text:
F. W. de Klerk

Frederik Willem de Klerk (, ; 18 March 1936 – 11 November 2021) was a South African politician who served as state president of South Africa from 1989 to 1994 and as deputy president from 1994 to 1996. As South Africa's last head of state from the era of white-minority rule, he and his government dismantled the apartheid system and introduced universal suffrage. Ideologically a social conservative and an economic liberal, he led the National Party (NP) from 1989 to 1997.

Born in Johannesburg to an influential Afrikaner family, de Klerk studied at Potchefstroom University before pursuing a career in law. Joining the NP, to which he had family ties, he was elected to parliament and sat in the white-minority government of P. W. Botha, holding a succession of ministerial posts. As a minister, he supported and enforced apartheid, a system of racial segregation that privileged white South Africans. After Botha resigned in 1989, de Klerk replaced him, first as leader of the NP and then as State President. Although observers expected him to continue Botha's defence of apartheid, de Klerk decided to end the policy. He was aware that growing ethnic animosity and violence was leading South Africa into a racial civil war. Amid this violence, the state security forces committed widespread human rights abuses and encouraged violence between the Xhosa and Zulu people, although de Klerk later denied sanctioning such actions. He permitted anti-apartheid marches to take place, legalised a range of previously banned anti-apartheid political parties, and freed imprisoned anti-apartheid activists such as Nelson Mandela. He also dismantled South Africa's nuclear weapons program.

De Klerk negotiated with Mandela to fully dismantle apartheid and establish a transition to universal suffrage. In 1993, he publicly apologised for apartheid's harmful effects. He oversaw the 1994 non-racial election in which Mandela led the African National Congress (ANC) to victory; de Klerk's NP took second place. De Klerk then became Deputy President in Mandela's ANC-led coalition, the Government of National Unity. In this position, he supported the government's continued liberal economic policies but opposed the Truth and Reconciliation Commission set up to investigate past human rights abuses because he wanted total amnesty for political crimes. His working relationship with Mandela was strained, although he later spoke fondly of him. In May 1996, after the NP objected to the new constitution, de Klerk withdrew it from the coalition government; the party disbanded the following year and reformed as the New National Party. In 1997, he retired from active politics and thereafter lectured internationally.

De Klerk was a controversial figure among many sections of South African society. He received many awards, including the Nobel Peace Prize (shared with Mandela) for his role in dismantling apartheid and bringing universal suffrage to South Africa. Conversely, he received criticism from anti-apartheid activists for offering only a qualified apology for apartheid, and for ignoring the human rights abuses by state security forces. He was also condemned by pro-apartheid Afrikaners, who contended that by abandoning apartheid, he betrayed the interests of the country's Afrikaner minority.

Childhood: 1936–1954
F. W. de Klerk was born on 18 March 1936 in Mayfair, a suburb of Johannesburg. His parents were Johannes "Jan" de Klerk and Hendrina Cornelia Coetzer—"her forefather was a Kutzer who stems from Austria." He was his parents' second son, having a brother, Willem de Klerk, who was eight years his senior. De Klerk's first language was Afrikaans and the earliest of his distant ancestors to arrive in what is now South Africa did so in the late 1680s.

De Klerk had a secure and comfortable upbringing, and his family had played a leading role in Afrikaner society; they had longstanding affiliations with South Africa's National Party. His paternal great-grandfather, Jan van Rooy, had been a Senator, while his paternal grandfather, Willem, had been a clergyman who fought in the Second Boer War and stood twice, unsuccessfully, as a National Party candidate. His paternal aunt's husband was J. G. Strijdom, a former Prime Minister. His own father, Jan de Klerk, was also a senator, served as the secretary of the National Party in Transvaal, president of the senate for seven years, acting state president, and as a member of the country's cabinet for fifteen years under three prime ministers. In this environment, de Klerk was exposed to politics from childhood. He and family members would be encouraged to hold family debates; his more conservative opinions would be challenged by his brother Willem, who was sympathetic to the more liberal, "enlightened" faction of the National Party. Willem became a political analyst and later split from the National Party to found the liberal Democratic Party.

The name "de Klerk" is derived from Le Clerc, Le Clercq and De Clercq, and is of French Huguenot origin (meaning "clergyman" or "literate" in old French). De Klerk noted that he was also of Dutch descent, with an Indian ancestor from the late-1690s or early 1700s. He was also said to have been descended from the Khoi interpreter known as Krotoa or Eva.

When de Klerk was twelve years old, the apartheid system was officially institutionalised by the South African government; his father had been one of its originators. He therefore was, according to his brother, "one of a generation that grew up with the concept of apartheid". He was inculturated in the norms and values of Afrikaner society, including festivals like Kruger Day, loyalty to the Afrikaner nation, and stories of the "age of injustice" that the Afrikaner faced under the British. He was brought up in the Gereformeerde Kerk, the smallest and most socially conservative of South Africa's three Dutch Reformed Churches.

The de Klerk family moved around South Africa during his childhood, and he changed schools seven times over seven years. He eventually became a boarder at the Hoërskool Monument (Monument High School) in Krugersdorp, where he graduated with a first-class pass in 1953. He was nevertheless disappointed not to get the four distinctions he was hoping for.

University and legal career
Between 1954 and 1958, de Klerk studied at Potchefstroom University, graduating with both a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Law. He later noted that during this legal training, he "became accustomed to thinking in terms of legal principles". While studying there, he became editor of the student newspaper, vice-chair of the student council, and a member of the Afrikaanse Studentebond's (a large South African youth movement) national executive council. At university, he was initiated into the Broederbond, a secret society for the Afrikaner social elite. As a student, he played both tennis and hockey and was known as "something of a ladies' man". At the university, he began a relationship with Marike Willemse, the daughter of a professor at the University of Pretoria. The couple married in 1959, when de Klerk was 23 and his wife was 22.

After university, de Klerk pursued a legal career, becoming an articled clerk with the firm Pelser in Klerksdorp. Relocating to Pretoria, he became an articled clerk for another law firm, Mac-Robert.

In 1962, he set up his own law partnership in Vereeniging, Transvaal, which he built into a successful business over ten years.

During this period, he involved himself in a range of other activities. He was the national chair of the Junior Rapportryers for two years, and chair of the Law Society of Vaal Triangle. He was also on the council of the local technikon, on the council of his church, and on a local school board.

Early political career
In 1972, his alma mater offered him a chair in its law faculty, which he accepted. Within a matter of days he was also approached by members of the National Party, who requested that he stand for the party at Vereeniging. De Klerk's candidature was successful and in November he was elected to the House of Assembly. There, he established a reputation as a formidable debater. He took on a number of roles in the party and government. He became the information officer of the Transvaal National Party, responsible for its propaganda output, and helped to establish a new National Party youth movement. He joined various party parliamentary study groups, including those on the Bantustans, labour, justice, and home affairs. As a member of various parliamentary groups, de Klerk went on several foreign visits, to Israel, West Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. It was in the latter in 1976 that he observed what he later described as the pervasive racism of US society, later noting that he "saw more racial incidents in one month there than in South Africa in a year". In South Africa, de Klerk also played a senior role in two select committees, one formulating a policy on opening hotels to non-Whites and the other formulating a new censorship law that was less strict than the one that had preceded it.

In 1975, Prime Minister John Vorster predicted that de Klerk would one day become leader of South Africa. Vorster planned to promote de Klerk to the position of a deputy minister in January 1976, but instead the job went to Andries Treurnicht. In April 1978, de Klerk was promoted to the position of Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. In this role, he restored full autonomy to sporting control bodies which had for a time been under the jurisdiction of the government. As minister of Post and Telecommunications, he finalised contracts that oversaw the electrification of that sector. As Minister of Mining, he formalised a policy on coal exports and the structuring of Eskom and the Atomic Energy Corporation. He then became Minister of the Interior, he oversaw the repeal of the Mixed Marriages Act.

In 1981, de Klerk was awarded the Decoration for Meritorious Service for his work in the government. As education minister between 1984 and 1989, he upheld the apartheid system in South Africa's schools, and extended the department to cover all racial groups.

For most of his career, de Klerk had a very conservative reputation, and was seen as someone who would obstruct change in South Africa. He had been a forceful proponent of apartheid's system of racial segregation and was perceived as an advocate of the white minority's interests. While serving under P. W. Botha's government, de Klerk was never part of Botha's inner circle.

State presidency
P. W. Botha resigned as leader of the National Party after an apparent stroke, and de Klerk defeated Botha's preferred successor, finance minister Barend du Plessis, in the race to succeed him. On 2 February 1989, he was elected leader of the National Party. He defeated main rival Barend du Plessis to the position by a majority of eight votes, 69–61. Soon after, he called for the introduction of a new South African constitution, hinting that it would need to provide greater concession to non-white racial groups. After becoming party leader, de Klerk extended his foreign contacts. He travelled to London, where he met with British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. Although she opposed the anti-apartheid movement's calls for economic sanctions against South Africa, at the meeting she urged de Klerk to release the imprisoned anti-apartheid activist Nelson Mandela. He also expressed a desire to meet with representatives of the US government in Washington, D.C., although American secretary of state James Baker informed him that the US government considered it inopportune to have de Klerk meet with President George H. W. Bush.

