Talk:Islam/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Miscellaneous

Ibn Warraq is a poor source. He calls himself a former Muslim who is now an atheist, and writes under a pseudonym. Many Muslim sources have rebutted his ideas and claims. I'm removing his references in the Islam entry. --mr100percent

Please do not remove him. He is an acknowledged expert on Islam; he only writes under a psyudonym because many Muslims have sent death threats to his publisher. Many Muslim scholars, and many liberal religious Muslims, agree with In Warraq'a analyses of Islam. Also note that many of the people who claimed to have refuted him were in fact extremist Islamic fundamentalist apologists. Fundamentalists of all faiths (Islam, Christian, Jewish, etc.) always claim to "refute" scholarly and non-religious studies of their own faiths, sure, but this doesn't mean that they have actually refuted anything. Most such refutations merely preach to the converted, but have little or no standing in the academic community, or the community of non-fundamentalist religious believers. RK 19:22 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Secular Islam - Many Muslims who support Ibn Warraq's views

I'm not sure the Ibn Warraq book and associated material belong under a subheading "Arguments against conversion to Islam" I can imagine a bunch of arguments but that material is about what happens when someone converts from Islam to some other faith or philosophy. Fred Bauder 12:59 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-- I strongly disagree. Ibn Warraq is not any expert on Islam, his books attempt to disprove the religion, and speculate on the possible sources for the Qur'an other than God. His writing fails to be objective and his books can be downright vicious. Ibn Warraq is a poor non-neutral source. I take issue with the "Many Muslim scholars" who you think agree with it, because NO imam or sheikh will agree with Warraq's views. That's like the equivalent of a Christian priest agreeing with authors who claim that Jesus was phony. Some liberal muslims may agree with Warraq, as he has valid criticism of contemporary practice, but religious Muslims refute his points as he completely misses the meaning of what is actually transmitted in the Qur'an. --mr100percent

Trends and Flaws in Some Anti-Muslim Writing as Exemplified by Ibn Warraq

-- For what it is worth, I have read through some of Ibn Warraq's books and watched a television interview with Mr. Warraq, and agree with mr100percent that Ibn Warraq's work is not really worth the time of Wikipedia readers, unless they are interested in doing research about invective against Islam. In my opinion, the books were mostly unfounded, though they contained some interesting (but ultimately refutable) arguments here and there. The reason that I would agree that Ibn Warraq is probably not a scholar is that I have been taught that true scholars have a certain humility, a certain degree of respect even for opinions that they do not share, that has not been displayed in the works I have read through. I also share mr100percent's doubt that any Muslim scholars agree with Ibn Warraq's work. That is because there is a very high standard for scholarship in Islam, including the memorization of rightly-guided texts such as the Creed of Imam Akhdari (for Sunni scholars at least), the Prohibitions of the Tongue, etc., which have been deemed rightly guided by scholarly consensus. These texts contain numerous statements that would flatly contradict Ibn Warraq's assertions, as well as warnings against even his line of reasoning, such that Islamic scholars would know without doubt that to agree with some of Ibn Warraq's arguments or assumptions would take them out of Islam. And so, if they did happen to agree with Ibn Warraq, then they would also know that they were no longer in Islam. But then they would not be Muslim scholars. Hence, my doubt.

Yet, to be fair, there is a different definition of scholarship in the West, which is that anyone who teaches a course or writes a book is a scholar. Hence, I can understand where the confusion might arise where one person says so-and-so is a scholar and many muslim scholars say such-and-such good things about him. That probably means that so-and-so has written books and many muslim authors have agreed with some of his arguments. The second statement might possibly be true, but we should recognise that the term "muslim scholar" has a clear meaning within the Muslim community, and within that meaning it is highly unlikely that "many muslim scholars" agree with Ibn Warraq's analysis. Silver Maple

I totally disagree. Ibn Warraq's book show good scholarship. Muslims simply hate him because he left Islam, and became secular. They hate him so much that he receives death threats. This is no different from the first people who left Christianity to become freethinkers. They too were slandered, some were threatened. Yet today we know them as enlightenment philosophers. In any case, you haven't demonstrated any errors in his works; you merely wrote a pious sounding letter registering indignation at his audacity. RK

