Talk:Islam/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

"Fastest growing"

I don't think that the "fastest growing" claim could be sustained. If you're just talking about rates, and not size, then perhaps Pastafarianism is the fastest growing, since it's come out of nowhere in the past few weeks. It's hard to tell, since in my experience doing fieldwork on religious affiliation in Tonga, believers have an enormous capacity for deluding themselves and their superiors. They'll report as "members" people who might have attended one meeting out of curiousity, as well as refusing to subtract for members who have left. Believers tend to take being "the fastest growing" as proof that they are the divinely ordained TRUE religion, and they'll torture statistics to prove it. Let's report (later, not in the first para) on census estimates, and leave out the superlatives. Zora 06:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

well, Islam is not some hysterical newly founded cult, but has been going steadily for 14 centuries. But you have a point, of course, since many Muslims seem to imagine themselves as in some sort of race against Christianity. dab (ᛏ) 07:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Pastafarianism may be new, but it's not hysterical. Praps I'll start a Zen Pastafarian branch <g>. Zora 07:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I know, I was thinking of Tonga; or is there a sect of Pacific Pastafarianism forming? "fastest growing" of course is supposed to refer to absolute numbers, so I'm afraid the Pasta people cannot compete yet :) dab (ᛏ) 08:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

There are some ignorant people who think that population growth rates or absolute sizes of religions are some sort of divine proof that their religion is the One True religion. This of course overlooks, for example, the fact that for about a millenium the vast majority of people thought that the Earth is flat and though the learned few knew that the Earth must be spherical since ancient times. Higher birth rates are statistically correlated with greater poverty and ignorance. It would come as no surprise then that perhaps Muslims have the highest population growth rate. A Google search will show that a large number of Muslims seems to be convinced that overpopulation in populations that suffer unimaginable poverty and ignorance is some sort of proof of Islam's claims. It probably hasn't occured to them that this global growth is not due to conversions. But I am hard pressed to find a single study showing that Islam really is the fastest growing religion in the world, as is often claimed. If there was an actual reliable source showing what exactly this statistic is and that it is true, then we can include it in the encylopedia. It would not surprise me if the aggregated population growth rate of Muslim countries exceeded the aggregated population growth of non-Muslim countries. But I can't find any proof of it on google, though there are a LOT of people out there claiming that Islam is the "world's faster growing religion." Then again, at one point there were a lot of Muslims claiming that Neil Armstrong has realized that he heard the azan when he went the Moon during the Apollo mission and has now converted to Islam. --Zeno of Elea 11:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

YOur colloration between the Christian belief in a flat earth and population growth rates is rather odd, and seems to serve no point. Flat Earth was an idea built around the premise that the pope is always right, and the bible is always right, and the bible's references to four corners of the earth are literal. There is no religious significance, or importance, or anything really within Islam to spreading fast, or being more populus, the opposite, in fact, is true from a religious prespective. "Islam" never made claim to be destined to the worlds number one religion till after the coming of Jesus, thats Basic Islam 101. That Islam is the fastest growing religion on this earth is simply a statement of fact. What is also a statement of fact is that in places where Islam is not the traditional religion, such as the UK where the Head of State is also the head of the Official religion, there are more Muslims attending Mosque's on Fridays than any other religious grouping attending service, followed then by Catholics and followed only then by CoE. The Neil Armstrong story is an Urban Legend, there are hundreds of them, I recommend going to Snopes to see just how gullable all sectors of society can be to such tosh.--Irishpunktom\^talk 12:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I must say that ZOE statements are based on superiority and ignorance before any science. Anybody reading those comments above would notice that. That is not a language of a wikipedian. This is why:

• Can the comments be applied as well to the bible? It is said that it is the most read book in history. So if we apply that insane logic than people who read the bible think that their religion is the One True religion?
• High rates of birth are correlated to ignorance and poverty? High rates of birth in Islam have been observed since the birth of Islam and this means when Islam was powerful and spreading knowledge around Europe.
• Comments talk about "them"! This is wikipedia and not a your place of cult or your political party office. In wikipidia, there are poeple of every ideology and cult. Cheers and respect -- Svest 18:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

The point is that we cannot find any sources supporting the "fastest growing religion in the world" claim. --Zeno of Elea 20:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree about that of course. And Zora got a point. We all agree. What I simply said above is that I cannot agree with your analysis and the way of commenting on the issue. You just said many things instead of simply say that it got no valid argument or source. Cheers -- Svest 21:09, September 1, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

• Well, here we go, The CIA I am using as source here, can we agree on that?

1. Niger - Birth Rate (BR): 48.3 - Muslims Population (MP) - 80%
2. Uganada - BR: 47.39 - Christian Population (CP): 66% MP: 16%
3. Afghanistan - BR: 47.02 - MP: 99%
4. Mali - BR: 46.77 - MP: 90% - CP: 1%
5. Chad - BR: 45.98 - MP: 51% - CP: 7%
6. Somalia - BR: 45.62 - MP: 100% Apparently
7. Angola - BR: 44.64 - CP: 53%
8. Liberia - BR: 44.22 - CP: 40% - MP: 20%
9. Dem. Congo - BR: 44.38 - CP: 70% - MP: 10%
10. Burkina Faso - 44.17 - MP: 50% - CP: 10% --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Which CIA web page says "Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world" ? --Zeno of Elea 22:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would the CIA create a page for such a claim? You said "It would not surprise me if the aggregated population growth rate of Muslim countries exceeded the aggregated population growth of non-Muslim countries. But I can't find any proof of it on google...", I thought you wanted evidence of aggregate population growth of countries broken down into regious denomiations, which I have provided. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:53, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Those are not all the countries in the world, and you have not actually sourced anything. You do not even state the units of measurement. --Zeno of Elea 00:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

As stated previously, the Source is the CIA. Those nations, according to the CIA have the highest Birth Rate on the planet. The Birth Rate is the standard way of measuring Birth Rates, and that is Number of Births per 1000 of the Population. This is all on the CIA Website, I am not making it up. Here is the CIA page for Niger, you will see both the Birth Rate, and the Muslim population at 80%.--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:40, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The link you have given deals only with Niger and does not give the Muslim Birth Rate. I don't see anywhere on the CIA website the statement, "Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world." --Zeno of Elea 11:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The point of the link is to show that the CIA stated the figures, not me. Previously you said "It would not surprise me if the aggregated population growth rate of Muslim countries exceeded the aggregated population growth of non-Muslim countries. But I can't find any proof of it on google" - I shown you this to be true on a source significantly more reliable than Google. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:28, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that Islam might be the fastest-growing religion in the world. Aside from population growth due to a high birth rate, militant Muslims have murdered millions of Christians and members of other religious groups. Call it what you will; but please do not call it "peaceful". I have read that one of Islam's practical beliefs is: once the Islamic population in a country reaches or surpasses fifty percent, a militant jihad becomes inevitable. This provides another explanation for a high birth rate: it's a necessary military preparation. (Sept.)

