Talk:Muslims/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Merge with Islam

I disagree with the merger because it confuses things. Being in a Muslim country and growing up around muslims you learn theoretical Islam and then you see what the Muslims do. I am fully agreed with the statement "Islam is a religion of peace" but I usually add "but Muslims are not largely a people of peace". Yes there are many reasons for this but it does not change the ACT it only goes to mitigate the motivations. Its like folks saying "Buddhism beliefs in a moderate path" and a person adding "....but many Buddhists amass wealth". We should have one page on the theory and another on the practice or else it ends up being editted to hell as we have difficulty seperating both....--Malbear 07:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's your opinion that Muslims are less peaceful than say Christians. And not just an opinion, it's also a wrong opinion. Even if we do a body count of just last century, Christians would lead the chart (given both World Wars started in Europe). OneGuy 05:47, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm curious to see that body count! As far as I know, among the largest numbers of victims caused by 'ideologically motivated' violence (taking politically, philosophically and religiously motivated ideologies together), the largest mass-butchers were:

1. China's civil war & Mao Zedong's ideologic purifications: atheist motivated;
2. Sovjet (Lenin & Stalin) massacres, gulag archipels, purposefull mass-starvations etc. : atheist motivated;
3. Nazi Germany: atheist and fiercely anti-christian motivated.

So, where are your christian-inspired massacres? --Rudi Dierick 15:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see what atheism itself has to do with any of those massacres. Really, the Communists also believed that 1+1=2. Does that mean their killings were also driven by knowledge of kindergarten arithmetic as well?--66.120.157.194 02:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It might be better to refer to all of those slaughters as "anti-Religion," rather than atheist-motivated. All of the incidents described were led by radical atheists who felt that all religion was harmful, despite in many cases living in areas dominated by their respective religious backgrounds.--Whitti 22:22, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

What is the evidence for the statement that Nazi Germany was atheist? According to the article on Adolf Hitler, most Nazis followed a form of mysticism (which means they were religious), and Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels, all raised as devout Catholics, retained a respect for the church (according to the same article). The article says they allowed the Catholic Church to retain its subsidies (in return for some restrictions on it) - state-subsidized religion isn't my idea of fierce anti-Christianity - and they moved against the Protestant churches but only very late (after the involvement of some Protestant clerics in a coup attempt). Was Hitler really an atheist? Were other Nazi leaders atheist? Do we have an article discussing this? --Rjp08773 11:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Large crowds celeberate terrorist attacks? =

The claim is made in the article that Al Jazeera shows pictures of cheering crowds when a bomb blows up a US humvee and kills some US soldiers. That's not terrorism. It's perfectly justified to kill illegal foreign soldiers who have invaded your country and then to celebrate it. Where is the PROOF that large crowds are always seen celebrating on the streets after a terrorist attack? Where was this celebration say after attack on Russian school? The only case I am aware of is of some Palestinians celebrating after 9/11 or some Palestinians celebrating suicide bombing in relation to Israel. I want to see proof that Al Jazeera always shows pictures of crowds celebrating a terrorist attack (note: attacking foreign troops is not terrorism). OneGuy 12:44, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok then since you are fine with the factual accuracy that some Palestinians were celebrating int he streets after 9/11 and Israeli bombings I will adapt the statement. --Malbear 13:27, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is attacking foreigners terrorism when they are not troops?