Again, I don't see how Mr. Warraq's book shows any scholarship, his points are refutable, his ideas are by no means new, his personal bias is clearly seeping into his work. Death threats are regrettable, but by no means legitimize or elevate his ideas. I fail to see how one can draw a parallel between enlightenment philosophers and Mr. Warraq. I can only describe him as being similiar to Friedrich Nietzsche in that both left their religion after disagreeing with it. I question his motives and methods of reasoning. There are liberal Muslims who may raise a few of his claims, and I would consider their rationalization to be far above Mr. Warraq's. He starts with a conclusion of atheism and then uses Islamic texts to back up the claim, and I feel that is antithetical to true scholarship in any sense. --mr100percent

I don't see as how it matters that Warraq's works are good or bad; the whole reason that he is mentioned in the article is that his life has been threatened for his apostacy, and not what he says about Islam. Thus, "See any of the works of" is irrelevant to the article.

Also, if we're just looking for examples of apostates who've been given death threats, aren't there any people who are more famous, and more recognizable by the general public, than Warraq? If we could find anohter example, we wouldn't have to spend any time arguing about his scholarship (or lack thereof). -- Khym Chanur 02:49, Oct 31, 2003 (UTC)

How can an anonymous person like Ibn Warraq be acknowledged as an "expert"? What's to stop me from going under a fake name and claiming to be an expert in anything too? In fact, anyone can do it. If we accept anonymous people as experts, then there are in fact no standards. What's Ibn Warraq's background, what are his credentials? Without this knowledge, we can't know anything about his supposed "expertise", and we can't know that when he is merely a made up pseudonym. Fred Rice March 18, 2004.

---

Why was the following removed and replaced? Is any of the following contested as incorrect?

Ashura - the 10th day of the month of Muharram. This is the day on which Muhammad's grandson, Husain, was martyred in Iraq. For Shi'a Muslims this is a day of mourning. Muslims also connect this holiday to the deliverance of the Children of Israel from Egypt, and it is a day of special solemn and emotional prayers, rejoicing and music. This holiday is prohibited by the Islamist movement (fundamentalist Islam). Some Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia forbid Muslims to celebrate this holiday.

• Supernatural Islamic experiences

---

The recent addition about Swedish law re: circumcision doesn't belong here. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so historically all mentions of law deal with system derived from English-common law. I vote for deletion. Kricxjo 08:14, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

We must distinguish theoretical Islam from real-world Islam. There is a clergy in Islam. Imams are a form of clergy, more like non-ordained prayer leaders, but there are many other forms of Islamic clergy as well, including ayatollahs. That's just a fact. Whether or not they should exist is not for Wikipedia to say. The fact that many Muslim clergy do exist, and millions of Muslims respect them as such, is an indisputable fact that must be mentioned. We could, of course, write that other Muslims are unhappy with this situation, and they believe that clergy shouldn't exist in Islam. But we can't rewrite Wikipedia articles to match the religious beliefs of those particular Muslims who happen to reject the idea of Muslim clergy. RK 15:27, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The same is true for recent statements about Jihad. While some people may reject the ideas of Jihad as a holy war against non-Muslims, or against the West, or against other groups, the fact is that millions of other Muslims accept those ideas. We may not write their ideas out of existence, even if we personally wish that these ideas did not exist in Islam. There are entire books on this subject by Muslim scholars who admit that many Muslims view Jihad as holy war in precisely this way. This isn't done to make anyone uncomfortable, but only to describe real-world Muslim beliefs. Our article must reflect this. RK 15:27, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

OK, I agree. However, you reverted my edit to the "Jihad as sixth pillar" paragraph, where I stated that Jihad covers both external and internal struggle. I don't think that this is apologistic, since it simply says that holy war is a subset of Jihad, not that Jihad is never holy war, nor that Muslims never advocate holy war. The only reason I can see this as being apologistic is something like "In the English language, Jihad = Holy War, regardless of how Muslims actually use the word". But isn't the whole point that Muslims do use it that way?

I won't try to reinstate my edit until the edit war has cooled down, since both sides will get rid of it...