The last comment was unsigned by 129.24.95.220. Obviously someone who hasn't heard of the crusades, the Iraq war, etc. Just for fun, I would like the editor to give any historical evidence on the murder of millions of christians, lol, or the source of this practical belief. :) a-n-o-n-y-m 20:07, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that Secret plan for Muslim world domination that only Islamopobic reactionary bigots seem to know about.--Irishpunktom\^talk 21:02, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

What the hell

What the hell is this link doing there? Apart from being racist and offensive ("A Muslim takeover of Western Europe" no less) it's conclusions arrived at are frankly bizarre. Note how it states "Although the Muslim birth rate today is the world’s second highest (after sub-Saharan Africa)" - What the hell does that mean? What about the Muslims in Sub Saharan Africa, which pool do they belong to? His reference is the UN, but nowhere on the UN's United Nations Population Information Network site can i find any reference to the "Muslim World", nor here at the United Nations Publications Catalogue which leads me to suspect this was a calculation he made by heimself, in which case I'd like to know where the hell it came from, what countries did he include, and which did he ditch?--Irishpunktom\^talk 20:28, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Albania

According to this article, "The majority of of Albanians are secular / atheist in orientation and most of the remaining Muslim population adheres to a hedonistic sect of Islam based on a Sufi order", yet according to Islam in Albania, "Bektashis were estimated to represent approximately 20% of the country's Muslim population before 1967".. what gives?

As well as that, what makes them so "Hedonistic"? --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:34, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I discussed this in the most previously archived talk with Zeno_of_Eleo. Apparently they're hedonist because they eat pork, have pre-marital sex etc. Personally, the use of the term in this context seems like irrelevant sniping to me. I also asked about the majority/20% bit but got no response. Ashmoo 23:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'll remove it. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Conquest of Syria and Jerusalem

An editor named Jbull "corrected" the Islam article to read that the Muslims conquered Syria and Jerusalem in the eleventh century. Um, dude, you're only four centuries off. Both subdued by Umar, the second caliph, in 636 and 637 CE. Sheesh! Zora 18:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I really mangled that. I should have written that the Seljuk Turks conquered Syria in 1076 and Jerusalem in 1077, spurring the Crusades. Thanks for the rv. Jbull 19:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Some text in the Qur'an section removed

Someone, sometime, added some material to the opening para of the Qur'an section. Some of it was merely repeated facts given further along in the section (leading me to believe it might have been a newbie editor, editing before he'd finished reading the article) and one assertion, that currently 9 million Muslims have memorized the whole Qur'an in Arabic, strikes me as probably false and certainly unprovable. So I trimmed away. Nothing was added. Zora 09:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the text should reworded in a more compact method. As for the assertion, I have absolutely no doubt that 9 million Muslims have the entire Qur'an memorized. I know it is quite amazing, but many Imams have this acheievement and that is also regular in many religious circles and madrassas (religious schools) especially among adolescents. I don't doubt the assertion, but once a source is given, I believe it should be readded to the Quran article.-- a-n-o-n-y-m 18:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

There are men in Afghanistan who put on shows where people ask for any hadith or surah, and the men recite it .. in a dramatic fashion. Hafiz has always been encouraged in Islam.. always --Irishpunktom\^talk 18:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I reinserted the assertion, but now I have sourced it (with a link), rephrased it, and linked it to the hafiz article. Feel free to adjust it. -- a-n-o-n-y-m 18:59, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt that more than 9 million muslims out of 1 billion recite the whole koran w/ no single mistake. Most muslim nations have a course about the Koran that lasts for a few years dedicated to kids. The issue is that nobody can claim that in an encyclopedia. The simple reason is about facts! Who could count those 9 millions?! Why not 10, 25, or only 2? Cheers -- Svest 23:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

The new material is just shoveled into the opening para as a breathless torrent of "stuff that makes me feel good as a Muslim". It does not WORK with the rest of the section. As a non-Muslim editor who is trying to remain NPOV, I protest. I am going to rewrite and put the hafiz material into its own section LATER in the article. Zora 21:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Islam and other religions

Can we cut the spin and include some straight facts about Islam and other religions ie the de facto policies of Islamic countries towards other religions. I know it sounds so nice and PC to generalize that Islamic countries are tolerant of other faiths but certainly there is ample evidence on the news wires nearly every day that this may not be an entirely correct assessment.[1]User:Kyodai 05:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Too many changes

There's been so much churn in this article since it was unlocked that things just slip right past me. I check the latest edits and the latest diffs, and don't read the whole article -- which means that I miss all sorts of sub-standard prose.

We fought through the #$%#$@% Islam and other religions section sentence by sentence. I thought it was OK by all; then a few editors started adding stuff at the end -- layered strata of Islam is bloodthirsty, no it isn't, yes it is. No mention on the talk page. I don't know quite when all that was added, and it would be a major project to find out. So I just removed it.