Becoming State President of South Africa

Botha resigned on 14 August 1989, and de Klerk was named acting State President of South Africa until 20 September, when he was elected to a full five-year term as State President. After he became acting State President, ANC leaders spoke out against him, believing that he would be no different from his predecessors; he was widely regarded as a staunch supporter of apartheid. The prominent anti-apartheid activist Desmond Tutu shared this assessment, stating: "I don't think we've got to even begin to pretend that there is any reason for thinking that we are entering a new phase. It's just musical chairs". Tutu and Allan Boesak had been planning a protest march in Cape Town, which the security chiefs wanted to prevent. De Klerk nevertheless turned down their proposal to ban it, agreeing to let the march proceed and stating that "the door to a new South Africa is open, it is not necessary to batter it down". The march took place and was attended by approximately 30,000 people. Further protest marches followed in Grahamstown, Johannesburg, Pretoria, and Durban. De Klerk later noted that his security forces could not have prevented the marchers from gathering: "The choice, therefore, was between breaking up an illegal march with all of the attendant risks of violence and negative publicity, or of allowing the march to continue, subject to conditions that could help to avoid violence and ensure good public order." This decision marked a clear departure from the Botha era.

As State President, he authorised the continuation of secret talks in Geneva between his National Intelligence Service and two exiled ANC leaders, Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma. In October, he personally agreed to meet with Tutu, Boesak, and Frank Chikane in a private meeting in Pretoria. That month, he also released a number of elderly anti-apartheid activists then imprisoned, including Walter Sisulu. He also ordered the closure of the National Security Management System. In December he visited Mandela in prison, speaking with him for three hours about the idea of transitioning away from white-minority rule. The collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the dissolution of the Soviet Union meant that he no longer feared that Marxists would manipulate the ANC. As he later related, the collapse of "the Marxist economic system in Eastern Europe... serves as a warning to those who insist on persisting with it in Africa. Those who seek to force this failure of a system on South Africa should engage in a total revision of their point of view. It should be clear to all that it is not the answer here either."

On 2 February 1990, in an address to the country's parliament, he introduced plans for sweeping reforms of the political system. A number of banned political parties, including the ANC and Communist Party of South Africa, would be legalised, although he emphasised that this did not constitute an endorsement of their socialist economic policies nor of violent actions carried out by their members. All of those who were imprisoned solely for belonging to a banned organisation would be freed, including Nelson Mandela; the latter was released a week later. He also announced the lifting of the Separate Amenities Act of 1953, which governed the segregation of public facilities. The vision set forth in de Klerk's address was for South Africa to become a Western-style liberal democracy; with a market-oriented economy which valued private enterprise and restricted the government's role in economics.

De Klerk later related that "that speech was mainly aimed at breaking our stalemate in Africa and the West. Internationally we were teetering on the edge of the abyss." Throughout South Africa and across the world, there was astonishment at de Klerk's move. Foreign press coverage was largely positive and de Klerk received messages of support from other governments. Tutu said that "It's incredible... Give him credit. Give him credit, I do." Some black radicals regarded it as a gimmick and that it would prove to be without substance. It was also received negatively by some on the white right-wing, including in the Conservative Party, who believed that de Klerk was betraying the white population. De Klerk believed that the sudden growth of the Conservatives and other white right-wing groups was a passing phase reflecting anxiety and insecurity. These white right-wing groups were aware that they would not get what they wanted through the forthcoming negotiations, and so increasingly tried to derail the negotiations using reactionary violence. The white-dominated liberal Democratic Party, meanwhile, found itself in limbo, as de Klerk embraced much of the platform it had espoused, leaving it without a clear purpose.

Further reforms followed; membership of the National Party was opened up to non-whites. In June, parliament approved new legislation that repealed the Natives Land Act, 1913 and Native Trust and Land Act, 1936. The Population Registration Act, which established the racial classificatory guidelines for South Africa, was rescinded.

In 1990, de Klerk gave orders to end South Africa's nuclear weapons programme; the process of nuclear disarmament was essentially completed in 1991. The existence of the nuclear programme was not officially acknowledged before 1993.

Negotiations toward universal suffrage

His presidency was dominated by the negotiation process, mainly between his NP government and the ANC, which led to the democratisation of South Africa. On 17 March 1992, de Klerk held a whites-only referendum on ending apartheid, with the result being an overwhelming "yes" vote to continue negotiations to end apartheid.

Nelson Mandela was distrustful of the role played by de Klerk in the negotiations, particularly as he believed that de Klerk was knowledgeable about 'third force' attempts to foment violence in the country and destabilise the negotiations. De Klerk's possible role in the 'third force' came to the attention of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but was ultimately never clarified. De Klerk was accused by writer Anthony Sampson of complicity in the violence among the ANC, the Inkatha Freedom Party and elements of the security forces. He also accused de Klerk of permitting his ministers to build their own criminal empires.

On 17 July 1992, the Boipatong massacre by the Inkatha Freedom Party occurred, killing 45 people. The massacre caused a resurgence of international pressure against South Africa over claims of police collusion, leading to a weaker position at the negotiation tables for the National Party. The Goldstone Commission concluded there was no evidence of police collusion in the massacre.

On 30 April 1993, de Klerk issued an apology for the actions of the apartheid government, stating that: "It was not our intention to deprive people of their rights and to cause misery, but eventually apartheid led to just that. Insofar as to what occurred we deeply regret it... Yes we are sorry". Tutu urged people to accept the apology, stating that "saying sorry is not an easy thing to do... We should be magnanimous and accept it as a magnanimous act", although Tutu was privately frustrated that de Klerk's apology had been qualified and had not gone so far as to call apartheid an intrinsically evil policy.

De Klerk authorised the raid on Mthatha against suspected Azanian People's Liberation Army (APLA) fighters on 8 October 1993 that killed three teenagers and two twelve year olds. The Minister of Defence said the raid had been undertaken to pre-empt attacks by the APLA on civilians and that one of the victims had brandished a weapon. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded the raid was a "gross violation of human rights"

On 10 December 1993, de Klerk and Mandela were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo for their work in ending apartheid.

South Africa held its first universal elections in 1994 from 26 to 29 April. The ANC won the election with 62 per cent, while the National Party received 20 per cent. De Klerk became deputy president in the national unity government under Nelson Mandela.

Deputy presidency
De Klerk had been unhappy that changes had been made to the inauguration ceremony, rendering it multi-religious rather than reflecting the newly elected leader's particular denomination. When he was being sworn in, and the chief justice said "So help me God", de Klerk did not repeat this, instead stating, in Afrikaans: "So help me the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".

Mandela reappointed de Klerk's finance minister, Derek Keys, and retained Chris Stals, a former member of the Broederbond, as the Governor of the South African Reserve Bank. De Klerk supported the coalition's economic policies, stating that it "accepted a broad framework of responsible economic policies".

De Klerk's working relationship with Mandela was often strained, with the former finding it difficult adjusting to the fact that he was no longer State President. De Klerk also felt that Mandela deliberately humiliated him, while Mandela found de Klerk to be needlessly provocative in cabinet. One dispute occurred in September 1995, after Mandela gave a Johannesburg speech criticising the National Party. Angered, de Klerk avoided Mandela until the latter requested they meet. The two ran into each other, and they publicly argued in the streets. Mandela later expressed regret for their disagreement but did not apologise for his original comments. De Klerk was also having problems from within his own party, some of whose members claimed that he was neglecting the party while in the government.

Many in the National Party—including many members of its executive committee—were unhappy with the other parties' agreed upon new constitution in May 1996. The party had wanted the constitution to guarantee that it would be represented in the government until 2004, although it did not do so. On 9 May, de Klerk withdrew the National Party from the coalition government. The decision shocked several of his six fellow Afrikaner cabinet colleagues; Pik Botha, for example, was left without a job as a result. Roelf Meyer felt betrayed by de Klerk's act, while Leon Wessels thought that de Klerk had not tried hard enough to make the coalition work. De Klerk declared that he would lead the National Party in vigorous opposition to Mandela's government to ensure "a proper multi-party democracy, without which there may be a danger of South Africa lapsing into the African pattern of one-party states".

Truth and Reconciliation Commission

In de Klerk's view, his greatest defeat in the negotiations with Mandela had been his inability to secure a blanket amnesty for all those working for the government or state during the apartheid period. De Klerk was unhappy with the formation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). He had hoped that the TRC would be made up of an equal number of individuals from both the old and new governments, as there had been in the Chilean human rights commission. Instead, the TRC was designed to broadly reflect the wider diversity of South African society, and contained only two members who had explicitly supported apartheid, one a member of a right-wing group that had opposed de Klerk's National Party. De Klerk did not object to Tutu being selected as the TRC's chair for he regarded him as politically independent of Mandela's government, but he was upset that the white Progressive Party MP Alex Boraine had been selected as its deputy chair, later saying of Boraine: "beneath an urbane and deceptively affable exterior beat the heart of a zealot and an inquisitor."