And just for the record, I'm not Muslim, nor do I consider myself to be "politically correct". I'm rather secular (or, at most, Deist), and a Libertarian. -- Khym Chanur 02:40, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Every book I have read has said the same thing. Real (this-world-in-practice) Islam is not Ideal Islam; only, the meaning of "real" and "ideal" often gets switched in discourse, causing confusion. To insist that there is no Muslim clergy (or in some cases, even a hierarchy), that Muslims do not impose Islamic law on non-Muslims, and that jihad never means "holy war", is to demand that reality conforms to ideals: and it does not. "Real Islam" may not be compatible with such things, but that's an ideal view. Mkmcconn 16:30, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Just to give an anaology of my above point. According to Jewish rabbinic literature, there are no denominations within Judaism. There just is one Judaism, period. And you probably wouldn't be surprised to see many religious Orthodox Jews make this argument, and put such arguments in their books and articles. The only problem is that this ideal claim isn't even remotely true. There always have been different forms of Judaism; even today there are three major, large branches of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism) and a few other smaller branches (Reconstructionist, Humanist, etc.) Any article on Judaism would have to describe this reality. (And indeed here on Wikipedia we do.) Some in the Orthodox Jewish community would take offense at this description, as it violates their religious beliefs that only one form of Judaism should exist; it would contradict the statements in certain texts which say that only one kind of Judaism exists. But we are obligated to write about what is real, not what is said to be ideal. The same is thus true of Islam. RK 19:23, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Satanic verses

I really think I should make a note of this before I remove the latest addition, about those "Satanic Verses." I think it's abundantly clear that the verses are a forgery. I'm not just saying this as a Muslim, but if you read up on it, you'll see that it falls apart under examination. I wouldn't care if you included it IF you could find a muslim scholar who would agree with it. Not even a liberal muslim believes these 'verses.' It's like Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Judaism. No Jewish person believes in it, but non-Jews with fair regularity ascribe it to them. There, that's my case for removing it. mr100percent

The story of the satanic verses comes from an Islamic source, so it cannot be compared to forgeries like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which were designed to discredit a religion. I think it is important to mention the matter not only because it is an interesting part of the history of Islam, but also because it is an introduction to the wider problem of the changes that the Qur'an has experienced through history. Nearly all archaeologists believe that the Qur'an of today is not exactly the same as during Muhammad's era, and these points deserve mention in the article. Why not start with the satanic verses? Kricxjo

Kricxjo, I must say, I find your remarks suspicious. The Satanic Verses do not come from 'Islamic sources' but Middle Eastern historians who have preserved the supposed event and without their honest record keeping, many doubt we would be aware of its existence. Its most likely that the Santanic Verses are, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a way to discredit a religion. Usedbook

I am sorry, but that is just nonsense. These are authentic Muslim Islamic sources, and your claims that they are really from "Middle Eastern historians" is absolutely incorrect, and borders on conspiracy theory. Your position indicates a lack of in-depth reading on liberal Islamic views of this issue, which is not surprising. Most of Islam today is fundamentalist, and shows no interest in a dispassionate historical understanding of how Islam developed, and how early Islam used to have a wider array of views than now exists. RK 02:11, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)~

Actually, the "Satanic Verses" both did and did not come from Islamic sources. The verses in question are mentioned in a hadith source by scholars and historians, but only serve to prove the verses incorrect. Salman Rushdie rekindled the debate by mentioning the verses and omitting the refuting information. No, Islam is NOT mostly fundamentalist, and I'm wondering where you draw that conclusion from. So in essence, the "Satanic verses" here are, just like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a way to discredit a religion. Please try to disprove this source (Maulana Maududi, one of the greatest Islamic scholars of the 20th century) I've provided a link for before you reinsert this idea into the page. It's also such a ridiculously minor point in Islam that perhaps only one or two scholars has discussed it, the rest toss it out as a falsehood. Even from a secular viewpoint, I'd say that it doesn't add up. mr100percent

The verses openly declare polytheism as valid, the only attempt of its kind in the thousands of Qur'anic and Ahadith texts. And an archaeologist is one who studies human history and prehistory through the excavation of sites and through the analysis of physical remains. Your claim that "Nearly all archaeologists believe that the Qu'ran of today is not exactly the same as during Muhammad's era", in my opinion, seems like an immature attempt to discredit the Qur'an. To address the main issue here, The Satanic Verses has its own article, and should be mentioned at Qur'an. I don't see why Islam shouldn't have a brief mention of it with a link though. Usedbook 23:46, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

These are pious and well meaning fundamentalist Muslim apologetics, but they carry no historical weight. All non-fundamentalist scholars (including many Muslims) agree that the Qur'an has a history, and that it can be studied using the historical method. When we discuss such issues these are not an "immature attempt to discredit the Qur'an." Your criticism on those who are open to historical investigation is inappropriate. Just as the Wikipedia articles on the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament incorporate historical scholarship on the authorship and history of these texts, so must the Wikipedia Islam and Qur'an articles. I understand that many religious people are unwilling to engage in such discussions, and that they see such discussions as attacks on their faith. That is too bad, but this encyclopedia demands the same level of open historical scholarship for all of our topics, even Islam. RK 02:13, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)