Aside from wishing that the Islamists wouldn't blow up things for the sake of the people and things they blow up, I wish they wouldn't blow up things so that this article can get a rest! After every incident, we get another wave of vandalism and bigotry. Yeah, sure, that'll show those Islamists! I'll go vandalize the Islam article on Wikipedia! Zora 05:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually , if we could just arrive at some sort of truth and not spun statement in that sub topic then things would probably settle down as they have in different sections where this has occured. The problem is some editors are dedicated to cleansing this article of anything which reflects badly on the Muslim world and Islam. But the ugly facts keep rising to the surface like a dead body thrown into a swamp a fews days after a murder. That is just the nature of the beast.User:Kyodai 05:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then. Why not adopt a username and propose a series of trackable edits that you feel would make the article more objective? If you feel so very strongly about the issue, what's the necessity for keeping people from seeing what your edit history is? BrandonYusufToropov 10:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not feel very strongly about the issue at all, it is such a drudgery to try to present information to people who are not willing to look due to their own ideological reasons. I just keep having this issues brought up to my attention through the regular flow of daily newstories that present themselves to me. Then I come to this page and I see a serious misrepresentaion of what is currently taking place around the Islamic world. You cannot deny that there is group of Islamic oriented editors who are dedicated to whitewashing these Islamic pages.--Kyodai 12:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

what is taking place in the "Islamic World" does not mean that what these nations do is a reflection on the religion of Islam no more than Nations with Christian majorities reflect Christianity. Do you really think that the Quran authorised Saddam Hussein to Gas the Kurds? --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Equally, we don't see this kind of reaction on the Christianity pages when George W Bush launches strikes against some country or another whilst asserting that God is on his side! 81.100.216.53 16:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, are you suggesting that nothing that occurs in the world can ever have any relation to Islam? --Zeno of Elea 01:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, are you suggesting that anything bad that happens in the world is due to Islam? I suppose all of a sudden the Vietnam war was somehow caused by Islam? a-n-o-n-y-m 01:49, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that those kind of discussions here have never changed, neither in nature nor in any other aspect. There's no respect, no gentle approach to discuss matters in this area. It seems as if it is a ground 0.

Yes, too many changes of course as in any other article in WP. However, big and nonesense changes are well spotted by all editors, most of the time are agreed or disagreed between the same editors. The problem here, as I hear, are not the changes but the definitions and the expressions used to define those who make those changes. I hear that there are Islamists messing around and blowing up stuff indeed! So do you mean anyone doing so is an extremist, maybe a terrorist?

I expect, as a reader, to find out about principles of Islam in this article. This article is about Islam and not Muslims. I hope that makes a big difference. There's an article about Muslims.

Another issue is that most of the editors, including myself, have only very little knowledge compared with academics who have or had spent their entire life to search the subject! We are nothing but keep teaching eachother here, as in school, w/ uncivilized manners most of the time, how to deal w/ the situation. I am wondering how come we should include in the article things like Islam is evil or Islam is the best!!! The article should be academic and never political or ideological. Why? Because, for political and ideological issues we have dedicated articles. Easy... In How stuff works, we don't say cars are polluting the environment, we just simply mention how cars work! For pollution issues, you'd surely find them in How cars pollute the invironment article. Cheers -- Svest 02:09, September 10, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Fayssal, are you upset with me for mentioning that Islamists are blowing things up? I am not using that term to include all Muslims. I'm using it to mean the kind of guys who DO blow things up ... the jihadis, the Qutbis, etc. I referred to them by their political beliefs and not as terrorists because I didn't want anyone to assume that I meant all Muslims. I hope that's clear. Zora 03:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

No Zora, I am not refering to you but to the overall situation and indeed I never take things personally. Of course I agree with you that this article is an appropriate target for naughty boys of both sides. I am not talking about anonymous editors but talking about all of the well known editors here. How many times we heard the kind of expressions like Islamists trying to hijack articles and so on. Who are those hijakers Wikipedians? Brandon, Anonymous, Irish, Mel Etitis, Juan, Me, etc...?!! I believe nobody is. I'd never think or pretend to say anything against any editor. Personally, I don't care about being called any thing someone would like to call me BUT I should care about the quality of discussion over here. Cheers and respect -- Svest 04:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Modern standards Vs Bronze age standards

ZoE, I hope you do understand well that if you agree about keeping "though deficient by modern standards" sentence than you should agree that there are thousands of articles in WP that the sentance must be inserted somewhere in every article! Say The persians formed a developped society ruled by law at the times of Hamurabi, though deficient by modern standards in terms of democracy and human rights. Say Greeks were the first to introduce the concept of democracy, though deficient by modern standards in terms of democracy and human rights... -- Svest 02:31, September 10, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

true. "deficient by modern standards" has no place in historical writeups. Or I'll start inserting "deficient by ancient standards" into quite some articles about current events. dab (ᛏ) 07:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

KEY here is simply this: When the true offical, religious leaders in the Arab/Islamic world start standing up and condeming what is being done in the name of Islam then I will start to change my views on how horrible a religion, Islam is. As long as these true religious leaders are teaching and following the whole counsel of the Qu'ran which DOES say death the the infidel (which is all the world outside of Islam), then this religion is a hateful one and a threat to the whole civilized world. 69.242.48.222AJD, Oct 6, 2005

Key here is even simpler . Read Quran/Sunnah first , talk later . Learn from scholars , not from certified illeterates/phobics/hypocrites . Farhansher 19:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Help at Muslim article

We have a new editor, a pious Muslim named Courageous who has written a new version of the Muslim article. It expounds his views of who the real Muslims are, and drops the few lines of material relating to the use of the term "Musselman" for Jewish holocaust victims. He doesn't think "Zionists" should be mentioned in an Islamic article. He seems to be prepared to play revert war to get his version in place. I left a message on his talk page, to which he replied that I was an infidel, and he was commanded by the Qur'an not to listen to me.

I'd appreciate if some of the sane Muslim editors could try talking to him -- and monitoring the Muslim article for any necessary reverts. Zora 21:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Zora, according to what you say in your request for help here, I must say that you really needed it. I immediately went to check who is the new naughty boy. However, as I checked the changes made by Courageous, I found nothing to be identified as POV. His changes were additions explaining the origin of the word Muslims (he gave reference indeed) and he added explanations on how Muslims accept a person as a Muslim.

IMO, there was no apologitic aspect in that and no POV at all. The thing that should be removed from there is the They could not accept Muhammad as a prophet, because he had not yet been born sentence. Why? Because the text before deosn't imply it!!! It simply says that A Muslim to be considered as a Muslim, He should recognize all Prophets before Islam as Muslims. The later in not a WP POV but a condition in Islam and should be mentionned without any other comment after it.

His reply to your message in his talk page includes some weird answers that I totally disagree with him in telling you that he must not listen to you!!! However, to be fair, his changes got nothing to do with being POV.

