Talk:Islam

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)

i agree with you. the image must be deleted or hided--Sghaier mohamed (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC).

@Sghaier mohamed: See WP:NOTCENSORED. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Golden Age

There is a article in Wikipedia called the Islamic Golden Age which in fact did exist and led directly to the renaissance period, there fore highlighting a paragraph in this article about the Islamic Golden Age is correct.468SM (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

When most people think of the Renaissance they think of Michelangelo's David: A nude sculpture. Very Islamic. The Renaissance came from learned Greeks fleeing Constantinople from Muslims. Please don't edit pseudohistory about your religion '''tAD''' (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, additionally there is zero evidence to support the notion that the "Golden age of Islam" came from Islamic teachings (or directly influenced by such) - they just happened to be Muslims. The Quran is riddled with Scientific errors as we all know. The whole "Golden Age" thing is a complete farce, and the article on the subject (and here) has a very lop-sided PoV already in my mind. But hey, what I would add couldn't exactly be construed as neutral either! --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

A book on pseudohistory. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 04:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Period confusion

Pre-Modern period (1258–1924) has been introduced.468SM (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Titles like "Muhammad" and "Caliphate and civil war" works better in the beginning of Islamic history but after that Islam around the world had very different stories such that having a title to categorize time periods is messy. It could possibly with "modern times" and that is why it was probably there. Since sections have to be made for readability, for the rest of the titles it had been decided to have titular or nominal titles like Abbasid caliphate (750-1258), which actually coincide with the dates given rather than "Classical era". I cannot see what is "classical" about that time and I doubt it is citeable. Sodicadl (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Science section

If the science section has to be in the article, what is the reasoning behind it being under the culture section? I would suggest it be in the jurisprudence section, just like "economy" or "diet" it is about the Islamic attitude towards something, which is about knowledge in this case. Sodicadl (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

Recently, I made this edit adding a section named "Islamic terrorism" to the article. I think the edit summary explained my intentions fairly well, but to expand, a 2012 GA review of this article failed partially because a reviewer felt that GA criteria 3a was not met because "A major issue (Islamic terrorism) has been completely omitted." I agree and feel that a summary-style section linking to Islamic terrorism would be a big improvement to the article; currently, the word "terrorists" is used solely to describe a group one may declare jihad against, and "terrorism" only appears in the title of a reference, although Islamic terrorism is one of many, many links in the "Islam topics" template at the bottom of the page (under the sub-template "Islamic studies"). So I boldly made the changes myself, using Islamic terrorism and Islamophobia as reference points and citing anything I thought might be challenged.

In this revision, Sodicadl moved the section to a "Warfare" section (renamed from "Jihad"), which I would agree is a better way to format the information. The edit summary contained the somewhat begrudging phrase "If this section has to be here", but seemed to at least condone the section.

However, the section was removed by AcidSnow in this edit, with the summary "Things like this need to be taken to the talk page before it's added". This isn't explicit disagreement, but fine — I'm happy to discuss things.

Does anyone disagree with the addition of an Islamic terrorism section? Does anyone disagree specifically with the text in the section I added? Does anyone support the changes I made? Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There have been many attempts to add "terrorism" to the article. However, all of them have failed to reach consensus such as the most recent one. Even now, I am sure many people would disagree for it to be added to the article in the form that you did it in, such as users Ian.thomson, Dougweller, CambridgeBayWeather, and Riversider2008. The current version explains the consent of "jihad" very well though. AcidSnow (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

On the one hand, less than 1% of Muslims can reasonably be called terrorists (WP:UNDUE). On the other hand, Western media pays way too much attention (possibly WP:DUE if wrong). Mentioning the peaceful interpretation of jihad is a nice touch if (if) we're going to discuss terrorism here, but I'm thinking we should probably determine due weight using academic sources focused on the whole of Islam (like some sort of "Encyclopedia of Islam," rather than specific articles such as, say, a journal article about the sociological factors that produce terrorists) rather than journalistic or governmental sources. I'll also note that note that the articles on Buddhism, Christianity, and Communism don't particularly discuss violence associated with those movements, and even the violence implied in Marxism–Leninism could be read as anyone's fault.

