text:
Talk:Islam/Archive 8

faithfreedom.org
Why so much tensions people? If you feel the need to rave, rant, criticize eachother, etc. get a room! or a least a blog, then you can say whatever you want. Chillax, you'll feel much better. When people get heated about their strong opinions, its dangerous for them to get near a keyboard. People are soooo reactionary these days, so unopen to intelligent debate. Cool it off, and save it for the playground. That's my two cents.

I hope the posts catagorizing muslims as terrorists are joke posts... If not, well then the posters should realize that in South East Asia, the Christians are the ones murdering muslims in cold blood. There is video footage on the net of Christian rebels in either Indonesia or the Phillipines killing young muslim children with machetes; this atrocity happened only about 5-8 years ago.

Also, if you look back at history, Christians were the ones who slaughtered every Jew and Muslim in Jerusalem when they conquered it in the 2nd crusade. Whem muslims took the city back, they not only did not start a massacre, but they permitted Christian and Jewish worship in the city.

The thing that makes me sad and angry is the fact that our beloved Great Bitain was so horribly and violently attacked. Over the many years our great nation has accepted many beliefs and welcomed people from all over the world. But for islam and their followers to take up arms and attack a city that has always been open to all types of people I really cant accept. We have looked after you,given you many things. You have the freedom and sucurity in Britain that,lets be honets you would not get in most islamic states. Islam followers need to really think hard about their loyalties and dyties in Britain and work togther. As one can see that islam extremists gain nothing from killing people and only fuels more hatred towards islam. I really cant see want they are trying to gain. One just cant force your ideas on people,it just doesnt work. Everyone blames everyone. The article below shows how easily we can look at history to blame others. Yes I agree, imperial nations was not good or evil. But we gained alot of knowledge and must simply remember not makes mistakes twice. So I call on all islam extremists to stop your hatred and attacks on beautiful Britain. As i fear you time is running out. We are a nation who has surived many difficulies and trust me terrorist,you will not win. And Gloriful Mighty Britain shall stand in victory once again.

I haven written any thing outside these two horizontal lines<\n> Please don't listen to this website<\n> I only deleted this article to abstrain this person show his views to our muslim brothers and sisters .how dare they call muslim terrorists and barbarians It is they who are terrorists .History tells us And this person dont know about history go and read it.from greek & roman empire till today they destryed the world through there terrorism they are what we can truly call barbarins.They cheat people.They call themselve superior and others inferior.They run on the streets and beaches naked and do sex openly in so desgusting way that no civillized person(which they call barbarians) can not imagien.I am not talking about all but majority of them.there women have many hasband and many of them are even not married And Many of them don't even know who there fathers are And in america on every day thousends of women are raped is this they call civillization they are worst people on the planet.There socities are truly barbaric socities And they are proud geedy and barbaric people who attacks on inocent and weak nations and destroy there culture,there econemy,kills thousends and thousends of them take control of there all resources and say that they are there to free them while few people dies in there cities by the desprate attempt of supresed nations and they say that they are barbaric nations.only i think approx 100 inocent people died by the blast in london but british army killed 24000 inocent muslims in iraq And this is just not it during 1919 they killed thousends of inocent muslims,hindus and sikhs who were just campaining for there freedom in amritser<---This is the history .Ans there are thousends of these kinds of crime against humanities by the coloniel powers which they call them selves civillized including British,French,Russian,Americans,Hindus upper cast,Germens,Spainish,Dutch,purtuges,belgariens,etc.Spainish army killed thousends of native americans during there regin on americas.compare it with ottoman empire which was also coloniel power before 1914.they ruled entire balkans and most of south east europe for more then 600 years till 1911 but they robbed there resources.most of christion nations were autonumus and had total freedom.The people which converted to islam in these nations were by there own will not by force.if so today grecce,bulgaria,romania,hungry,silvakia,serbia,coratia,moldiva,montenegro,mecidonia would have been totly muslim today on ther other hand spain use to be multi relegious socity before 1492 but few years after it they are totaly catholic.the most of south america carabien and maxico was also turned catholic by force.this totaly explain that muslim powers were not greedy and they were extremly tolerent people And they did'nt attack weak nations like what westeren powers did to became strong.They only attacked those nations which were proud and greedy and dose'nt respect freedom of others.they attacked with there small and weak armies from 7th century till today and they were atlast victorious in every battle.They attacked great persian empire and reduced it to nothing.they attacked great byzentine empire and reduced it to nothing.but they never attacked ethopia which was also christion from very early time.They did'nt never attack china.they never attacked any black country.They did'nt enter subcontinent for expansion .They only enterned when they were attacked by the hindus.And even today majority of people of subcontinet are hindu.I am a pakistani and fofathers only converted when they were impressed by the muslims.similarly there are many examples.And the land which today USA stands which they are proud of was snatched by the inocent native americans.so it proves that it was them who are thives,fasist,greedy,hypocrates not muslims.

And you also say that islam has took freedom of women.but do you know that islam was the first religion who told that women are as equal as men but are different in many things.It was islam who allowed women to educate as much as they like and to inharite and to vote.And Allowed to marry by her own will to any men.compare it will western socities.women were never given a right to vote till the first world war.she was never given a right of education till the industrial age.And she is merly a toy of man.she is only free by name.it is a fact that most of the women is west are doing jobs to entertain man like music,dance,prosicution,sex and they all die in end in hell.While in islam women is given full rights but even men are not allowed to do these things.Even men are not allowed to show to much of there fleash,There is a thing called satter which is how much fleash is allowed to show in public by both man and women.but a husband can do any thing for her wife and a wife can do any thing for her husband in private but not publicly.but the hijab which you saw during taliban rule in afghanistan and in many parts of my country pakistan is totaly ignorance and how they interprate islam to not educate woman and to put her completly in house.But these are expections in all islam is a very tollerant religion and is freedom for every humanbeing..........................So the conclusion is totaly that these people who spread hate abuot other religions are hypocrate even al-qaida.There is a ayat in quran which says of quran that killing inocent human being is like this to kill the entire humankind.You can find this ayat easily in quran and it also says that woman has complete right to choose a man by her own will.And islam even says not to heard even animals.And do you know that we respect all the formar prophets of christionaty and judism as equal as Muhammad(PBUH) includeing Jesus Christ(AS),Moses(AS),Abrahim(AS),David and Soloman(AS),etc .Prophet muhammad(PBUH) says that dont make me superior then any other.You can also find this hadith very easily.And in islam we beleve that all prophets are muslims and even jews and christions are muslims they are only following wrong paths and there holy books are now curropt.

I added a link to the directories critical of Islam given under external links directories. The link was to www.faithfreedom.org/links.htm. It was deleted within a day. That is a shame. I did not edit any content of the page, nor added or subtracted any statement on Islam. The links provided by faithfreedom are more extensive than anything given under the directories listed under the external links. Faithfreedom is clearly anti-Islam and its links are to various critics of Islam. I find it absolutely unacceptable that the editors will censor to this level. Why cannot wikipedia tolerate links to faithfreedom's link page that is clearly more comprehensive than the other directories linked under external link? Perhaps the editors of the Islam page should not be biased muslims who have an agenda to beat the drum of their particular sect. Reading this disscussion page clearly shows that the malady of sectarianism within Islam has reached Wikipedia as well.

 * The links provided by faithfreedom are more extensive than anything given under the directories listed under the external links.—You are mistaken. The dmoz directories are much more extensive, better-categorized, more multilingual, and they link to faithfreedom.org already. There's no need for this link, nor for speculation about the religious motives of other editors, which is in fact erroneous. Long ago, this article had a massively bloated list of external links, and the list you see there would have been much longer if not for periodic trimming. Zora (a Buddhist) removed most of the links, and I (a Catholic) added the ODP links, and all agreed that this was the sensible thing to do. If we are going to link to faithfreedom's external links page, why not http://bismikaallahuma.org/Archive/links.htm ? Or http://islamfortoday.com/special.htm ? And so on, and so forth. This way lies madness. —Charles P. (Mirv) 3 July 2005 20:27 (UTC)

I just checked the link to the directory at dmoz and they list a total of 27 enteries that are critical of Islam. The rest are essentially links to islamic sites. Here is the numbers in the list at dmoz: dmoz gives under opposing views of islam: Ahamadiyya(32), Deendar Anjuman(2),Islamism(22), Nation of Islam(19),Quranites (1),Shia (3),Submitters (3),Sufism (13),Sunni(3) which are all sects of Islam and quite pro-Islam. I have gone to the various sites and found no contra views on Islam at those links. The contra Views on Islam are listed by dmoz as: Christian Views(20),Ex-Muslim(3),Hindu Views(3),Jewish Views(1).

Faithfreedom links to 74 sites on the page. There is perhaps an overlap of about four or five enteries between dmoz and faithfreedom. I am not interested in your or zora's or anyone's religion. The idea, I thought was to provide the readers the best information available. The issue is that the bickering on this page clearly tells us that there are plenty of sectarian issues within Islam and the contra-views of Islam are clearly a need to understand the passion being demonstrated. I provided a link that clearly has more contra views to Islam than the link given at dmoz, and that was deleted. I urge the editors to take another look dispassionately and restore that link. And look at the external links under Hinduism for a comparison. A few more links under Islam will not be madness, but far from it.

 * This is an encyclopedia ...remember !! Faith freedom is not a site, its hatred spread by a phobic psycho who is illeterate , unauthentic & unverifiable . ITs not coming here . What U think or say is not important . we are giving links to authentic & verifiable people , not pink monkeys & flying mules . And yes , see the hinduism page , tell me if you find any link to a "critical site" there . Try inserting links to some dungpools like FFI there . Learn how to use an encyclopedia , learn how to read & what to read . If U dont like encyclopedias , go back to your dung pool U call FFI . Sign your name if you think your existance is of any importance on WP . Farhansher 4 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)<s?

Farhansher, that sort of thing doesn't help. All we have to say is that faithfreedom doesn't get any special treatment. Rather than link directly to sites about Islam in general (except for academic sites and sites re non-controversial specific topics), we link to directories, which have the space and the mission to be completely inclusive. Anyone who goes to the directories will find ALL the sites. Zora 4 July 2005 07:25 (UTC)

Farhansher, it is your diatribes that are unencyclopedic. You will acheive nothing by ranting at people. As for "faithfreedom", by the title of that page,
 * Fight Islamic militancy, militarily and its ideology, ideologically. These are the two fronts of the war against barbarism.

it appears to be a site about Islamism? At first glance, it contains very cheap and sarcastic Islam-bashing, and it has certainly no theological relevance. You may attempt to argue for inclusion of the on Islamism, but probably the more appropriate place would be Islamophobia. Just like we don't link to pure proselytizing sites, we don't link to fearmonging sites. dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)

 * The real problem with this page is that it has essentially been hijacked by a gang of Islamist who do not care for history of facts and who will stop at nothing to block any presentation of Islam that does not fit their POV. The links on FaithFreedom belong on this page. I have had my share of battling with the Islamists on this page, I will not name names, but just look at my edit trail. There are even admin islamists who are part of the blockade. Of course they will tell will you tell you that they are impartial and only interested in the encyclopedic integrity but it is just a tactic they use. Do a search for aL-taqya on the internet to learn more about their tactics.--Urchid 4 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)
 * There is an article on taqiyya; you should read it before making any more ill-informed personal attacks. —Charles P. (Mirv) 4 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

The issue is not whether you agree with Faithfreedom or not. The point is that the link page at FFI has more relevent and varied links than at dmoz. Your argument that dmoz is more comprehensive and that there are too many links have been shown to be spurious. The external links under hinduism are atleast 4 to 5 times more than what they are under Islam, and the number of links at FFI clearly are more and varied than at dmoz. The bias of the editors is obvious and evident, and it is damaging to Wikipedia. You will not even tolerate a link to a page under External Links because you disagree with the sites point of view? That is not the function of an editor!! That is censorship plain and simple. There are many many people who agree with the pov expressed at those links as is evident by the number of sites and their readership, and you do not want to provide any link to them? Is that what an encyclopedia is supposed to be? Who is asking for any special treatment for FFI? Do the editors appreciate what is meant by contra-views on Islam? Do the editors appreciate what is meant by freedom of speech? If this attitude of censorship of Wikipedia gets general media attention, do the editors understand what the consequences will be for the credibility of this supposed encyclopedia? Too many people have put in too many hours to create this resource to be allowed to be "hijacked" by a few editors who obviously are having a hard time understanding the proper role of an editor.-Nickbee

The comments by FarhanSher are an example of an unbiased editor at Wickipedia? Is that representative of the quality of editorial comments here? Just curious? -Nickbee

 * The issue is not whether you agree with Faithfreedom or not.—I agree. As Zora explains above, it was long ago decided not to link to any sectarian sites from this page, but rather to use the non-sectarian directories. There are thousands of Islamic websites and thousands of anti-Islamic websites. Rather than make the selection of which are linked here subject to the whims and biases of editors, which would lead to endless fighting (witness this section of the talk page) over which links to include and exclude, we pass the job off to dmoz and other directories. These generally include the sites that people might want to link here, so anyone who's interested can still find them. If you want to include FFI because there are many people who agree with it, why not islamonline.com? or bismikaallahuma.org? or answering-christianity.com? or. . .but you get the idea. Millions of people agree with the views of those sites, but we don't link them either. —Charles P. (Mirv) 4 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

 * I suppose I'm an islamist admin, for helping keep the fundamentalist hate sites from the article? Farhansher doesn't realize he's really working for his opponents. I estimate he is 15 years old. That doesn't automatically make you a quality editor, Urchid. For that you would have to show some productivity rather than throwing around polemics on talk pages. We won't accept any cheesy islamist proselytization links either, ok? Just because it's anti-Islamic doesn't make faithfreedom a quality site, people. "These women think they are 96% vagina" — how low can you stoop? dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)

 * 1) http://www.faithfreedom.org provides a legitimate counter POV to the Islam page and deserves to be presented. Have you seen how difficult it is to try to present any other POV on this page? Dab, are so insecure with your faith in Islam that you cannot allow to have a critical link added to the page?