I prefer not to talk to him for now until he does something stupid and of course we'll be monitoring. Cheers -- Svest 22:24, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you don't see his changes as introducing an unacceptably high level of piety and pious language. You've also disregarded his deletion of material re the Holocaust. Zora 22:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't disregard his deletion concerning the Holocaust. I kept indeed the rev by you and Dmcdevit. What I said is that I didn't find any of his insertions as using pious language. I don't want to paste some of his text here as it is not necessary but please Zora, It will be helpful for me to tell me exactly what was bothering as unacceptable so we can solve it here. Cheers -- Svest 23:12, September 10, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

As far ass Muslim is concerned: People of the Book is all there is about Christians and Jews Islamic|law Islamic law some could complain about the tax and so on but remember that Islam is a theocracy therefore they weren't really trusted and paid tax in return of "policce like" protection. Islam as a theocracy has nothing to do with any event after the Ottoman Empire.

--The Brain 11:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Organization

This section was blanked... I think I re-added everything.... I didn't see a reason... was it just unfixed vandalism or what? gren グレン 08:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I dont think it gives much info anyways . Farhansher 19:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Dome of Rock

For some unknown reasons , the picture of dome of rock is on the top . I think at that position , the best option will be to use a picture of Kaaba , rather than dome of rock , which I think is the 4th or 5th holliest site in Islam . Farhansher 19:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Well, it's the 3rd. -- Svest 19:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

I agree too. Yes, it is the third. a-n-o-n-y-m 19:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, well some people consider Al Aqsa mosque as the third holliest site ( Dome of rock & Al Aqsa are separate buildings though in the same area )[2] . And some people also consider Jannat-al-Baqi as the third holliest site after Kaaba & Masjid-e-nabvi . Anyways the point is , the place belongs to Kaaba , & not dome of rock . Farhansher 21:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

True. The place belongs to Kaaba. -- Svest 21:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Agreed. Farhanser, are you going to work on it? a-n-o-n-y-m 21:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Lead section

Out of interest, why is the lead section so short for such an important article? - 220.101.78.35 11:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Because, unfortunately, neutrality has been made stricter for this article. Even if anything that is a fact about Islam is added there, it is removed by some anti-Islamic editors (mind the expression) who think that it speaks positively and ofcourse they can't let that happen. That's the simplest way to put it. a-n-o-n-y-m 23:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

GOD Vs Allah

I don't understand that after almost 3 millenniums, people are still confused about the literal meaning of the Arabic name Allah! I am sorry to say that people who are still struggling to learn about the issue do not deserve to be here editing, let alone argue about the issue!

Butrus is not Peter. Mariam is not Mary. Yahya is not John, etc...

• In Arabic, there's no other word to call God except Allah. It could not be called McDonald's as Arabs speak Arabic. Neither Hebrews nor Arabs call God God, Dieu, Dios or Jesus.
• "Elaw" means "GOD" in Aramaic
• The Arabic name for God, Allah, refers to the God worshiped by Jews and Christians. Encarta
• The Hebrew title of God is "Elohim;" in Arabic it's "Allah." These two words for God have a common bond that most people don't understand. Both of these words have their origin in pagan deities of the ancient past... Allah is derived from two words "al," which means "the" and "ilah," which is related to the feminine Hebrew word for God, "eloah." by Penny Warren B.A., M.A., D.D - 1998 PLIM REPORT Vol. 7 No. 3. In other words, if you argue against that Allah is not the Christian God than argue the same relating Elohim to the Christian God! If you have problems with Arabic, Hebrew or Aramaic than better to stay away from the section about the origin of the word Allah in this article. Same thing if you think that Salam got nothing to do with Shalom, and of course the list is long!
• What does Allah mean? Allah means God. The same word is used by Arabic-speaking Christians, Muslims and Jews. When translating Arabic expressions, translate all the words, for consistency. The translation of "Allahu Akbar," for example, would be "God is great," not "Allah is great." Detroit Free Press. Not surprising, among other questions you'd find a qustion about the difference between Islam and Muslim!!! Maybe because readers need the same education as some editors of this article!
• If Islam talks about the same Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus (as well as archangel Gabriel and many others) than, for God's sake, why it would talk about a different God?!
• I Cor. 9:19-22 "...I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some."

I hope that reverting would stop for once and for God sake when comes to this issue. Cheers -- Svest 19:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Al-llah is the personal name God has used to name Himself in the Arabic Revelation. The word consists of three 'laams' [or 'els' in English], two of which are visible & one of which is invisible. The presence of the invisible 'laam' is denoted by a dicritical sign of 'shaddah' [or 'doubling sign over a consonant'] placed over the two visible 'laams'. The word 'Al-llah' is different from the word 'Ilah' which means 'a god' or the word 'Al-Ilah' which means 'The God'. The word 'Allah' in English is 'lahan' or distortion of 'Al-llah' as the former lacks one 'laam' [or 'el']. Unsigned comment by 212.138.47.29 contribs

Allah is a proper noun and a name for a very specific being, and a concept. God is a much wider term refering to any thing deified. The history of Allah is different from the history of God/god, by which I mean the term "god/God" has been historically used for many other things that, from the Muslim view, are not "Allah." Allah is God, but god is not Allah. I.e. when a peson says Allah, he is talking about Allah. When a person says God/god, he could be talking about the deified representation of a monkey. When Allah is referred to, a very specific reference is made, which is what the goal of an encyclopedia is. "God" is ambiguous when meant to refer to Allah. For instance, Asad the male name means lion. To translate "Asad is here" as "Lion is here" is not just absurd, it's also misleading. TheProphetess 09:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation TheProphetess. All what you said above is correct. The word Allah was used before Islam for many different dieties. However, the issue in this article is not about comparison between God/god. The point we are trying to agree about is a comparison between Allah (God in the Qur'an) and God in the Old and New Testaments. Cheers -- Svest 18:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

:) Welcome. I was talking about God vs. Allah, not a comparison of god/God if it so seemed. I will get a background on the discussion at hand before delving into details. Just a small thought: Allah in a contemporary sense, and ever since Islam came, is no longer a generic term for all useful purposes. It refers very specifically to the Being whom Muslims refer to as Allah.