Paleographic examination of the Qur'an has picked up lately, and a great deal of study has shown that the version of today has a few differences from that of a millenium and a half ago. Admitting this is not an "immature attempt to discredit the Qur'an", because the value of the book itself to adherents of Islam isn't swayed by what Western scholars say. The Bible, for example, has been known to be flawed for over a century now, but that doesn't lessen its value for Christians, and liberal Christians (like myself) accept and are intrigued by the history of the text. But anyway, let's just put the mention of the satanic verses within the article at Qur'an instead of within the general article on Islam, that might be less polemical for everyone. Kricxjo 02:09, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia MUST be fair

If one goes to the Christianity page one would notice their is practically a debate on a page that's supposed to DEFINE Christianity. There is a clear difference what one will see depending on if one types in Christianity or Islam.

Islam's page is all pro Islam with no debate or alternate views; this is not so on the Christianity page. Again, on Islam's no alternate view of Islam, its origins, its prophet, its book or Islams beliefs on the Islam page like there is on the Christianity page.

This is obvious bias. This is nothing more than more disguised persecution and bias of Christians and Christianity. It's been going on for many, many centuries. Frankly, while Christians are getting slaughtered all over the globe by these adherents of the falsely named "religion of peace" this obvious bias is disgusting.

No one should be defining Christians and Christianity but Christians and no one should be defining Islam and Muslims except for Muslims. ALL debate should be on the "talk" pages not on the defining pages.

Nobody should be censoring

Ibn Warraq's views should not be censored! These pages are labeled TALK and all discussion and debate should be allowed whether cerain Muslims disagree or not.

Muslims should NOT be given special preferences.

On the Christianity page, Christians aren't being given the same consideration the Islam page getting! On the Christian page they even have Jewish NON Christian views! The Islam page appears to have been done only by a Muslim whereas this doesn't appear to be the same situation on the Christian pages.

This is NOT a country where alternate views aren't allowed and Muslims should NOT be allowed to censor out alternate beliefs or expressions they don't like.

If Muslims get to censor their Islam page, as a Christian I demand the same ability to censor the Christian page.

This problem is hardly limited to this article. You may fairly say that the Islam article is written from a postitive point of view (with one paragraph with a bit of negative information) but one may also say the Israel article is also written that way with the Palestinian article an extremely negative article with a lot of crap about how there is not any such people. Such articles represent the focus of attention of partisan advocates on a particular area with the article being the outcome of struggle rather than any objective scholarly process. However the solution is not to make the Christian article the same sort of one sided production but to patiently improve those articles which have been "captured" by partisans. Fred Bauder 22:24, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Secular Muslims and Islam are not the same.

I have been reading these comments I have to say that there is some confusion over the meaning of Islam and Muslim which is dangerous in a dictionary!! Islam is an idealogy as presented in the Qur'an and Sunnah and expounded on in Sha'riah law. A Muslim is said to be one who testifies La-ilaha illallah Muhammaden a Rasuul-Allah" (There is not God but Allah and Mohammad is his Messenger). Therefore to include mention of secular Muslims and Islam in a definition of Islam is a misnomer. By all means reference to them but do not take selfprofessed non-Muslims as the source for what a Muslim is.

I understand what you mean. Islam is a religion. One who does not adhere to the tenets of a religion is generally not considered a member of that religion. Nonetheless, the term "secular Muslim", I feel, is useful. It refers to those people who have been raised in a Muslim culture, by a Muslim family, and who feel an affinity for a Muslim way of life. Whule they may not believe all, or even most, of the theological principles of Islam, they feel that they are living a somewhat Muslim lifestyle. Many outside of Islam see such people as being at least somewhat Muslim. JeMa 16:17, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

Also on a side note the Hadith presented by these secular Muslims are very weak indeed and I noted with interest that none were from Al-Bukhari the pinnacle of Hadith (even these ones are sometimes weak). If a Hadith contradicts the Qur'an is it considered to be null and void (unless your tryng to prove a point) so again much of the Hadith based evidence presented by the secularists is void.