 * 2)There seems to be is a fundamental flaw with Wikipedia, in that by its design it is vulnerable to hijacking, for example, since you have a limit on 3 revert per day, all it takes is a few editors colluding with each other to gang up on single editors and out revert them. Then you have the admin layer of editors, which I have not yet seen being policed by anyone, though I could be wrong on that, so you have admins going around and taking ideologically motivated measures, locking pages that they are partisan in, deleting pages that does not suit their own POV and generally bullying their ideological opponents. It kind of makes it difficult to contribute to articles under those conditions. --Urchid 4 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

Charles P. The policy is obviously not uniformly applied. I showed you the Hinduism page where the external links are directly to sites that are clearly proselytizing in nature. I am not linking to Faithfreedom directly but to a page that contains 74 links to contra-views on Islam. These links are not available to Wikipedia readers and you as an editor are not willing to consider whether they should be? You mention the other sites: Are there link directories at those sites? Are those sites already listed at dmoz? If not then they should be included. Who is asking for withholding of information? Why deny the Wikipedia readers access to information because you do not like the point of view being expressed there? Why the need for such petty censorship? Again I am not changing one line of information on the topic, merely linking to a page that contains links to sites that express contra-views to the topic and those links are not available at any other listing provided by wikipedia under the topic? If you know of sites that have directories that present links to pro-views on the topic and those links are not currently available, I would imagine that as an editor you should, perhaps must, include those links as well. Should a good encyclopedia not offer access to information that is available out there? Why the reluctance to include merely a link to a page that contains links to sites that are obviously well visited and that contain "contra-views" on the topic of the page? -Nickbee

Dab's comments make it perfectly clear that he is very familiar with Faithfreedom. So he visits it and knows about it, but he also feels entitled to deny the information about it to the readers of Wikipedia!! Is that not THE Definition of censorship? Who is asking posting the faithfreedom pov under Islam? But why deny an external link to a page that is obviously potent enough to rile a distinguished editor of wikipedia, and that obviously has significant readership? -Nickbee
 * it is teh definition of informed editing. I have visited lots of kooky website, and didn't feel compelled to add them all to WP. Of course, I don't own WP. If I am voted down, the link will be added. At the moment, however, it rather looks like you flew in the face of established consensus, mister anonymous. Also, I had never seen ff before you linked to it. "potent"? You mean "patent fundamentalism". Not on Wikipedia, thank you. dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
 * re "uniform application": understand that it is a consensus arrived at on this article, because we have quite a history of pov-pushers trying to add their precious websites. So people figured out that the way to go is to be restrictive about biased links. this doesn't necessarily hold for other articles, although as a rule, the farther out your site, the smaller the chance of inclusion. dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)

 * Well said. Some people seem to forget that this is supposed to be an enyclopedia.  Do you really expect to find Encyclopedia Britannica, say, linking to "faithfreedom.org"?  This sort of silly games merely reduces Wikipedia's credibility. as for the Hinduism article, pruning its link section sounds like a great idea. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)

 * oh, and urchid, I am not a bloody Muslim (nor an unbloody one), got it? I'm just a random "Westerner" who cares about encyclopedicity and factuality. Not necessarily about Islam, although a fortiori about Islam as if falls into the larger realm of human knowledge and spirituality. dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)

(via edit conflict)
 * The policy is obviously not uniformly applied.—It is not a policy, but a consensus among the regular editors of this page, which has lasted since last October.
 * I showed you the Hinduism page where the external links are directly to sites that are clearly proselytizing in nature.—then perhaps Hinduism needs serious link trimming, but I am not the one to do it, as I know little about the topic, do not edit the page regularly, and could not judge what should stay and what should go.
 * I am not linking to Faithfreedom directly but to a page that contains 74 links to contra-views on Islam.—you're not linking to their front page, but you are linking directly to a page with www.faithfreedom.org in the URL, which is closely linked into the rest of the pages on the site. Word games. Meanwhile the directories link to many sites with contra-views (including faithfreedom), which themselves link to similar sites, and so on.
 * These links are not available to Wikipedia readers and you as an editor are not willing to consider whether they should be?—They may not be available directly but they are available through dmoz; all that's required is a bit more clicking. I have considered the value of the link and given my considered opinion that it does not belong here.
 * You mention the other sites: Are there link directories at those sites? Are those sites already listed at dmoz?  If not then they should be included.—Yes, there are link directories on the sites I named, and yes, the sites (if not the link pages) are in dmoz. I still do not believe that they, or any others with a pro- or anti-Islamic agenda, should be included, for reasons which I have already explained.
 * Who is asking for withholding of information? Why deny the Wikipedia readers access to information because you do not like the point of view being expressed there?  Why the need for such petty censorship?—Spare us the empty rhetoric. I've argued against the inclusion of links to any sites with a religious and/or political agenda, for the sake of sanity and usefulness. To recapitulate:

 * There are thousands of sites about Islam which have an agenda, whether proselytizing, apologetic, polemical, or political.
 * This page cannot link to all of them; Wikipedia is not a link repository.
 * Therefore, the choice of which to include will be a matter of editorial selectivity—and thus a point of contention and an endless battleground.
 * dmoz is a reasonably neutral selector of links; it has no overt agenda apart from creating a useful directory of sites about a topic. In this it is reasonably successful.
 * By leaving the selection of links to agenda-driven sites up to a reasonably neutral third party, we avoid disputes over which should and should not be included here. The reader is still offered a selection of agenda-driven sites which is much wider than anything this article could reasonably include.
 * Therefore, rather than link to any of the agenda-driven sites, this article should link to the dmoz listings, or another directory of similar scope and neutrality.

 * Try to address the points of this argument, if you please, instead of squawking about censorship and withholding of information. —Charles P. (Mirv) 4 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)

It is truly mindboggling. The professionalism of the editors as expressed by their language: "instead of squawking about censorship and withholding of information.". "Spare us the empty rhetoric."!! And all of this because of trying to get the editors to reconsider their decision on providing a link. No one is asking you to link to all the sites. You answered your question yourself about the other sites: "Yes, there are link directories on the sites I named, and yes, the sites (if not the link pages) are in dmoz.". There is no need for replication, is there? Now where in dmoz are the links given at faithfreedom? Those links are not available. Why is that so hard for you to understand? There are not infinite links to Islam out there. The contra views are not many, and that is why the collection of contra views of Islam at the link page at FFI is valuable. Your comment: "you're not linking to their front page, but you are linking directly to a page with www.faithfreedom.org in the URL, which is closely linked into the rest of the pages on the site. Word games." is indicative of your mentality. The entire Internet is only a few clicks away. Why have Wikipedia at all? Do you understand fully the logic of your statement? It really appears that the idea of providing information to Wikipedia readers so that they can get ALL sides of the information on a topic is not something the present set of editors grasp. Wikipedia is not British Encyclopedia, is it? It is an online Enclycopedia where people can edit and enter information. It is supposed to be better than the british encyclopedia. And you cannot grasp a simple and straightforward concept that providing a link to a page that has useful information is required for Wikipedia to be successful. But the agenda of the current spate of editors will not allow that!! Where does it say that Wikipedia "policy" is that links can only be provided by dmoz? Atleast they have the decency to link to FFI which you and your cohorts are unable to fathom that it is okay if NEW AND RELEVANT information is to be had there. I assure you that this will get more and more publicity and this issue will not go away. You guys are behaving as if you own Wikipedia and want to run it as a private domain. No one is allowed even to ask for a reconsideration! Amazing! -Nickbee.

 * Wikipedia's success is not the issue. It's safe to say that Faithfreedom offers little relevance in religious debate.  The main editors seem to not want that. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH  It might be worthwhile to point you in the direction of a typical encyclopedia and reading the article on Islam.  How does it read?  What kind of information does it give you?  I hope that maybe you doing that will solve some of this problem. gren 5 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)

"Wikipedia's success is not the issue." If that is not the issue then why such insistence in not allowing a good contra-view to the topic link in external links? What motivates the editors to such steely resolve? -Nickbee
 * very simple indeed: we do not consider it good. Personally, I consider it godawful. If ff.org is your site, you are so far away from grasping the actual issues that it is almost pitiful. I've looked at it some more, and it is so full of absurd hate that it goes only to show that both Islam and Christianity have their shares of fanatical hate-mongers. Try to get listed on any of the directories we link to, so people can reach your site from here in two clicks. dab (ᛏ) 5 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)

 * If I may add -- the reason WP is gaining in popularity is that it is perceived as (generally) trustworthy. Why? Because there are guidelines, traditions, and structural safeguards here that stand in contrast to the bias that is so rampant elsewhere, and all too evident on partisan sites like ff. What Nickbee is asking is akin to asking, "How come the editors at (to use a conservative example) The Wall Street Journal don't run front-page op-ed pieces by Matt Drudge?" Because front-page op-ed pieces by Matt Drudge are the opposite of what the Wall Street Journal is. If it started running op-ed pieces by Matt Drudge, it wouldn't be the Wall Street Journal anymore. Clear? BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)
 * except the WSJ is not the best of examples here; most WSJ articles would be torn to pieces on Wikipedia in a matter of minutes for being ridiculously biased and rife with strawmen. dab (ᛏ) 5 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)

 * You are correct, sir. :) BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Ah, the royal we comes out! "We do not consider it good"? Who is this we? Certainly not the dissenting editors? Or are you and your "cohorts" the Wikipedia? If you represent Wikipedia then I am sure it deserves little respect and possiblly cannot be gaining in popularity. So far it has demonstrated high handedness and arbitrary censorship. -Nickbee

 * you are quite right, I see it now, Wikipedia is doomed to unpopularity :o(unless we, the hivemind, allow everybody to link their sites dab (ᛏ)

No you cannot see much because you will not allow free expression. Second bombing in Europe and of course it has nothing to do with Islam according to the esteemed editors of Wikipedia who cannot bear to give open links to sites that question the ideology of Islam that is driving people every day to commit suicide and kill innocents. Muslims are doing a good job of showing Islam to the world all on their own. Keep protecting your tiny kindoms on the web. -Nickbee

and of course your site is the only one on the internet providing the insight that London was bombed by Islamist madmen, and not, for example the Wikipedia article, 7/7. Look, if you want to know about the religion, read Islam. If you want to see a discussion of crimes committed in the name of Islam, read Islamist terrorism, ok? These are different topics, that may be linked, but should not be confused. For the same reason, we don't have the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse article under the USA title, the Auto da Fe article under Christianity, the Armenian genocide article under Turkey, or the holocaust article under Germany (yeah, Godwin, I know). dab (ᛏ) 07:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

And ofcourse only an unbiased editor like yourself would immediately assume that FFI is my site. FFI is not my site. I read that site like I read any other. I never said that FFI is the only site that discusses Islamist madmen. You are the one that is preventing a link to links about Islam by people who are anti Islam. Again the links are to anti Islam sites and not particular events or themes. As I said you cannot see because you do not want to see. That is alright because as I said the muslims are telling the world about themselves. Which Evil Ideology was Tony Blair referring to in his speech? Where can one find about that evil ideology? Why does it keep getting confused with Islam that Blair and Bush keep telling the world that ideology is not Islam? Are there people who disagree with them? Are there reasons to beleive that Bush and Blair are wrong? Where does one find the link between Islam and that evil ideology? And why is it that so many muslims find it so easy to accept that ideology as Islam? Today 32 mostly muslim children were blown up in Iraq by one of those who " wants to sell his soul to Allah for paradise" (their words!). What is it in Islam that should allow so many suicide bombers ? And you are intent upon censoring links that present a different face of Islam. And you claim to see far? Keep enjoying your little kingdom. -Nickbee

 * An interesting sidelight. The suicide bomber technology was pioneered by the Tamil Tigers, who have fielded more bombers than all the Muslim groups put together. What is it in the Tamil language that allows so many suicide bombers? What do Islam and the Tamil language have in common? NOTHING? Ah! Zora 05:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The Tamil tigers did not "pioneer" the technology. One counterexample will suffice to debunk this ignorant claim.  Beirut, October 23, 1983. rudra 00:19, 06 Aug 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm, you're right, though your language is not exactly collegial. Actually, I found the Wikipedia article on Suicide bombing quite interesting. The tactic is older than I thought. I'll still hold to the contention that the Tamil Tigers are responsible for most of the suicide bombings, to date -- though if the TT cease-fire holds, and the Islamists keep bombing, the Islamists may overtake them. Zora 01:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Tamil tigers are responsible for 240 to 280 suicide bombings in total over the decade and a half (1987 to 2004). The suicide bombers just in Iraq have exceeded that number some while back. Information at Wiki is not very reliable and is definately biased. Nickbee 02:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * I apologize for the lack of sufficient collegiality while exposing a transparent attempt to exculpate by deflecting attention to plausible non-facts. rudra 04:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * yes, Mr. Socrates. How about you read some non-hatesites with these exact questions in mind? Maybe you'll learn something, but I doubt it; it is easier to hate than to differentiate, this is exacly in line with the fundamentalist mindset, congratulations. Anyway, we are not censoring information about Islamism and Islamist terrorism: they have their own articles. If you are so much into those subjects, I humbly suggest you go over there, this is simply the wrong article for you. dab (ᛏ) 05:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You cannot suggest anything humbly because you are not humble. No need to be a hypocrite. I am not here asking for your understanding but pointing out to the editors here that they are acting as petty bureaucrats and refusing to even provide a link to information about Islam. Not Islamism not Islamist terrorism but Islam. Fascinating that the proclaimed "buddhist" editor will come to declare that "Tamil tigers have fielded more bombers than all the muslim groups put together"! Fascinating that an esteemed editor could demonstrate such fascinating knowledge? May we know the source, because I know enough to state that is totally wrong.

 * The source is a BBC article I just read, an interview with a professional security analyst asked about the London bombings: . Zora 11:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Or is this a type of built in bias that may be expected from the editors? You can keep denying that you do not censor, but your actions and your locked up page speaks volumes. Again you are unable to grasp that the issues are joined not by my interest but by the headlines of newspapers all over the world. People do want to know why so many suicide bombers can justify their acts are justified by Islam, why so many mufti's have sanctioned suicide attacks, and how come the western leaders know more about Islam than so many of the muslim scholars themselves? One of the reason obviously is that we have people in the west like the editors of wikipedia who are busy trying to censor and prevent people from finding information about Islam. -Nickbee
 * that wasn't hypocrisy, that was sarcasm. you have good questions, but the answers are hardly on faithfreedom.org. If anything justifies muslims in treating "the West" as the devil, it is "the West" treating them like the devil. Wikipedia is biased towards sanity. If you don't like that, well, there are plenty of insane fora on the internet, do go join those. Anybody is welcome to an informed discussion of the problems Islam has with fundamentalism, and this discussion is taking place on Wikipedia. It is just difficult to conduct, because it is shouted down by people with brilliant answers like "Islam is evil". dab (ᛏ) 06:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it not surprising that Wikipedia does not mind having a page on "Ali Sina" the ex-muslim behind FFI but the bureaucratic editors of wikipedia are unable to bring themselves to link to a good source that he provides? Becasue he is insane? Shouted down? Why? Interesting that it is people who know about Islam and probably are muslims, shias or sunnis who cannot seem to agree upon what should be on the page. And ofcourse a bunch of people who were born into Islam and have decided to leave it and claim that Islam is evil are insane!! But a westerner who is not a muslim knows better and feels entitled to judge and censor even a link to the x-muslims site where they provide links to a 74 sites supporting their views. But ofcourse they are insane!! And you feel entitiled to squash free flow of information to impose that judgement on wikipedia. And by your own admission, you did not know about FFI till it was brought up here, and you linked to it and decided in a few minutes that it is a hate site. People who overcame the fear of Allah and the penalty of death to renounce Islam do not know Islam. They may be wrong, but they do have the right to say that Islam is Evil. They would not have left Islam if they did not think that something was seriously wrong with it, now would they? But you reveal your bias when you state that the proposition "Islam is Evil" is enough to convict someone for insanity!! No wonder you do not grasp the concept of freedom of speech and free flow of information. The questions are being asked by people but wikipedia cannot provide good answers on Islam. Why? -Nickbee

 * This is not everything2 where we all have our own POV entries about an issue and people vote on it. This is community collaboration where we try to make a reference equal to the scholarly references in books, journals, etc.  Unfettered freedom or speech in the way you seem to envision it is chaos and does not make for a good encyclopedia. An ex-Muslim does not necessarily make a better scholar on Islam than a secularist or Muslim.  Anyone who has researched the sources knows about Islam and interestingly enough that is completely independent of what religion the person is.  A typical Muslims might know more about ritual, but that does not mean they know more about theology.  gren 11:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I realize that "faithfreedom.org" is linked from Ali Sina, where it belongs, in all its splendour. So why don't you just stop whining about censorship, Wikipedia is linking your precious site. dab (ᛏ) 11:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Only a self righteous who is unable to see beyond his tiny domain would consider my request a whine. The irony is not even lost on you is it? Ali Sina can have his page but his views on Islam (not Islamism, not Islamic terrorism) are being censored and suppressed by intellects that are having problems grasping the notion of freedom of speech. Again I have not asked nor am I asking for a change in the content of what the editors consider Islam or its theology, but what I am asking for is a link to a page that voices anti-Islam opinions and the best directory that I know happens to exist at FFI, Ali Sina's website. So the issue is no longer that Wikipedia will not link to Ali Sina but the editors of the Islam page will not link to Ali Sina's page. Interesting! And you still call that this is not censorship and imposition of your own biases? -Nickbee.