It might seem a bit soapbox-y, but I'd be OK with including a bit that discusses how the majority of Muslims are not terrorists despite a heavy focus on Islamic terrorism in western media. I will not push for that, however, and think it'd probably be easiest to just not include anything on it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

But people don't necessarily associate violence with Buddhism or Christianity. Islam is a religion many people associate with terrorism — whether that's the fault of the media, because of prejudices or because Muslims do commit more acts of terrorism than average. I think something discussing at least preconceptions of Islamic violence in the west is needed in the article, but I would try to be careful to avoid sounding like I was violating WP:SOAPBOX — I am well aware that my own opinion on the subject is irrelevant. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 08:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I do think a sentence or two about modern Islamic terrorism/extremism belongs in the article. I would say that the current wave of Islamic terrorism needs to be contextualized as a relatively recent and brief phenomenon (about 1980s to present, compared to the 1400 year history of Islam), so I'd say it belongs in the modern history section.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think that's an interesting place to put it, and contextualization is probably a good thing, since you're right — Islamic terrorism is only a very recent thing in Islam's long history. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 08:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't necessarily object to making another brief mention of Islamic terrorism in the jihad section but in my mind that section should be restricted to more general discussion of beliefs and philosophical issues (violent vs. non-violent jihad; Islamic law regarding non-combatants; Ibn Taymiyya, who's probably as important as Augustine of Hippo to Christianity in the same context). If we're talking about specific groups and attacks, I feel like that's more the historical aspect. How about this for a very rough draft? I just want to fire off some early ideas even if they're not based on a ton of research.

Since the 1980s, a number of groups such as al-Qa'ida have combined violent tactics like suicide attacks and aircraft hijackings with extremist Islamic ideology, resulting in Islamic terrorism. A number of Islamic terrorist attacks have occurred around the globe focusing on issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; American military presence in the Middle East; separatism in Chechnya, Kashmir, and elsewhere; and the desire to create Islamic states.

—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That looks fairly good, actually. Although al-Qa'ida isn't wrong, stylizing as al-Qaeda is probably best as that spelling is the main title of the article. And somehow, in the context of a {{Main}} template or something, I'd like a more prominent link to Islamic terrorism. Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Bump. No-one's posted for a while. I don't want the subject to just trail off — discussion has been neglected ever since the failed GA review and I want to determine some consensus here. Does anyone object to Neil P. Quinn's suggested draft of a historical section discussing Islamic terrorism above? Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2014

كل انسان له خطايا ،البعض منهم يستغفر الله ويرجو المغفرة ويمشي في طريق الصلاح، يتغلب على وساوس الشيطان ، يدعو خالق الكون ان يجعل له مكانا في الجنةوتبكي عيناه من خشية الله لا اله الا هو الحي القيوم الذي لا يموت يحيي ويميت وهو رب العرش العظيم . بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم(( الله لا اله الا هو الحي القيوم لا تأخذه سنة ولا نوم له ما في السموات والارض من ذا الذي يشفع عنده الا باذنه يعلم ما بين ايديهم وما خلفهم ولا يحيطون بشيء من علمه الا بما شاء وسع كرسيه السموات والارض ولا يؤوده حفظهما وهو العلي العظيم)) صدق الله العظيم . والبعض الاخر يتكبر الى ابعد الحدود ويمشي في طريق الشر ويدعو مع الشيطان فحينها يكون ضميره نائم لا نعلم متى يصحو من سباته العميق، فقد تغلب الشيطان عليه وتحجر قلبه ان من يريد المشي الى جانب الشر فقد ظلم نفسه وسيدخل نار جهنم التي وقودها الناس والحجارة ومن يكفر ويدعو مع الله اله اخر فان له عذاب عظيم سيدخل نار جهنم في الحياة الاخرة . واما من يريد ان يصلح حاله برغم انه يمشي في طريق الشر ويريد ان يتغلب على هذا الشر ويتغلب على وساوس الشيطان ويريد طريق الهدى والحق من كل قلبه والله يعلم ما في قلوبنا جميعا، فليتحرك ساكنا ويعمل عملا صالحا يدخل بسببه الى الجنة باذن الله ، والاكثار من الاستغفار والصلاة فالصلاة هي عمود الدين والدين الحق هو الاسلام ، والاسلام يدعو الى الالفة والمحبة وعمل الخير والامر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر .والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته أ_م_ح Every man has his sins, some of them ask forgiveness of God and hopes for forgiveness and walk in the path of righteousness, overcomes the whispers of Satan, calls the creator of the universe that makes him a place in Ganhotbeka his eyes from the fear of God is not God but is the neighborhood Gayoom, who does not die salutes and Yamit, a Lord of the Great Throne. The name of God the Merciful ((God is not God but is the neighborhood Gayoom does not take one year and not sleep him what in the heavens and the earth, Who intercedes for him without his permission knows what is before them and behind them and surround some of his knowledge, but as he wishes extended his chair of the heavens and the earth, nor Aúdh He saved Almighty)) the truth of God Almighty. And others flaunts beyond the border and walk in the way of evil and calls with the devil then the conscience be asleep We do not know when to wake up from a deep slumber, Satan has overcome it and muzzle his heart Who wants to walk to the side of evil, injustice has been the same and will enter hell fire whose fuel is people and stones and atone calls God, the God with him, the last great punishment will enter the fire of hell in the afterlife. But who wants to fit unchanged although he walks in the way of evil and wants to overcome this evil and overcomes the whispers of Satan and wants through the guidance and the right of every heart, and God knows what is in all our hearts, Flethrk finger and runs a good work enters because of it to heaven, God willing, and the multiplication of ask God for forgiveness and pray the prayer is religion and religion the right column is Islam, and Islam calls for harmony, love and charity, and the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice .owalslam and God's mercy and blessings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.201.134 (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is to discuss improvements to the article, not to add random passages of text. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014