That is a valid point of view. But some religious Muslims would disagree with you. Many Shiite Muslims believe that much of the Sunni Hadith contradicts the Qur'an, and is invalid. But is Sunni Islam thus invalid? That would be most of Islam. Even within Sunni Islam, there are many disagreements over which interpretations of Islamic law are correct. JeMa 16:17, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

Basically you wouldn't go to a Muslim for a definition of what Christianity is; why are people referring to non-Muslims before Muslims on what Islam is?

That is a very good point. As far as I have read, most of the material in this article is not from non-Muslim sources, and not from secular Muslim sources, so we likely don't have to worry about this. JeMa 16:17, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

How could Islam have been "founded" in the 7th century?!

Islam was "founded" when Muhammad made the claims to be a "Prophet of God" and gained followers; that happened in the SIXTH not the seventh century.

The version of Islam as was found on the Islam page is the Wahabist, Sunni version of Islam and is an unacceptable version of universal Islam to some Muslims. Also, Islam is presented as "the truth" insulting the adherents of other religious people when it should be presented as what Muslims believe to be the truth.

Again, the version of Islam is not the version of Islam acceptable to many other Muslims; the version as currently given on Wikipedia is what the strict Wahabist Islamic adherent believes.

Since the usual date for Muhammad's birth is 569 (6th century), and the story of Gabriel visiting him is placed during his 40th year (609 - 7th century), the founding of Islam is in the 7th century, also by your accounting. Mkmcconn 01:51, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A new contributor writes "The version of Islam as was found on the Islam page is the Wahabist, Sunni version of Islam and is an unacceptable version of universal Islam to some Muslims. Also, Islam is presented as "the truth" insulting the adherents of other religious people when it should be presented as what Muslims believe to be the truth."

User:MINDBOMB There is only one version of islam The one from the perfect unchangable Qur'an written before time by the pen directed by allah practiced by muhammud.

I strongly disagree on both counts. This page most certainly does not give a Wahabbi view of Islam; I totally fail to see anything which can back up this claim. Further, I don't see any NPOV violations which state that Islam is "the truth". From what I can read, the article only points out that Muslims believe that Islam is the truth. And of course they do, or they wouldn't be Muslims. Similarly, Christians believe that their religion is the truth, and Jainists believe that their religion is the truth, etc. If you have some specific criticisms, we would be gald to hear them, and we would be happy to rewrite any and all sections of the articles with problems. RK 02:20, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

Continuous neglect and partiality rampant in Islamic related articles

Some articles, the religious articles especially, have a reputation of partiality in content but I have respect for the contributors here at Wikipedia and hope neutrality will overtake the vandalism and hidden agendas. We cannot help but notice the overwhelming vandalism. Recently (19:37, 31 Oct 2003), an anonymous individual (24.96.57.18) made a disturbing contribution. He/she added a disgusting and appalling website filled with evil and a heavily biased contribution to the Islam article. Usedbook 22:07, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What is so outrageous is that, when an attempt was made to remove the anti-Islamic contribution by another anonymous individual, RK undid it. Futhermore, when RK viewed and removed some of the questionable content, he left remaining much of the biased material as valid and neutral. RK then made a new section claiming the Islamic tenet of Al-Taqiyya concludes to "Lying to non-Muslims" and that Shi'a Muslims have a law obligating Muslims to deceive all "non-Muslims" as to what their actual beliefs are. Usedbook 22:07, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That is totally false, and I am astounded that you would make such a claim. An anonymous person added some biased material, and I was the person that removed this material. Instead of leaving in a biased polemic against all Muslims, I replaced with a fact-based discussion of a mainstream part of Shia Islam, the concept of lying (or "dissumulating") to non-Muslims under certain circumstances. Perhaps this facet of Shia Islam makes you uncomfortable; it also makes makes some Sunni Muslims feel uncomfortable. But it is very real, and needs a calm discussion, in a NPOV fashion. So please do not accuse me of slandering Muslims; someone else did, and I merely replaced the slander with a calm discussion of the subject. RK 00:07, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Please take the time to read the articles on this subject, written by Muslims themselves. Muslims do not deny that this philosophy exists, and some of their websites are very open in explaining what it means, and why the controvery exists. RK 00:07, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I never accused you of slandering Muslims, but said you left some of the biased contribution by 24.96.57.18 as valid for Wikipedia including the hate website (fruitofislam). Your short Al-Taqiyya contribution claimed the Islamic tenet of Al-Taqiyya concludes to "Lying to non-Muslims" and that Shi'a Muslims have a law obligating Muslims "to deceive non-Muslims as to what their actual beliefs are." Al-Taqiyya is a tenet in Islam accepted openly by Sunni and Shi'a Muslims and deserves to be represented in a neutral manner. Usedbook 03:25, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The hate website is by a fundamentalist Christian and it seems possible that the contributor was the webmaster trying to promote his website. If you're curious, I strongly suggest a viewers discretion is advised. RK, you make many respectful and neutral contributions here at Wikipedia and they're much appreciated. However, many have claimed that some of your edits related to Islamic and Arab articles are biased and that you present anti-Islamic sentiments to articles. I feel much of your reputation is unfounded and that you truly are sincere and an integral piece to the Wikipedia community. Usedbook 03:25, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I disagree; re-read my above comments. The "bias" you mention is hard to understand, because each of the websites I listed gives a Muslim perspective on this subject. This topic is not a lie or a fabrication. RK 00:07, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

