tibetan in the Buddhism article, or not include anything Indian in the Hinduism article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR version of the above - Apples and oranges >:D.--Somchai Sun (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk about Islam leave the strange picture of the prophet and forget the Ottoman Caliph...talk about Islam and how it is and how it has been in the last 1400 years...Ian.thomson...don't do injustice here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.119.118 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here for information purposes and not to make the reader follow islamic ideology. Tamazgha12 (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Criticism???

What does the situation of Muslim immigrants in Europe or the West have anything to do with Islam itself.182.182.70.7 (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Images of the Prophet

Do a study or follow the Pew Research Forum, hold a referendum...you will know that a vast majority of Muslims do not recognize the image of the the Prophet Muhammad or any Angels...furthermore its a contentious issue and such images should be discussed in a separate article where images of the Prophet Muhammad and even statues such as the one in the U.S. supreme court can be mentioned.

It should be very clear that all Muslims do not use images of Angles or that of the Prophet Muhammad in their mosques or places of worship, such images are nowhere to be seen in the Muslim World. Therefore the editors of the article Islam should have a contemporary approach not the one promoting conflicts about some obscure paintings made centuries ago in the Muslim World that have no real importance or recognition by Muslims today.182.182.93.247 (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

See previous discussions on this. Personally, and along with the beliefs of much of the community here at large, the images do have value here on this encyclopedia, and we do not pander to one particular set of beliefs. A Muslims opinion on these images is no less or more valid than a non-Muslims view. Furthermore, Wikipedia or its editors are not promoting conflict. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

182, there is such an article, Depictions of Muhammad. It mentions the U.S. supreme court, as well as pictures used by muslims today (Iran). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It is against the islamic rules to draw the pic of Hazrat Muhammad(S.A.W.) and of Angels. There is no any picture available in Quran or in valid Hadith books. To draw pics is forbidden in islam. If someone have make pic that is fake. It is right of each person to protect his religious belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awais ali1 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Caliph talk

If you want to discuss Caliphs in this article then you will have to discuss Sultans and Khans. If any image is to replace that of the so-called "Last Ottoman Caliph" it should be a calligraphic representation of Ali ibn Abi Talib.

Mansa's, Amir's, Agha's should also be mentioned.182.182.70.7 (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Comparing the quality of the current version with the former FA version

Few years ago, this article was a Featured one. Please compare the current version with this one. In some cases this article has improved but not in every cases. --Seyyed(t-c) 20:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand FAs had a lower standard then compared to now. On the other hand, the article then was a concise clearly expressed piece of encyclopedic text. Now, as the "Encyclypedia that everyone can edit", it's full of cluttered crap that's been added by every idiot with a bee in his/her bonnet that's tenacious enough to ensure their garbage gets in to the article. Wikipedia has, as we all know, problems and faults but this to my mind is the really big one. That 2008 article could have been better - it certainly isn't the epitome of what it could have been. But too often here you see articles written by a group of well-qualified well-read editors taken to an excellent level then gradually it gets turned into crap by clueless idiots who can barely write English. It really makes you want to give up and take up trainspotting instead. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I do not mean that version is better from every aspect. But, we can compare the versions and improve this one, --Seyyed(t-c) 01:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014

90.201.45.229 (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC) best religion and the truth.

Closed request: No clear change to article requested. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Remove the images of all personalities of Islam

Kindly remove the images of all personalities of Islam, especially of Prophet pbuh and Angel Jibrael. This thing is not known to the general public but if this matter went into the media and newspapers and the general public came to know of it, Wikipedia could seriously get banned in the majority of Muslim nations. So please remove the pictures before the damage is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.110.70.248 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Kindly read all the above threads that demonstrated that Wikipedia is not censored. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please remove the images of Islamic personalities as it is against islamic religious beliefs.-- Awais ali1 (talk)

No. Wikipedia is not censored. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Very good article everyone, read through entire thing for first time. Well done to all editors who contributed. I think there's a few very tiny tweaks that may be needed:

1. Does the "s" belong after Aisha’s name here?

• "…Aisha raised and taught her nephew Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr the grandson of Abu Bakr and the grandfather of Ja'far al-Sadiq. Aishas also taught her nephew Urwah ibn Zubayr…"

2. Should a space (_) go between the “works,” and “terrorists” here?

• "…Jihad is the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law and may be declared against illegal works,terrorists, criminal groups, rebels, apostates, and leaders or states who oppress Muslims…"

3. In sentence below, should it read “non” believer?

4. Also, should a space (_) go between the words “Islam.” and “The”?

5. Also, does “the” belong before “Islam”? Shouldn't it read "combatants who insulted Islam?

• "….jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against none believer/non-Muslim/Muslim combatants who insulted the Islam.The ultimate purpose…"

As said, they're only small tweaks 86.27.191.102 (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh my God, thank you! We usually don't get plainly stated requests for actual changes with good reasons behind them. I've carried out those fixes. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Expand v conquest