There is a missing closing parenthesis under section 3.5 "Pilgrimage," here: "The pilgrimage, called the ḥajj (Arabic: حج‎, has to ..." Please change it to "The pilgrimage, called the ḥajj (Arabic: حج‎), has to ..." Thank you. Honnogakusha (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

For some sects...

Slooppouts34,

• Per WP:LEAD, The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.
• Per MOS:INTRO, The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article...
• Per WP:FRNG, To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.

The notability and significance of people who reject Sunnah is negligible and the minority viewpoint is covered in the body of the article appropriately with a single sentence. The lead should give proper weight and exclude fringe ideas. Can you self revert yourself until consensus can be demonstrated that such a sentence should be included in the lead? --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 04:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "for some sects" should not be included; there are certainly people calling themselves Muslims who will not agree with Sunnah, as there are those who will disagree with just about any definition of Muslim you could try to write, but the number of people is going to be very, very, very small. Islam itself is a summary-style article; the lead is only a brief summary of the article so "for some sects" is IMO a waste of words where things need to be concise. It also violates WP:UNDUE by the implication that large numbers of Muslims reject Sunnah. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 16:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The Quranists are a big enough sect to be notable. You simply just can't have false staements on the lead of the article. If balancing weight is the issue, then balance it by saying that "majority" do follow hadith. But the bottom line is: you can't put inaccurate statement.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• Fauzan's policy references (above) do not support his position. The quotes from WP:LEAD and MOS:INTRO would be reasons not to have a whole sentence on the Quranists in the lead (for instance) but they do not justify incorrectly stating that all Muslims folow hadith. Also WP:FRINGE is not relevant because that is about fringe scholarly views. It is not a fringe scholarly view that Quaranists exist. That is undisputed. My only challenge on Slooppouts34's edit (here) is that simply saying "a majority" suggests that the Quaranists are a larger number than they are, and would prefer something like "vast majority" as more reflective of the position - and have added that qualification. DeCausa (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If that was the case, then all the articles would be have been awash with "most of" or "majority of" in every sentence. Now, any person walking on the street can claim to be a "Muslim", and his way "correct", yet we are not going to include so fringe an idea in the lead, at least. There is always going to be disagreement between people regarding who is a "Muslim", in such a case Wikipedia should parallel the most widespread view, Wikipedia is not a place to establish the truthfulness of any statement. The bottom line is WP:N. Read the first post again. Do the (mainstream) Muslims regard Quranists as Muslim? Are Quranists notable enough? Provide references to WP:RS, do not make unsupported claims.

Regarding consensus, you have to establish consensus to change the lead since there is objection. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 09:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong on two counts. Firstly, in Wikipedia we do not determine who are Muslims by "mainstream" Muslim opinions. It is long-established on numerous articles that it is by self-declaration. For example, the Ahmadiyya are referred to as muslims despite frequent objections of those editing from a mainstream muslim POV. Secondly, many articles do have the "most of" qualification. For example, the second sentence of Muhammad states "Muhammad is almost universally considered by Muslims as the last prophet sent by God to mankind", the "almost" to take account of Ahmadiyya. With regard to policy, as I sated above, you are using the quotes incorrectly. DeCausa (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The lead of Evolution doesn't say Evolution is the (possibly non-existent) change in the inherited phenotypic traits (characteristics) of biological populations over successive generations, which is claimed to occur by scientists (but not all scientists) and disputed by many creationists, and some people other than creationists, although some creationists "believe in" evolution. You can generalise things to concisely represent the vast majority. Something may be notable for its own topic — intelligent design is incredibly notable — but not notable enough to be mentioned in the lead of the main-topic article ("creationism", "intelligent design" etc. do not appear in the lead of evolution). Quranists may deserve their own article, but not be big enough to be discussed in Islam.