Of course, but now you have to post proof that large crowds were celeberating on the streets after a terrorist attack. Not all Palestinaians are Muslims by the way. Morover, Palestianians are like 0.00001 % of Muslim population? How is that relevant to an article on Muslim? You need to show relevancy to the topic there OneGuy 13:39, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And Palestinian dislike for Israel and the US (who provide weapons to Israel) is in specific context of Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and the ongoing conflict. How is that relevant to the article on Muslims in general? I will wait for you to tie that together and explain the connection there. OneGuy 19:35, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There are pages for Palestinians, or start one if it doesn't exist. what theyfeel goes in there. Alternatively if you can somehow come up with a sentence which goes "some muslims feel......<insert stuff>.....and this is typified by the Palestinians". To which I will add "but some Muslim Arabs are represented in the Israeli parliament and many Muslims still live in the United States. Many Muslims trade with and study in the United States. Many American companies operate in Muslim countries and in fact oil services companies such as Halliburton, ExxonMobil, Schlumberger, (will look for some more) form a large percentage of the organizations extracting petroleum from muslim countries indicating that Muslims may not be totally against these nations."--Malbear 08:14, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't insert that line about Palestinians. YOU DID. Your irrelevant rambling is not making sense above. I can respond to it, but I won't. Stick to the topic. Why did you insert that line about Palestinain celeberating? OneGuy 08:32, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually you did insert the line about Palestinians celebrating so your statement is a LIE and ipso facto you are the LIAR, meaning no better than those you accuse as such. Initially I added a statement about Muslims celebrating which you corrected to be Palestinians celebrating after 9/11 and Isreali bombings....which I added based on what you wrote.--Malbear 11:48, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anyone can go to the history of the article and check who inserted that statement. YOU DID. I mentioned Palestinian only here on the TALK page as a side note. You initially claimed that Muslims are seen celebrating on the streets every time (EVERY TIME!) a terrorist incident occurs. I disputed that, and asked you to prove it. Gosh, dude. Are you really this stupid or are you just playing games here? How old are you anyway? OneGuy 12:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Protected

See Talk:Muslim/Protected.

Moslem or Muslim?

• I know that, all things considered, this is a trivial question, but I've never had it answered: what difference (if any) is there between the meanings (or usage) of 'muslim' and 'moslem'? -Litefantastic 10:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

none. "Moslem" is a more old-fashioned transliteration of the same word. For consistency, the article should stick to either orthography, and not mingle both. dab 14:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Allah' or just God?

as a student of religion and person intimately familiar with islam, i question whether, as with the previous question regarding 'moslem', the term 'allah' should be less preferable than simply using 'God'. the shahada doesn't mean 'there is no god but Allah', it means 'there is no god but God'. Similarly, Jews & Christians who pray in Arabic call God 'Allah' in Arabic but in English, say simply 'God'. Anyway seems like a good way to demonise others. Imagine if the articles on Christianity all said, "Christians believe in Elohim" or some similar thing. Em Zilch 15:47, 27 Oct 2004 (EDT)

It's a matter of convenience, to distinguish between the Islamic god and the Christian God. Since it's so widely used in our culture, let it be. --bas

Huh? The Islamic God IS the Christian God, isn't He? :P

so then when talking about judaism we should change "god" to "elohim"? because that's what you're arguing - that the three abrahamic religions, who all believe in the same divinity and much of the same religious history, don't have the same god? contrary to what practitioners of those three faiths have always taught? em zilch

The muslims believe the jews messed with the biblical history to suit their beliefs, and the jews believe it of the muslims. That's good enough IMO to separate the names. God for christians, Yahweh/Elohim/etc for jews, and Allah for muslims. I seriously doubt anyone would complain.

Not all terrorists are Muslim, but are all Muslims terrorists ?

Allah is just an Arabic word for God, just as "Christ" is a Greek word for "Messiah." I don't see what your point is there. Also, the Christian/Jewish God said a lot of things (eg Leviticus 20:13) that are no longer taken at face value. Does that particular verse imply that "all Christians are homophobic militants?"Pakaran 17:38, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recent trolling

For 68.107.102.129's paranoid rantings and everyone else's responses, see Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Muslims took over all Islam-related Wikipedia content. - Mustafaa 22:30, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These are jokes, right? Islamism new?

Why are these vandalism jokes allowed to remain in the article?

Islamism is a new form of Islam which views its teachings as the original, authentic form of Islam, and which views other forms of Islam as corrupted and illegitimate. In contrast, many in Sufi Islam see the incorporation of modern enlightenment values as consistent with the original theological program that they believe Islam was based on (see ijthad). In between these two views one can find a wide array of beliefs in Shiite and Sunni Islam.