This is what the esteemed editor Zora says in defending Censorship by refusing a link to anti Islam sites: "An interesting sidelight. The suicide bomber technology was pioneered by the Tamil Tigers, who have fielded more bombers than all the Muslim groups put together." and provides the source for this statement as "The source is a BBC article I just read, an interview with a professional security analyst asked about the London bombings: [5]. Zora 11:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)". Now the BBC article states: "Indeed the Tamil tigers are statistically the most successful and ruthless practitioners of suicide bombing". I assume the editor does not understand what statistically means. It does not mean that Tamils pioneered suicide bombing and it does not mean that Tamils have fielded more bombers than all the Mulims groups put together!! Is this reflective of the integrity of the editors of the Islam page? Or does this tell us about the level of comprehension that results in snap judgements and attempts at suppressing others POV? -Nickbee

 * OK, you don't like that reference, try this one, from a Frontline interview: . Dr. Rojan Gunaratna, author of Inside Al-Qaeda, soon out, says that 2/3 of all known suicide bombings were committed by Tamil Tigers. Zora 01:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not a question of what I like or I do not like. You are an editor of the Islam page at Wikipedia. You made totally unsupported claims and then found some BBC article which did not support your claims. Now you find another article on frontline. I can argue about it, because Ron was even wrong in 2002 and he certainly is wrong today, but that is not the issue here .. is it? I am asking the editors to restore a link to a web page that contained 74 links to anti Islam sites, and that web page happened to be at FFI, Ali Sina's site. The editors first went into a superiority huff and have made the following claims to avoid acknowledging that their actions are arbitrary and an outrageous example of censorship: FFI is an insane site but FFI is linked to by other pages of Wikipedia. FFI demeans the credibility of Wikipedia, but FFI is linked to by other pages of Wikipedia. FFI is a hate site but Ali Sina has been mentioned by Wikipedia as a personality of the times and he is an ex-muslim who has very strong views on Islam; Why are you attempting to suppress those views because you do not like them? According to the editors here anyone who says "Islam is evil" is obviously insane ... but the ex-muslims became ex-muslims and that is what most of them tell the world why they left Islam; Why are the editors insisting on implying that most ex-muslims are insane? Why will not the editors of the Islam page at Wikipedia allow a link to directory containing a list of anit-Islam sites? Keep your contents of Islam page as you like, but why deny a link under external links to a page at FFI because you do not like to hear or contempalate what Ali Sina has to say. That is censorship practically be definition. Why do the editors insist on defending this arbitrary excersise of abuse of power delegated to them as editors of the islam page? -Nickbee

 * O_O! Hi, the views are being "censored" because they are in no way scholarly, they are in fact quite disreputable.  Hmm, I'm running out of ways to answer editors like you.  But, my first bit of advice that seems sound to me is "read a real paper encyclopedia".  See how that treats Islam, and what it says about it.  Hopefully that will tell you something about the use of FFI links.  If that fails then... hmmm, well, let's try this.  Try adding a KKK external link over at African Americans.  I mean, hell, that's a far more notable critique of black Americaness than Ali Sina's stuff is of Islam.  Ali Sina says apostasy is the way to solve the Muslim problem... and, deportation or... death? well, they solve the African American problem. O_O!!!  Analogies are fun, but this is tedious.  Goodbye gren 06:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * yes, I think all has been said now. Nickbee, freedom of speech means you are free to shout "Islam sucks" out of your window all day. You are here, however, courtesy of wikimedia, using their resources. This means you are bound to policy. Not letting you edit here does not impinge on your freedom of speech any more than if you don't let me use your cellphone. Does the New York Times violate your freedom of speech because they won't print your columns on their front page? I thought so. As far as I'm concerned, this is the end of this discussion, and I support unprotecting the article. dab (ᛏ) 08:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely fascinating! You cannot come up with any real reason why to deny an external link. Courtesy of Wikimedia? I thought it was the courtesy of wikimedia that you are an editor of one of the pages. I am a "custormer". New York times does not pretend to be a Encyclopedia. I am familiar with paper encyclopedias ... are you? You or gren have not addressed the question that why do you insist on censoring information that is anti islam? No one is asking you to add any of Ali Sina's views in your article on Islam which you cannot even keep unlocked courtsey of dedicated Shias and Sunnis. But why do you not allow linking to a web page at his site that provides links to other sites that are anti Islam? Are you guys drowning in so much political correctness that you cannot see your own arrogance? -Nickbee

 * You are familiar with paper encyclopedias. Do you want wikipedia to have the same credibility as a paper encyclopedia? It's not a matter of political correct ness.  Ali Sina has debated men like Edip Yuksel or Yamin Zakaria... their sites should not be linked either.  They both represent the Islamic side but are not notable enough for the main article.  gren 17:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * a customer! oh my, we'd better write what you like to read, otherwise you might take your money elsewhere! we are not censoring anything, we are editing, removing the junk. Hell, let's unprotect this, and you'll see how many people will revert your hate site, you'll hit 3RR before you know it. dab (ᛏ) 17:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not care about which muslim gets linked or which muslim says what. Please link to any or all pro-Islam sites you like. It is they who cannot decide what is or is not Islam. I am merely asking why links to anti-Islam sites are being suppressed by the editors here. Why? Do you own Wikipedia? Are you an editor of even a minor fraction of pages at Wikipedia? So I think the decision of what Wikipedia should or should not do is beyond your pay grade. As far as I can tell it is the dedicated muslims themselves who are changing the content of the page and that is what has resulted in locking up the page. Why blame the ex-muslims? My hate site? Why does it bother you that ex-muslims call Islam Evil? Many ex-christians call Christianity evil. Are you emotionally unable to even allow a link to a directory at an ex-muslim site? The pettiness and the intellectual bankruptcy of the stance you "guys" are taking is becoming obvious. Keep it up so even the most avid poltically correct groveller will be able to see where you stand. Muslims may not know what is Islam, and are unable to agree on Islam, but you self proclaimed westerners certainly do, and know for certainity in a five minute evaluation that ex-muslims are evil and hateful. Whatever.

protection
why is the article protected? I suppose that enough people are watching it to prevent inappropriate edits for surviving more than a couple of minutes? fwiiw, I do think some slight npoving is necessary. It is nobody's fault that the Islam-critical editors we get always seem to want extreme changes or insert cheap insults. Still, some informed criticism may be appropriate. E.g. the "Contemporary Islam" sections sounds a tad apologetic, beginning with "Although". We have established that there are indeed liberal Muslim organizations, but it is rather questionable whether they conterbalance Islamism in any way. So it would be better to have a brief section about Islamism, and then a brief section about liberal Islam, without attempting to excuse one with the other. dab (ᛏ) 5 July 2005 13:49 (UTC)

 * Agreed. "Look, we have liberals, too!" History of Islamism, and its intellectual roots as a response to colonialism, deserves a little more context than it now has, I think. Also, the map in that section is driving me nuts. Makes it looks like there are no Muslims in, for instance, France. No wonder people don't trust CIA intelligence. BrandonYusufToropov 5 July 2005 14:04 (UTC)
 * You can hardly blame the CIA for that. I suppose the map is supposed to show areas with Muslim majorities. Not much of France would qualify, maybe parts of Marseilles? We could redraw the map, inserting shades, e.g. "Muslim minority, 30-50%", "Muslim majority, 50-80%", and ">80% Muslim". Yes, some context on Islamism would be nice, too. It is very hard to separate religious and societal effects in cases like this. After all, the original expansion of Islam was essentially military. Can Islamic expansion be described as "medieval colonialism"? After all, Christianity in subsaharan Africa and South America arrived by colonialism, essentially similar to the Islamic conquest of North Africa, Central Asia and Anatolia. dab (ᛏ) 5 July 2005 14:18 (UTC)

 * Is juxtaposing Islamism and liberals good? I'm sure you've seen books about Islam and democracy.... wouldn't that be liberal Islamism?  I think it's a bad idea to make assertions about the majority of Muslims in many cases because statistics on these things aren't always so great (or even existent) gren 7 July 2005 03:46 (UTC)

Actual Muslim Population
Even by taking data from General Sources, like CIA Fact Sheet, we can easily establish that fact that total Muslim Population in 2003 is 1.48 billion which is far greater than currently estimated 1.2 or 1.3 billion. Under general source section, we have taken all the datas from popular sources such as CIA Fact Sheet, HOLT,RINEHART & WINSTON etc.

We think that in some countries the total number of Muslims are more in percentage than shown in general sources, like in China and India. For all those few above cases Islamic Sources, news items and thought provoking articles came in great help. Our reasearch shows that the total Muslim Population is 1.70 billion in year 2003.

(http://www.islamicpopulation.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.187.63.91 (talk • contribs) sometime.

 * Interesting. Seems to be quite a mixture of sources, though. - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)

How does that compare to adherents.com? Tom Haws July 7, 2005 23:01 (UTC)

 * Their methodology is laughable, this is how they calculated the Chinese Muslim population as they explain on their web site:

 * "At present, according to official statistics there are 28 million Muslim in China but in 1936 it was estimated that the Muslim population was 48 million. By this time total population has increased 3-4 fold. So we can conclude that the total Muslim population has increased minimum by that same proportion. Therefore, now the total Muslim population is at least 150 million."
 * --Urchid 9 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)

 * I would look with skepticism at any source that is seemingly set up just to elucidate the public about Muslim population. I do agree that it is an intersting look but I think we need to know more about their methodology and if anyone of note actually believes that methodology is sound.  217.187.63.91, want to comment more about why you posted this? gren 9 July 2005 01:24 (UTC)

 * The English version is 'locked' and a lot of squabbling (and some well reasoned yet endless arguing). Please take a look at 'ISLAM' entries in other languages: Short and succinct, no 'lock' no squabbling. {peter}

 * especially note de:Bild:Islamische Länder.png, a much nicer map than our CIA one! And yes, the quibbling here is quite embarassing, I agree. dab (ᛏ) 18:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Since it's hard to judge which claim is right, why don't we just show the range of the respectable sources, i.e. say "The Muslim population is estimated anywhere from 1.2 billion to 1.7", or whatever the range is.(---)

Other meanings of the word "Islam"
On 23 June 2005 I inserted this section: Other meanings of the word The word "Islam" is sometimes used as a man's name, for example Islam Karimov (president of Uzbekistan). Do not confuse with the village of Isleham in England.

and 3 minutes later someone removed it, stating this reason: ''"Other meanings" section not needed. It's pretty obvious info that does not need to be inserted. There are people named christian too but that isn't mentioned in the christianity article. Thanks.'' But important words sometimes do have differing secondary meanings, and Islam Karimov is notable politically. And the page Christian DOES have a pointer to Christian (disambiguation), which lists assorted other meanings of the word "Christian". Anthony Appleyard 17:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't Islam mean "Faith" not submission? (someone wrote)

The Arabic root s-l-m makes words with many meanings centering on "be safe", "submit", "surrender", etc. Its basic verb salama means "he became safe", "he is safe". Formally, the word 'islām is the infinitive of derived stem IV (= 4) of the root s-l-m; it means "submission". Anthony Appleyard 05:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * it can also mean Peace, as the Qur'an itself uses the word to invite non Muslims into Islam saying=, "Enter into Peace" where it uses the same 3 root letters s-l-m for the word peace (al slm) -- GNU 4 Eva 18:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, if necessary, we can have a page Islam (disambiguation). Today, "Islam" simply means Islam. By root etymology it can mean anything from 'faith' to 'sumbission' to 'feeling safe because God is your buddy', I suppose, there is no single correct translation. dab (ᛏ) 18:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Page protection
Does anyone have a view as to whether the page still needs to be protected? It's been locked for nearly two weeks, so it should probably be unlocked some time soon. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Personally, I think it should still be protected. There are still editors around who seem to want it to read like a "faith freedom" diatribe which would only lead to revert wars.  Since there is no discussion about any possible improvements to the article I think having it locked for the time being is more productive than arguing about bad edits more. gren 03:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * the page was reverted at least twice a day for months. one fanatic with no grasp of policy should not be allowed to hold it hostage. plus, I did make a suggestion, namely to replace the map, see above. dab (ᛏ) 08:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Can we unprotect yet? Maybe if the Islam-bashers give us a short break, we can indeed try to insert more material critical of Islam, as long as it is well-founded, and not hateful drivel. As soon as Islam-hyping editors try to insert their biased eulogies, I will immediately take the side of Islam critics. We are here for well-founded analysis, not for spin-doctoring (and no, FFI is not even 'spin doctoring', it's just cheap hate speech). As it is, the fundamentalists are preventing us from getting any serious work done on the article. I want to unprotect it and let them see how far they can get. Editing without consensus is pointless on WP, you are just reverted and hit the 3RR within minutes. Learn to cooperate and to 'write for the enemy', or sit back and watch. dab (ᛏ) 10:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * If I may, with respect, repeat a key concept:

 * "Editing without consensus is pointless on WP, you are just reverted and hit the 3RR within minutes."

 * Peace, and I hope we do unlock the page and all work together to improve it. BrandonYusufToropov 16:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, as a couple of people want it unlocked, and as we're not supposed to protect pages for too long, I've unlocked it, so happy editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:52, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

world population numbers
I don't want to enter any of the heated discussions about religion, just the population numbers.

The section toward the end "The demographics of Islam today" has some numbers that struck me as odd. The last sentence in the first paragraph reads "According to "The Almanac Book of Facts", the overall population increased 137% within the past decade, Christianity increased 46%, while Islam increased 235%.".

What is 'the overall population'? And what is 'the last decade?' This of course depends on when 'now' is. Also, what is the Almanc Book of Facts?

The number that set off alarms in my head was 137%. Surely the world hasn't more than doubles in 10 years! The US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html) claims the world population in 1995 was about 5.694 billion, as opposed to 6.451 in 2005. That's an increase of (new-old)/old = 13.3%.

I'm not involved in demographics. But the phrasing of that paragraph, and the citing of a book I never heard of, caught my attention. Especially when online sources like Census are available, maybe one of them should be cited.

OK, now you can start flaming me!

yes, these numbers are obviously wrong. people here have been fighting over demographics for ages now. Population growth is in 3rd world countries, and I am not sure how prestigious it is for either world religion to claim a greater part of the starving masses. It is getting boring. Also, Farhansher, can you not just say according to whom Islam is fastest-growing, and leave it at that, since apparently the claim is disputed? Unless you do that, the article will never be stable. dab (ᛏ) 08:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey Zeno, didn't mean to be rude with my revert. But I just want to get a few things clarified. Firstly, if, according to the article, 70% of Albanians are Muslim how can the majority of Albanians are secular / atheist in orientation be true? Are you saying the 70% are only nominally Muslims or the stats are wrong? Whatever it is, it needs to be explained in the article (and a cite provided). and most of the remaining Muslim population adheres to a hedonistic Sufi order Is there a technical definition of hedonistic you are using here? If not, it seems pretty perjorative. I saw nothing in 'Islam in Albania' to explain the hedonist qualifier. Regards, Ashmoo 00:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * "Firstly, if, according to the article, 70% of Albanians are Muslim how can the majority of Albanians are secular / atheist in orientation be true?"  The facts about the secular / atheist orientation of Albanians comes from the Islam in Albania article (to which I have not added any information that wasn't already there). One could just as well ask, if the majority of Alabanians are secular / atheist in orentiation, how could 70% be "Muslims?" It is an historical fact that Albania went through a lengthy period of Communist rule, and that it is today a thoroughly secular society. My edits do indeed explain that demographic information about Muslim populations are susceptable to such incongruencies, as would be expected from demographics of religious beliefs. The citation is the Islam in Albania wikipedia article, which should suffice for a general article about Islam.
 * "Is there a technical definition of hedonistic you are using here? If not, it seems pretty perjorative. I saw nothing in 'Islam in Albania' to explain the hedonist qualifier." I am using the defintion of hedonistic that is found in standard dictionaries. What may be perjorative to you is not perjotative to others. If you review the Islam in Albania article, you will find that in the Bektashi sect of Islam (which is the main religion in Albania, and was also popular amongst the Janissaries - known hedonists), the drinking of alcohol, the consumption of pork, and "immodest" dress for women are all allowed, and I have no doubt that premarital sex is also common in the Bektashi sect of Islam (the Jannisaries were also Bektashi and were punished by the Ottomans for their hedonism, and the center of Bektashism moved from the Jannsiaries in Turkey to Albania when large numbers of Bektashis in Turjey fled to Alabania after Kemel Ataturk outlawed Sufi orders).   By the standards of Islamic orthodoxy, the Bektashis are heretical hedonist, and one can see that the main points of difference between orthodox ISlam and Bektashism are all carnal pleasures such as intoxication, display of bodily beauty, and consumption of "prohibited" foods, and also sexual promiscuity (as is known from the history of the Jannisaries). Therefore, the description of "hedonistic" is entirely appropriate in describing the difference between the Bektashi sect of Islam and traditional Islam. --Zeno of Elea 01:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You said: One could just as well ask, if the majority of Alabanians are secular / atheist in orentiation, how could 70% be "Muslims?".
 * Exactly. Either one of the other is correct (or there are 70% ethnically-Muslim, many of whom are atheists). Whatever the case, the sentence as it stands is self-contradictory and needs to be fixed, clarified or removed.
 * Regarding the 'hedonistic Sufis'. In the section on demographics, I don't think either word is relevent enough to warrant inclusion. The paragraph is about the ratios of Muslims in Europe. Breaking it down by sect and adding qualifiers (hedonist) to the sect seems like it should be in the articles on Albanian Islam/Sufi/Bektashism. Ashmoo 02:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Just so you know. That wasn't me who anon reverted to my version without comment. I'm seeking consensus here and consider that behaviour cowardly. Ashmoo 02:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * " Either one of the other is correct (or there are 70% ethnically-Muslim, many of whom are atheists)" Yes that is correct. 70% are "ethnically Muslim" (though Islam is not an ethnicity). They are the remnants of converts from the age of Islamic imperialism. They have not been unaffected by European liberalism and secularism, and that is the point of my edits. It is not that one or the other is correct, as you claim, it is that demographics about religious affiliation are inherently incongruent with reality of actual religious practice and beliefs because there is no consensus on who is and is not "Muslim." The word "hedonistic" is most certainly relevant, since entire countries are being counted in the world-wide Muslim demographics, and yet the actual practicies and beliefs in some of these countries (particularly in Europe) are so far beyond Islam, as it is traditionally practiced, that that deserve the title of "hedonistic sect." I am not breaking down the demographics by sects, as you claim, rather I am pointing out that large numbers of people who are counted as "Muslims" in such demographics are atheists, secularists, belong to hedonistic sects, or are otherwise far beyond the pale of traditional Islam and hence their categorization as Muslim is misleading. This is not breaking down demographics into sects, rather it is pointing out an important shortcomming of such demographics that should be noted. When the article simply says "70% of Albanians are Muslims" without elaborating on the actual reality of the situation, it is a blatently misleading fact for an encylopedia to make when we know that the matter is not so straightforward at all. --Zeno of Elea 03:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, I understand the point you're trying to make and agree (mostly). What I'm trying to avoid is the WP feature of 'sentence creep' whereby ever statement grows a tail of various caveats, howevers, etc. I see a number of possible solutions:
 * 1. If the 70% figure is inaccurate, remove the sentence altogether.
 * 2. note that this figure includes non-religious people who identify as 'Islamic' for cultural reasons.