Having said that, I know nothing about Quranists: what percentage of Muslims are Quranists / reject hadith? I also don't object to adding "vast majority" (which is currently what's written) or another short phrase that makes it clear that the number of Muslims that follow hadith is far greater than the number who don't. — Bilorv ^(talk)_(contribs) 10:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a false analogy with Evolution. A better comparison is the current , lead in Chistianity: "Most Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God...". Anyway, since you don't object to "vast majority" we are in agreement! DeCausa (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm ok with "vast majority" in the sentence. However, I would like to note that Sunni,Shia and other sects have very different hadiths. (http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/2741/why-do-the-shia-have-different-hadiths)

--Slooppouts34 (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Quran and Sunnah are not the only sources of Islamic teaching. Spiritual leaders or "Imams" have also played a significant role in the history of Islam especially Shia Islam and Sufi Islam. I think we should add this to the lead section as well. (Their teachings are no on par with the Quran though). And also, Quran is considered "revelation from God" not "verbatim word of God".Kiatdd (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Just passing by this talk page, I would like to say that most Muslims believe the Quran is the verbatim word of God. Mbcap (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

the doctrine is called "wahy" which precisely means revelation (see page wahy), it is a well-known doctrine in Islamic theology.Kiatdd (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I have just reverted Slooppouts34's edit. That is too much weight given to an extremely tiny subgroup. Please discuss why you wish to have it included because you have provided no tangible policy based reasons. A search on google scholar, books and news showed this many results for "quranism or quranist";

• Google scholar --- 65 results and google scholar thought I typed it wrong (this reflects on how inconsequential they are) @ http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=quranism+or+quranist&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

         As opposed to 1,940,000 results for search term "islam" @ http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=islam&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

• Google books ----- 388 results @ https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=google+scholar&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=9gmqVKv2O8mQ7Aab4oDoDg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#tbm=bks&q=quranism+or+quranist

         As opposed to 16,800,000 results for search term "islam" @ https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=google&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=SgqqVJGzPOnY7AaVgIHgDg&ved=0CAwQ_AUoAQ#tbm=bks&q=islam

• Google news ------ 54 results @ https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=google+scholar&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=979&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=9gmqVKv2O8mQ7Aab4oDoDg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#tbm=nws&q=quranism+or+quranist

         As opposed to 18,500,000 results for Islam

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

• Google scholar --- 0.002%
• Google books ----- 0.001%
• Google news ------ 0.0003%

The comparison to the christianity page is not suitable for this discussion as nontrinitarians constitute a significant minority which itself consists of numerous different denominations. This is undue weight and also extremely fringe view that is too microscopic to consider. Editors should be reminded WP:FRINGE states; "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is.". By making this edit which I have reverted Slooppouts34, you have given extreme weight to quranist opinion relative to its prominence in reliable sources. Mbcap (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

DeCausa, reiterate and revert. Thanks--Slooppouts34 (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I welcome any policy based objections, otherwise the article stays the way it is. Mbcap (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You've completely misunderstood policy and WP:FRINGE on this. That is all about conflicting scholarly (and not so scholarly) theories on a subject: there was no moon landing, the CIA did 9/11, the earth is flat. This is different. This is describing a religious belief and reporting the facts on what is believed. The only way WP:FRINGE would play here is if scholars disputed whether Quranists exist. WP:FRINGE, in an article about a religion, should concern fringe sources/theories about the religion rather than fringe sects of that religion. Grateful for other inputs. I'v opened a thread at the Fringe noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Islam DeCausa (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Slooppouts34: what are you trying to say? Are you saying that a faction of Muslims do not follow Muhammad? we need more clarification here! Kiatdd (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DeCausa for pointing that out. Yes, WP:FRINGE deos not apply here as it is not a scientific issue but a religious one. Even still due to the absolute insignificance of this group and the very little that is available in the way of sources, would mean it would not merit consideration for the lead per WP:UNDUE. Mbcap (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree they are no way significant enough to be referred to in the lead. The point here is different, however. It is factually incorrect for the lead to say, in effect, all Muslims follow hadith/Sunnah. It's just wrong. It needs to be qualified in some way: just as the lead to Muhammad says that muslims "almost universally" regard him to be the last prophet. It needs the equivalent of "almost all". DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I see what you are saying but it still does not make a difference, because even mentioning, "that almost all muslims follow hadith" would give undue weight to quranists. Mbcap (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if there is one Muslim who identifies himself/herself as Quranist, then stating that "all Muslims follow hadith" becomes false. There are millions of Quranists, and they are heavy suppressed by extremists everywhere (e.g https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/islamofallah/4F86FUk8nhs) just as the case for Ahmadiyya, Bahá'í Faith and many other sects in Islam. I've no problem with supression though, if you believe that should be the case on Wikipedia also--Slooppouts34 (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015