De Klerk appeared before the TRC hearing to testify for Vlakplaas commanders who were accused of having committed human rights abuses during the apartheid era. He acknowledged that security forces had resorted to "unconventional strategies" in dealing with anti-apartheid revolutionaries, but that "within my knowledge and experience, they never included the authorization of assassination, murder, torture, rape, assault or the like". After further evidence of said abuses was produced by the commission, de Klerk stated that he found the revelations to be "as shocking and as abhorrent as anybody else" but insisted that he and other senior party members were not willing to accept responsibility for the "criminal actions of a handful of operatives", stating that their behaviour was "not authorized [and] not intended" by his government. Given the widespread and systemic nature of the abuses that had taken place, as well as statements by security officers that their actions had been sanctioned by higher ranking figures, Tutu questioned how de Klerk and other government figures could not have been aware of them. Tutu had hoped that de Klerk or another senior white political figure from the apartheid era would openly accept responsibility for the human rights abuses, thereby allowing South Africa to move on; this was something that de Klerk would not do.

The TRC found de Klerk guilty of being an accessory to gross violations of human rights on the basis that as State President he had been told that P. W. Botha had authorised the bombing of Khotso House but had not revealed this information to the committee. De Klerk challenged the TRC on this point, and it backed down. When the final TRC report was released in 2002, it made a more limited accusation: that de Klerk had failed to give full disclosure about events that took place during his presidency and that in view of his knowledge about the Khotso House bombing, his statement that none of his colleagues had authorised gross human rights abuses was "indefensible". In his later autobiography, de Klerk acknowledged that the TRC did significant damage to his public image.

Later life
In 1994, de Klerk was elected to the American Philosophical Society.

In 1997, de Klerk was offered the Harper Fellowship at Yale Law School. He declined, citing protests at the university. De Klerk did, however, speak at Central Connecticut State University the day before his fellowship would have begun.

In 1999, de Klerk and his wife of 38 years, Marike de Klerk, were divorced following the discovery of his affair with Elita Georgiades, then the wife of Tony Georgiades, a Greek shipping tycoon who had allegedly given de Klerk and the NP financial support. Soon after his divorce, de Klerk and Georgiades were married. His divorce and remarriage scandalised conservative South African opinion, especially among the Calvinist Afrikaners. In 1999, his autobiography, The Last Trek – A New Beginning, was published. In 2002, following the murder of his former wife, the manuscript of her own autobiography, A Place Where the Sun Shines Again, was submitted to de Klerk, who urged the publishers to remove a chapter dealing with his infidelity.

In 2000, de Klerk established the pro-peace FW de Klerk Foundation of which he was the chairman. De Klerk was also chairman of the Global Leadership Foundation, headquartered in London, which he set up in 2004, an organisation which works to support democratic leadership, prevent and resolve conflict through mediation and promote good governance in the form of democratic institutions, open markets, human rights and the rule of law. It does so by making available, discreetly and in confidence, the experience of former leaders to today's national leaders. It is a not-for-profit organisation composed of former heads of government and senior governmental and international organisation officials who work closely with heads of government on governance-related issues of concern to them.

On 3 December 2001, Marike de Klerk was found stabbed and strangled to death in her Cape Town flat. De Klerk, who was on a brief visit to Stockholm, Sweden, to celebrate the 100-year anniversary of the Nobel Prize foundation, immediately returned to mourn his dead ex-wife. The atrocity was condemned by South African president Thabo Mbeki and Winnie Mandela, who openly spoke in favour of Marike de Klerk. On 6 December 21-year-old security guard Luyanda Mboniswa was arrested for the murder. On 15 May 2003, he received two life sentences for murder, as well as three years for breaking into Marike de Klerk's apartment.

In 2005, de Klerk quit the New National Party and sought a new political home after the NNP merged with the ruling ANC. That same year, while giving an interview to US journalist Richard Stengel, de Klerk was asked whether South Africa had turned out the way he envisioned it back in 1990. His response was:

There are a number of imperfections in the new South Africa where I would have hoped that things would be better, but on balance I think we have basically achieved what we set out to achieve. And if I were to draw balance sheets on where South Africa stands now, I would say that the positive outweighs the negative by far. There is a tendency by commentators across the world to focus on the few negatives which are quite negative, like how are we handling AIDS, like our role vis-à-vis Zimbabwe. But the positives – the stability in South Africa, the adherence to well-balanced economic policies, fighting inflation, doing all the right things in order to lay the basis and the foundation for sustained economic growth – are in place.

In 2008, he repeated in a speech that "despite all the negatives facing South Africa, he was very positive about the country".

In 2006, he underwent surgery for a malignant tumor in his colon. His condition deteriorated sharply, and he underwent a tracheotomy after developing respiratory problems. He recovered and on 11 September 2006 gave a speech at Kent State University Stark Campus.

In January 2007, de Klerk was a speaker promoting peace and democracy in the world at the "Towards a Global Forum on New Democracies" event in Taipei, Taiwan, along with other dignitaries including Poland's Lech Wałęsa and Taiwan's president Chen Shui-Bian.

De Klerk was an Honorary Patron of the University Philosophical Society of Trinity College Dublin, and Honorary Chairman of the Prague Society for International Cooperation. He also received the gold medal for Outstanding Contribution to Public Discourse from the College Historical Society of Trinity College, Dublin, for his contribution to ending apartheid.

De Klerk was also a member of the advisory board of the Global Panel Foundation based in Berlin, Copenhagen, New York, Prague, Sydney and Toronto—founded by the Dutch entrepreneur Bas Spuybroek in 1988, with the support of Dutch billionaire Frans Lurvink and former Dutch Foreign Minister Hans van den Broek. The Global Panel Foundation is known for its behind-the-scenes work in public policy and the annual presentation of the Hanno R. Ellenbogen Citizenship Award with the Prague Society for International Cooperation.

De Klerk was a member of the advisory board of the WORLD.MINDS Foundation, based in Switzerland. WORLD.MINDS is known for establishing close personal ties between leaders in government, science and business.

After the inauguration of Jacob Zuma as South Africa's president in May 2009, de Klerk said he was optimistic that Zuma and his government can "confound the prophets of doom".

In a BBC interview broadcast in April 2012, he said he lived in an all-white neighbourhood. He had five servants, three coloured and two black: "We are one great big family together; we have the best of relationships." About Nelson Mandela, he said, "When Mandela goes it will be a moment when all South Africans put away their political differences, will take hands, and will together honour maybe the biggest known South African that has ever lived."

De Klerk received a pacemaker in July 2013.

Upon hearing of the death of Mandela, de Klerk said: "He was a great unifier and a very, very special man in this regard beyond everything else he did. This emphasis on reconciliation was his biggest legacy." He attended the memorial service for him on 10 December 2013.

In 2015, de Klerk wrote to The Times newspaper in the UK criticising a campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from Oriel College, Oxford. He was subsequently criticised by some activists who described it as "ironic" that the last apartheid president should be defending a statue of a man labelled by critics as the "architect of apartheid". South Africa's far-left Economic Freedom Fighters called for him to be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize. In 2020, de Klerk told an interviewer that "the idea that apartheid was a crime against humanity was and remains an agitprop project initiated by the Soviets and their ANC/SACP allies to stigmatize white South Africans by associating them with genuine crimes against humanity." This generated controversy in South Africa, and further calls for the removal of his Nobel Prize. De Klerk's Foundation retracted his statement several days later.

Illness and death
On 19 March 2021, it was announced that de Klerk had been diagnosed with mesothelioma. He died from complications of the disease in his sleep at his home in Cape Town on 11 November 2021, at the age of 85. He was the last surviving State President of South Africa.

After his death, a video message from de Klerk was released from the FW de Klerk Foundation, apologising "without qualification" for the harm caused from apartheid and pleading that the government and all South Africans would embrace the constitution in a balanced manner while also promoting economic growth, guarding the independence and impartiality of the courts, as well as promoting non-racialism and non-discrimination in South Africa.

On 16 November 2021, President Cyril Ramaphosa declared a four-day mourning period for de Klerk and ordered for all of the national South African flags to fly at half-mast from 17 to 21 November "as a mark of respect." Though the de Klerk family determined that he would have a private cremation and funeral, the South African government agreed to hold a state memorial service for de Klerk "in which government leaders, leaders of political parties and representatives of civil society will participate" at a later date. The state memorial service was held in Cape Town on 12 December 2021, and saw Ramaphosa deliver the keynote speech.

Political positions

De Klerk was widely regarded as a politically conservative figure in South Africa. At the same time, he was flexible rather than dogmatic in his approach to political issues. He often hedged his bets and sought to accommodate divergent perspectives, favouring compromise over confrontation.

Within the National Party, he continually strove for unity, coming to be regarded—according to his brother—as "a party man, a veritable Mr National Party". To stem defections from the right-wing end of the National Party, he made "ultra-conservative noises". This general approach led to the perception that he was "trying to be all things to all men".

De Klerk stated that within the party, he "never formed part of a political school of thought, and I deliberately kept out of the cliques and foments of the enlightened and conservative factions in the party. If the policy I propounded was ultra-conservative, then that was the policy; it was not necessarily I who was ultra-conservative. I saw my role in the party as that of an interpreter of the party's real median policy at any stage."

De Klerk stated that "The silver thread throughout my career was my advocacy of National Party policy in all its various formulations. I refrained from adjusting that policy or adapting it to my own liking or convictions. I analyzed it as it was formulated, to the letter."