 * Are not liberal/hedonistic Muslims just as much Muslims as the more traditional sects? So why the equivocation? Following the Islam in Albania link it says that only a quarter of Alb. Muslims are Bekts, so the majority bit at least needs to change.
 * Finally, I think 'liberal' is preferable to 'hedonistic' as hedonistic implies that physical pleasure is an integral part of the sect's theology (which I don't believe is the case), rather than they are just lax with the various traditional rules. Does this seem reasonable? Regards, Ashmoo 04:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, regarding the 'and other religion' section. I'm sorry if you feel I have introduced agologetics. I was only trying to remove the repetition and weasel words (however, it should be pointed out etc) that creep into WP articles. I'm surprised you think I'm adding apologetics as the only word I added to the whole section was 'medieval'. All my other changes involved removing repetitions. Also, I don't think I removed any info from the article. The closest I came was taking out some explicit mentions about idolators and the Quran. I'm happy to reinclude this. Ashmoo 00:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for recincluding the mentions about idolators in the Quran. The rest of your edits in that section, I agree with. --Zeno of Elea 01:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

factoids
can we have a discussion of why green is the colour of Islam, and maybe also a few words about Muhammad's calendar reform (if I got this right, he set prayer times to not coincide with with astronomical events (sunset, sunrise), so that the impression would not arise that heavenly bodies were adored (as was common over much of Arabia in his days)). the main article Islamic calendar isn't even in the Islam template. The prohibition of intercalary months has some political significance, since it was a matter of political influence which clan got to decide when they were inserted. The role of the new sickle moon should be mentioned, and possibly how it found its way onto Turkish flags. dab (ᛏ) 12:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * thanks Zora; we can always link Symbols of Islam, and reduce the section to a sentence or two. dab (ᛏ) 06:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

ffi
seeing that ffi.org is a site of an alleged apostate, I suppose the link could be added to Apostasy in Islam, where at least it will be relevant (and there are only two links there so far, so pruning is not yet an issue). I still think it is a hateful website, but as a compromise I think it could be added there (or a see also to Ali Sina). Insisiting to put it here is Main article fixation. dab (ᛏ) 20:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a POV on Islam held by Ex-muslims and Apostates. Where is that expressed or mentioned on this page? Cannot the ex-muslims get simply an external link to a list of links? Why not? Why attempt to suppress their views on Islam? Personally I do not agree with their views entirely, but I do strongly believe that they deserve a link to their list. -Nickbee

 * There is a POV on Islam that is held by unverifiable & no where to be found people who know nothing about Islam & who call themselves ex-mulims to give some credibility to their hate speech. Credibility, verifiability & authenticity are very important things . So why do they deserve a link ?

The views of Irshad Manji, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Dr. Yunus Sheik, Robert Spencer, SecularIslam.org, etc. etc. views on Islam at a minimum need a link. Any criticism of Islam is labeled a hate speech here apparently. Apostacy is punishable by death and people are still being put to death for apostacy in muslim countries. So it is not surprising that many of the apostates do not want to be publicising there ID's. But many have. These people do have a point of view and it does need to be heard by people. -Nickbee

 * Nickbee, Ali Sina and Ibn Warraq are simply not in the same league. Ibn Warraq doesn't engage in cheap hate speech and uses his books to present useful selections from academic viewpoints on Islam. His books are found in many of the reference lists in the Islamic articles. Of course, they are regularly purged by anon editors, presumably Muslim, who object to his presence, and just as often restored by me or another editor. You can't leap from "my favorite demagogue isn't featured" to "no criticism is allowed". Zora 21:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

How about Robert Spencer, SecularIslam, Dr. Yunus Sheik, and others? Why not link to a list of links provided by Robert Spencer? A list of links to the POV of Ex-muslims is a useful addition to this article. You don't like FFI,fine, why not make a list of links to Ex-muslims and Critical of Islam and give that list? -Nickbee

 * Ibn Warraq is an ex-Muslim. His first book was Why I Am Not A Muslim. He publishes under a pseudonym because he's afraid of assassination. Is that authentic enough for you? Sheesh. I don't agree with the guy on many things, but he's at least honest and thoughtful. Zora 07:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * PS -- We already have articles on Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji. Zora 07:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * by all means, do an article on Christian converts from Islam, and we can link it from the see also. My prediction is that Muslim converts from Christianity will immediately follow, but then the dispute will at least finally take some sort of productive form. dab (ᛏ) 07:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

it is obvious from your answers where your emphasis lies: who cares who converts to what or from what. Why not link to a list of links or provide a directory with a list of links to sites that has a list of sites that are in opposition to Islam. You just do not want to allow the POV of ex-muslims on the page of Islam. Why not add a section on the Islam page about what are the views of ex-muslims on Islam; ex-muslims like Ibn-Warraq, Salman Rushdie, Dr. Yunus Sheik, Irfan Khawaja etc.

 * I think this has been discussed again and again above. It's not about ex-Muslims... being an ex-Muslim does not mean you have anything more to offer than Zora, you, or I have to.  Islam is not a cult where those who have come out of it have secret tales.  I can read the material and go to a khutbah just like anyone else.  An ex-Muslim point of view is nothing special.  gren 17:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

gren, The ex-Muslim point of view on Islam is very special as far as Islam goes. It lays out the intent and the practice of Islam from a very special angle. They present the content of Islamic literature and history which is different than the views of christian, jews, hindus, buddhists, etc. who might choose to criticise Islam. As far as I understand they present the same facts as the muslims about Islam but they do emphasise it differently. It is obvious to me after watching some of the changes being added in and reverted on the contents of the page, that the sectarian view within Islam is very healthy and strong. There is no single "Islam" despite the pretense by some of the more established editors. There is the sunni, shia, Ahmeddiya, Ismaili, etc. etc. islam which emphasise different aspects of the scriptures and history. Ex-muslims present a different view of islam and its practices. Nickbee 18:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

revert warring
seeing that the ffi link added by anonymous IPs, probably by one person ("Nickbee"), and removed by several established editors, it is very clear where consensus lies. Further adding of the link is in violation of policy. The various IPs should be considered on editor, and should be blocked for 3RR. Nickbee, if you create an account, you will at least be heard as one voice. You'll still be outnumbered, but you could look for a compromise. This anonymous edit-warring must stop, however, and I will take it upon myself to block the IPs for 3RR. dab (ᛏ) 07:07, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Dab, Show me where I have violated the 3RR policy? Do you really think that all those IP's who are reverting for ffi belong to myself.  Look at the times, and look at the IP's and their locations.  You want to block the IP's go ahead.  Anyone who disagrees with you obviously needs to be blocked.

 * That is understandable that you will not allow even a single link to ex-muslims. I have not violated the 3RR rule.  I have inserted the ffi link couple of times a day and I will continue to do so till I am able to get a real vote on the issue as to why the POV of ex-muslims is being intentionally blocked.  I do not know how Wickipedia is organised, but I will learn.  There is a list of sites at ffi that does deserve to be listed.  There is a list of books available online with links at ffi that someone posted yesterday and even that was deleted.  If the translations of the original books on Islam cannot be tolerated by the established editors then there is a problem with the editors and the wikipedia as a organisation will have to deal with it.  Do not blame me for all of the revisions.  It is not surprising at all that you are resorting to threats without any basis. -Nickbee

 * Nickbee, firstly, it would be helpful if you signed your talk posts using " ~ " which will paste your username and a timestamp. Also, as he said, there is something to being an established editors.  If you stay here long enough you will realize that many people come crusading about certain issues and editors have to come and work communally and build a reputation for doing that.  It is important to learn how concensus works at wikipedia and that was what dab was talking about.  I think about the anonymous IPs his problem is that they are usually first time (or close to it) editors just trying to re-add that link.  It is hard to see what anonymous editors have to do with this and why they would just randomly stop by and cause a revery war.  Either way it is not something very helpful. gren 17:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

gren, I am a newbie as far as wikipedia goes. I do not know how the various stuff works and what information is available and what the various rules are, but I am slowly learning. Thank you for telling me about the 4 tilda's. I will try it. A couple of the anon ip's are mine. It is because I do not remember to log in when I get to this site. Is there a way to automatically log in? But not all the IP's are mine. I counted about 9 IP's supporting the inclusion of the links critical of Islam. I urge those people to acquire an id. I am not very facile with computers. I am not attempting to cause any trouble, but I do strongly beleive that the Ex-muslims do have something valid to say about islam. I do not agree with everything they say. They have specific things to say about Islam and I wish some of them would contribute to the page under the section of Islam as seen by Ex-muslims. But that view does need at a minimum a link. You guys don't like ffi and condemn it as a hate site, but then how do I go about creating a directory at wikipedia where links to secualarislam.org, Robert spencer's site, Irfan Khawaja's site, irshad manji's site and all the other 74 links at ffi or the various links found at Robert spencer's site can be entered and then a link provided to that directory. If I am to be banned, I will be banned, but I was raised to have complete faith in free speech and the right of people with opposing views to be heard. Nickbee 18:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee
 * most newbies try to get the feel of the place before they start full-scale edit wars and ranting at people. I hope you will become a good faith editor, a critical viewpoint is much needed, but you need to learn a lot about how WP operates first. please take your time. Take an interest in builiding an encyclopedia, and what that means, not just in a single link you want to see added. You have time, and once you get the feel of how to argue, and what you can acheive, you are very welcome to watch these articles and add your critical viewpoint. Just edit warring will not do, though. dab (ᛏ) 19:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Where is Wiki's Famous NPOV with regards to Islam
Why do the editors of this page refuse to recognize that Muslim's who have left Islam have a very specific and particular view on Islam? Why is that view being totally and completely ignored here? Is the "hate" being expressed by the ex-muslims for Islam any stronger or different than the hate that the two sides of the abortion debate (the example given in the FAQ by wiki foundation to explain NPOV)? Many ex-muslims do express their rejection of Islam in very strong language but others do not? Zora has given an example of ibn Warraq as a scholarly ex-muslim. Even his take on Islam and questioning of Islam do not find a single line in this article. I have spent time over the last couple of days at Ali Sina's site. A lot of people here find it a hate site! it is a site that does not make any bones about that it considers Islam as Evil and holds the terrorism at present around the globe as a consequence of the teachings of Islam. If you consider those thesis as apriori evil, then FFI is a hate site for you. It is a site that has very very strong views on Islam and that is not hesitant to express it. Often it does not couch its criticism in a language that makes its message any easier to swallow. The point is not whether Ali Sina's site should be given a link or not. The point is that you cannot pretend that the view on Islam is complete in the present day world without considering the Ex-muslim's view on Islam. You can ignore it as you are choosing to do so, but that makes your encyclopedia incomplete and biased. Why is there a confusion between the "Evil ideology" that Tony Blair's government wants to fight and Islam? You want to hide that under Islamicism, and other side topics and pretend that islam has nothing to do with the those who are claiming that they are motivated by Islam and that they are the only true muslims. You pretend that there is no civil war going on within islam and there a people who are battling and killing around the world to win the hearts and minds of the muslims. Look at Zora's comments about the anon Salafi who edited the article yesterday! Why not acknowledge that the islam of the Salafi's is different from the islam of the Sunni's which is different from the islam of the Shia's? Why not allow these different views to be expressed on the islam page? Instead of trying to force a single view of Islam, why not take the NPOV guidelines into consideration and allow a disscussion of the different views of Islam? Nickbee 18:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * What... see Salafi, Shia, Sunni... that might help... ex-Muslims don't have a great insight. As I've said above, Islam is not a cult hidden from view that when someone gives up Islam they have special information about Islam.  They have no special knowledge. gren 18:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes gren, look at how you treat shia Islam, sunni Islam, salafi islam, etc. You give a main page to Islam as if there is a "Islam" and then you branch off with links to these other pages. The history of Islam as discussed on the page is woefully inadequate. If there was a central acceptable version of Islam why do different sects keep wanting to change what wiki has decided is islam? You keep saying that Ex-muslims do not have special information about islam. But they do have a different interpretation just as the other sects of Islam do. This is all about interpretation is it not? Are you suggesting that all the writings of ibn Warraq do not provide any insight into what is Islam? Nickbee 18:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * The history of Islam on this page is not supposed to be definitive. There is a page, History of Islam where more Detail can be found and edited in.--Irishpunktom\talk 19:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Islam is a title that encompasses all of them. You are human, I am human, we are not the same, but there is still the concept of human.  Same idea.  I mean, everyone who has heard of Islam has an interpretation.  I am not Muslim, I still have an interpretation.  Yet, that is not going to be added to this page.  Religion is defined by religious members, not by outsiders, the outside opinion is done by scholars, etc. gren 19:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Well there is a link to Dmoz, it gives links to the so called ex-muslim sites . Other than that , this article is about Islam , not views on Islam , right ??

 * People who are ex-muslims clearly say what they are . They dont twist the meanings of verses, they dont hide behind their pathetic "they will kill me" excuses . If they/he/U are so knowledgeable on Islam , ask any scholar to enter in a debate with U . That isnt hapenning anywhere on these hate sites . Rather they block users who start showing showing them their real face , & ridicule teenagers with their infinite bigotery & hypocracy . AS I said b4 , U have to prove they actually are ex-muslims . Any body can make a hate site & claim they were muslims & wont reveil their identity b/c somebody will kill them . I can say Christians & jews are S*Bs & I know it because I was once one of them( like what sina says ), but that doesnt make me important enough to be added to encyclopedia . It doesent even make me important enough to be talked about . Their are christian/jew/hindu views too about Islam , and well...these people are atleast verifiable . There are Islamic views about christianity/judaism/hinduism too . We dont add these anywhere.

 * About Blair..
 * HE says he is a christian
 * He doesnt say he is an ex-muslim
 * He doesnt hide behind excuses
 * People know him, he is reachable, talkable, debateable person
 * He doesnt say he knows Islam better than muslims
 * He doesnt say all muslims are dogs
 * He doesnt say muhammad was a pedophile
 * If he says so, He is accountable to others ( people, courts )
 * He particularly says about extremism/terrorism & not about all muslims
 * He doesnt say all muslim scientists/sufis/philosophers were apostates.

 * Well list can go on & on ........