Teaspoon67 (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC) http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/home/ is the new correct link for http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/home/ located in the external lnks section

Done Cannolis (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

where is islamic terrorisim

i believe section for islamic terrorism and/or jihad must be added. kazekagetr 15:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is already a section on Jihad in the article. JZCL 17:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslem

Please change MOSLEM to MUSLIM in the first line — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.94.18 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 12:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Family Life

Under Family Life section, isn't sex with unconsenting female captives, really rape? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.107.150 (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Slavery and genocide

I would like to add the following links

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

Thepigdog (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Slavery in Islam

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

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

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

What stated above is untrue and will mislead readers who are looking for information about Islam. Please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.185.215 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In the quotes above you can see "[112]" and "[113]". Displayed in the article like this: , these are references supporting the statements made. Unless you have reliable sources which say otherwise (and your personal analysis of the Quran doesn't count), the statements support what the sources say and should remain within the article. Not all Muslims agree on... well, just about anything, but Wikipedia reflects what is stated in sources, even if you personally disagree. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 09:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources do not establish significance or weight. I mean which reliable source includes details about slavery in a short summary about "Family Life" in Islam? I'm not aware of any other than this article. Additionally, one of the sources was being misrepresented (Islamqa.com), as it clearly explains at the end that there are "valid reasons" for a slave women to refuse her master's requests. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 19:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Then, why not add more detail from Islamqa.info/. That site has quite a lot of detail on what you can and cannot do with your slave girls; for example: "The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them."[1]-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Women in Islam has its own article, so try not to go into too much detail, but a bit more than just the single sentence there would be fine. I would say that coming under the heading of "Family life" does not make it original research, but have little opinion on whether the contested text should be included or not. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Adding more details would veer into historical and disputed information (not really suitable for a general section on Family life). Nowadays, Muslim countries forbid slavery. Also, the distinct form of slavery allowed in Islam is temporary, limited to wartime and the presence of POWs. It is off topic for normal everyday Family life. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It is? Do you have reliable sources for that? Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not on an editor's opinions.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hazrat Ali had 17 slave girls and Hazrat Umar also had many.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Slooppouts34 (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a wartime practice because its sources were limited to POWs and those born while both their parents are POWs. Here is a quote from a reliable source: "The classical shari'a reduced the means by which one could be lawfully enslaved to just two: birth from two lawfully enslaved parents or capture as a prisoner in a lawful jihad. All other forms of enslavement were abolished."(The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, 2012, p.514). Moreover, most slaves were POWs as "those born into slavery formed a relatively small proportion of the slave population" (Transformation in Slavery, Lovejoy, 2011, p.16)[2]. It was also non-permanent: "Thus the slave in Muslim society was not condemned to live permanently in servitude; he had a chance of obtaining liberty in his life time in an age when the rule was more rigid outside the World of Islam." (Khadduri, War and Peace in Islam, 2010, p.132)[3]. More recent sources suggest that not freeing a slave after the war is over should be considered a later development: "The Qur'an seems to establish a rule that at the time of the revelation only captives taken in a just war could be enslaved. [...] The Qur'an recommends actually freeing the captives after the war is over."(p. 45 onwards, Black Morocco: A History of Slavery, Race, and Islam, Chouki El Hamel, 2012)[4]. Clearly slavery in Islam (at least for the abiding Muslim) is inextricably linked with POWs and war practices.