1. Now whether Allah in Qur'an is the God of the Testaments. Indeed, if there is one God, He is who He is irrespective of what He is called.
2. When Muslims refer to Allah, are they referring to the God in the Testaments? Indeed! Islam endorses Psalms, Torah, and the Bible - that these were the dinive revelations of Allah. But Islam also declares itself as a sort of "final version" of the same.
3. It is not correct to replace "Allah is great" with "God is great" especially as a translation of the Islamic phrase "Allahu Akbar." To do so is misleading and serves no real purpose except create emotions that can be done without. To translate "Allahu Akbar" as "God is great" is to translate the Urdu version of "Mars is a tasteful treat" (In Urdu: Mars aik mazay ki mithai hai) as "Chocolate is a tasteful treat." Same, but not the same. B/c Allahu Akbar is very specifically a Muslim/Islamic kalima (statement).

Allah knows best. Regards. TheProphetess 20:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Good comments. Again, this is the point I was refering to. The important thing is that Allah in the Qur'an is the same Allah/God of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad. For Muslims, there is no difference between Allah and God of Judaism and Christianity. I was arguing against the edits (still going on) stating that some Orthodox Christians and Jews don't believe he is the same. Of course, there's always some against something. Same thing about Muslims. Islam can be a hoax but that doesn't mean that Muslims believe in a different God than other monotheic beliefs. I need a Chocolate bar for my break ;) Cheers -- Svest 20:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

God is a Germanic word imported into Christianity some centuries after the death of Jesus. Most first century Jews were probably Greek speakers so they might have referred to "Theos", which is the word used in the original Greek of the New Testament. When Arabic-speaking Christians pray, I understand that they invoke the name "Allah." [3] --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Definitely. -- Svest 22:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Need help on Demographics of Islam article

I just spent many hours preparing a spreadsheet and then a table of the Muslim population of the world, broken down into Sunni-Shi'a-Ibadi to the extent that I could. I got the figures from the CIA World Factbook and adherents.com. The Sunni-Shi'a breakdown is grossly inaccurate and underestimates the Shi'a. I would appreciate any help other editors could give me in making the figures more accurate and in making the table (my first ever!) look better. Zora 14:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

HIGHLY POV - Criticism of Islam

Please help make the Criticism of Islam article better. Please refer to the articles talk page for our current discussion.--JuanMuslim 04:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the article is grossly POV. It is currently one of the ones on my "to do list". I will help you out as soon as I have dealt with some issues I am facing on other articles. I have worked on it somewhat, but that article needs way more NPOV.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Link to Dīn needs to be changed

Since this page is locked - could someone with admin please change the linked text in bold to link to "Din (Arabic term)" rather than "Din (Islamic term)" as the latter is a redirect to the former.

and is described as a Dīn or Deen, meaning "way of life" and/or "religion." Etymologically, it is derived from the same root as, for example, Salām meaning "peace" (also a common salutation).

Thank you --Dinosaurdarrell 09:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Muslims do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ

Muslims do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and his unique salvific role, and the teachings of Islam in this respect have been likened to a compound heresy made of arianism, nestorianism and docetism ("… They did not kill him (Jesus) and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them..." Qur'an, 4:157), with some pelagian and also monarchianistic (i.e., anti-trinitarian) elements.

If that's what you want to believe, that is fine, but what is your point? I hope you are not here to start preaching.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"Beliefs of Muslims"

For over a thousand years, it has been a fact that Muslims believe that Jesus Christ (J.C.) will come to judge the world on the last day. Simply one fact about what MUSLIMS believe about Jesus - it is not a claim that they believe in Jesus' divinity or any other of Jesus' attributes unique to Christianity. Muslims are not threatened or embarrassed by this belief inasmuch as it is their belief vis, that J.C. will judge the world on the last day. Both Sunnis and Shi'ites believe this about J.C.(the two largest groups within Islam who often disagree on much). I inserted this one-sentence FACT in a section which spoke of beliefs and particularly "judgment day." The phraseology was NPOV and supported by an Islamic website (generous on my part since it is like citing a source that Christians believe in Easter). Another contributor, who is Muslim, but who apparently had never heard of this belief (akin to a Christian having never heard of an important belief in Christianity) objected and removed the sentence. He also checked the link I provided and, to compound the problem, misinterpreted the clearly written statement from the Islamic website too (LOL at this point). Anyway, for everyones information, a combination of the intransigence and ignornace of the unapoligetically Islamic contributor resulted in this page being locked. Additionally, and incredibly, he called the addition of the FACT that Muslims believe Jesus Christ will judge the world on the last day, 'vandalism' (gee, adding a fact is vandalism?!), apparently not having the gift of discernment. The page has been locked since. Generally speaking, if Wikipedia heads down this path of letting an ideologue make particular articles their own plaything, this project will be worthless at best and a soapbox for revisionists of all sorts, not just Islamic. I don't know when the article will be unlocked, but this is why it happened. (preceding unsigned comment by 138.89.7.220 (talk · contribs) 17:28, 26 September 2005)

Okay, despite your rudeness, I will clarify this. First of all, in Islam, God and only GOD will judge people on the judgement day. Not Jesus, not anybody else. This is what you added:

"In speaking of the Day of Judgment, interestingly, Muslims believe as Christians do, that Jesus Christ will judge the world on the last day."

This is what you were referring to from your "source" [4]:

It should also be borne in mind that Jesus Christ (pbuh), in his second coming will not be coming with any new message or revelation. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is reported to have said:

"How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Qur'an and not by the law of the Gospel." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4. Hadith No. 658)] < --- (This is the hadith in question)

Let’s now analyse the following words attributed to Jesus Christ (pbuh) in the Bible:

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” [The Bible, Mathew 7:22-24]

In the verses quoted above, Jesus (pbuh) said that in his second coming, he would ask the people to depart from him, to get away from him because he wouldn’t know them. Who are these people? The Muslims or the Hindus? The answer is neither Hindus nor Muslims but the Christians, because Muslims or Hindus do not claim to do “Miracles” in the name of Jesus Christ (pbuh) nor do they cast out devils in his name.