 * Another thing, only for brainy guys . Suppose I leave Islam , due to some theoreatical conflicts , why the hell would I call my self a kaffir . That word doesnt even represent my self image . I would use some nice words do describe myself . If I use these kaffir words for me , it only implies that I still see myself as what muslims think of me . But that would/should only happen if I still see myself associated with Islam . So , if I leave Islam , Iwont call myself a kaffir . I will only use this word for me to gather hate for Islam . OK may be its too much ....

 * Anyways, is this a mere coincidence that there are two well known trolls associated with FF , namely Imanuel & a kaffir , backing such a nice person like U . And using the same filthy language that they use on FF . And is this again a coincidence that U come here ( like a lot of others ) , only to add link to your precious site , and copy/paste material from it . Farhansher 19:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * But they do have a different interpretation just as the other sects of Islam do. This is all about interpretation is it not? Are you suggesting that all the writings of ibn Warraq do not provide any insight into what is Islam?

 * Some important concepts to be understood here

 * 1 . How do you define sect ? How does somebody lying on the outside becomes a sect ? Why should the views of any XYZ person be discussed ? Dont they have any lerned scholars ?

 * 2 . Do I study books by anonymous doctors ( who say I left medicine ) in medicine course, or anonymous engineers im my B.S ? Farhansher 19:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Show one post that has been blocked at FFI. Show one person who has been silenced at FFI. Go to FFI and say whatever you like and see if you ever get banned or your post is deleted. Killing apostates is what muslims do everyday in the Islamic world. I am an apostate. I know. A Kaffir 21:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)A Kaffir

 * All the pro-Islam websites are linked through the DMOZ directory. All the anti-Islam websites are linked though the DMOZ directory. There is no discrimination against your favorite site. You are demanding special treatment and not getting it. Zora 21:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * May I suggest to add similar links in other religions articles. Ericd 22:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I've added similar links to Christianity. Ericd 22:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Mr Kaffir, your mistake when signing your posts is remarkably similar to that of one Mr Nickbee. Are you two by any chance related? Chris Smowton 23:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

gren, I thought Ibn Warraq was an outside Scholar!

Zora, Look you do not like FFI, do not allow it, but there are a lot of links and books at their site that should be provided to people who want to know more about Islam. Tell me a way how the links that are on those pages can be provided to the readers here. What is so special about the link to a german site that gets prominance here? Zora you list being at Berkeley. Is this what you learnt at a University famous for Free Speech about free speech? I wish your class mates from Berkeley could see you now.

Farhansher: there is a page on AliSina on Wikipedia. So he is somewhat famous already. Ibn Warraq is an ex-muslim and is considered a scholar and has expressed fairly strong views on Islam and he is still anonymous because he does fear for his life and he has been threatened inneumerable times. Irfan Khawaja was anonymous till very recently and he has published and written on Islam extensively. Being anonymous as an apostate of Islam is not something that discredits a person automatically. Many of the apostates do have families back in Islamic countries where they would be at risk if their apostacy becomes public. I am not trying to defend Ali Sina here, but I have seen testimonials from ex-muslims on his site thanking him and praising him. He does have an audience. As far as I can tell, A. Kaffir is correct, that they do make a big deal about never censoring and/or banning anyone over there. There is a lot of material posted at that site from muslims themselves apparently. Whether you like it or not, the actions of muslims themselves have brought islam to the attention of the general people in the West. UK is suddenly considering making a control list of muslims not allowed in UK similar to the one that exits in USA. One does not have to agree with a word that is said by Ali Sina or his site, but he has a right as far as I can tell in Canada and in the US to say what he does. I am not sure whether European laws would allow him to write the way he does. Europeans apparently are not as strong sticklers for free speech as we across the Atlantic. I am no psychiatrist but an apostate perhaps never really leaves his childhood faith truly and perhaps that explains the nick A. Kaffir? I though Kaffir was not a hate term but an accurate description of one who is not a christian, a jew, a zorastrian, and also not a muslim. I thought there was Sura in the Quran titled Kaffirs.

I still think and believe that some mention of the views on Islam by any of the more well known ex-muslims and links to material by them ought to be part of this page. By insisting on excluding them completely, you are not being neutral about the topic at all, but definately being a partisan. Nickbee 02:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

NPOV on Islam!! LOL! Second bombing in London and Jihad under Islam at Wickipedia: "Striving to seek God's approval (Jihad)" Gimme a break! Jamiat-ul-Islamia could not have a better propoganda page than Wiki's page on Islam. And Gren will tell you that Ex-muslims know nothing about Islam. What a farce! Thankyou for Islamofascism, Nickbee. Couple more bombings and a few hundred dead in Europe and then .... Exmuslim 16:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Ex-muslim

Cleaned up the languate surrounding that link (needed to be clearer what it was) but it's NOT a "hate site" as certain POV warriors seem to think. If you disagree, please discuss it in talk before reverting.Existentializer 16:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Zora from Berkeley should love this one. Iraqi women are protesting the new constitution because of the non-existent rights for women under Islamic law Shareeya, and Wiki page on Islam has only one mention of Women: "Muhammad gave rights to women ...." LOL!! This is the NPOV of Wiki? And Ex-muslims do not know anything about Islam, Gren? And Zora the buddhist is busy enforcing suppression of Women under Islam. Is that a new Zen Koan? Exmuslim 17:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Ex-muslim

Todays Asia Times states:Fighting the uncivil fight. European Union officials, not to mention Europe-wide public opinion, are starting to confront a very serious question: how to fight jihad inside the EU without  infringing on civil liberties, thereby playing into the jihadis' hands. -"This message is the final warning to European states. We want to give you a one-month deadline to bring your soldiers out from the land of Mesopotamia." - Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, July 16 What fighting Jihad? You mean someone wants to fight "Striving to seek God's approval?" LoL! Wiki's NPOV? No, No, hide the if and buts in sublinks and sub pages. On the front keep the "Striving to seek God's approval" and "rights of Women". Italy after August 16? Or will it be Denmark striving to seek God's approval in 3 weeks time?Exmuslim 17:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Ex-muslim

Todays Christian Science Monitor: "Some of the people tell you Islam is a religion of peace because they think that then you'll want to convert," says Dublin-born convert Khalid Kelly, who soaks up Abu Osama's sidewalk sermon. "But you cannot possibly say Islam is a religion of peace; jihad is not an internal struggle." "How dare anyone come on television and say suicide bombings are not part of our belief?" And a lot more on how Brits are going to get killed by other brits, and Gren and coterie tell us that Ex-muslims know nothing about Islam. How are the people ever going to understand Islam and what it is doing? That does not concern the dhimmis and Islamofascists at Wikipedia. Hate? Europe has not seen hate yet, but it is beginning to. Ask the Indians, they will tell you about hate. Ask the arab christians, they will tell you about hate. NPOV at wiki on Islam? LOL! Exmuslim 18:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Ex-muslim

This from this weeks Time Magazine, Irshad Manji, an Ex-muslim speaking: "The student shifted uncomfortably. She just couldn't bring herself to examine my suggestion seriously. And I suppose I couldn't expect her to. Not when Muslim leaders themselves won't go there. Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general for the Muslim Council of Britain, is an example. In the midst of a debate with me, he listed potential incentives to bomb, including "alienation" and "segregation." But Islam? God forbid that the possibility even be entertained.

That is the dangerous denial from which mainstream Muslims need to emerge. While our spokesmen assure us that Islam is an innocent bystander in today's terrorism, those who commit terrorist acts often tell us otherwise." NO NO NO, what would an Ex-muslim know about Islam that Wiki on Islam does not already explain! Link to an Ex-muslim POV ..... Hate hate hate Site,  But the 600 suicide bombers of Iraq, the dead in England, the killing in India .... that is not hate.  NO not hate at all ... that is "alienation" that is "segregation" that is "marginalization"!!  Islam ... Oh that is ever so a peaceful religion.  LOL!   NPOV of wiki?  Ex-muslims have no POV on Islam says the Edddditors.  Exmuslim 19:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Ex-Muslim

Wiki policy states talk out the differences under "Talk". But no one chose to respond to obvious NON-NPOV stance of Mirv, Zora, Grenavitor, Yusuf, and Faransher (have not seen dab lately) who insist on imposing their POV as the only one that exists. "One in four Muslims sympathises with motives of terrorists By Anthony King (Filed: 23/07/2005)" from telegraph.co.uk. How misleading can be "Islam does not say anything. People say things about Islam" : Grenavitor. Taqqiya all the way, but the body bags are starting to tell people that islam does say things that you all are busy suppressing here. But not for long. Read Andrew Bolt at the Herald Sun in Australia: "It's time we accepted the difficult truth: many of the Muslims we invite to live in Australia want to destroy us. FOR four years, since the September 11 attacks, I've begged our Islamic leaders to drive extremists from their mosques. For four years I've also reassured you that most Muslims here are moderate...." Read it all. Islam does say things, Gren. What it says is just not very pretty. Exmuslim 18:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)Ex-Muslim

Civility
Respectfully disagree. BrandonYusufToropov 16:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC) And I respectfully tell you that you are utterly wrong Yusuf. Exmuslim 16:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Ex-muslim

Anon's edits on Islam and other religions
An anon added a passage to the section on Islam and other religions by saying, in effect, "yes, but sura 9 was revealed after non-Muslims had been picking on the Muslims". The section is just a pointer to the main article, and not the place to go into apologetics -- and I also think that many traditionalist Muslims wouldn't agree that parts of the Qur'an should be ignored because "that was then and this is now". Just adding that one sentence is lame apologetics. Perhaps the anon could go to the main article on Islam and other religions and make sure that his/her point is expressed there. Zora 07:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello I can't see where else to put in this comment but describition of Sikhism in the Islam and other religions is factual incorrect in terms of what Sikhs and scholar of Sikhism have evidence for. Sikhism what not born out of a schism between local Muslims and local Hindu communities, nor can be described as the "sword arm of Hinduism". Apologies if this the wrong place to post. Otherwise can we sort this out this whole dispute people big hug !

Anon is vandalizing user talk postings here
[]

Looks like a different anon. BrandonYusufToropov 15:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It's seems to be isolated, maybe dab forgot to sign in. Hopefully it won't happen again. gren 20:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I think a "criticism of Islam" article or section is required
In fact, I think any and every article about a controversial subject should have such a section or companion article. Islam certainly qualifies.

I think the "house of war" and the Islamic distinction between civilians and combatants, if any, as well as myriad other subjects, are worth presenting here.

side note: there are many logical absurdities proffered on this page, but one above stuck out for me, the idea that an editor is "proven" biased because he's interested in criticizing one historical figure (in this case a Muslim one), but not interested in criticizing others (in this case, non-Muslim ones).

That's blog-logic, not real logic. It's a common error that seems only to be trotted out against a certain subset of ideas. There are many books that criticize Christianity and its history, in fact it's a cottage industry. No one ever accuses the authors of bias just because they don't devote equal time to the criticism of Jews and Muslims.

 * It is not critique in general -- it is the type. Bias is not within the realm of logic so I fail to grasp your point.  There are different kinds of criticism -- Ali Sina type, Ibn Warraq type, and Fazlur Rahman type.  Two of those deserve to be represented, one does not.  It is also interesting to point out that Ali Sina would be criticism over the existence of Islam, whereas the other two do not blanket the issue and call Muslims inhuman -- ecause that would be 'bbs-flamewar-logic' ~_~  gren 19:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Editors are not interested or "Burnt out", I cannot say which, but they have not bothered replying to Ex-Muslims objections on ignoring Wiki's NPOV. Unwilling to consider any objective view on Islam, considering the "Western" view on Islam as anathema, their righteousness declares the voice of Ex-muslims as "hate"; which neatly fits into the muslim law of silencing the Apostates one way or the other. The all knowing Wiki's editors are enforcing the silencing of Ex-muslims and their views. Terrorism is associated with Islam at present, and there is not a mention of that on this page of Islam. Ali Sina's voice is to be suppressed by Muslims like Grenavitar at any cost. If Ali Sina is correct on Islam then suppressing his voice is a crime. If Ali Sina is a paranoid then who cares. One in 4 muslims in the West hates the West, is that a lie as well? A Kaffir 19:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)AKaffir.

 * Ex-Muslims are not a cohesive viewpoint -- some just don't believe the claims of Islam while some actively dislike Islam. This debate has not been about ex-Muslims in general it has been about Ali Sina and his links.  Terrorism is associated with Islam at present and before that it was probably more related to Irish Catholics.  However high profile these things may be it does not define the religion.  Ali Sina, Edip Yuksel and similar voices are being suppressed because they are not a notable scholarly view of Islam.  It's that simple.  It does not help your cause to call other people Muslims who are not.  As for 1/4 of Muslims in the west hating the west you'd have to provide a good source for that ~_~ gren 01:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree but the mullahs and their cohorts are not known for tolerating criticism. So do not hold out any hope.

 * Ask Sina to enter in a debate with any well known scholar of Islam . There are scholars from Jamia-al-azhar who specialise in Shafi/Malki madhabs, & Darululoom Deoband who specialise in Hanafi madhab . Winning that debate will make him a legitimate person to be dicsussed . But before that , he/you is just somebody running some hate site on the net . If you thing Islam is bad , you should also give an alternative , when same question was asked be him/his followers , he said "A film critic doesnt have to make good films" . Well what can I say about that.

 * Those self proclaimed ex-muslims werent answered b/c there was noting to answer there . Before you there was an arab ex-muslim here who couldnt speak a word of Arabic . I have talked to some of those so called apostates who dont even know about Islamic conceept of Monotheism . And whats even funnier, they always mix christian concepts with Islam . Many of them have got a mental capacity of only copying half verses ( Like kill all infidels ) that are quoted by Sina . And Sina doesnt even know what is the difference between a Sufi & an apostate . Clearly shows what they are . Farhansher 05:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I also think a "criticism of islam" article or section is required in the Islam section of Wikipedia, for the simple reason that the religion is by a large part based on the criticisms of the "unbelievers" of 7th century that were allegedly levelled against it.....the Quran and ahadith are proliferated with commandments, directions, guidances and appeals to specifically deal with the criticisms and the critics of Mohammed and his islam these criticisms existed during the time of the "revelations" being delivered and much of Quran specifically is Allah's reaction to thses criticisms.

It still needs to be addressed and allowed to continue........people who would seek to know more about Mohammed and Islam are entiteled to have access to the very type of criticisms that may arise, due to the fact that the 7th century critics no longer exist and their story can not be fully explored, it makes good sense to allow these criticisms to re-emerge for seekers of information about Islam to compare the issues that existed in yester-year and in today's world. Islam's Quran is not a closed book, nor is the issue of criticism that it appears is a larger part of it's very reason for existing a closed matter. Mohammed may have deemed the matter closed/locked-thread with his "revelations" and "final word of god", not so those who would seek to continue their "revelations" of opinion and criticism, some on hehalf of their ancestors who may well have been targets of quran's punishing guidances. As we have muslim editors here at Wikipeadia who might seek to silence the critics of Mohammed and his Islam, in affect a form of emulating 7th century doctrine and practise, so too we have people here who take the other view as was the case in 7trh century Arabia. Question is, what are the muslims here so afraid of in being so apparently obstinently persistent in seeking to silence the critics? (unsigned by 211.27.142.217)

People, please sign your talk-page posts!

Ok, for those who don't remember or wasn't around: There was an article on this. It was created back in 2002 but was deleted quite recently, on June 18, 2005. See (but don't edit) the debate on Votes for deletion/Criticism of Islam. The content of the article the last months was just an intro reading:
 * Criticism of Islam has been becoming more visible in world media, particularly in America recently and especially in the period after the September 11 terrorist attacks and the larger involvement of American and European countries in conflicts involving Muslims around the world.