But I don't see [Toddy1]'s reply on how the Islamqa.com source is being misrepresented? It clearly states that a female slave could have a "valid excuse" for rejecting her master's requests (see last paragraph). Also, your recent addition is not accurate, and suffers from the same problem of citing one-sided or poor quality sources. In fact, a wife can stipulate in her marriage contract that her husband does not marry anyone else: "Granting the wife the right to stipulate that her husband not marry additional wives or take a concubine was a source of great power for the woman. It differed from the historical practice of the husband granting his wife the option of requesting a divorce in such a case, a practice known as tamlik ..." (Wahhabi Islam, Natan J. Delong-Bas, 2004)[5]. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

A few comments:

• IsIslamQA.info a WP:RS? That seems doubtful to me.
• I don't see any grounds for saying this topic should not be under the heading "Family life".
• Nothing Wiqi55 has said justifies removing the topic altogether - only grounds (perhaps) for amending the text. If the sources say there are circmstances when the wife or the concubine can object (I haven't checked) then that should be incorporated - not simply remove the whole thing.
• I fail to see that slavery is only a "wartime practice" is a reason to remove it either. Firstly, there are enough wars around not to make it irrelevant - see Toddy1's addition for instance. Modern slavery is widespread including in Muslim countries, whatever the law of a country formally says. Secondly, it's not just POWs but also those born into slavery to whom this applies. There's a reasonably well-sourced summary here

DeCausa (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be more suitable under "Jihad" or "Warfare". Probably "Family life during wartime". It is not a common practice in Islam today. Those born into slavery were a small proportion only, and usually become free whenever their parents (POWs) become free. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 00:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"Copyvio of <http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/015-slavery.htm> removed by 117.203.124.93 (talk)" --Slooppouts34 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at this page on my watchlist, it is clear that the section on concubines and slavery is being argued over. One editor removes a section, only for another to revert. Please discuss the issue first on the talk page and once consensus is reached then edit the page accordingly. Slooppouts34 you do raise good points but you have to reference reliable sources. Last time I checked wikislam was not a reliable source. I also do not think we should remove the section all together as this issue has been discussed by classical scholars. DeCausa has raised some sensible questions just above this post which once explored may help all those concerned here to move forward. A balance could be reached here and I am going off of what DeCausa has said, that the relevant section could be amended to better reflect reliable sources. I just had an edit conflict when posting this and I see Slooppouts34 that you have quoted a plethora of sources. These constitute primary sources and on wikipedia we try to use secondary sources. Mbcap (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Slooppouts34: that's a weird point of view!, the sources available to me say that Islam (the Islam understood by Muhammad) admonishes slavery. Muhammad freed slaves by various means, he was not rich, a rich person named "abu bakr" ransomed them. Apparently after Muhammad, some people, or Muslims, or whatever you’d like to call them, returned to practicing slavery until slavery was abolished in the 19th century. There was an army of slaves in ottoman army, they were called mamluks.Kiatdd (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, stating that information under #Family Life and linking the two together is definitely OR. Encyclopædia Britannica does not make any mention on slavery in its section on family life. The article is good as it stands. If correct, it may be addressed adequately in the article on slavery, giving proper weight. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 16:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kiatdd: you are quite wrong. See Islamic views on slavery and Muhammad's views on slavery. The Qu'ran and the Sunnah regulated the institution of slavery, but neither prohibited it. DeCausa (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fauzan: Wikipedia is not paper: we can and do go into much more detail than the Encyclopedia Britannica. However, if you still maintain including the information under "Family Life" is original research, then do you have an alternative title (assuming, just for a second, that the information is going to be included)? As a separate point can Islamic views on slavery be linked under the "See also" hatnote if the slavery text is added back? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 17:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

That website is in no way a WP:RS for Islam. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a problem of sources i think. In modern family life slavery has no place, first of all because is illegal in every country of the world. And again, and most important, Islam main page needs to be as representative as possible: is slavery preminent in the islamic families? If yes, show some sources, evidence, etc and we can discuss the fact; if not, slavery topics don't have the reason to be placed in “family life” section. It's simple as that. Even the Bible rule issues about slavery, but nowdays christian and hebrew family don't take slaves in their homes, nor they are allowed to do that by local or international laws. CallAng222 (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Bilorv, The link I provided was to the online Encyclopædia Britannica artice, which is around 30 pages (355 kB). Their section on Family life spans five paragraphs, quite longer than our articles 2 (or 3). If the topic is related, it is expected that the Britannica article mentions it. This was only an example; I am unable to find RS which link the two areas. If the information is anyway going to be included, it can be linked directly in the text rather than using a hatnote. As for another title, I don't have any hybrid in my mind, but again, we need something solid to base such a section on. In the meantime, Islamic views on slavery can be added to #See also. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 18:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, found this, and only this. I am unable to ascertain now whether this is a widespread viewpoint or a fringe one, as this is the only source that talks about it in such a manner. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 18:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? It's covered in many sources including this and the IslamQ&A.Info source already in the article. DeCausa (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is another. DeCausa (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