PROBLEMS with your interpretation of the section above: IN ISLAM, Jesus will descend in order to slay the Dajjal (generally, the anti-christ). He will NOT descend on the DAY OF JUDGEMENT as you wrongfully stated in the phrase you added. After Jesus slays the Dajjal there will be an ENTIRE AGE where everyone in the world converts or reverts to Islam. Therefore, THIS IS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT; THIS IS NOT TALKING ABOUT THE LAST DAY. You misinterpreted the lines from the hadith which says that Jesus will judge people who claim to be his believers (i.e Christians) by the Law of the Qur'an and not the Bible on his second coming (not judgement day) and what this means is that he will show who the righteous are. As is states in another section of that Sahih Bukhari hadith:

"By the One in Whose hand is my self, definitely the son of Maryam (Jesus) will soon descend among you as a just judge, and he will break the cross, kill the pig and abolish the jizyah, and wealth will be so abundant that no one will accept it, until a single prostration will be better than the world and everything in it." (Sahih al-Bukhari)

This means that Jesus will show that Muslims are correct. His judgement has to do with his second coming. He will condemn the Christian beliefs that have been changed from God's original message. He will show the world that the "LAW OF THE QURAN" was correct and "THE LAW OF THE BIBLE" was NOT.His judgement will be in favor of who has the correct beliefs snd God's original message (Islam). Not very hard to understand once you read the whole thing before jumping to conclusions, is it?

Now keep in mind, the only reason I used YOUR source was to show that you misinterpreted the line. Obviously the best way to show you that you were wrong was to use the source YOU claimed had this "important" belief. You are not here to define Islam, and if all you are going to do is misinterpret lines from different webpages in order to add them to the ISLAM article, then please do not add you misinterpretation at all. Also you seem very happy discussing this now, why didn't you discuss it before you violated wiki policies? Having an open source encyclopedia does NOT mean you can add nonsense to articles and then start acting like a rude adolescent (unless you are one ofcourse). I hope I have corrected your misinterpretation, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 19:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Response: OK everyone, please take note that scholarship for the closed minded depends upon conformity with their "interpretation" of things - never mind over a thousand years of Islamic teaching. The hallmarks of an ignoramous Bible thumper or an ignoramous Muslim (different sides of the same coin) are always the same and note the hallmark buzz words, "the problems with your interpretation" Yes, the interpretation of an arm-chair theologian should trump history, Islamic teaching etc. For the record, Islam has consistently taught that J.C. will judge the world (on behalf of Allah, not instead of Allah. Please note Allah can delegate this duty to J.C. - it's not the false dichotomy you asserted "Jesus won't judge, only Allah will.") In fact, the scholars of ahadith (reports on the sayings and the traditions of Prophet Mohammad) say that the ahadith converning J.C. judging the world have reached the status of mutawatir. That means that they have been narrated by so many people from each generation from such a large group of the Companions that there can be no possible doubt of their authenticity. For example:

Abu Hurairah narrated that Allah's Messenger said, "By the One in Whose hand is my self, definitely the son of Maryam will soon descend among you as a just judge, and he will break the cross, kill the pig and abolish the jizyah, and wealth will be so abundant that no one will accept it, until a single prostration will be better than the world and everything in it. (Sahih al-Bukhari). Historic and contemporary Islam has taught that J.C. will judge the world. This is the near universal teaching of Islam and I am afraid you simply got caught with your exegetical pants down.

One final thought while we're talking about Islamic belief of end times. Note that "most Muslims believe that Jesus' descent from heaven will be accomplished by resting his hands on the wings of two angels. He will descend onto the white minaret, situated in the eastern part of Damascus. He will invite the whole world to be Muslim including Christians and Jews. The one eyed antichrist, accompanied by seventy thousand Jews, will be killed by Jesus, at the place called Lod. The Jews will be badly defeated. Jesus will break the cross, annihilate swine and will end all wars and jizya (poll tax). His position will be like that of a judge. During this period there will be an abundance of all sorts of goods. Muslims will dominate the world and there will be an end of all religions except Islam." (Mawdudi, A.A, Finality of Prophethood, pp. 58-61). See http://www.adishakti.org/_/second_coming.htm Maybe when the Islam page gets unlocked someone should revive the section of the article on Islam's historic hatred for Jews and include this quote supra, (aside from the fact that the quote from a Muslim scholar also states that J.C. will be judge) or would that be vandalism to include Islam's beliefs? LOL. (preceding unsigned comment by 70.18.165.147 (talk · contribs) and 70.21.151.56 (talk · contribs)16:14, September 26, 2005)

I didn't expect a 12 year old to understand much, but did you even read what I said. The verse you cited talks about Jesus' second coming. It is NOT by any means talking about judgement day and It is as simple as that. You just reiterated the same nonsense as before, making your "response" long but without any evidence or fact. By the way, if you want to gain any credibility as an editor, lose the fake anonymous proxies, stop making childish remarks (this is not a chat room) and actually read what other editors are writing or you may embarass yourself even more. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually only 10, not 12 so that makes the fact that you're arguing with me even more pathetic. Alas, it only needs to be known that: 1. You deny the scholarship of Islam 2. Even by your own set of Islamic beliefs (which are, by your own admission, only a year old), you could have changed my contribution and eliminated "on the last day" to make it correct by your standards, but instead you simply reverted and now want to be in a protracted hermeneutical argument. 3. The page is shut down because you cried 'vandalism' which is an absolute non-sequitor in response to editing you don't quite like or take issue with. No vandalism occured by any standard (Wikipedia's or otherwise) so you're either a liar, ignorant or a crybaby. 4. I and every intelligent person ought to remain anonymous when dealing with Muslims because sadly, they've proven to be fanatical in their violence and disrespectful of anyone else's beliefs or lives. You can type your head off all night trying to persuade everyone otherwise, but I think you will have very little of the "credibility" you imagine to be so important. (preceding unsigned comment by 70.21.194.97 (talk · contribs)

"so you're either a liar, ignorant or a crybaby" Wow. You have shown how intellectual you can get. Thanks for making that clear. Now we know you're an "intelligent person". --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous editor -- I am late to this discussion, for which apologies. Isn't there a verse of Qur'an that speaks about the role of Jesus/Isa on the Day of Judgment? If I recall correctly, he will be encountered, but will not act as a judge on that day. (May connect to the notion of seeing prophets on the Day of Judgment.) Can't recall the sura, can you? BrandonYusufToropov 12:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Brandon, I am sure there is. But as you and I both know God and only God will judge on the last day. The verse from hadith the user keeps citing so hopelessly refers to Jesus' role in his second coming, and has nothing to do with the day of judgement. So, yes you are absolutely right about him not acting as a judge. Anyways the issue has been resolved despite the anon IP (70.21----) user's failure to admit that he/she was wrong. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Jesus as Judge (Arbitrator) of the world (in verified, valid Hadith)