Islamism is not that new. It can be traced almost to the beginning of Islam 1300 years ago to Ibn Taymiyah.

"There are distinctions between those who seek to live their lives as the first three generations of Islam did, and those who seek to change or reform Islam to conform to today's international norms."

"All the major denominations of Islam are fundamentalist, in the technical sense of the term." Whose technique?

There are no major denominations of Islam that have a liberal theological approach, but there are some smaller liberal movements within Islam."

These passages contradict each other. There are distinctions between those who seek to pwede bng pgttrahin ang mga dpat trahin? live as "fundamentalists" but there are no major denominations that are not "fundamentalist"? Fundamentalism is a Western word applied to Islam. Muslims and even Islamists do not use it themselves. It is a loan word used to mirror Christian fundamentalism. You could also call Islam orthodox, conservative, high-fidelity, or traditional. Islam is just Islam, as it has always been - seeking its true roots - not some new fundamentalist Islamic movement. That's a contrived notion. --ThinkPink 05:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These are jokes right? Muslims want to conquer the world?

"Some Muslims of today wish to see the entire world become part of "Dunya al-Islam", with any actions being excusable if it expands the realm of Islam or reduces the "Dunya al-Harb". Their beliefs include the conversion of all "Kaffir" (deniers/unbelievers) under the banner of Islam. Examples include Islamic organizations in locations such as Sudan, Ethiopia and the Mollucas in Indonesia. They regard any arrangements with non-Muslims as only a cease fire as there can be no proper accommodation between both opposing worlds. "

This pretty POV. "any actions excusable"? Puhlease. Conversion and proselytization are common to many religions. This makes it sound like extortion. "Some Muslims" is pretty vague. I'm sure there are some Muslims who believe that the US is the greatest country in the world. Why doesn't their opinion get quoted here? Doesn't fit someone's agenda, apparently. --ThinkPink 05:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a joke right? Celebrating 9/11?

"This view was comprimised somewhat when footage of seemingly elated Palestinians celebrating in the streets after Israeli suicide bombings and the September 11th attatcks were widely disseminated through Both western and Arabic television networks, skewing the reaction of the Arab world at-large in the minds of most westerners."

Not only is this bit of slander full of typos but it's false. See Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks. --ThinkPink 05:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a joke right? Not all Muslims are terrorists?

"Some Muslim authorities see a need for changes in the philosophy of the ummah. Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of Al-Arabiya asked: "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims." [1]"

Is the general manager of a TV station now a Muslim authority? Why is this chap being quoted? because his statements jibe with the views of some editor? Why not quote some real Muslim authorities like Ayatollah Sistani, Sheikh Tantawi or Qaradawi?

"We should note that not all terrorists are Muslims." WOW - How brilliant! Is this "Islam for Duummies." Does this really need to be said? Apparently so.....

According to US State Department, Patterns of Golbal Terrorism, 1999, of the 169 anti-US attacks reported for 1999, Latin America accounted for 96, Western Europe for 30, Eurasia for 9, and Africa 16. The Middle East accounted for 11, and Asia for 6. [2]

Tamil Tigers, a non-Islamist terrorist group that has 10,000 members, has carried out 240+ suicide bombings. [3] Some Christian terrorist groups in the Indian state of Nagaland and Jewish terrorist groups in the US and Israel are also active. [4]

What does this have to do with Muslim? Is it necessary to discuss terrorism in an article about Muslims? Let's get a grip here people!

" "This is the single biggest failure of Muslims at present, you don't have credible leaders. You don't have a real voice of conscience." When things go wrong, leaders blame "the Americans and the Jews and the Christians.... we are still in a state of denial." [5]" Again, why is this chap's opinion being quoted? Because his views happen to coincide with the editor? Why not quote Mahathir bin Mohamad or any one of the other billion Muslims? See Mahathir#Jews and Mahathir#Resignation.--ThinkPink 05:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who is muslim?