I have no issues with the two websites you contributed today. The questionable website I am speaking of is 'fruitofislam' contributed by 24.96.57.18. If you did not notice it, that is understandable. Since you did find objectionable material left by 24.96.57.18, why did you not remove the website? Have you taken a look at it? Tell me if Wikipedia should have 'fruitofislam' as an exterior link. Reddi approves of 'fruitofislam' and tried to place it back in the article. This wouldn't be tolerated in Christianity or Judaism. Again, I strongly suggest a viewers discretion is advised for the site 'fruitofislam'. Usedbook 03:25, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Tell you if Wikipedia should have 'fruitofislam' as an exterior link? yes (or another alterneative critical site of Isalm). If you are offened by it, don't click on the link (there was a warning). BTW, other site that are "offensive" are include in wiki ... ala. any of the taboo articles or shock sites links.

I "approve" of it [with a disclaimer] (the reader has the right to see it; it's a view of islam that is NOT expressed in the article). It's a heavy critical site. It also gives balance to the others.

This wouldn't be tolerated in Christianity or Judaism? why not? Balance is need in those articles too ... if there are heavily critical sites out there, add them to those articles ... there should be disenting views in all the religious articles IMO (only a pro-POV [which this article has currently] is not NPOV) ... I am religious, but not so "weak" in belief that a citical site would "shake" me ....

Viewers discretion was advised for the site 'fruitofislam' (that's what the warning text was for) reddi 09:35, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is the 'fruitofislam' website NPOV? ... i'll answer that with another question ... are the other (present) links NPOV?

Should Wikipedia advocate it as an exterior link? I don't think Wikipedia is advocating anything ... just providing information (let the reader decide, let not you or I think for the reader) ...

Are the other present links "advocating"? probably (pro-POV links should be acceptable) ... should the other (existing) links be removed because they are advocating? no (but oppositional link should be accepted too)

History page? So cover it up (ala. another hurdle for the user to jump) instead of puttin a oppositional view out there? hmmm doesn't seem too NPOV. reddi 12:03, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

We should always consider the Wikipedia policies and guidelines to ensure proper procedure. From experience, I've noticed that some external links violate Wikipedia policy and etiquette. Its not abnormal for a link to be removed from Wikipedia. I rarely remove links, but the 'fruitofislam' website seems to classify as hate material and seems non-academic. A link to a page with extremely graphic corpse photographs? Lets atleast respect the loved ones of the victims of 9/11. Usedbook 14:33, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Consider the Wikipedia policies and guidelines? Which particular guideline are you refereing to? The "Ignore all rules" policy perhaps? Including the link helps avoid bias (which is leaning to only "pro" links). The "respect other contributors" mabey? That could be why the link be left in (some editor thought it was needed) ... mabey not ...

You've noticed that some external links violate policy and etiquette? My observations (for the most part) have been contray to that, but YMMV ... should external links that other contributors are offended by be removed? I sincerely hope not (or some other links need to be removed) .... its probably not abnormal for a link to be removed from Wikipedia, but then again it's not abnormal for a link to be reinserted.

'fruitofislam' seems to classify as hate material? seems non-academic? YMMV on that ... it certianly exposes a "dark side" of Islam (though I personally don't see those that perform acts of violence and hate as muslims (muslims [as far as I can tell] are peaceful and love life not death) ... the ones that perform those acts of violence and hate are mohammadeans IMO, but YMMV ...)

Lets respect the loved ones of the victims of 9/11? Some may posit that such a link does do that exact thing (by what some see as the consequence of acts of violence and hate in the guise of Islam) ... but, again, YMMV ...