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler (judge/arbitrator) and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims, who are in the protection, of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and no-body will accept charitable gifts. (Sahih Bukhari 3.425, also Muslim, Bab: Bayan Nuzul 'Isa; Tirmidhi, Abwab-al-Fitan: Bab: Fi Nuzul 'Isa; Musnad Ahmad, Marwiyat Abu Huraira)

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler (judge/arbitrator), he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts). (Sahih Bukhari 3.656, also Sahih Bukhari 4.657, and Ibn Majah, Kitab-ul-Fitan al-Dajjal)

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said "How will you be when the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you and he will judge people by the Law of the Quran and not by the law of Gospel (Fateh-ul Bari page 304 and 305 Vol 7) (Sahih Bukhari 4.658)

Abu Huraira reports that the Apostle of Allah observed: "What will you be like when the son of Mary shall descend among ye and a person among ye will discharge the office of Imam (leader in Prayers)." (Sahih Bukhari, Kitab Ahadith Anbiya, Nuzul Isa; Muslim, Nuzul Isa; Musnad Ahmad, Marwiyat Abu Huraira)(preceding unsigned comment by 80.41.182.8 (talk · contribs)

Yes I replied to most of this above. Jesus' second coming is before the judgement day, as said before. None of these verses cited by you contradicts what I said, in fact it confirms it. Please see my above messages. Also, can you tell me how this says anything about the judgement day? All of this refers to his second coming. I never doubted that he will judge on his second-coming on who was correct in their beliefs. I already settled that. The controversy was whether the christian belief that it will occur on the day of judgement is implied by the hadith I stated before and it isn't. Jesus will NOT play the role of God on judgement day. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no one except God dealing w/ the judgement day. Cheers -- Svest 22:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Yes, that's one of the contradictions of Islam. This is an evidence from within Islam that Jesus Christ is God (because only God can judge the world/act as arbiter), but they don't believe this. The Hadith is very clear in Arabic - English translation not as clear. In Arabic: The Hour will not be established means judgement day to answer your question. God bless you and yours.

Hour ---> Incident. Judgement day ---> Judgement at the court. (In both English and Arabic). Cheers Svest 22:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC) --  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

If you read Arabic: la takoom el-sa'3aa - Hour (capital H; special) not hour - Also in Arabic: 7hakam - Judge. Cheers :)

Nobody argues about that. The question is - have you ever experienced an incident and a judgement happening at the same time? The incident here is the end of the world where Jesus would be a judge on earth (The Hour/hour). The judgement day is another story. It would happen after the end of the world. Cheers -- Svest 22:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Yes, Islamic belief is correct as I said before.The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts). Therefore Jesus MUST come before the judgment day in order to do all of these things. He will do this in his second coming. The day of judgement will come ONLY after Jesus comes to set everyone straight on the path of Islam. There is no contradiction here. You must remember that Islam knows that Jesus will come before the judgement day to slay the dajjal, to set everyone straight, etc. This is followed by a golden age for Muslims (as I said before) and Jesus will live out the rest of his natural life on Earth. It is upto God and God only to judge on the Day of judgement and Jesus' second-coming will obviously be before the judgement day. Cheers, a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

So Jebus will "kill the pig" and deliberately drive a species into extinction. Nice guy. --Zeno of Elea 00:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

There goes zeno again with her mindless nonsense. Doesn't know a thing about Islam but loves pushing her POV. Judging by her sudden interest in this, she's probably the anon IP who was acting like a christian extremist in this discussion. How sad. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

OMG, this has gone way way too far . Let us analyse the hadeeth

By the One in Whose hand is my self, definitely the son of Maryam will soon descend among you as a just judge,

IF you would have read other end time prophecies, it is clear that he wont be judging anybody, but he would be send as a judje . Since after Dajjal , there will be only two groups of people , on following JC , the other following Dajjal . People from all religions will be in both these groups . As at that time there wouldnt be any other religion left . But only two , one who submit to the will of God , & follow JC , the other who dont . But he wouldnt be judging anybody , he will be fightinh the biggest war ever . The pressure of war will prove to be the actual judge

and he will break the cross, kill the pig

The mechanics of qyama , as described by Quran,sunnah & scholars....THe first trumpet will be blown by ISRAFEEL & everything will be destroyed , including earth , sky . Everything will die . With the second trumpet , only humans will come back to life with some very necessary stuff , like earth to stand upon . There is no point of JC destroying crosses or killing pigs on the day of Judgement , as they will be dead at the begining of Qiyama , by the sound of trumpet. Clearly the hadeeth is talking about a time much befor Qiyama .

and abolish the jizyah,

Again , whats the point of abolishing Jizyah on the day of judgement . who will be taking Jizyah on that day

and wealth will be so abundant that no one will accept it,

Wealth, .......people receiving & spending money on the day of Judgement....LMAO . There will be no wealth as there will be no business as there will be nothing left to buy or sell on the day of Judgement .

until a single prostration will be better than the world and everything in it.

The finishing sentence , that uses the word until . It means time will go on , things will not end after all the above mentioned things happen .

One final thought while we're talking about Islamic belief of end times. Note that "most Muslims believe that Jesus' descent from heaven will be accomplished by resting his hands on the wings of two angels. He will descend onto the white minaret, situated in the eastern part of Damascus. He will invite the whole world to be Muslim including Christians and Jews. The one eyed antichrist, accompanied by seventy thousand Jews, will be killed by Jesus, at the place called Lod. The Jews will be badly defeated. Jesus will break the cross, annihilate swine and will end all wars and jizya (poll tax). His position will be like that of a judge. During this period there will be an abundance of all sorts of goods. Muslims will dominate the world and there will be an end of all religions except Islam." (Mawdudi, A.A, Finality of Prophethood, pp. 58-61). See http://www.adishakti.org/_/second_coming.htm Maybe when the Islam page gets unlocked someone should revive the section of the article on Islam's historic hatred for Jews and include this quote supra, (aside from the fact that the quote from a Muslim scholar also states that J.C. will be judge) or would that be vandalism to include Islam's beliefs? LOL

Historic hatred...... , jews had ben living in Arabia, Persia & India for a long time , without suffernig any hatred , They had lived in Andulusia with muslims . Clearly these prophecies arnt the source of Hatred against jews . IF you wanna know the real cause , stop blindly believing the mythological western free media , & search for words like Theodore Hertzi or zoinist terrorism , that have been washed away from the face of all media by calling them anti-semite .