I altered the text to refer to the Caliphate's expansion as conquest, and had the edits reverted as being NPOV. No - if a large army turns up and imposes a new political rule on my country, I have been conquered. That's what the Caliphate did; the fact that it's embarrassing to Muslims makes the reversion suspicious. Let's not mince words here. Expand covers everything from the EU's expansion to include 28 countries from its original 6 by voluntary agreement through to military conquest. 'Conquest' removes that ambiguity. It was achieved by military might; let's use words accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender's Shadow Snr (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral regarding this matter, but you edits are absolutely POV.Septate (talk) 06:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Muslim conquests? To try and deny Islam was not often spread by bloodshed is absurd - just as absurd as suggesting Christianity wasn't either. Stop taking history personally. Somchai Sun (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. "expand" is a POV euphemism and "conquest" should be used. DeCausa (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

User Septate

A specific problem among others from Septate's edits that I would like to bring up is the issue of "fastest growing religion" in the lede. The long held consensus was to say "arguably" fastest growing major religion till it was changed recently. As already explained in a talk page section above, one of the sources cited to say Islam is the fastest growing religion actually says that the Bahá'í Faith is the fastest growing faith, so I removed it for being irrelevant. Septate keeps reverting the edits but it would be helpful if the user would explain on the talk page what the user is thinking. Septate claimed in the edit summary "Islam is the fastest growing major religion and bahai faith is fastest growing minor religion" but the user should understand we should not just have to take his system of classification. Even the source that he keeps restoring calls Bahai the fastest growing "major" religion. Sodicadl (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

'Arguably' was not removed recently, in fact it was added recently by you. Furthermore all sources except one state that Islam is the fastest growing major religion. Bahai faith may be growing with respect to percentage but Islam is growing with respect to both percentage and absolute population growth. Hence, Islam is the fastest growing religion in absolute numbers.Septate (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The history page is available for you to check. "Arguably" was maintained for a decent time, then changed to 'one of the fastest growing', which is fine as it is saying the same thing. It was changed in March this year to "fastest growing". You are repeatedly not addressing what I point out, which is frustrating. You said "you can't just remove the source to support your claim." As explained above, the source I removed was against your claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion. "All sources except one" which is another reason it is arguable. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, as you surely know, not Septate's judgement how to weigh absolute growth versus proportionate growth. I hope you make my effort to write this worth it by addressing what I say. Sodicadl (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles surah

Why not made the articles surah Al-Qur'an? Irvanputrautama (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The article Sura deals with the individual chapters, while the article Quran deals with the whole book, and this article deals with the religion of Islam.

We write articles according to secondary sources, which would be academic discussion about primary sources. In other words, the article about the Quran cites scholarly books about the Quran. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Region's pro Ismam / Region's Now - Islam

Region <Bruxelles-Brabant> not heard of Wallonia but to Flandre. (or, move it to the real topic: Flandria, Belgium, Brussels, Wallonia Islamism, anti-Islamism, Arabism / Anti - Arabism, fascism / anti - fascism, racism / anti - racism) Iederzujnhui (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Think they're asking for a link change...not sure...--Somchai Sun (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

None of the relevant words seem to be present. He's also posted pretty much this thing at Talk:Quran. Maybe he's trying to do some sort of search indexing? I've seen that sort of text show up on sites that rely on posting the dictionary to turn up in search results. WP:CIR block, maybe? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia PROMOTING the Caliphate issue

The page on Islam has repugnant pictures of Angels and Ottoman Sultans who claimed to be Caliphs...perhaps in the future Wikipedia will post pictures of the ISIS leader and promote more extremism...shame on you people182.182.58.247 (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Your accusations are unfounded. Somchai Sun (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Accusations are unfounded to the point where I'm tempted to just blank the conversation under WP:DENY. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2014

The definition given in the first paragraph of Islam is not accurate, and reflects only the opinion of Muslims, while ignoring the opinion of secular Muslims, and secular scholars of Islam. a paragraph needs to be added to describe the position of secular scholars. it should state:

"From a secular point of view, Islam is a monotheistic religion dedicated to the worship "Allah", a Pagan Arabic diety. Allah was the name of the moon (the crescent) which was worshipped as a diety in Arabia for hundreds of years prior to Islam. Subsequently, the title "Allah" was used for the star, the planet Venus, the morning star. In Islamic theology, the star had supremacy over the crescent. This is the origin of the crescent with a star on top of it, depicted on most flags of Islamic states. This concept of worshipping the one and only God, Allah, the planet Venus, is extensively asserted in the writings of the early Muslims. The idea of Allah as an invisible God, which is not a star, is later development. This concept was borrowed during the Ummayad era from Christians and Jews in Greater Syria. This concept was never present in the original thought of earlier Muslims."

Source: Islam in the light of History, 1st edition, 2004. http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Light-History-Rafat-Amari/dp/0976502402/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405708003&sr=8-1&keywords=islam+in+the+light+of+history

Ahmadabdalmaseeh (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done The book you're citing is Christian fundamentalist propaganda, not what "secular Muslims" believe, or even any academic believes. It's not even common Christian doctrine, as even the Catholic Church acknowledges that they and Islam share the same deity. It's also not Muslim doctrine either. More to the point, this site sticks with secular academia, which holds that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same deity, and that Allah and Elohim both derive from the proto-Semitic *Ilu-. No one is going to carry out your request. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)