For much of his career, de Klerk believed in apartheid and its system of racial segregation. According to his brother, de Klerk underwent a "political conversion" that took him from supporting apartheid to facilitating its demolition. This change was not "a dramatic event" however, but "was built... on pragmatism – it evolved as a process."

He did not believe that South Africa would become a "non-racial society", but rather sought to build a "non-racist society" in which ethnic divisions remained; in his view "I do not believe in the existence of anything like a non-racial society in the literal sense of the word", citing the example of the United States and United Kingdom where there was no legal racial segregation but that distinct racial groups continued to exist.

De Klerk accepted the principle of freedom of religion, although still believed that the state should promote Christianity.

De Klerk wrote in opposition to gender-based violence, arguing that "holding perpetrators accountable, irrespective of how long ago the crime was committed, is essential to stamping out impunity and preventing future atrocities".

Personality and personal life
Glad and Blanton stated that de Klerk's "political choices were undergirded by self-confidence and commitment to the common good." His brother Willem stated that de Klerk's demeanour was marked by "soberness, humility and calm", that he was an honest, intelligent, and open-minded individual, and that he had a "natural cordiality" and a "solid sense of courtesy and good manners". He felt that de Klerk's "charisma" came not from an "exceptionally strong individualism" but from "his rationality, logic and balance". He was, according to de Klerk, "a man of compromise rather than a political innovator or entrepreneur".

Willem stated that "he keeps an ear to the ground and is sensitive to the slightest tremors", and that it was this which made him "a superb politician". Willem also stated that his brother was "a team-man who consults others, takes them into his confidence, honestly shares information with his colleagues, and has a knack of making people feel importance and at peace".

His former wife Marike described de Klerk as being "extremely sensitive to beautiful things", exhibiting something akin to an artistic temperament.

Willem also noted that "in the most profound sense", de Klerk was driven by his concern for Afrikanerdom and "the survival of his own people in their fatherland". De Klerk was deeply upset that many Afrikaners did not realise that his reforms to dismantle apartheid were carried out with the intention of preserving a future for the Afrikaner people in South Africa.

With Marike, de Klerk had three children: Susan, who became a teacher, Jan, who became a farmer in Western Transvaal, and Willem, who went into public relations. Willem stated that de Klerk had a close relationship with his children, and that he was "a loving man who hugs and cuddles".

De Klerk was a heavy smoker but gave up smoking towards the end of 2005. He also enjoyed a glass of whisky or wine while relaxing. He enjoyed playing golf and hunting, as well as going for brisk walks.

De Klerk's Nobel Prize medal was stolen from his home in November 2022.

Reception and legacy
Glad and Blanton stated that de Klerk, along with Mandela, "accomplished the rare feat of bringing about systemic revolution through peaceful means." His brother noted that de Klerk's role in South African history was "to dismantle more than three centuries of white supremacy", and that in doing so his was "not a role of white surrender, but a role of white conversion to a new role" in society. In September 1990, Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education awarded de Klerk an honorary doctorate.

South Africa's Conservative Party came to regard him as its most hated adversary.

De Klerk was Africa's last White President until Guy Scott become caretaker President of Zambia from 2014 to 2015.

title: F. W. de Klerk


text:
Talk:February 29

Laws affecting 29 February: bold, revert, DISCUSS
, : can you guys resolve your differences here on the article talk page, please, not by fighting it out in main space. You are both involved in an edit war and at or near WP:3RR violations. Repeated reversion and counter-reversion is just going to get both suspended. Try to find common ground that recognises that 29 Feb (like 1 Jan) is unique and the general rules that apply to a boringly normal day like, picked at random, 29 July, need to be modified slightly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't be making any more changes/reversions. I would simply direct you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Template where the layout of the DOY pages has been discussed and agreed upon. Kiwipete (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Days of the year/Template is the format agreed by the project. If  wants to propose different sections, s/he needs to figure out a much less disruptive approach which includes a discussion with the project members on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year/Template.  Toddst1 (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A possible solution might be for Miklcct to put the material in the body of the article rather than trying to force it into an unreceptive template. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The template clearly doesn't have the section for me to put the appropriate encyclopedic material into it, and there isn't a more appropriate article to put these materials because they are specific to this date. If the article leap day is not a redirect but instead a general overview in multiple calendar systems, these contents can be put there. Also the same can be applied to days which are of significant importance (such as April 1 used as the beginning of financial year in most countries). Therefore, there is no choice but to break templates to put the contents into it. --Miklcct (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the actual content that added, I would suggest that the best place for it is the Legal age article itself. Kiwipete (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Miklcct, looking at this from the outside, one thing that seems really obvious is that you don't have, and won't get, consensus for the exact change you want to make in exactly the way you want to make it. So your best way forward now is to think about results rather than means, to think laterally about how to find another way to deliver your intent, that will secure consensus. Best wishes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a choice, one you're not hearing. Don't add it. No consensus for it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Dinah Shore
Dinah Shore was born Feb 29, 1916, she should be included in the Births section. 24.206.70.41 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 * You can an the entry yourself, as long as you have a reliable source. However, I see from her page that there is at least one source which states that she was born on 1 March. Kiwipete (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Five WhateverDays in any February
Some time ago, I posted (previous archive):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:February_29/Archive_1&action=dtsubscribe&commentname=h-WHPratt-2009-04-23T16%3A14%3A00.000Z&section=Three+paydays+in+February%3F

I note that some Social Secutiry recipients got an early "extra" payment due to there being five Thursdays in February 2024. What are the odds? Check the link. WHPratt (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:February 29


text:
Talk:Five Pillars of Islam

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ThatsPrettyMuchIt, Jessw0405.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Canonical references
Why does the article contain zero information on the precise manner in which the Five Pillars of Islam are introduced in canonical Islamic scriptures? InMemoriamLuangPu (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Root of terminology required
From where the word pillar came from? Which Quranic verse or Hadith mention this word? Significance of this term? Who originated this term? History? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.107.120 (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph
I cut this bit out:

Note: In spite of the fact that the five pillars are obligatory and meant to be absolutely essential for every Muslim to keep, not all individual Muslims do, or are able to faithfully participate. Many secularized Muslims, have stopped participating in religious duties; many of them are so-called second-generation muslims in western countries, the children and grandchildren of muslim immigrants, who live in-between two cultures and have developed ambivalent feelings towards their religious duties. On the one hand they tend to cling to their traditions for identity reasons, on the other hand the influence of western mentality, daily life and peer-pressure tears them away from muslim culture. Plus, a complicating factor for observing Ramadan and the five prayers is the fact that western society is not designed for such radical habits.

 * This is also true for Judaism and Christianity; perhaps this paragraph could be written in a more general form, and then it could have minor modifications made for Judaism, Chrisitianity and Islam. It could then be inserted into all of these topic?  RK
 * I'd say not. It's is, as Manning said below, 'commentary' on sociology of religion and not encyclopedic description of religion.  There's certainly a place for it, but not on the pages devoted to the description of the religious groups themselves for themselves.--MichaelTinkler

 * Actually, I have a number of books by Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jewish rabbis, all of whome bring of this precise point. They do not view a discussion of this as an attack on Judaism; they view it simply as a description of the changes that Jewish people have experienced since the Enlightenement and emancipation of the late 1700s and early 1800s.  All of the major Jewish movements regard responding to this phenomenon as part of their religious mandate.  I think many Christian groups feel the same way. I think a better differentiation would be that this description does not fall under theology, but under some other category describing the religion.  Real world Judaism has less than 50% of American Jews following any form of Judaism as at all (recent surveys published last month have reaffirmed this.)  Even a personal survey of gentiles I know shows that many, many people in America's northeast are only "cultural" Christians, and do not accept most tenets of their faith as expressed in their particular church's principles of belief.  This phenomenon is growing among American Muslims as well, although I have no idea how widespread this actually is.  RK

 * Michael Tinkler writes "There's certainly a place for it, but not on the pages devoted to the description of the religious groups themselves for themselves." Do we really have any such pages? I don't think so.  If we did, then the entry on Islam would have a long list of proofs "proving" the Torah, the Tanach, and the New Testament are all corrupt, and that only the Koran is true, and that Jews and Christians are trying to fool the followers of God. If we had such pages, then the entry on Christianity would have entries proving that the Jews are stubborn and the offspring of the Devil, and that worshipping Jesus is the only way to God.  If we had such pages, then the entry on Judaism would contain polemic after polemic condemning idolatry and any form of polytheism, as well as condemning all those who follow atheism and agnosticism, and Deism.  But we don't have this.  Instead, we try to impartially describe what each faith/community teaches, but not 100% from their own point of view.  More from a friendly outsider point of view, right?  Thus, perhaps each section might include a paragraph on the real world sociology of the followers of these faiths, as distinct from the theoretical positions? RK

About this passage written above:

I feel this is not entirely true. I am not an immigrant and i lived in and around a muslim community and that was not in the western world. Yet i did not perform my duties as i should have. This para which says "Many secularized Muslims, have stopped participating in religious duties; many of them are so-called second-generation muslims in western countries, the children and grandchildren of muslim immigrants, who live in-between two cultures and have developed ambivalent feelings towards their religious duties."