That was all the content after almost 3 years of revert-wars and bickering on the talk-page. And then there was a long list of external links to various web sites. I was the one nominating it for deletion on June 5, for which I not only was flamed for being a Islamist (I'm not a muslim, trust me...) but also accused of having invited my islamists friends to vote (I don't even know any muslims). Anyway, I still stand by my nomination. But after seing some other and actually quite good "criticism" articles on other topics, I'm not completely against it myself if it can be made NPOV and encyclopedic. But at the very least come up with some lasting agreable "criticism" content in this, the Islam article, first before thinking about spawning it out to it's own "criticism" article again. If people really feel like going for it I sugest using this talk-page to come up with and agree on content (content, not just links) to avoid further revert-wars. Shanes 08:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

External links wrangle
. . .has lead to protection of the article. Discussion here doesn't seem to be moving towards any kind of consensus and has gone far off the track. I've put up a summary of past arguments and a recap of the two views on the faithfreedom links on Talk:Islam/External links; if we concentrate on the discussion there, maybe we can reach some kind of consensus. If not, then perhaps it's time to hold a poll. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not involved and don't have an opinion on this subject, but my opinion on your work here is that it seems to be very helpful. --Noitall 16:04, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * I am involved and do have an opinion on this subject, but I second that emotion. BrandonYusufToropov 16:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Charlie my man, your islam page reads like a dawa pamphlet from the neighborhood mosque. Why terrorism flourishes in Islam, why women are shrouded in black or blue body bags, why all the suicide bombers say they are true muslims, why there are so many imams who support suicide bombers as Islamic, etc. etc. etc.? And what do I find on charlies page?  Charlie and friends shutting up the ex-muslims and calling FFI a hate site.  I went to FFI and learnt more about Islam in half an hour than anywhere else.  You want straight talk, go to FFI and get the dope on Islam.  You and your muslim buddies will not allow the facts on Islam here.

 * I am user Qassim666. I was banned after one day at this site because I said FFI should have voice.  I was called sock puppet and I need to give addressess to get unbanned.  Now SlimVirgin threaten me that I will banned if I make one mistake.  This is muslim mentality.  This is not site that want to tell truth.  This is site that has muslim in control of Islam information.  I will not be here anymore.  But I will tell the world about muslim mind SlimVirgin, mullah farhansher, muslim yusuf, and editor charles Mirv who do not want to tell truth about Islam. More people know how muslim control islam page here the better. Goodbye.

 * It is idiocy to use the word Muslim or related terms as an insult to editors. If you believe an editor is working from a biased point of view then feel free to talk about that... but, it has no bearing whatsoever if they are Muslim, Christian, or conjoined twins.  I do not know if it falls under the no personal attacks policy, but, it's typically frowned upon by most editors.  As for my hopes to make the world a better place with less blanket labelling I would encourage you to, no matter how you find Islam, realize that there is quite a plurality of Islamic views and whether or not you agree that they are true or not judge a Muslim on their actions, not your perception of their religion.  We must acknowledge in articles that Muslims and non-Muslims have various interpretations of Islam and therefore "muslim mentality" in the sense of cohesive unity on all issues by all Muslims as you put it has no meaning.  So, have a nice day and try to like everyone O_O --gren 07:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Having come off a block for being a sock puppet, I can understand the frustration. Gren, what you say is indeed true, but those who have been touched by the 'true beleivers' of islam recently, or those who have personally given up submitting to islam, your advice may seem too reasonable to be acceptable.  There is now a growing segment of opinion around the world that is beginning to treat 'muslim' as an insult.  I assume the family of the buddhist monk that was beheaded yesterday in thailand may be excused if they feel strongly against Islam.  I do not hold it against Qasim666 if he is an ex-muslim.  He is expressing his personal reality.  I just hope time and hindsight will smoothen some of the pain.  Islam of Fazl-ul-rahman is found in his books perhaps;  he was essentially exiled from his homeland and disowned by his own people.  Isalm is not going anywhere, but those who do consider 'muslim' an insult these days because of the actions of those who claim to be true muslims do have 'an opinion' that I may not agree with but I do not have a right to deny them their experience by claiming it to be illegitimate.

Nickbee 17:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

Islam and Freedom of Speech

 * Folks do not get surprised at the response you get from Muslim editors when trying to insert information not in line with the Islamic talking points. You get a taste of what Islam is like. Utterly intolerant of other POVs.
 * In countries ruled by Islamic law and where political Islam holds sway, writers, thinkers, philosophers, activists, and artists are frequently denied freedom of expression.
 * Islamic regimes are notorious for the violent suppression of free thought. Often, as a government allies itself closely with Islam, any critics of the government will be accused of blasphemy or apostasy.
 * In Islam, there exists a great fear of putting the Koran to critical scrutiny. Ordinary people do not dare to question the Koran. The result is tyranny, thought police, and stagnation, no intellectual and moral progress. Even in the academic community it is a taboo to discuss the Koran scientifically. While there exist a growing critical movement to criticise religion, particularly Islam, *Islamists, apologists for Islam, and western governments have come up with the idea of Islamophobia. They try to silence critics. Islam must be subject to critical examination. By silencing critics and calling them racists, Islamists and apologists intend to keep religious domination intact. In Islamic regimes the price for criticising Islam is death in its most horrendous way.
 * The pro-Islam editors on this page are simply exhibiting what the nature of Islam is truly like. --Delwigo 03:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, especially the atheist, Christian, Jewish, and Buddhist editors. They are certainly a clue as the real nature of Islam . Zora 05:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The greatest intolerance I see asserted in Islamic articles is from those who fail to believe that Islam in any form can be a religion practiced in a way they see acceptable. Intolerance is someone defining Islam and then hating what they have defined.  Read Fazlur Rahman for a notable Islamic scholar who takes a critical view, or even Ibn Hazm -- even for his conservative nature in 11th century Al-Andalus -- can show an interesting view into diverse thought.  Islam is the totality of Islamic thought, you will believe some of the worldviews created to be good and some to be bad, but you are not here to question the legitimacy of either -- just report it... gren 06:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the entire issue is of "just reporting it" here. The contra view of Islam is not being allowed space.  There is a need to provide a channel to harness the opinions of those who have views against Islam in a form and manner that would be acceptable to Wikipedia.Nickbee 17:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * The ignorance in this chain is obvious. I am a muslim, and as far as I know, there are no current countries that follow Islamic Law, so i can only guess what u mean when u say "muslim countries".  I assume you mean countries ruled by a muslim dictator.  This might shock you, but these people don't follow Islamic law! Just like many Christian leaders dont follow Christian laws.  Anyway, Islam is FOR freedom of speech.  I've heard that never speaking against a leader is considered "shirk", which means associated partners with God.  Also, in Islam, a hadith says that the greatest form of "Jihad" (struggle) is speaking up against an oppressive leader.  Of course, I don't expect everyone to know about this, but I do expect you all to not talk about what you're ignorant of, as that is not only unislamic, but generally illogical.

 * If we put that view and Nickbee's together it would be more representative. Nickbee's right, there are strains of Muslims who are taught not to question their leader like it's their duty and then there are ones that are encouraged to question.  Then some don't have leaders.  The point is there is a variety. gren 19:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I do agree with Gren that there is a variety. The problem is that the various strands of variety strongly disagree amongst themselves.  Many countries do insist upon calling themselves "Islamic" and have sharia courts.  Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Iran, etc. all have explicit laws that no law can be against Islamic law.  Shariat Courts are functioning in many countries and have ruled against many civil laws of those countries as not islamic.  The civil war within Islam, the disagreements among the muslims, and who they are willing to consider "Islamic" and who is not, is evident to all.  Killing of muslims by other muslims who do not consider the slain as either muslims or as acceptable "colletral damage" is rampant across many countries (Iraq, Pakistan, saudi arabia, egypt, and so on).  Wikipedia cannot and must not be seen as presenting only one side of this battle for 'Islam'.  Wikipedia as an encyclopedic source can and must present the variety that exists.  And, Gren, I do not believe I have ever said that there are strains of Muslims who are taught not to question their leader.  I am not sure that Muslims do not question their leader, but my experience has been that nearly all muslims are incapable of questioning the "Quran" and the conduct and charachter of Muhammed.  This questioning of the fundamentals is what divides the secular muslims, or the ex-muslims from the muslims more than anything else. Nickbee 20:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

While it's true that there are various "islamic" views, many of the overstrict views are clearly wrong and unislamic, and need not be in this article. Saying that these views need to be represented is like saying that the Nazi and KKK views must be represented in the Christianity page. They really don't.

Islamophobic Link
Robert Spencer's "Jihad Watch" is racist and xenophobic in the extreme. Is it really appropriate to have it link to the Islam page?

It is not racist and xenophobic at all. Why don't you give an example of Robert's racism and xenophobia? You should be able to find something from his extensive site and books. Please give an example. If you cannot then don't slander.

Holy Cities
The city of Qom is by far one of the holiest places for Shiites, this city should be added to the "Holy Cities" section.

thank you

WP underattack by followers of Sina's Cult of phobia
Hi guys

 * Ever thought why the Islam related pages have become insane these days ??
 * Ever thought If its just a coincidence that we are having very insistent people wanting their unverifiable data to be added on Islam related pages
 * Ever thought why there is so much pressure to add links to phobic sites made by illeterate liers that are driven by hate
 * Ever thought why there is so much pressure to add a picture of Muhammad riding Burraq to Muhammad page.
 * Ever thought why there is so much pressure that Jihad means "holy war"( aka kill all infedils ) only . And not a "cleanse oneself spiritually" kind of philosophy also.

Well every question has an answer, as there is no effect without causality.

The answer is right here, see for your self.

, []

, []

, []

, []

, []

, []

, []

, []

As you might have guessed, this is the tip of ice berg. A lot is going on, under cover. Being the followers of a cult, they dont show their intentions. This is why they use PM & not talk about it on forums now. These so called good faith editers are running a whole Project Wikipedia to attack each & every page associated with Islam. This has been happening under our noses for not less then 6 months, & now its officially made a project.

There was a thread there which has been deleted by Sina. So for the benifit of all sane thinking people, I have added these threads to WP , so that if some muslim hacks FFI , & by some coincidence only these threads are deleted ( as Sina says ) , then these will be present as an evidence on WP.

Now ,

 * Do we want WP to become a mirror site of FFI.
 * Do we want phobic psychos to run around all over WP.
 * Do we want to explain the same things over & over again to people who always say that they are a newbie on WP, & want to make it better . After some time of copy pasting filth from their hate site, they vanish & some others show up with the same language , same mentality & same "Stuff".

I was also thinking for some time what happened to all venom spitting Sina-philes, & why are we now having some decent looking people wanting to add their links to WP. Well that is also in the Sinan recommenddations of "How to attack WP". U can all see Zeno's edits at Muhammad, & Jihad. The pressure to add a picture of Muhammad, pressure to add cresent as a symbol of Islam , Pressure to call Jihad bin nafs some mythical concept popularised by Sufis. Still in Jihad article, Zeno has changed " Ibn taymia, scholar of classical Islam " to " Ibn taymia , The classical, militant scholar of Islam ". Dont you think he could have easily changed to "Ibn taymia, the founder of Salfi thought in Islam . " Do you think its coincidence , or lack of knowledge......nooooo , its called Agenda .Similarly nickbee , who just came here , saying he doesnt accept all that Sina says , but has has written lenthy posts pressurising to add their link. Would any body who doesnt care waste so much time on adding links, He also brought two well known trolls from FFI to back him up. May be its the new strategy, work in clans , one carrot two sticks , & a lot of anon IPs.

If we dont do something, these attacks will occur again & again , week after week , month after month. Its a big waste of time & energy. When I came here, I wanted to add some info about mysticism here. I havebeen here for 5 months now, I have done nothing yet. Why ?? each time I log on to the site, I see Islamophobic cyber terrorists , wrangling to add a picture of Burraq ( like its gonna improve the Quality of article ), or to add a huge unverifiable list of Muhammad's slaves. All in the sugar coating of freedom of speech, childern , fairness , Npov etc. When nothing works they come back to their roots, rants & insults , & the favourites include "appeal to freedom of speech" again. This is going nowhere.

Its now very easy to understand, pename , aldowi , wibidabi , peterchahabi , enviroknot , hate islam , urchid , clt fn , zeno of elea , extensliser , nickbee , a kaffir , ex muslim , Qasim666 .....................& lots of anon IPs , now you guys know where they are coming from.

Any ways, My recommendations ,

 * Block the IP used by FFI.

 * Ask any body who comes to add hate filled data, to verify it from some authentic Islamic site . It is a waste of time to revert again & again , & to reply lenthy posts made by these people , that are filled with logical fallicies only . Nothing to answer there . If they enter a war of reverts , block their IP.

The choice is ours to make !!!!

Peace Farhansher 20:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This is paranoia. Do you intend to block all who support letting the Ex-muslims express their view point? Are you planning on making it a litmus test that anyone who posts at FFI cannot contribute at Wikipedia? You charge me with deception; did you bother reading the post by Qasim where is posting the letters by SlimVirigin from Wikipedia? I was blocked as well. Qasim apparently is a well meaning supporter of FFI, and he does question Islam's fundamentals. You can and obviously do beleive that Jihad means "cleanse oneself spiritually" and not "holy war"( aka kill all infedils ), but hopefully you are willing to accept that there are many muslims who do include "holy war" as part of the meaning of jihad. And I do not agree with Ali Sina's site or all his opinions. I would be a brainless idiot, if I did. But I do not consider his site to be a "hate site". Qasim felt safe enough to go and post his frustration there right away. Did you notice that it was his first post at that site? It means he expected to find "kindered spirits" there. That is the strenght of free speech, atleast in the good ole USA. Do you seriously think that you are going to be able to restrict the opinions of those questioning Islam and its connection to current events as being reflected in the writings of many many authors and journalists around the world away from wikipedia? What kind of an encyclopedia would that be? Nickbee 20:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * Farhansher, thank you for the wonderful research! Someone has already tried to delete it once .

 * This is rather worrisome, as it exploits what I think is a weakness in Wikipedia -- the "numbers make right" method of editing. On many articles, it comes down to how many friends you have and how determined you are to make your point. I've been on both sides of this now. In the Islamic articles, despite having arrived as a critic, I now find myself with a good working relationship with editors I regard as "sane" (if not always of my POV, at least ready to discuss and compromise) -- and we're in the majority. In the Iran-related articles, Southern Comfort and Zereshk outnumber and out-revert me. I don't like what I see as their anti-Arab Iranian nationalism, but ... there's just me.

 * Now the FFI folks are organizing an attack OUTSIDE Wikipedia, to recruit enough new editors to swing the Islam-related articles to their POV. Wikipedia has only been around for what -- three years? As Wikipedia becomes better-known and more popular, it becomes an ever-more-tempting target for folks with an agenda. We're supposed to assume good faith, but ... it's getting harder. It feels like trying to fix the world by convincing one #$%@$#% at a time. Zora 22:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh cool, the anon cut this section out of the talk page again, and called me an Islamo-fascist bitch! Zora 22:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, that's interesting. So far Farhansher's evidence, and all comment relating to it, have been blanked seven times. I put up an alert at WP:VIP. Zora 23:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow, that's pretty cool. I've written the same thing about 50 times on different talk pages and it is rather frustrating.  IFaqeer is gone and so is BrandonYusufToroperson.  When Brandon first came I thought he was blantantly pro-Sunni and against other Islamic opinions... either he has gotten a lot better or people have gotten a lot worse around him.  One FFI forum user talks about linking on as many subpages as possible so as to increase their google ranking...  Any clash fans? You know the gruff voice on Red Angel Dragnet... well, I think he makes a really good point. This was just... horrible... "Ali decided it isn't a good idea to discuss FFI.org's plans for wikipedia in public and removed it."  -- Nickbee below asks would we make FFI involvement a litmus test... and, no.. that is not a good idea in itself, but if it becomes apparent that users are part of what more or less seems like a vandalism project than banning should become more liberal. gren

 * It's the known vandal user Enviroknot and his sockpuppet Existentializer.