Cheers Farhansher 05:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't follow. From the fact that X doesn't always cause Y, it doesn't follow that X never under other circumstances causes, or aids in causing Y. For example, the sun causes atmospheric warmth. Oh, not always. I've known some wintery nights, and the sun is still out there in existence right through the worst of them. But that doesn't change the fact that under the right conditions, the sun does cause atmospheric warmth! So certain prophecies may well cause anti-semitism in some circumstances, despite the fact that as you say, Jews lived in Muslim Spain in peace. --Christofurio 01:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Acording to the history that I have read , I never found any anti-semitism among muslims . Mostly b/c jews were more easy to handle than Christians . There are a lot more ahadeeth regarding end times prophecies . Most of them say that there will be jewish land on the west of river jordan . Dajjal will be on the west side of River & JC on the east . Jews were so less in number in that region uptill 1948 that these ahadeeth didnt make any sense . They were just in the books , nothing much to be said about them , b/c the other powerful nation at that time were christians . There was not even a remote chance of having a jewish country in the region that was a hotspot for wars b/w muslims & christians . Further more , ahadeeth also say that people from different religions ( not only jews ) will be following Dajjal . Similarly people from all different religions will be following JC . Although jews will be in majority among the followers of Dajjal , but not every jew will be following him . So there is no point of hating all jews , when a lot of them will be siding with muslims . And in the end , they are ( ...were!! ) all about the future . But after 1948 , everything started to make sense , which again brings us to the cause of all big problems in the world , that you might have guessed . Hadith or no hadith , what happened & is happening now in that region is enough to cause hatred .

peace . Farhansher 19:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to have to disagree, but the Rose Garden or Gulistan of Saadi, written 1258 CE, is full of obnoxious anti-Semitic remarks. And this is a famous Sufi work! Zora 01:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

As Farhansher demonstrated, apologetic Muslims are very fond of citing Muslim occupied Spain (Al-Andalus) as some sort of epitome of human and civil rights, especially in relation to Jews. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The harrowing story of the Martyrs of Cordoba is clear evidence of this. Moreover, the Muslims waged a war of aggression and imperialism against Christian Visigoth Spain and occupied it for 600 years, imposing their religion and Arabic culture and language on the indegenous population. Had they not been defeated at Tours, they would have occupied France as well. In the light of modern society, that sort of barbarism is generally considered a sign of paramount oppression. While many different peoples engaged in imperialism in the past, the vast majority of societies, religions and cultures (with the notable exception of Muslims) have renounced their imperialist past. It is a well know fact that the Muslims forced Jews and Christians to wear distinguishing marks on their cloathing as a sign of their religion. It is a documented historical fact that the Yellow badge, which the Nazis forced the Jews to wear, has its origins in the practices of Muslims. The Islamic Empire (including the territory of Al-Andalus) variously forced Jews to wear yellow belts, yellow badges, yellow turbans, bells, wooden carvings of a "golden calf" hung around the neck as a pendant, pieces of lead with the word "dhimmi" hung around the neck as a pendant, and at one point the Caliphate forced Jewish women to wear one red shoe and one black shoe! This culminated in 1941 with Adolf Hitler forcing Jews to wear the infamous yellow badge with the word "Jude" written on it. To the modern thinking mind, the Muslim occupation of Spain sounds more like a Nazi invasion and occupation than like the supposed "golden age of tolerance" described by Muslim apologists. Muslim treatment of Jews in Spain may have been better, in some ways, than Christian treatment, but this does not excuse it from rightly being identified as examples of appalling anti-Semitism and oppression. -- Zeno of Elea 04:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Godwin's Law strikes again, but outside Usenet! Straight from Andalusia to Hitler (with no mention of the intervening centuries of identical Christian behavior)! Does Zeno get a ten yard penalty? Zora 05:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora, would you care to enlighten us as to which type of religious fanatics forced Jews to wear the infamous yellow badge first? Were they Muslims or were they Christians? Please note that (a) this discussion (and indeed this article) is about Islam not Christianity, and (b) I was talking about the origins of the yellow badge, not a comprehensive history of it (I'm sure you know where to click if you wanted a comprehnsive history of the subject). -- Zeno of Elea 06:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, you can't blame Islam for Hitler. If the Muslims started the practice of the yellow badge, the Christians picked it up and carried it forward with a will. It's not as if they were helpless victims of some Islamic virus. You're seeing all history through a lens of hatred, which is distorting your vision. Zora 06:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a straw-man argument. I did not "blame Islam for Hitler." I do, however, find it interesting that the practice of the yellow badge originated with Islam and was only later adopted by Christianity even though Christianity is far older than Islam (a sequence of events not unrelated to Muslim occupation of parts of Western and Eastern Europe as well as other regions) . Point being that User:Farhansher's historical revision of the fallen Muslim empires as being some sort of "golden age of tolerance and peace," or as any sort of example of treatment of non-Muslims that can be held up to modern standards of ethics, is ridiculous. That is unless we concieve of modern standards of ethics as including imperialism followed by yellow badges and wanton oppression. -- Zeno of Elea 08:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Historical FACT not POV - Dont't hide!

Islamic conquest of Europe was first stopped at the Battle of Tours (732 A.D.) and Muslims never progressed beyond Spain, from which they were also forced out later.

Of course that doesn't belong in the main Islam article, and the phrasing is POV. But, btw, it is not "Historical FACT" and if you think it is, you may want to read up on the Ottoman and Mongol empires as well. Dmcdevit·t 21:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for graphical addition

Would someone agree to add an image of the word "al-Islam" in Arabic script to this article? I think that would be a good addition. The Sanity Inspector

Why? "al-Islam" in Arabic script is already in the text. --Yodakii 09:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think he means graphic, Yodakii. I would have no problem with such an addition provided it has followed the wikipedia image licence policy. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 10:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but...why? What would would it illustrate? Whats the purpose? Why not the shahada? or some calligraphy from the Qur'an? --Yodakii 12:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you know many people are visual types. It might add something to the article, to have an image of some handsome, burnished medallion or plaque featuring "al-Islam" in Arabic. Those other things you mentioned would probably be nice to see, also. I actually came to the article with the intention of adding it myself, but since I don't read Arabic I couldn't be sure I would be adding the correct word.

The Sanity Inspector 11:46, 7 October 2005 (EST)