Now in my situation this did not apply and i know many others living in Islamic Communities in the east. They too lack the will too practice. So its not the place or the country based upon which the level of practice can be possible or impossible. -

This seemed to be a commentary on modern muslim sociology and not really related to the Five Pillars. Not to say it isn't a worthwhile subject, only that it was off-topic. - MMGB

The matter of to what extent the Five Pillars are actually observed in practice by various groups within the muslim community is in fact directly relevant to the subject and is not at all "off-topic". Yes, it may be relevant to other topics, such as "modern muslim sociology", or "modernity and religous traditions", etc., but that doesn't mean it is not relevant and appropriate here. IT IS. -HWR

(From the old page) --  This needs to be incorporated or to incorporate the Five Pillars of Islam article (unfortunate capitalization, but pre-existing). --MichaelTinkler

As you were typing this, I was merging the two :) - MMGB

this is looking VERY good. --MichaelTinkler

Thanks for every suggestion here. About the 'note' paragraph above (which I wrote), it seems we are talking about two different subjects: 1. the loyality problem of the so-called 2nd generation immigrants, and 2. the practical difficulties people face when observing religious duties and traditions in 'foreign' cultures. Could both be worth a separate article? With my paragraph I wanted to emphasize the first. I have looked into the 'Sociology of religion' page, but cannot see how it would fit in there. I still think it should at least be mentioned in the Five Pillars article. In order to be able to elaborate on it, probably we should have a separate page named 'Muslims in western society', or something like Hank suggested and include both subjects there. I do not think it would be the best idea to broaden it to make it fit all major religions. Each religion has it's own background culture and it's own specific problems. We could then add more acceptation/adaptation/integration problems and processes into such an article. Ofcourse, it should then also be linked to some sociology page. What do you think? -- TK

 * I have put back in a rewritten version of the paragraph. I've tried to keep it as close to the Five Pillars as I could, leaving out the 2nd generation topic. The issue of 'Muslims in Western society' in my opinion still deserves a separate treatment -- TK

TK - yeah, the rewritten version is fine, it still relates directly to the discussion of the Five Pillars so is appropriate. Nice work - MMGB

Thanks, and thank you for your style corrections -TK
 * I agree - the fit is much better. --MichaelTinkler

Moved from main article:

''Previous to the 20th century many Muslims held Jihad (holy war) to be the sixth pillar of Islam; Since the fundamentalist Islamist movement began its ascension in the 20th century, this point of view has become more prevalent. Muslims have been traditionally encouraged to engage in external forms of Jihad (warfare against those judged to be infidels or threats to Islam) by political motivations and through the promise that men who die in Jihad are rewarded in Heaven by being served daily by 70 female virgins. Islamist ''

Reduced to factual statement of the first section, I haven't found any evidence of belief outside of the mentioned sect, the rest is irrelavent to the particular point, although possibly the middle section should be moved to Jihad. --Imran

Though many westerners may not understand the intricacies of Islam, I'll try to condense it into USA-centric religious explanation. Look at the Sunni-Shia division like the division between Babtists and Catholics. Sunnis, like Baptists, believe they have a direct relationship to God, via a direct link with a prophet (Mohammed/Jesus). Whereas the Shia are akin to Catholics in that they have additional beliefs that are not in accordance with strict interpretations of the Bible/Q'uran. This is only an extreme generalization; it's an appropriate hook to find more information on google.com, or right here on wikipedia.com
 * Supernatural Islamic experiences

''The paying of alms (Zakaah) - which is generally 2.5% of the yearly savings for a rich man working in trade or industry, and 10% or 20% of the produce for agriculturists. This money or produce is distributed among the poor. And 25% of found treasure such as non gambling lottery and every precious items found by someone.'' -- wow, the agriculturists certainly get the short end of the stick -- 20% of the gross for farmers versus 2.5% of the net for rich men? Nice.

''wow, the agriculturists certainly get the short end of the stick -- 20% of the gross for farmers versus 2.5% of the net for rich men? Nice.'' sounds like it. but unfortunately no. that 2.5% of the rich man may contribute more to that of 20% farms output if i may say. also considered the redundancy. 2.5% is deducted over and over for the same wealth throughout the years. farm product are consumables and only deducted once. also farm product are ready for direct distribution with only transport cost incurred. however for wealth requires transaction for conversion and thus incurred more cost than farm product. and by the way 2.5% percent wealth saving exceeding the nisab applies to anyone with wealth including farmers themselves. doctors, lawyers and other profession should actually observed the 20% of their annual income. 202.158.33.162 (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC) eko of jakarta

An Understanding of all religions

Other then be patient in anyways and to absatain from food, Fasting is also the only way to achive the state of mind, by focusing and concentrate to avoid think about things, it is there to make people easier to become one with the universe, some say fasting is only to teach people to be more better then before, to reduce the temptation in many things, it is correct, but they need to understand that fasting is the only way to make everything peace, even Allah also named his religion "ISLAM" means "PEACE or THE WAY OF LIFE" to be or to make that people have to be one with the universe, achive the state of mind, and people will see how wonderfull is life when all the nature is on their side. 30 days of fasting is not a very long time to achive it, Prophet Muhammad spend 15 years in hira` cave just to give his followers the easiest and the best way of doing the same thing of what he had done. Saturday 27Jun 09(Malaysia)

Modern Muslim Section
I think the last section ("Modern Muslims and the pillars of Islam") should be edited to remove a perceived bias. I'm not an expert on the issue though, and would like someone else to change it.
 * Besides a POV, the section is irrelevent. Modern Muslims not adhering to the "pillars" is just some Muslims who aren't as religious as others. Similarities exist in all religions. Catholic have their requirements of holy days of obligation, fasting on Fridays during Lent, going to confession once a year, etc, but far from a majority practice all of them. However some practitioners not following all the edicts doesn't change the religion itself. This section needs a rewrite only to reflect that not all Muslims devotly follow the 5 pillarsBarneygumble 21:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not really sure where this should go, but is "Striving to seek God's approval (Jihad)" an accurate description of either this Arabic word or Muslim belief?JBicha 21:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changes
I think we should have some review and comment on the changes shown here. I am not sure about all of them but I do not know enough. I just want to make sure the editors of this article are paying attention and an anon user (who once blanked the page) is not being arbitary. gren 19:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that along with Shia and Sunni, Ahmadiya is mentioned while in almost all of the Muslim scholars or Islamic sects had denounced as non Muslims. It will be good to atleast flag it with a citation/reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.73.3.122 (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Odd search behavior
Could someone please explain why this is, and how to fix it:

A search (from the little search box in the sidebar) for "Five Pillars of Islam" will turn up this article.

But, searches for: "five pillars of islam" "Five PIllars of Islam" "Five Pillars Of Islam"

All of these say that an article by that title doesn't exist, and ask if I'd like to create it or search Google or Yahoo for it (which is how I eventually found it). This is NOT true, oddly enough, for "Pillars of Islam", but it is for the same in lowercase.

Why is the uppercasedness of the title so important for finding this article?

 * Because no-one had made a Re-Direct from those pages yet. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:25, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Jihad
This seems a little oversimplistic: "Modern interpretations of Jihad have lead to the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism and particularly suicide bombers." This implies that the Jihad tradition is the only reason for Islamic terrorism, which is a claim that would require a little more backing. Perhaps "Modern interpretations of Jihad have contributed to the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism and particularly suicide bombers."?

Why was the section Jihad'' as the sixth pillar of Islam? removed? I have not found any explanation here so I put it in again.

- - Removing the reference to the Beslan school siege

The Beslan school siege is controversial. Shamil Basayev claimed responsibility for the Beslan school siege in September 2004 in which over 350 people, most of them children, were killed and hundreds more injured. Some see in him Chechnya's most famed contemporary national hero, others a Islamic fundamentalist, politician, or terrorist. Since 2003, Basayev has also used the pseudonym and title Abdallah Shamil Abu-Idris, Amir of the Brigade of Shahids 'Riyadus Salihiin'".

Taken from the lemma on Shamil Basayev: In "an interview to Russian journalist Andrei Babitsky in which Shamil Basayev describes himself as 'a bad guy, a bandit, a terrorist.' But, to justify his own acts to intentionally kill unarmed civilians, women and children, he claimed that the Russians 'officially' killed 40,000 Chechen children and are therefore terrorists as well".

Hence, it can be argued from a neutral POV that the reference to the Beslan school siege as a terrorist act and part of jihad is valid and should be included again in the main article.

 * Jihad has been removed from this article because it does not fit the Wikiliberal agenda. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. --Haizum 12:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Jihad is indeed the essential and very important part of Islam but it is not included in five pillars of Islam. Wikipedia is not based on original research. --- ALM 12:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Template
Should not the "Template:Basic Muslim Beliefs" be included? --Striver 01:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * As appropriate as it may be, two large templates on page is unsightly. joturner 01:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, and therefore i propose that we discared the one less relevant to this specifical topic, that is the "Islam" template. --Striver 04:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

hi guys

recent edits
All~

This page was looking quite good, and I have contributed a few changes. A couple of these are terminological:

-I have taken out the word 'fundamental' from the description of the status of the five pillars, since this term is of dubious semantic value when it comes to describing Islam.