I think we need an additional article on who is Muslim equitant to who is Jew. And should also mention Muslims before Muhammad(PBUH). For example the article Judism says and let me quote

"According to religious Jews, the Biblical patriarch Abraham was the first Jew"

So why shouldn't we have the information of First Muslim?

Zain 21:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

QURAN ALONE MUSLIM BELIEFS JUST IGNORED AND REMOVED

Why are you cosnistently removing our beliefs? We find that biased and compeltely unfair. (the preceding was an unsigned comment by 84.130.55.239)

No one is actually removing your beliefs. Your beliefs are still shown in the appropriate section where you deviate from mainstream practice. What you want is called a promotional link in the beliefs section and that will not be allowed under policy, especially for a very small group with little adherents. The common Muslim beliefs are covered in the beliefs section. For further "Quran Alone" practice, the article has had a link to the Quran alone article. Also please address any concerns here and not on the actual article itself, because that is considered vandalism. Hope that helps. --Anonymous editor 22:14, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

QA- As for your first point ok we will not link it but as far as your 2nd point is concerned we can only say that the majority aint always right and we should have a right to mention our beliefs even if we are considered a relatively small "group". As for your last point we do apologize and will in future post in te discussion sections.(the preceding was an unsigned comment by 84.130.55.239)

Yes, but please realize that your beliefs are already mentioned in the sections where your belief deviates from common Muslim belief and "your" article is linked there too. Also saying that "majority ain't always right" is your own personal opinion and therefore that will not be allowed into the article. Lastly, devoting a major section to such a small group of people when there are many other larger Islam-related groups like you is wrong, highly controversial and unacceptable especially if you are adding a promotional link. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 22:25, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

QA- As for majority aint always right it's not only our opinion but many others' too. It could be seen with the Nazi Empire in Germany which were in majority there, yet were they right? So i think this is out of qs. As we already said we wont produce a link in the categories of beliefs but only state what we believe in and that we too are Muslims(submitters to God Alone). (the preceding was an unsigned comment by 84.130.55.239)

Yes, but what you are missing out is what I said. I said "devoting a major section to such a small group of people when there are many other larger Islam-related groups like you is wrong, highly controversial and unacceptable". Even without the link there is a problem. Comparing the "Nazi empire" to Muslims is highly controversial and I really don't know what you mean by that. So that opinion will be discarded from the article if added (Please remember this is wikipedia and that neutrality is followed). Finally, your beliefs are already mentioned where exactly they deviate from Muslim belief and on "your" relative article. Most Muslims consider "your" beliefs heretical. But even without that, the point I am trying to make is that devoting a section to such a small minority is definitely not a good idea. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 22:43, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Article is redundant

This article merely repeats material from Islam, but badly, since it hasn't received the same level of editorial attention. IMHO, it should say:

Muslim -- as a noun, one who follows the religion of Islam. As an adjective, relating to the religion of Islam.

That's ALL we need, a pointer to Islam. I'm not going to just DO it, because I want to be sure that all editors are on-board here. I don't see anything that should be saved from the article, but perhaps someone else can point it out. If it's usable, it could be moved. Zora 01:23, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well I am willing to see what you propose. If you want you can start a temporary page with a proposed article and then we "concerned editors" can all contribute to it. I think that would be helpful. What do you think? --Anonymous editor 01:59, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

What I'm proposing is to wipe the whole article and replace it with the bit above:

Muslim -- as a noun, one who follows the religion of Islam. As an adjective, relating to the religion of Islam.