But the sources are irrelevant as to whether it should be in this section or another section. The organisation of an article does not need to be sourced. That is just editorial judgment. If it were otherwise then we would have to follow the organisational treatment of other encyclopedias. That is patently not the case. There are only two questions that need answering: 1. Do we have reliable sources supporting the proposition that Islam allows a man to have sex with his female slave. The answer is clearly yes, and in fact there is no reliable source that refutes that. 2. Is it related to family life? I can't believe anyone can question that. It relates to who within a man's household he may have sex with. To put it beyond doubt, the source I cited above explicitly says that the slave is considered a member of the family. DeCausa (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa:, actually the npov policy does mention the need to balance our take on a subject based on reliable sources, see WP:BALASPS. Moreover, while Islam allows men and women to own slaves, the only context where this is permissible is wartime, specifically Jihad (just war or holy war - as I quoted above). A short summary on family life is too general for such a specific context. It would also confuse people to use the word "slave" without explaining that Islam actually abolished most forms of slavery, including the most notorious natural slavery. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

BALASPS is a different point: the question is whether it should be under "Family life". The claim is that there is a need for RS to link it to family life which is not a BALASPS issue. As far as BALASPS is concerned this is a matter of Islamic jurisprudence which is often discussed in RS eg as i've cited above. It is a current topic of debate as to whether Islamic State's treatment of women prisoners is permissable under Sharia. Furthermore it is incorrect to say it is "only" permissible in wartime. It may be only permissible to enslave people in wartime, but they may remain slaves after the end of any war and their descendants may remain slaves in perpetuity. Finally, there is no need to qualify ghe word slave. A slave is still a slave even if she is only one ategory if slave. DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BALASPS is exactly the point. If other sources do not mention slavery in a brief description of family life then this is a good indication that we're giving it more weight then necessary, and may end up confusing readers. Also, slaves in Muslim society do not usually remain slaves in perpetuity, as the RS I quoted above explains: "Thus the slave in Muslim society was not condemned to live permanently in servitude; he had a chance of obtaining liberty in his life time ...". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Islam, a slave remains slave, and her new born children remain slaves unless her master, or her new master who bought her/them let her/them go free.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to support your claims by reliable sources, as I did. There were plenty of situations were obligatory manumission happened. And those born into slavery were a "small proportion" anyway. See the quotes above. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 23:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslims are told to live in the way of Muhammad by Sunnah and hadith. Muhammad was a slave owner and trader. Muhammad captured slaves in battle. Muhammad had sex with his slaves (One such example is Maria al-Qibtiyya ). Muhammad instructed his men to do the same as he did regarding female slaves. List of Muhammad's Wives and Concubines: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Muhammads_Wives_and_Concubines The Quran and hadith have many verses that make sure that Muslim men know they can keep female sex slaves: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/015-slavery.htm --Slooppouts34 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is not a reliable source and anyone who thinks so is pushing an Islamophobic agenda or is not competent enough to properly judge sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

And you second source is an open wiki. Have you read WP:RS at all? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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

C'mon, it's ridiculous. What is: Family Life (100yrs ago version)? There is no place in the world where slavery is still legal, so the discussion itself makes no sense. only emphasizing a vision really, really fondamentalistic and minoritary could fit with edit like this. Next stept what will be? We will go in the jewish and christian page writing what jews and christian coul do with slaves? C'mon guys seriously. CallAng222 (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There are places in the world where slavery is still legal. Many of them are poor countries, many Muslim countries and also some rich Arab countries among others. Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (claimed as terrorists by most) captured territories and they allow slavery. See: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/isis-issues-guidelines-for-sex-slavery/--Slooppouts34 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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

No, this article is about a fondamentalist and outdated view of the religion. Like writing in Judaism page that a hebrew have the right to sold his daughterOr in christianity that a christian has the right to beat his slaveIts accetable only following an islamophobic agenda that ignores the fact that muslim families (as for Christians and Hebrews) around the world are not the result of slavery, and that slavery itself is illegal in every country of the world, despite isis, lord liberation army and the mafia. CallAng222 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has thousands of pages dedicated to history; something being "outdated" is not necessarily relevant. Look at the lengthy history section in this very article that no-one seems to be complaining about. Saying that Judaism/Christianity is similar is irrelevant — "they don't do this in that other article" is not a valid argument and in fact, WP does have pages titled Christian views on slavery and Jewish views on slavery. Also, something being illegal is not equivalent to it not existing: I wouldn't imagine anyone here would nominate Illegal drug trade for deletion. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 22:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