-I have replaced the term 'sect' in all places it occurs, since the term itself is an impediment to expressing a neutral POV.

The major change I have made is to add a paragraph at the beginning historicizing the five pillars model. This is by no means a consensus model of piety among all Muslims, and that fact is even more apparent if one looks back in history. I am not sure if this belongs here at the beginning or in a debates section later in the entry. In any case, I think it is important to register the fact that large communities of Muslims in the world today (and particularly groups with a low level of international visibility and presence on the internet owing to illiteracy, poverty, linguistic identity and so forth) do not understand Islam through this five pillars model.

elbev

More changes...
I deleted the following:

"The five pillars are intended to increase one's faith and make a person "better". If they do not have this impact on a person, then they are practiced in vain."

There was no reference for this and I don't think it complies with the general Islamic creed.

Zakat
From the article: '''"Zakāt, the paying of alms

Main article: Zakat Zakat means both purification and growth. Each Muslim calculates his or her own Zakat is calculated"'''

And there it ends. I'd add something to make it a complete sentence, but I don't know that much about Islam. I'd appreciate it if someone who knows what this is supposed to be would correct it. cøøki ə Ξ (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong about this as I am not Muslim, but it is my (limited) understanding of the concept of Zakat that its beneficiaries must be Muslim. As there is nothing about this on the main Zakat article, I fully realize I could be off base, but if I'm not, I think it's relevant enough to include in this article as well as the Zakat one. Can anyone speak to this from experience? Thanks Kitmention (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen nothing in the Quran to indicate this, but I'm no hafiz so I could have missed something.
 * 9:60 Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and the officials (appointed) over them, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth) and the (ransoming of) captives and those in debts and in the way of Allah and the wayfarer; an ordinance from Allah; and Allah is knowing, Wise.

 * So I think if you're poor and needy but not a Muslim, that you still benefit from Zakat. But then I'm not all that familiar with the individual rulings within Islamic jurisprudence, my knowledge of Islam is almost entirely Quranic. Peter Deer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Five Pillars
Someone corrupted the first pillar bulleted in the list. Could someone correct this? I would if I was already familiar with the five pillars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.127.89.216 (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Sunni versus Shia
Is everything in this article correct from the viewpoint of each branch of Islam? If the two major branches (or any others) have differences on some significant aspect of the Five Pillars, the differences should be mentioned here. On the other hand, if there are no differences, it would be helpful to those of us not very knowledgeable about Islam if the article would mention that fact. JamesMLane t c 07:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to clarify Shia viewpoint. -- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination
Indeed this article is good one. I want to nominate it if you agree with me.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

GA improvements

 * Mention necessity to perform Salah/Sawm (or lack of) for women during menstruation and following childbirth AA
 * Contents from the external link can (and should) be incorporated in the article and the EL removed. AA
 * The following quote in the lead ""the five duties incumbent on every Muslim" needs a citation or the quotemarks removed. AA
 * I removed   .-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Candidate, 2007-07-05
This article is perfectly covers this subject without going into great detail. It is also concise, and surprisingly neutral considering that it deals with religion. The main issues that I found were so minor, that I fixed most of them up myself.

1. It is well written.
 * I found the article an enjoyable read with good writing quality, but could do with less redundancy words. (see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * All information is cited by reliable sources, and the article contains no cases of original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.
 * I did not feel, that the article was lacking in anyway, except that it may benefit from having more comparison between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Secondly it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details.

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * As I said above, I was expecting a small amount of bias, but there seems to be no clear evidence of this.

5. It is stable.
 * Besides the higher than normal levels of vandalism, yes.

'''6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labelled accordingly. A lack of images does not disqualify an article from Good Article status.'''
 * The images are appropriate to the subject, however a more relevant image could probably replace Image:Date-seller.jpg. They also follow the copyright policy.

In conclusion to this I hereby award this article Good article status. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Shi'a viewpoint section incomplete
This paragraph notes that there are three additional essential practices adhered to by Shi'a Muslims. It only describes two. Could someone knowledgeable on the subject add the third? --68.39.187.136 18:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears the first additional essential practice was removed without explanation. I'm reinserting it, but I must confess that I do not know much about this subject.  If I am in error, please revert me.--  Rise Above The Vile   18:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like your reinstatement has been undone already. Whether or not the mention of Jihad is appropriate in this section, the opening of the paragraph should correllate with the rest.  I think first it should be decided whether Jihad should be mentioned here, and if it is to be removed, the first sentence should then be changed to introduce two additional practices instead of three.  It seems appropriate to me that Jihad be part of the article, but again I'm not an expert on this topic either.  --66.202.1.140 22:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
This article looks complete and stable. I want to ask for peer review.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Iman
I removed whatever Millhamstreet had added to the article, due to the fact that it related to the belief and should be added in articles like Iman (concept) or Aqidah.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

T/Z
I d like to ask which is the correct form of writing: Zakat/Zakah or Salat/Salah. I ve found it in a book both with T written at the end and on websites as well. Does it matter whether I use T or Z? Nóra (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sixth pillar of Islam
It appears that there has been such a substantial number of Muslims who believe in the sixth pillars of Islam that a mention is needed. The main Jihad article clearly refers to it as the "Sixth pillar". I suspect that a mention has not been made because of the expected nagative publicity. For a person who knows nothing about the five pillars of Islam, I believe that a mention of the sixth pillar is warranted. EgraS (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of a sixth pillar in any hadith or verse of the Koran, therefore it will not be put in. 72.219.231.47 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone removed my comment on the source of the 5 pillars
Someone has removed a statement that I added concerning the origin of the 5 pillars. I have since re-added it, but am wondering about the reason for the removal (none was given). Here is the statement that was removed:

"The concept of five pillars is taken from the Hadith collections, notably those of Al-Bukhari and Muslim. The Qur'an does not speak of five pillars, although one can find in it scattered references to their associated practices."

Is there something inappropriate about this? Inaccurate? Please let me know. 71.166.114.186 (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the 5 pillars of islam
I need to know the five pillars of ancient islam. Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.253.84.176 (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism being protected?
Someone has inserted a sentence confusing Mohammed with the Buddha (saying he, Mohammed, achieved Nirvana!) I took it out, but pyrrhus reversed it back in again -- and some other changes too. I think there needs to be a reference to the "touchstone" nature of the Pillars as defining a Muslim across all the sects and opinions, but I'm obviously not going to be allowed to make it.... 217.40.173.77 (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC) U

Needs Fixing
Under the Salah heading: "Salat is compulsory but some flexibility in body and clothing, as well as the place of prayer, must be cleansed."  That makes no sense--something's missing after "clothing", and before "as", I think. I'd fix it myself, but I figure I'll leave it to someone who knows the subject.--MisterRational (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected again
Some kindergarteners seem to be having some fun, so I've protected the article for a bit. --jpgordon:==( o ) 21:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

first pillar
The formulation: "[I profess that] There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his Prophet." As expressed, I think this is misleading. It, implies that Allah means something different to God, when the difference is simply linguistic (i.e. Allah is Arabic for God). Here is an alternative version, with reference: "There is none worthy of worship except God and Muhammad is the messenger of God." http://www.islam101.com/dawah/pillars.html Jalfro (talk) 09:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)jalfro

 * the "I profess......" statement is a translation that just names Allah in an apropriate way. it would be unusual for someone who has no knowledege of islam to jump straight to the five pillars. rdunn  albatross  11:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WHy doesn't the Shahada have a separate subheading in this article? 129.173.223.104 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like it had been removed by a vandal and accidentally not replaced. I've put it back now. Thanks for pointing it out! Olaf Davis (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Confusing Structure
The current structure of the main article is confusing. There are six headings in the main pillars section and it is not clear which of Hadith or Shahadah is actually a pillar. I think the article should be structure in the following way
 * The pillars should be grouped into five level three headings under a single level two heading called "Five Pillars" or something similar.
 * There should be no other headings or sections in this level two heading.
 * Each pillar section should explicitly begin with the statement "The X^th pillar of islam is Y", in order to make it completely clear what is a pillar and what is not.86.41.99.167 (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Good points; I agree. Hadith wasn't a section until someone added it recently; in my opinion it should probably be removed, and people can go to the article on Hadith if they want more detail. Feel free to make the changes if you like, 84. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

al-islam.com nonsense
http://www.al-islam.org does not qualify as a WP:RS. If you want to edit-war about this topic, please make sure you refer to actual quotable references, not to some thing you found on the internet. Seriously, please stop this, it is disruptive. If this continues much longer, we'll have to blacklist al-islam.org from inclusion.