 * Whoever is tryig to delete this, please do not do that. Open and free conversation is always better than trying to suppress and censor.  It is impossible to censor at wiki because all the old versions are around and can be seen by any one.  Zora, I do not beleive for one second that the conspiracy of Ali Sina has a chance in hell.  I looked at the posts.  Qassim post has been around for 2 whole days and it attracted 4 views in total.  Does not look like that the readership over there gave a whole lot of interest and wanted to jump on any bandwagon. Just look at the news today and you find a talk radio host  opining on Islam, five egyptians arrested with NYC maps on them, A muslim in london questioning the myth of the moderate muslim in a UK newspaper , another Oriana Fallaci outburst against Islam, and many other such news and opinions floating on the net.  These are not all manufactured by FFI and its subscribers.  The guy in london says: "But there are Muslims who, at great risks to themselves, unapologetically condemn the culture of violence Muslims have bred for extremists among them to exploit. They work alone, or in small groups of like-minded Muslims, despite being maligned and ostracized by fellow Muslims, to dissect and expose Muslim extremism to the world at large while striving against immense difficulties to keep faith in the ideals of Islam. Their effort, irrespective of any effect in advancing Muslim reformation, remains real, while "moderate" Muslims being nowhere to be found confirm their existence is a myth until proven otherwise.".  That is the voice of a secular muslim, or an ex-muslim depending upon how you look at it.  Go spend some time at FFI; it is not that far off from this guy in london is saying.  FFI does say it gratingly and not as palatably as the abouve quote.  These reflect the sign of our times and the opinions of real people.  Wikipedia cannot but help be part of the milleu of the Western world.  Farhansher is not outside it.  He is part of the dialog.  If the opinions of the people shifts too much against "Islam" (or a particular variety of it as Gren would say) then it will be reflected by the people coming to Wikipedia as well.  The solution is not to suppress.  You forcefully eliminated any link to FFI because it is a hate site or because it is asking for special attention, etc.  Please go back and look, how many times I, personally, asked for a dialog so that the information at the links of FFI can be provided so another important variety of Islam can be brought to the readership of Wikipedia.  Frankly, I do find myself scratching my head at Farhansher's definition of Jihad.  I hope holy war is included in the definition of Jihad somewhere; else I need to go back and tell the retired justice of Saudi Arabia who has a write up on Jihad a thing or two.Nickbee 02:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * The problem is ABC is no source for Islamic information and just because people are scared of terrorism means nothing. This is not theological or critical social science work and neither is Ali Sina.  That's the problem.  We don't linke to Edip Yuksel and we don't link to Ali Sina, there are too many two-bit hacks to link to them all.  We are trying to be an encyclopedia and we surely have no exhausted scholarly sources that we must quote Edip Yuksel, Ali Sina, and ABC as sources of information on Islam. gren 03:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why we have to put up with this. Wikipedia clearly has a policy to remove Personal Attacks. Farhansher's accusing any number of editors of being part of a "mass conspiracy" clearly qualifies. Will someone explain why this section has to remain?Ni-ju-Ichi 03:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * There is no personal attack in what he has said. While I would not use his writing style he only complains about editting styles he doesn't like and mentions that the FFI forums seem to be sending users here.  That is perfectly reasonable and deleting it is vandalism.  A personal attack is more along hte lines of rv islamofascist mohammedfucks who beat their wives and daughters like good islamofascist mohammedfucks this includes you chantingfuck gren 03:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I find this Ali Sina "conspiracy" to be very intriguiging. So much so that I have started my own "conspiracy": SIIEG (pronounced "siege"), the Secular Islamic Information Editors' Guild. Please join! --Zeno of Elea 03:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Gren, ABC is not a source for Islamic Information, and I never intended to give it as one. I wanted to show that we live in an environment, in a time, where certain aspects of Islam are being highlighted and I tried giving different sources to demonstrate. The vandalism by those who are unable to participate in a dialog is also clear. The point is that an Encyclopedia needs to give unbiased information to all sides. It cannot and must not ignore one side merely because it is not comfortable. When the secualr muslim is writing in a London newspaper and saying that there are no "moderate" muslims, why cannot we accept that there is a view of islam that is being put forward by the secualr muslims and ex-muslims. What is that view? Why do we have to hide it? Why cannot we acknowledge it? You cannot dismiss the secular muslims, the ex-muslims as two bit nobodies. I have never suggested quoting Ali Sina or using him as an authority. He has a directory of links and a directory of books that are useful sources. Do you consider Taslima Nasrin as a two bit hack as well? How about Salman Rushdie? Nickbee 04:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * Taslima Nasrin wrote Lajja no? She has notability as an author and so does Rushdie.  It is far more questionable in the field of religious studies.  Links and books linking to a highly POV site is introducing POV.  We have removed Islamic sites from the Islam links and have put directories and encyclopedic ones in its place.  Only in the arts, sciences & philosophy do we have sites with Islamic affiliations.  There is no point in revisiting that argument.  Islam is a religion with a theology... Muslims are different matter.  While Muslims are obviously relevant to Islam a Muslim claiming there are no moderates is not exactly a sociological study of this issue. I do accept there is a view but what does that mean? gren 04:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you at least acknowledging that there is a view that represents secular muslims and ex-muslims. Now to the question, what it is: Why not let them speak for themselves? Have you visited Taslima's site? You tell me what would be a good way to include their view on Islam? You think keep ignoring them is the way to go? As the writer from london says that they are opposed by muslims, and hence lable them as Kaffirs and exclude them from islam? Is that the way to go? It is not tit for tat, excluded islamic sites and hence no contra islamic sites are to be included. That is not logic at all. That is mere stubborness. Nickbee 04:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * Nickbee, no matter how many times we tell you, it doesn't seem to penetrate. We don't link to pro- or anti-Islam sites directly, because the links were growing unmanageably. We link to the directories. Anyone who wants to find out more about Islam from the pro point of view has to click on the directory link. Anyone who wants to find out more about the antis can click on that link. Your favorite site doesn't get special treatment. This is not censorship. It is even-handed-ness. Zora 05:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Nickbee, you might want to read Talk:Islam/External_links --Zeno of Elea 05:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Zora, please please try to listen. I hear you but I do not think you are listening. The directories you link to do not give links to views Contra to Islam at all. As Zeno stated it puts some of the contra sites 4 clicks away. It is not an issue of "even-handed-ness", it is not a question of favorite site. It is a matter that there is a strong POV of Islam that is dumbfounded by reading on Wikipedia Islam's page that Jihad means "striving to win God's approval" (please read ex-muslims comments; although I do not agree with his over the top sarcasm) or excluding mention of "holy war" for instance. The DMOZ directory can hardly be called "anti-islam". Again, FFI is not my favorite site. Please look at yourself; you guys are behaving so clubby and unwilling to listen to any "outsider". I was charged as a sock puppet and blocked. Apparently so were the others. You are now convinced that I am from FFI. I have told you before and I tell you again, you do not like FFI, fine but what about the 70 odd links in the directory at FFI. Where should we put them so they can be linked? You dismiss FFI as a hate site and do not want to link to it. But look at the news, listen to the leaders around you, listen to the people around you, and they are saying things about Islam that you do not want to even link to let alone suggest that they exist. Please read the link to the Muslim who wrote in the london press. What kind of Islam is he talking about? Why does Wiki's page on Islam pretend that that aspect of Islam does not exist? You are pretending that secular muslims like ibn Warraq do not exist. This is what ibn Warraq says: "The jihad that the Western world faces today is identical in its motivations and goals to that which Europe managed to stave off almost a thousand years ago  thanks in large part to the Crusades of which the West is now ashamed. In this book, Robert Spencer tells the truth that few in the U.S. or Europe wish to face. Today's jihad, as Spencer illustrates here, is proceeding on two fronts: one of violence and terror, and another of cultural shaming and the rewriting of history. Here is a devastating riposte to that revisionism -- and a clarion call for the defense of the West, before it is too late." -- Ibn Warraq, author of Why I Am Not A Muslim and editor of Leaving Islam and What the Koran Really Says. On the christianity page, there is a link to Russels, "Why I am not a christian", but on the Islam page your club is bending over backwards to avoid stating the known criticism of Islam. Not one word from Warraq's "What the koran really says"!! How come? Please think carefully and listen to what I am saying. Have you read Warraq's "What the koran really says"? Nickbee 05:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * Yes, I've read that book. I actually have FOUR of Ibn Warraq's books. He reprints some useful material. He'd probably despise me too, since I'm "religious", and he can't see anything good in that, but he's intelligent, readable, and often insightful.

 * Y'know, we were just starting to discuss the section on contemporary Islam, which many of the regular editors agreed sounded like feeble apologetics. That's the place to mention violent jihad, terrorism, and all the other hot-button topics. But as long as we're busy fending off the talk-page blanking and ranting FFI crowd, we're not getting any actual work done.

 * If and when I have time, I will try to write a trial version of that section and post it on the talk page for comment. That is, if the talk page hasn't been blocked to prevent attacks. Zora 05:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. So do I. I am not religious as well. But I do not despise you in the least because of it. Do you understand what "cultural shaming and the rewriting of history" Warraq might be talking about? Page-blanking and ranting crowd are self defeating idiots from which ever site they are from. I have now spent some time at FFI over the last few weeks, and I assure you that they have their share of nuts as well. Anonymity does seem to bring out the flamer in many a young hot blooded kids for some reason. Where will the section on Contemprary Islam go? Please let me know if I can be of any help in putting it together. Please, please do think about the "anti-islam" links on the main page and take a little time to look at the DMOZ list and see how inadequate it is to represent the secular islam's POV.Nickbee 06:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * DMOZ links everything four clicks away, which is even handedness for Dawah and for Ex-Muslims. I think the Contemporary Islam section is important because we cannot and would not deny that much violence is done in the name of Islam.  Contemporary Islam is very interesting because you have the progressive movements and then very conservative movements and innumerable groups in between.  I understand the cultural shaming and rewriting he is talking about.  We are not here to say "Jihad means spiritual struggle" we are here to say that Muslims believe that... and others believe the concept to be more violent.  I'm not Muslim so neither view is 'right' to me.. but both need to be mentioned in an NPOV way.  I don't think the page pretends the bad doesn't exist... but, to some Muslims it is not what Islam is about and we are not here to say that they are wrong.  gren 06:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Everything on the net is only six clicks away, so 4 clicks is a long long way. The question is why would wiki "intentionally" put something 4 clicks away for some and not for others.  I agree that we should not take sides one way or the other and simply report showing what Islam is according to the various varieties of muslims.  I propose we are not doing that but are being apologetic to some and suppressing others.  The page DOES pretend that bad does not exist and the secular Muslims are not muslims.  Their efforts to reform Islam and modernise Islam are simply ignored as "Islamophobia".  At least that is what the page reads to many that I have shown the page.NickbeeNickbee 16:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

the poll
ok, so now we know all these anons doing nothing but add the ffi link are not sockpuppets, but editors-by-proxy coordinated via the ffi forum. Guys, you are in good company. the Neo-Nazis tried a very similar stunt some time ago, to "remove pro-jewish bias". Guess what, wikipedia hasn't turned into an antisemitic hate site. Strangely, decent good faith editors are not known to have resorted to such tactics. So what we'll do now to put an end to this is a poll. See Voting. The poll shall be open for ten days, and close on 6 August, 7:00 UTC.

dab (ᛏ) 06:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Despite having voted earlier, this poll is invalid.

From Voting: Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. As we have seen, Dab did not ask for a consensus on anything before creating the poll, and he is now engaging in striking through the votes of real editors on entirely arbitrary criteria.

This is bad faith and the poll is invalid. Existentializer 15:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Please keep comments short with no sub-comments

faithfreedom.org
do you think the Islam article in "external links" should link to http://faithfreedom.org/
 * Note: If your username has been crossed out, please see Talk:Islam for the reasons behind it.

yes

 * 1) Zeno of Elea 10:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC) - i don't agree with linking to the FFI mainpage, but I think http://www.faithfreedom.org/links.htm should be considered for inclusion, possibly replacing "DMOZ Contra Islam" as discussed at Talk:Islam/External links
 * 2) Agree with Zeno Klonimus 05:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Karl Meier 11:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC) -- I don't support a link to the FFIs mainpage eighter, but after reading the discussion, I think that replacing the 'DMOZ Contra Islam' external link with an external link to FFIs collection of opposing websites would indeed be a good idea.
 * 4) Ni-ju-Ichi 12:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Contrary to what some crazies around here think, I still don't think that there is any sort of a "conspiracy" going on. I think the FaithFreedom links (especially link collection page) deserve consideration.
 * 5) Existentializer 15:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Nickbee 16:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee - Wiki should not link to the main page of FFI.  Someone should figure out a way to get the links of the links and library pages of FFI link onto a neutral site and link to that.  Providing a direct link to links considered Anti-Islam by a site like FFI is important to provide a balance view.
 * 7) Cunado19 17:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC) - Christianity has a sub-title under links of one anti-christian site. Baha'i Faith has an entire section on criticism. Opposition to Mormonism exists. one link won't hurt here.
 * 8) Exmuslim 17:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Exmuslim  A link to FFI links page will enhance Wiki's credibility.  Link to FFI main page would be inappropriate.
 * 9) R. S. Shaw 19:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Yes, to the links page. Should keep DMOZ contra link as well.
 * 10) Barneygumble 23:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC) A link is fine. There is a link to something critical of Christianity on that page.
 * 11) Urchid Yes indeed, it goes without saying that all POVs should be represented in Wikipedia 04:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) malathion talk 01:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC) per Zeno.
 * 13) Wynler 03:14:28, 2005-07-29 (UTC) New user, But after reading over the arguments I think that the link should be changed from DMOZ to FFI.  FFI has a more comprehensive list.  However, I would also like to see a note next to it saying that it is a not a NPOV link site. Also I would agree with dab that both DMOZ and FFI could remain. - Moved to abstain after reading Zora's arguement.  The links from FFI could be added to DMOZ.
 * 14) Immanuel Indeed, his POVs are supported by a vast audience of Wiki users and his like many other forms of Islam criticism don't had seen too much light until now for reasons obscure to me. 16:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Acerimusdux 04:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC) It should of course be noted that it is a site opposed to Islam. But it should be included.
 * 16) Muwaffaq 03:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC) Absolutely. It is clearly the best known site. I verified that the DMOZ directory is not very informative.
 * 17) --Xlabla22 02:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC) I do not see a good case for why this should be hidden from wikipedia readers.
 * 18) Yes, absolutely. The website is of reasonably high level and provides many additional information about islam which is missing in most mainstream sources.--Germen (Talk | Contribs Netherlands flag small.svg) 11:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) I support at the very least linking to the FFI links page. Babajobu 10:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Definitely require a link to FFI. Why should Wikipedia censor only sites perceived as anti-islamic, but allow all other anti-religous additions? Shunyaah 19:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Yes, criticism of Islam should be tolerated! Its ok to talk about Stalin on the page about communism, but its not ok to provide a simple link to site that supports an alternative viewpoint? --MvD 17:46, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

no

 * 1) The answer is a firm NO. FFI is classified as a "hate site" and they have been banned from listing on an online directory based on that alone. With Wikipedia's NPOV policy, listing them is tantamount to violating Wikipedia's raison d'etre itself. Menj 03:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) dab (ᛏ) — I could accept a link to the ffi links page, in addition to dmoz (which I consider superior). if that option reaches a simple majority I think this would be the way to go.
 * 3) gren 07:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Heraclius 14:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Siegerz 15:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Only three edits before this vote; first edit 16:28, 27 July 2005
 * painfully obvious sock as well. please don't do that, people. dab (ᛏ)
 * 1) one click to FFI??...fairness?? Farhansher 21:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Saduj al-Dahij 22:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC) How dare anyone suggest that link to an abhorrent site about the sin of leaving Islam be included on the page about Islam. We should include a link to [www.convertstoislam.com] instead. Next you will be suggesting to include such intolerant sites as this
 * Only fifteen or so edits before this; first edit 14:04, 27 July 2005
 * and probably a satirical role account... dab (ᛏ)
 * Why did you cross my name out? This slur against Islam must not stand. Dab is obviously islamophobicSaduj al-Dahij 14:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Zora 05:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Wikipedia isn't a link farm; links are often useful, but this seems to be PoV-motivated, as a way of getting round Wikipedia's NPoV rules. (That has nothing to do with the PoV reasons given by some editors above.) Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Darwinek 13:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4)     20:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Ragib 04:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6)  —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 07:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC) Especially if there are as few links as there are right now.
 * 7) --Striver 08:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) --Axon (talk|contribs) 09:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Chris Smowton 17:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) mr100percent 15:48, 30 July 2005 (EST) I agree with the other NOs on this poll, it's not NPOV, it's biased, it's unfair to include this ex-Muslim resource without convert resources as well.
 * 11) Anonymous editor 19:04, July 31, 2005 (UTC) An absolute NO. An site that does nothing but reflect the opinion of a rampant egotistic hate mongerer who has created his own stories out of thin air. That's the simplest way to put it.
 * 12) -- GNU 4 Eva  02:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC) I looked over the site, and the site while doing a good job of portraying what critics of Islam would say, it borders on the ridicilious too many times and can be overly sensationalist. 97% vagina? give me a break...  but anyway, a more "academic" critique I would not have a problem with.
 * 13) DigiBullet
 * 14) No this sensationalist nonsense is as bad as the [www.jtf.org JTF] freestylefrappe 22:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) It is simply no why not these people add convert to islam on christions page they all want to destroy islam and muslim people and replace it with low moral socities who only worship sex and money [unsigned edit, not to mention completely insane]
 * 16) FaithFreedom is basically a hate site; it does not belong on a factual, supposedly unbiased article about Islam. And as GNU4eva said, their comment about the percentage vagina is beyond laughable. In the wintertime, most women (and men for that matter) are covered from head to toe. Is that because they think they're big vaginas? Wikipedia should not meddle in such crap.
 * WTF? I think you prefectly understand that FaithFreedom is using shock tactics by playing around with alah's BS about modesty. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that. Your criticism is pointless. Its like saying this is stupid because you've seen glamorous people smoke. If anything, FaithFreedom is trying to free people from conservative submission. Covering your body just because you've been brainwashed is humiliation. Don't those women have the right to decide what they consider modest, without being brainwashed by some cleric? --MvD 17:59, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
 * 1) joturner 04:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Muwahid 20:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) __earth 14:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

abstain

 * 1) --  GNU 4 Eva 20:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC) unsure yet....  changed vote to no
 * 2) - Why does it have to be this site?  Surely there are better sites, critical of islam, out there which are less vitriolic? --Irishpunktom\talk 23:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Why don't you suggest some irishpunktom? The only one I could find is the list on the front page of jihadwatch.  That would require linking to jihadwatch and not to the list of directories.  I would like to know if you know of a good directory listing the known secular and ex-muslim sites. Nickbee 17:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee
 * jihadwatch seems a fair enough site (compared to the likes of ffi, anyway) external link to add to Islamism (opposing views). dab (ᛏ) 07:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Wynler 21:47:48, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