A link to a page with extremely graphic corpse photographs? Sometimes only "extremely graphic" information is needed (many arabic stations repeatedly show extremely graphic images in thier broiadcasts)... sometimes, there's not other ways to express things .... BUT, I'll not repost the link (though other users may and I'd support such action) ... and I'll endeavor to find a more moderate link to give some balance / critique to Islam (since reinserting the link only continue to incite conflicts here).

Sincerely, reddi

24.96.57.18/MINDBOMB/Bruce D. Shaw/m.bomb@verizon.net continues to spam the link despite it being removed by several contributors. After Googling I have noticed that he is in fact the author of the page and has spammed it elsewhere. Removed. silsor 20:42, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

I am User:MINDBOMB I have never spammed anything My website is not a hate site and I don't hate muslims I hate islam I have earned the right to hate it because I spent the time to learn about islam. The shrill voices desperate to defend the indefensible are as delusional as Muhammad they are either are uniformed or are hatful bigots marching toward death I hope the former .

Even if you do hate it you still have to abide by Neutral point of view policy when you edit. Your point of view can be valuable if it is presented in a neutral manner. Dysprosia 00:42, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you NPOV is important but when the words are taken directly from the "holy writing" of islam it indites islam not me.

How does one reconcile this?

There are several problems with your website. The first is thinking that you can figure out how the followers of a holy book will act by only reading the holy book. If you did that with Christianity, you'd come to the conclusion that modern day Christians kill all witches ("Thou shall not suffer a witch to live"). However, no Christians have done that in several centuries; it's equally absurd to rely just on the Qur'an when trying to figure out how Muslims will act.

The second problem is that you treat Muslims as a monlithic group. Among people who claim to follow the Christian Bible, there is a wide variety of political and ethical beliefs, with groups on opposite sides of virtually every issue. So why should self proclaimed Muslims not have many factions, just as self proclaimed Christians do? -- Khym Chanur 04:09, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

I have no concern about any thing Christian churches have done in the past I am no member of any church.It is not absurd to try to guess how muslims will act considering when muslims reach a majority they overthrow the prior government in favor of shria law(Shafi’i’s law) thus taking controland impose the politics of islam and it's bloody legacy.Christians and Jews seem to have adopted democracies and can live in relative peace and prosperity.but lets hear it from the man himself.

“So keep your duty to Allah and fear Him as much as you can.” Muhammad in His Own Words

considering that 1 out of five sentences in the qur'an is gibberish the majority after that stolen bible stories that are corrupted.Muhammad manages to insert enough original material to get his point across. But the problem with islam remains its sources the qur'an and haddith . that is why muslims where told not to carry it (althought it was never written untill after 705ad as no mosques pointed to Mecca until after705 they pointed to Jerusalem )into battle for it was for arabs only and the enemy would use it“Allah’s Messenger forbade that one should travel to the land of enemy taking the Qur’an with him.” Under the chapter heading, “It Is Forbidden To Take The Qur’an To The Land Of The Infidels When It Is Feared That It Might Fall Into Their Hands,” (alothought it was a message for all of mankind)Well it is some message Foolish Insincere revolting dreary pointless vain . But that is all we have to understand islam and the howling that comes when it is exposed for what itis . Your taking it out of context, It cant be translated, Your a racist. A bigot. Allah has closed your mind to the truth. Whatever islam is unmitgated camel shit read the qur'an and sunnah learn about islam and toss it aside it's trash. User:MINDBOMB

I did make a new section on Al-Taqiyya and any neutral modifications are more than welcomed and encouraged. On a personal note, I am a recent revert/convert to Islam and I seem to be the only Muslim who is a regular Wikipedian. Its lonely and I honestly don't have any Muslim friends. I love Wikipedia, but at times, I consider abandoning Wikipedia and hiding from these emotionally draining experiences. But I stay because I believe in the goal of a free encyclopedia and believe in each and every contributor resides greatly more wholesome tendencies than bad. Thats not only my own belief, but what a Muslim must accept. Usedbook 03:25, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Recent converts to Islam like you are not representative of mainstream Shia Muslim thought. In fact, many Shia and Sunni Muslims view Wikipedia (and other Western encyclopdias) as un-Islamic and heretical. You are letting your enthusiasm overwhelm your critical analysis. RK