Also, the proper reaction to this sort of edit-warring is not heaping up a ridiculous bunch of random references like the CIA or Public Broadcasting Service. Sheesh. Just cite one single good academic source. --dab (𒁳) 13:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Dab - Do not misuse you Admin privileges. Please build up a consensus at WP:RS first then proceed ahead with allegations. Thanks - Humaliwalay (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Al-Islam.org has recognition from Columbia University here (as a main reference on Islam), the British Academy here, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade here, the George Mason University here, Intute here, and is archived by the Library of Congress. When such reliable sources take it as reference for Islam then how come you can allege so? Humaliwalay (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 * To user Deb; thank you very much for your interference. Your presence can be a help to overcome this problem. I will be appreciably grateful if you first have a look page 38 of this book . User Humaliwalay discussed reliability of the other source and also I can provide more sorce in this case. I would like to add, in Islamic articles, idea of both sects must be reflected while the users have respect toward each other. If you read the text I added (pillars of Shia), you won't see any disrespect toward Sunni users or their ideas. Also I didn't write any bad information about Islam. Thanks. --Aliwiki (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 * For those of us not involved - what is the issue with the website that makes it not a reliable source?
 * I see that it appears to have a unifying advocacy mission. Is it felt to be fringe or a purely advocacy site?
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not abusing anything. Somebody here is failing to respect WP:CITE, and it isn't me. The question is, who is Bashir Rahim and why should Wikipedia mention his opinions? As long as this isn't clarified, the "Bashir Rahim" section needs to go. Wikipedia isn't a private webhost or blogspace provider for your personal ideas. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Cut section
I have cut this section because it is completely unreferenced. You are welcome to add it back with proper references.

According to Mulla Bashir Rahim, additional acts also referred to as "five pillars" are as follows:

 * Monotheism, God is one and unique.
 * Justice, the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, fairness, and equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics.
 * Last Judgment, God's final assessment of humanity.
 * Prophethood, the institution by which God sends emissaries, or prophets, to guide mankind.
 * Leadership, A divine institution which succeeded the institution of Prophethood. Its appointees (Imams) are divinely appointed.

These "five pillars" are followed by "ten subsidiary pillars":
 * 1) Prayer
 * 2) Fasting
 * 3) Pilgrimage
 * 4) Alms giving
 * 5) Struggle
 * 6) Directing others towards good
 * 7) Directing others away from evil
 * 8) One Fifth (20% tax on all earnings after deduction of house-hold and commercial expenses)
 * 9) Love those who are in the God's path
 * 10) Disassociation with those who oppose the God

It isn't disputed that these are principles of Islam. What is doubtful is whether and by whom these are known as "five pillars" or "ten subsidiary pillars". --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Dab, the 5 +10 acts do not even mention the main first pillar ("shahada" or "belief") which is required to be a Muslim. In other words, if people were to follow these 15 acts they are considered non-Muslims. "This is the basic statement of the Islamic faith: anyone who cannot recite this wholeheartedly is not a Muslim." Some of these are clearly acts which only Shias follow, i.e. Imamate (Divine Leadership).
 * About PBS (Islam: Empire of Faith). This is the most trusted and reliable source for Islam-related articles. Its documentary on Islam is often shown on TV, at www.PBS.org, at google videos , youtube or on DVDs. The people involved in this documentary are professors from top western colleges and universities, so I think we should use this before any other.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 * To avoid parallel discussion, let's follow this matter on Islam talk page. The last point was to remove the word five to make it general for all Muslims.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Shia Islam section needs cleaning up
I added a tag for clean up at the Shia Islam section. In addition to the need for wikification and MoS, there's also no citations to reliable sources present in the section. These issues should be fixed promptly since this article is rated GA. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Islam is beautiful
Why can't I add that Islam is the most beautiful religion in the world when it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.55.196 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Most likely because that's a subjective statement and impossible to support. How does one quantify "most beautiful"?129.139.1.75 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

My edit
My edit summary couldn't contain the link of an IP edit, so I am reporting again the full comment of my edit:

Reordered the five pillars of Islam according to this source http://web.archive.org/web/20101203124633/http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/5PILLARS.HTM and also based on several editors corrections such as this.--Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 September 2013
please use the word "salat" instead of "salah" to accurate transcribe the word prayer.

79.71.113.191 (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice this before but it appears I did it anyway, here. 02:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Order of Pillars of Islam
Request restructure of the Five Pillars based on preliminary research across other web based sources showing agreement of this *Particular* order. (Change in position of Zakat and Sawm.)

I - Shahada II - Salat V - Hajj
 * III - Zakat
 * IV - Sawm

References http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/pillars_%28P1188%29.html http://www.saudiembassy.net/about/country-information/Islam/five_pillars_of_Islam.aspx http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/pillars.shtml http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-16.htm http://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/I_Transp/IO5_FivePillars.html

Please address at convenience. If not correct in request, please address with cited conflicting sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jknight89 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request, minor grammar
Pillar number 5 (Hajj) of the introduction reads: "Hajj: pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime if he/she is able to do." I think this is grammatically incorrect and I would change "is able to do" to just "is able," or "is able to do so." Also, I think the use of "he/she" is inappropriate because the sentence is not referring to a single person, so I would substitute "if one is" for "if he/she is." thanks --75.18.185.128 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

GA?
This article is in need of major work to fit the GA criteria. It doesn't contain anything about the history of the Five Pillars as a concept or how they've been variously interpreted by Islamic scholars and religious-studies academics. In addition, some of the sources look unreliable and the formatting is wildly inconsistent, wholly incomplete in some cases. I don't like to do this, but I'm going to nominate this for GAR if no one begins work soon. Tezero (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2015
They are:
 * 1) Shahadah: declaring there is no god except ALLAH, and Muhammad (S.A.W) is God's Messenger

Imroz19121 (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  15:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015
Please Muhammad should be write as Muhammad (PBUH) 39.55.133.213 (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See WP:PBUH. Stickee (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Five Pillars of Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070308025221/http://www.usc.edu:80/dept/MSA/fundamentals/pillars/fasting/tajuddin/fast_21.html to http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/pillars/fasting/tajuddin/fast_21.html#HEADING20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Link to Ummah
There is a page for the word "Ummah" which means "community" see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah

Since this word is used in this article, it would be nice to have a link to it. Since I am not a registered user (although a frequent reader) I would like to propose that that word be linked to the appropriate Wikipedia article. I don't think it would 'clutter' the paragraph in question, and it would allow those of us interested to continue learning about the subject.

Thank you!

Muslim perspective that the "five pillars" is an innovation
Shouldn't it be stated somewhere in this article that some Muslims, such as the People of the Quran don't believe in the "five pillars"? That they believe it is an innovation. Jahelistbro (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2016
remove neoclassical rome architecture picture, Five_pillars_of_Islam.svg Not convenient symbol to express Islam.

212.174.232.222 (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. st170e talk  12:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Five Pillars of Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203124633/http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/5PILLARS.HTM to http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/5PILLARS.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

5 pillar of islam's English conversation
First photo on the page Wikipedia 5 pillar of islam's English conversation is Faslse.. Zakat's English conversation is not Compulsory giving but original meaning of zakat is to charity... Zakat's meaning is very descriptivly found in islam that given some rule of islamic way followed by quran...

You should change it very early Thank u..😊 Ramiz gadhiya (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Fasting, Charity; pilgrimage
I think #Zakāt: Charity and #Sawm: Fasting sections of the article should be swapped in order. And please capitalize "pilgrimage" in "pilgrimage to Mecca" for consistency with previous section naming style. --5.43.68.69 (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2019
There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah Prasad19.hari (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC) There is no god but God
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 11:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Offensive
Someone has said that Jews and Christians have distorted the teachings regarding prayer. This statement is very offensive to Hews and Christians. Please amend this.103.100.11.3 (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Unclear wording
The last sentence in the opening section heading, Overview..., contains unclear wording (in italics): This was perhaps translated from another language. It would benefit from a rewrite for clarification. -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Regarding the matter of the Hajj, the longest Quranic section (Sura 2.196-203) recommends the destination location of the pilgrimage, the lead and exercises of the individuals who participate..."

May be undue weight issue
The article includes a section titled "Pillars of Sunni Islam", in comparison with other sections I think the article suffers from undue weight issue. the weight of the Sunni view is not proportional to the weight of the others. In the other hand, most of the material which was mentioned in the Sunni view section has an own article. For example, there is an article about Salah, why is such a detailed material as to salah is needed? Isn't it better to summarize them? Saff V. (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , you may be right, but I honestly don't have enough familiarity with Islam in general to be able to look at this article at a glance and immediately determine whether there's something off about the weight. That having been said, the instructions do seem to be unnecessarily detailed, and also carry a non-neutral tone. signed,Rosguill talk 17:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The section "Second Pillar: Salat (Prayer)" is poorly structured and poorly written
I read through the Second Pillar section and came upon a sentence that was not logical which led me to reread the section to see what I had missed. The sentence in question was:

 * Sermons on Fridays usually have considerable public opinion's impact regarding sociopolitical and moral questions.

The possessive "opinion's" was the puzzler. Also, I was not at all sure what Friday's Sermons had to do with prayers on Friday.

Rereading made me realize that the section although held OK content was poorly structured and was not at all well written.

The major (basically the only) reference for this section was the ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA article |entitled "Islam", Paragraph "Five Pillars", Fundamental practices and institutions of Islam, subsection Prayer. It was referenced eleven times. Much of what is in this section was lifted and poorly rephrased to do a bit of ham-edited editing in order to by-pass plagiarizing from the ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA. The sentence that was taken from the ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA was

 * "Friday sermons usually have considerable impact on public opinion regarding both moral and sociopolitical questions."

 * Seeing this resolved my confusion; the Wikipedia editor added a possessive apostrophe for no apparent reason.