-You would be suprised to know in how many Muslim countries slavery still exists. But that has nothing to do here. what you don't understand is that this article is about what is Islam's stance regarding slavery. It's not about what most Muslims choose to do. Most Muslims choose to disregard Islamic banking laws, hijab and many things--Slooppouts34 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Slooppouts34: If Shaykh al-Munajjid (Islamic q&a website) thinks that it is okay to have a slave he should...By Islam I suppose we mean the Islam understood and presented by Muhammad, after all he started off everything...let British broadcasting company glorify Shaykh's viewpoints. I have cited two sources,please review books by Tamara Sonn, Reza Aslan, Karen Armstrong, Angelika Neuwirth, Hussein Nasr, etc, etc and please review the comments by NeilN, Wiqqi, CallAng, Bilorv, DeCausa everyone here is trying to collaborate, you make it very difficult to work on this article.Kiatdd (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

We must be very cautious when we are dealing with online preachers like Shaykh al-Munajjid that are close to extremistic positions. Even if their's point of views are minoritary in muslim world - when not directly illegal, like the slavery thing - they use the web for theirs solitary preaching. This Shaykh in particular expressed appeals to loyalty to Isis, a terrorist organization. So, again, he express extremist point of views that are illegal not only in muslim world, but in every country of the world, and his close to terrorist organization. We must be very cautions about emphasing theirs point of views, because is extremistic, outside the modern muslim world, related to terrorist organization, and illegale in some cases.CallAng222 (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Al-Jazeera with many staff joining from the BBC, declares the cyberShaykh as "one of most respected scholars". Look at his wikipedia page.Kiatdd (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Break

1. Is it verifiable? The Q&A site and BBC say it is, but Kiatdd has sources which say otherwise.
2. Is it related to Family life? Probably yes per DeCausa's sources. However, this may or may not be a mainstream viewpoint. It is however, definitely related to and can be included under Slavery.
3. Is it due weight to present this here? Probably no. Most of sources (like the online Britannica entry I linked about) do not discuss it with family life. It is better to present it under slavery, as Bilorv hinted above.
4. Is it relevant to this era? Might not be, but I think we ought to give weight to it as per RS. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

-The questions were thoroughly answered! move the online preacher's opinion to his own page.Kiatdd (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Ahmadiyya

Ahmadis are Muslims. Pakistan is the only state to have officially declared the Ahmadis to be non-Muslims as they do not regard the Prophet Muhammad to be the final prophet.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I don't understand the problem. Ahmadiyya is listed in the article as a denomination of Islam, under Islam#Other denominations. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 09:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Your edits were reverted. Have you looked at WP:UNDUE? Ahmadiyya, while a branch of Islam, should not be mentioned all over the article - this gives the impression that they are more significant than they are. Any details which are not important enough to be mentioned in Islam (see WP:SUMMARY) should be listed at Ahmadiyya, as details about Pakistan currently are. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 09:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2015

Article states that currently, no government follows Islamic law, as all deal in "usury or government bonds". What is wrong with government bonds? Article seems to equate them with usury ("no risk"). 5.51.49.70 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

See Usury#Islam. Islam forbids charging interest, as did Christianity at the time (and for quite a while after). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Normal Islam and guns

I've heard that normal Muslims aren't allowed to own guns according to their teachings, but I can't find it in this article. Shouldn't it be in there?--98.217.232.155 (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Where have you heard this? I imagine many (most?) Muslims will object to guns, but Wikipedia only accepts information backed up by reliable sources, so everything said in its articles can be proved to be true. Additionally, Wikipedia has a lot of pages (about 7000) relating to Islam — this article has nowhere near enough room to contain all the information on the subject. If there are Islamic rules and teachings about guns, they might be included in another, more specific article on Wikipedia. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c) 18:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

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

False Statement

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

The Qu'ran openly states that Muhammad is the final & last prophet of God. "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Apostle of God, and the Seal of the Prophets: and God has full knowledge of all things. (Qu'ran, 33:40)" Therefore, all Muslims must consider him to be the last prophet, otherwise, they're not Muslims by definitions and their beliefs would contradict the Qu'ran. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.91.171.246 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

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