Honest mainsteam Shi'a Muslim thought should have its place here aslong as its counterparts like Sunni Muslim thought have its place also. The NPOV is the goal. But, may I remind you that this article is called Islam and that the article should detail Al-Taqiyya neutrally as intrepreted by Muslims and non-Muslims with authoritative Islamic sources alongside. You should not just give some unpopular and radical Shi'a interpretation of Al-Taqiyya and pass it off as 'Islam' and leave the Sunni interpetation silent and the most mainstream views also silent. I will reiterate myself in saying that Al-Taqiyya is a tenet in Islam accepted openly by Sunni and Shi'a Muslims and deserves to be represented in a neutral manner. I incorporated your material in the Al-Taqiyya section and encourage you fully to contribute to the section. I truly would like to see all critical views of Al-Taqiyya by non-Muslims alongside Muslim views. Take care. Usedbook 03:25, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you. RK

Maybe the section on Islamic theology should mention this:

al-Dajjal - The word derives from Syriac and means 'the Cheat' or 'the Charlatan'. It is often translated to signify an Islamic 'anti-Christ'. A huge amount of tradition has grown up around this eschatological figure. The bare bones of these indicate that he will arrive on earth during the last days of which he himself will be a major sign. He will preside over forty years (or forty days) of injustice and license, after which 'Isa will destroy him and the entire world will convert to Islam. Al-Dajjal is not mentioned by name in the Qur'an. (copyrighted text)

• From "A Glossary of Islamic Terms", Islamic-Paths.Org

Copyediting and minor changes

I was unable to add these to the article since there appears to be an edit war in progress:

• end of introduction
  • "never be unaltered" should be "never be altered"

• Around line 20, "Notable prophets include" should be changed to "Notable prophets in Islam include".

• Around line 50, "At least one group believes" should be changed to "Some muslims or groups of muslims believe".

• Around line 90-125, I removed "23% of the world's population. Only 18% of Muslims live in the Arab world" since that is USPOV and added "and North America" to the end.

• Around line 110-135, I changed to "Women are generally not" to "Women are almost never". I could not think of a more accurate phrasing.

• The first Muslim Apostates paragraph was very wordy so I rephrased it to:
  • Conversion by Muslims to other religions is forbidden and is termed apostasy. Penalties include ostracism and execution if they live or lived in an "Islamic State" and are deemed enemies of the state. These penalties are not enforced in the United States and other western countries with secular governments, and significant penalties are not performed in many muslim countries nowadays. In Muslim theology, apostasy bears a strong resemblance to the penalties in most countries for treason, betraying one's own country.

Daniel Quinlan 00:20, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

appears to be an edit war in progress? what do you mean? edit it in (patience is a virtue; I only did 2 edit [to restore some the warning and links] =-) reddi

Suggestions on this?

I did notice that this was posited by Mkmcconn, and was removed by someone in the last few edits ... [ it was hidden till futher inspection (for NPOV)]

one of the ideas is Al-taqiyya Al-taqiyya and dissimulation are words used for a practice of Muslims blatantly lying to non-Muslims. All but some of the most fundamental Muslims consider the act of Al-taqiyya or lying to non-Muslims to be a good work. This is very important when one remembers that, in Islam, salvation is determined by good works. This means that a Muslim lying to a non-Muslim is that Muslim doing a good work to earn salvation. It is almost equivalent to a Christian accepting Jesus as his savior. One of the big differences is that a Christian only needs to accept Jesus as his savior once to become saved forever but a Muslim must do his good works consistently and repeatedly to earn his salvation with the except of the greatest work of dying while fighting non-Muslims.

I took it out of the history file and thought I'd list it here [before it got lost]

Sincerely, reddi

In the last few days the scholarship of this article has suffered. It used to be an impartial analysis of Islam. Now it is being rewritten to resemble a Muslim religious instruction manual. I feel like a Muslim is preaching me to convert to Islam, and that he is chastising all those heretics who dare to have ideas that differ from his own. This article needs to be just as fair and impartial as the ones we have on Christianity and Jesus. It should not be an apology for Islam. JeMa 18:03, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

A new user "210.180.96.7" writes (screwing with jews editing this page). Someone who atributes editorial differences to racial or religious backgrounds, in a mean and disparaging fashion, has left the ranks of imparital editorship, and has lowered themselves to mere racism. JeMa 16:56, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

The real problem is his poor writing. Is he trying to screw with Jews? Or is he trying to edit a page that he think Jews are screwing with? Frankly, I'd like to speak with his teacher (7th grade, I imagine)... RK 03:03, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)