Using the ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA as the major source to explain a Pillar of Islam is just plain lazy as there are undoubtedly more authoritative sources for this subject. Also, the ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA article is not very well written to begin with.

This section needs to be revised to reflect "prayer" as a Pillar and leave out all else. If the "all else" is important as a Pillar then it should be somewhere else and made clear as to its related importance.

Realizing the strange Wikipedian Philosophy that EVERYTHING CAN BE ANYWHERE AND ANYTHING CAN BE EVERYWHERE, The Five Pillars of Islam concerning "prayer" is in several other articles within Wikepedia. The "Five Pillars of Islam" is contained in the Wikipedia page Islam; and for some reason, there is a "See Also" to this "Five Pillars of Islam" page. And the Islam page also refers to another Wikipedia page Salah which goes into great length explaining "prayer" as the second of the five pillars in the Islamic faith. Maybe there could be a little less of EVERYTHING BEING EVERYWHERE because EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE IS NOT USEFUL BECAUSE IT IS EVERYWHERE.

Sorry about the EVERYTHING EVERWHERE rant, but, having lots of so-so redundant articles in Wikipedia does not make Wikipedia better. It apparently happens since we must compromise and try to make everybody sort of happy.

So this section needs a bit of rewrite and some research to find more authoritative sources than the ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

I have deleted the references to Sermons from the section as they don't exactly fit as directly pertinent to the Pillar of prayer.

It would be good if this section was improved.

Osomite (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yet another Wikipedia article influenced by sects and non primary sources
The Quran is the only source of Islam, there is no "sunni" or "shia" and sectism is even banned in Islam because it is political. Yet wikipedia includes references to these sects as primary information, simply put, if it's not in the Quran, it is not part of Islam.

Same goes for the Hadith, the Hadith has many flaws in which it has sayings that contradict the Quran, hadiths which contradict other hadiths and most of all, it isn't the word of God according to Muslims, it is the word of man.

Here, the 5 Pillars are not a official statement from the Quran and as such, it should not be presented as part of Islam,but actually a cultural tradition.

NPOV dispute: Change title to "Pillars of Islam"
I don't have a horse in this race, but titling this page "Five Pillars of Islam" feels like a violation of WP:NPOV. While the "Five Pillars" is the *majority* view, they are (as described in this article) by no means the only view. Five pillars, Seven, five pillars but they're different from the first five pillars, no pillars at all; there's a lot of disagreement (as is also evident from the (presumed) muslims on this talk page going "this is wrong". The five pillars may be orthodoxy in the notion of majority consensus (i.e most sunnis), but taking the side of "orthodoxy" is not a Neutral Point of View.

Best Strong Muslim
103.147.162.7 (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Five Pillars of Islam


text:
Furlong

A furlong is a measure of distance in imperial units and United States customary units equal to one-eighth of a mile, equivalent to any of 660 feet, 220 yards, 40 rods, 10 chains or approximately 201 metres. It is now mostly confined to use in horse racing, where in many countries it is the standard measurement of race lengths, and agriculture, where it is used to measure rural field lengths and distances.

In the United States, some states use older definitions for surveying purposes, leading to variations in the length of the furlong of two parts per million, or about 0.4 mm. This variation is too small to have practical consequences in most applications. Using the international definition of the yard as exactly 0.9144 metres, one furlong is 201.168 metres, and five furlongs are about 1 kilometre (5/8 mi exactly).

History
The name furlong derives from the Old English words furh (furrow) and lang (long). Dating back at least to early Anglo-Saxon times, it originally referred to the length of the furrow in one acre of a ploughed open field (a medieval communal field which was divided into strips). The furlong (meaning furrow length) was the distance a team of oxen could plough without resting. This was standardised to be exactly 40 rods or 10 chains. The system of long furrows arose because turning a team of oxen pulling a heavy plough was difficult. This offset the drainage advantages of short furrows and meant furrows were made as long as possible. An acre is an area that is one furlong long and one chain (66 feet or 22 yards) wide. For this reason, the furlong was once also called an acre's length, though in modern usage an area of one acre can be of any shape. The term furlong, or shot, was also used to describe a grouping of adjacent strips within an open field.

Among the early Anglo-Saxons, the rod was the fundamental unit of land measurement. A furlong was 40 rods; an acre 4 by 40 rods, or 4 rods by 1 furlong, and thus 160 square rods; there are 10 acres in a square furlong. At the time, the Saxons used the North German foot, which was about 10 percent longer than the foot of the international 1959 agreement. When England changed to a shorter foot in the late 13th century, rods and furlongs remained unchanged, since property boundaries were already defined in rods and furlongs. The only thing that changed was the number of feet and yards in a rod or a furlong, and the number of square feet and square yards in an acre. The definition of the rod went from 15 old feet to $1/8$ new feet, or from 5 old yards to $16 1/2$ new yards. The furlong went from 600 old feet to 660 new feet, or from 200 old yards to 220 new yards. The acre went from 36,000 old square feet to 43,560 new square feet, or from 4,000 old square yards to 4,840 new square yards.

The furlong was historically viewed as being equivalent to the Roman stade (stadium), which in turn derived from the Greek system. For example, the King James Bible uses the term "furlong" in place of the Greek stadion, although more recent translations often use miles or kilometres in the main text and give the original numbers in footnotes.

In the Roman system, there were 625 feet to the stadium, eight stadia to the mile, and three miles to the league. A league was considered to be the distance a man could walk in one hour, and the mile (from mille, meaning "thousand") consisted of 1,000 passus (paces, five feet, or double-step).

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, medieval Europe continued with the Roman system, which the people proceeded to diversify, leading to serious complications in trade, taxation, etc. Around the year 1300, by royal decree England standardized a long list of measures. Among the important units of distance and length at the time were the foot, yard, rod (or pole), furlong, and the mile. The rod was defined as $5 1/2$ yards or $5 1/2$ feet, and the mile was eight furlongs, so the definition of the furlong became 40 rods and that of the mile became 5,280 feet (eight furlongs/mile times 40 rods/furlong times $16 1/2$ feet/rod). The invention of the measuring chain in the 1620s led to the introduction of an intermediate unit of length, the chain of 22 yards, being equal to four rods, and to one-tenth of a furlong.

A description from 1675 states, "Dimensurator or Measuring Instrument whereof the mosts usual has been the Chain, and the common length for English Measures four Poles, as answering indifferently to the Englishs Mile and Acre, 10 such Chains in length making a Furlong, and 10 single square Chains an Acre, so that a square Mile contains 640 square Acres." —John Ogilby, Britannia, 1675

The official use of the furlong was abolished in the United Kingdom under the Weights and Measures Act 1985, an act that also abolished the official use of many other traditional units of measurement.

Use
In Myanmar, furlongs are currently used in conjunction with miles to indicate distances on highway signs. Mileposts on the Yangon–Mandalay Expressway use miles and furlongs.

In the rest of the world, the furlong has very limited use, with the notable exception of horse racing in most English-speaking countries, including Canada and the United States. The distances for horse racing in Australia were converted to metric in 1972, but in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, and the United States, races are still given in miles and furlongs. Also distances along English canals navigated by narrowboats are commonly expressed in miles and furlongs.

The city of Chicago's street numbering system allots a measure of 800 address units to each mile, in keeping with the city's system of eight blocks per mile. This means that every block in a typical Chicago neighborhood (in either north–south or east–west direction but rarely both) is approximately one furlong in length. Salt Lake City's blocks are also each a square furlong in the downtown area. The blocks become less regular in shape farther from the center, but the numbering system (800 units to each mile) remains the same everywhere in Salt Lake County. Blocks in central Logan, Utah, and in large sections of Phoenix, Arizona, are similarly a square furlong in extent (eight to a mile, which explains the series of freeway exits: 19th Ave, 27th, 35th, 43rd, 51st, 59th ...). City blocks in the Hoddle Grid of Melbourne are also one furlong in length.

Much of Ontario, Canada, was originally surveyed on a ten-furlong grid, with major roads being laid out along the grid lines. Now that distances are shown on road signs in kilometres, these major roads are almost exactly two kilometres apart. The exits on highways running through Toronto, for example, are generally at intervals of two kilometres.

The Bangor City Forest in Bangor, Maine has its trail system marked in miles and furlongs.

The furlong is also a base unit of the humorous FFF system of units.

Definition of length
The exact length of the furlong varies slightly among English-speaking countries. In Canada and the United Kingdom, which define the furlong in terms of the international yard of exactly 0.9144 metres, a furlong is 201.168 m. Australia does not formally define the furlong, but it does define the chain and link in terms of the international yard.

The United States previously defined the furlong, chain, rod, and link in terms of the U.S. survey foot of exactly metre, resulting in a furlong approximately 201.1684 m long. The difference of approximately two parts per million between the old U.S. value and the "international" value was insignificant for most practical measurements.

In October 2019, U.S. National Geodetic Survey and National Institute of Standards and Technology announced their joint intent to retire the U.S. survey foot, with effect from the end of 2022. The furlong in U.S. Customary units is thereafter defined based on the International 1959 foot, giving the length of the furlong as exact 201.168 meters in the United States as well.

title: Furlong