That's all. Very short, basically a redirect. Zora 05:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, except make it a redirect pure and simple. No sense tempting people with an expandable-looking dicdef... - Mustafaa 28 June 2005 07:26 (UTC)

Actually on second thoughts, make it a disambig between Islam and Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj. - Mustafaa 29 June 2005 18:49 (UTC)

I think you should leave some of the main elements of the first paragraph (e.g. Mohammedan usage), but eliminate other info below or incorporate some of it into the Islam article, although I don't exactly know where "Muslim marriage" will fit in. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 18:52 (UTC)

Pruning

No one has stepped forward to say that the page should be kept, in its current form as a rival version of Islam. It seems to be edited mainly by pious Muslim anons. I'm planning to cut it down to just the first two paras, about Muslim being the preferred term, with a little extra piety-pruning, IF I don't hear a storm of protest by tomorrow. Zora 07:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's so brief now that it needs to be merged, or, at least, to split away from Islam what doesn't relate to the religion. Islam is about the belief, this article should be about the believers. Failing that, it needs to be merged. Garrett^Talk 03:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Other uses.

I have heard tell that the word "Muslim" was also commonly used during the Holocaust by Nazis to refer to female Jews - this comes from a comment made in the (factually accurate in most verifiable details) novel Making History by Stephen Fry by the character Leo Zuckermann/Axl Bauer, who is represented as an expert on the Holocaust. Can anyone verify this detail to be true? Matthew Platts 21:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

"Prophet"

Some anti-Muslim activists have gone on a Wikipedia compaign to erase all use of the word "prophet" in connection with Muhammad.

It is true that when some Muslims contribute to Wikipedia, they write things like "the Prophet Muhammad, PBUH" and suchlike. That can be NPOVed as "the prophet Muhammad". It is not POV to describe someone as a prophet. That's a religious role, like shaman or priest. Use of the word does not imply that one recognizes Muhammad as a TRUE prophet, or THE prophet. Prophet is routinely used to describe the Hebrew prophets, frex, and no one believes that this implies conversion to Judaism or Christianity. Please stop the prophet-removal campaign. Zora 22:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

See also section

• Islam

• Moh'min - Muslim - Fasiq
• Muslim - Munafiq - Kafir

i have used that format to show diffrent ends in the same scale, first line refering to inner belife, second one refering to the exterior belife.

--Striver 16:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust link ?

Can someone provide an external link (or just a reference) to the last statement about prisoners of war in con. camps being referred to as Muslims ? ---Mpatel (talk) 17:03, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly can. See [6] and scroll down, find the word 'Musulman'. If you check [7] you will see that the word 'Musulman' means 'Muslim'. Matthew Platts 21:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I knew that 'Musulman' meant 'Muslim', but I wasn't familiar with the holocaust link - thanks. ---Mpatel (talk) 16:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Replaced. Your opinions re Zionism have nothing to do with the fact that the word WAS used that way at that time. I don't know why, but then the origin of a lot of slang is obscure. Zora 20:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Change it back because you are wrong and progating incorrect Muslim beliefs. If you look in the bible in the original armenic it quotes the coming of a a great prophet and this prophet is Muhammad. I can add the quote to wikipedia if you wish.

As I am a Muslim I believe I have a better understanding of Islam than non-muslims and I am commanded not to follow the instruction of those who disbelieve: "“Therefore listen not to the unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Quran)”. "Surah Al-Furqan (25:52)

In the Quran Surah Al A’raf (The Heights) The following is mentioned: (159) Among the people of Moses there is a party who guide others in the way of the truth and establish justice in its light. (162) Then the wrong-doers among them substituted another word in place of the one told them. So We sent upon them a scourge from the heaven as a punishment for their wrong-doing.

Also I should give a warning: "Vain are the deeds of those who reject Our signs as false and to the meeting of the Hereafter. Shall they be recompensed, except according to their deeds?" Surah Al-A’rāf (The Heights) 7:147

Revision of M. Patel's revisions

I rearranged Mpatel's addition. I removed the reference to the five pillars of Islam. That's a Sunni formulation; the Shi'a use the roots and branches of Islam. Even though I'm not a Shia (nor a Muslim!) I want to be sure that Wikipedia is fair to the Shia. Zora 21:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)