Ali Sina
do you think the Islam article in "see also" should link to Ali Sina ?

yes

 * 1) Urchid Yes indeed, it goes without saying that all POVs should be represented in Wikipedia 04:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Barneygumble 04:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC) The Roman_Catholicism page is just brimming with criticism. What's good for the goose is good for the gander
 * 3) I don't really see why not. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 08:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC) (vote changed after discussion --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC))
 * 4) Yes He's important to the history of Modern Islam, just like Ibn Warraq Klonimus 05:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) --MvD 08:12, 2005 August 9 (UTC) Yes, islam does have its problems and they should be recognised.

no

 * 1) Menj 03:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC) An Islamophobe like this ex-Iranian bastard should not be recognised at all.
 * 2) gren 07:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC) - there are many more notable and more respected critics
 * 3) Heraclius 14:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC) - Agree with gren. There are more notable and much more convincing critics.
 * 4) Cunado19 16:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC) - If he's included then every Muslim or ex-Muslim with a wiki page should also be there.
 * 5) Exmuslim 17:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Exmuslim  - Singling out Ali Sina this way makes no sense.  No.  I agree with dab's option.
 * 6) Saduj al-Dahij 20:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC) - No, he is intolerant and offensive towards Muslims.
 * Only fifteen or so edits before this; first edit 14:04, 27 July 2005
 * 1) Farhansher 21:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) He's Just another in a Long list of Muslim Haters, I don't see why he would warrant a "See also" when other folks of the same opinions, like Nick Griffin, do not. No.--Irishpunktom\talk 23:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) No. He's notable only to a certain excitable clique. Zora 05:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) R. S. Shaw 20:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC). My vote was erased by this edit
 * 6) --Ragib 04:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Acerimusdux 04:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC) No, not directly relevant.
 * 8) -- GNU 4 Eva  02:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC) We dont even know if he is who he says he is.  I know his claims as to why he doesn't confirm his identity, but at the same time, that could also be a guise of a hate monger who wants to hide behind a different identity (or for dramatic purposes).
 * 9) DigiBullet 17:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC) He is a minor charachter in the grand scheme of things, especially as it relates to Modern Islam.
 * 10) Muwahid 20:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) --Striver 04:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Self evident "no".
 * 12) __earth 14:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC) Don't see how this guy have a profound effect on Islam.

abstain

 * 1) possibly, in an organized "see also" under "critics" or "apostates". this is a Wikipedia article after all, and may achieve npov dab (ᛏ)
 * 2) Zeno of Elea 10:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC) - I agree with dab.
 * 3) Ni-ju-Ichi 12:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Agree with Dab as well for this, the article needs a section for those.
 * 4) Nickbee 16:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee Ali Sina is not that a prominant figure of Islam to warrant a direct mention under Islam itself.  Perhaps under critics or apostates as suggested by dab.

Polls are evil
____________
 * 1) Don't vote on everything -- Cyrius|✎ 01:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * have you looked at the size (and tone) of this talkpage? this is a last resort. dab (ᛏ) 08:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

In order to speed things up, I have decided to withdraw my objections to the poll and have reverted the talk page to before the dispute began. --Zeno of Elea 10:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * thank you kindly. dab (ᛏ) 10:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If anyone thinks that cancelling user votes because of the number of votes, or scaring away newbies by blocking them and asking for personal information, and then trying to go through the motion of a poll is going to resolve anything, allow me to let you in on common sense: it is not going to work. All this will result in is more bickering, intensive bickering, and enhancing passions all around. Think about it. A genuine compromise and adopting a real wiki NPOV attitude will not hurt. The rest is up to you. It is obvious that Wiki will eventually have to adopt some kind of a real editorial control on the Islam related pages. That is good, because then they will answer to some "real" interest groups. This page will not continue to read like a dawa pamphlet for very long. Nickbee 05:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

the poll (discussion)

 * Please keep the voting area clean, to discuss something do it below gren 07:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

well, once we have a "critics" section in see also, and we are swamped with links to notable and respected critics, we can still unlink Sina. At the moment, it is true that there are not too many critics mentioned. Sina is rather a parody of a critic, and his smearing probably does Islam more good than harm, since I doubt he makes an impression on anyone not already violently anti-Islamic. Anyway, bring on the links to more notable critics. dab (ᛏ) 07:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I will need to research better into this... but Ibn Warraq is an all around critic of Islam that has general amounts of respect. What I think is typically more notable are people like Kassim Ahmad and those mentioned at Hadith are critics.  Christoph Luxenberg is a linguist who critical of modern interpretation.  It's hard to find critics of Islam as a whole that are notable and respected in scholarly communities.  People who do blanket criticisms tend to be entities like Ali Sina whom many call bigotted and has little more than a small online following.  I think it is important to mention Muslim scholars like Fazlur Rahman who was highly respected but in Islam and Modernity goes through a critique of many Islamic institutions throughout history.  I have been called POV for it but I think it's true that very few people have become notable as a scholarly source by blanket criticism of a religion. gren 07:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I have never read anything written by either Ibn Warraq or Ali Sina. But I do know that Ibn Warraq studied under the famous scholar of Islam, Montgomery Watt whose works I have read. I suspect that Ibn Warraq, like Montgommery Watt, is in a higher literary class than your usual person. So Ali Sina probably does not measure up to Ibn Warraq. But I would like to see some examples of what is so objectionable about Ali Sina's writing. --Zeno of Elea 11:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * hm, what about "these women think they are 96% vagina"? Really, this guy is so little to the credit of critics of Islam that I wonder people want to add him at all. I am all for doing a decent section on criticism of Islam, but keep it sober and academic. Unfortunately, being beleagured by pov pushers from both sides, this is not too easy to do here, but we'll get there. Ibn Warraq would be a good start. dab (ᛏ) 11:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This is the second time you have brought up the 96% vagina and so I took the time to go actually track down what is it that Ali Sina actually said about it. Here it is[ http://faithfreedom.org/debates/Maya50520.htm] :

Muslim women are awra. They are objects of shame.

" "Ali reported the Prophet saying: 'Women have ten ('awrat). When she gets married, the husband covers one, and when she dies the grave covers the ten."[Kanz-el-'Ummal, Vol. 22, Hadith No. 858. See also Ihy'a ] Awra is pudendum, something to be ashamed of, something to hide. Pudendum is female's external sex organ. That is what Muslim women are according to Muhammad.

When I see a normal woman, I see a human being. When I see a Muslim woman, all I see is a big genital walking. She acts as if her entire body is a vagina that has to be hidden, protected, because it is an object of shame and embarrassment. How can you be proud of this image that you portray to the world? "

He is quoting a hadiath, a statement by the son in law of Muhammad. Keep in mind that this is cultral where men are supposed to eternal erections in heaven and women are ten female genitalia. I have not taken the trouble to find whether is qoute of the hadiath is accurate or not, but I would bet that it is. So you see it is not he who is saying that women should be covered from head to toe in body bag, but he is putting it in context for a muslim that he is communicating, trying to get through the cultral assumptions with shock value. What do you think of women under the Taliban rule where if the cultral police could see a woman's ankle under that "Burqha" or body bag when he knelt or laid down to examine if she was properly covered, she could be in for a severe beating for "exhibitionism"? How would you explain such absurd and obsessive behavior? What do you think when you see women covered in "body bags" hiding in the shadows? So I do not have a problem with Ali Sina's statement of 96% vagina in the context that he is making. What is that you are objecting to? He is talking to his constituency, in the language that he thinks is most effective. He seems to be on the side of liberating women and getting muslim women into the modern era, and not trying to keep them enslaved and covered in body bags. Please tell me if I am missing something here? Nickbee 17:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * I know this is the context. If he would make his point decently, maybe he would be a respectable ex-Muslim. Since he makes his point venomously, polemically, insincerely and slanderously, he does not seem to qualitfy as a respectable ex-Muslim. I am not saying Islam cannot be seriously criticized. Hell, yes, it can. I am just saying Sina cuts a pathetic figure as a critic, the equivalent of a Wikipedia teenage single-topic point-pusher. dab (ᛏ) 19:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I am glad that the link to the ffi main page seems to be out of the picture, that was what started the whole mess, after all. If there is a simple majority favouring the addition of the ffi links page, I'll be happy to add it. I am considering moving my vote to abstain as a gesture of good faith, since the ffi links page isn't so much worse than the dmoz one after all. dab (ᛏ) 19:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * All the links on the FFI links page could be submitted to DMOZ. Also, this al-Dauji user, or whatever he calls himself, is clearly not a real Muslim, but a malicious parody. All votes from this user should be disregarded as not sincere. Zora 06:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * No dab, the FFI link is much worse. When we submit a link we should be asserting that it has relative encyclopedic value.  The FFI page links to some reasonable articles and Islamic sources but the problem is it's part of his page and links to his page.  Our adding his page to wikipedia is an assertion of his legitimacy not just of what he links to.  It comes with his commentary on the links, his advertisements, and blogs that he has chosen.  The least part of the problem is the links themselves its their context that is unnacceptable.  I agree with Zora that the stuff should be submitted to the DMOZ if it is not already. gren 07:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * yes, but the dmoz isn't much better. Anyone can have their site listed there, and get to describe it in their own words. I don't think there is much redaction at dmoz, not unless the descriptions contain profanity. Anyway, my vote stays no, for now, and I will only support adding the ffi links link if there is a majority of (non-sock) editors supporting it. dab (ᛏ) 07:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure about some of the yes votes. Surely there can be an Opposition to Islam article, and we could link it from the see also, plus, the ffi link would be much less controversial there. Yes, if there is Opposition to Mormonism, there can also be Opposition to Islam, no question about that. But note that this is not the Opposition to Islam article. Sure, all povs belong on WP, but not all websites, WP is not a linkfarm. I am not objecting to the link because it is critical of Islam. I am objecting because it is too vitriolic and unacademic. This Sina is really too wound up in his hate and frustration to know his ass from his elbow, let alone criticism from slander. Maybe if we had a good, decent "Criticism" section, we wouldn't need to argue over such things, and I wouldn't need to be called names by our esteemed Islamophobic editors for objecting to this particular link.

what does it tell us that we have so many outspoken critics of Islam, going to the point of obstruction to have their way with the ffi link, while none of them has seen it worth their time to compile a decent Opposition to Islam article? What does that tell us about their dedication to the Wikipedia project, or their notion of encyclopedicity. You want your views represented? Write articles about them, don't troll existing articles of marginal relevance. Once you have finished your critical articles, ask for links to them here. dab (ᛏ) 07:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Completely agreed, Islam is not defined by objection to it, scholarly criticism is important because it keeps in check outrageuous claims of any religion but those who define and dislike Islam have no part in Islam. There is opposition to Islam but this is not Islam.  It should be noted because it does exist but it must be put in its place.  Some editors fail to make this distinction which is quite a shame in my opinion and a hinderance to a properly encyclopedic source.  gren 08:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

re, goose and gander, there is one link under "Criticism" on Christianity, an essay by Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell. If we restrict the Criticism links to Nobel prize winners here also, I would have no objections whatsoever. Oh wait, then we wouldn't have any links at all. Well, at least we should restrict links to essays of quality and decency at least remotely approaching Russell's. dab (ᛏ) 08:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Completely agree with dab. Criticism from high quality sources should be assumed. On another page I just deleted a criticism link that went to a chat-forum. And a page of Opposition to Islam linked under "see also" seems completely appropriate and would solve much of this nonsense. Cunado19 17:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Dab, your criticism of Ali Sina is a little warped. You do not disagree with his stands but you disagree with his "presentation" to his audience? He is talking to muslims in general, and in particular those who hate the west. So he discusses things in a way that might be addressing their fears and their icons, and not trying to be manipulative by trying to be friendly, sweet and sugary. Because he does not address himself to "your" academic standards, he is not a fit spokesperson for the entire secular muslim community? You certainly have a definite view of what is appropriate in this world, and little room for doubts? I have searched and I did not find a call to murder, violence, bomb, destroy, kill, maime, segregate, etc. by Ali Sina. By your criteria, Muhammed whose Islam this page is covering, should not be covered because he is one who said the women are 10 "awrat", now low class can you get? How do you tell the followers of a prophet who was not pleased with some because they were not beheading the vanquished kaffirs with enthusiasm, about the facts of their prophets life, as he sees them? Especially if you took a life time to shake that belief yourself? I think your objections to FFI being "low class" are your own bias and hangup. It is not your POV but the POV of exmuslims and secular muslims that needs to placed on the Islam page. Again I do not care whether you link to FFI or not; as I stated figure out a way to link to the list of links given by FFI for anit-islam or list of links provided by Spencer to 'anti-islam' sites. I do find it amazing that a significant fraction of those who call themselves muslims (and gren look at the YouGov survey by Anthony King that Exmuslim cited) support a mass muderer Osama, and support terrorism, and a site that opposes them and questions their ideology is the site you find objectionable because it does not meet your literary criteria? Nickbee 18:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

Gren, the issue is not whether "YOU" find ffi encyclopediac standard or not. The issue is that ex-muslims and secualr muslims is a movement within Islam that finds it hard to be in the open because of the harsh "death penalties" imposed upon those who attempt to question Islam from within the muslim community. You necessarily end up with few "weird" souls who are willing to risk their lives. That is why Ibn Warraq identity is not known. That is why Dr. Yusuf Sheik did not voice his apostacy while on death row in Pakistan for 3 years. That is why Ali Sina is anonymous. So you tell how should this encyclopedia reflect that and provide a voice to that segment or variety of Islam on the Islam page? It is obvious that the muslim editors will oppose providing a voice to the secular muslims. At the moment, whether we like it or not, the ex-muslims and the secular muslims voice is clearest at FFI. Go ahead give me a reason why do you call it a hate site. Dab does not like it because it is "low class". It obviously does not have the "blue blooded accent" of academicians. What is your objection? Has FFI backed violence, segregation, nuking, etc.? A congressman of USA just recently suggested that mecca should be nuked. Does that mean wikipedia should not link to the US congress? What is it that you find so overwhelmingly objectionable to FFI? Remember we are here to report and not take sides and judge. We report what is Islam and not what we want it to be or what its supporters want it to be. I do not like FFI but I am not willing to support squelching the voices of the ex-muslims and the secular muslims. Nickbee 18:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee.

Is this poll fair? I was called a sock puppet and blocked from editing, and I had to actively pursue getting unblocked. I notice Qasim666, an ex-muslim, was also blocked and he was not a sock puppet. He could have been a contributor on "Islam" had he been given an oppertunity. Similarly, I notice that A kaffir, and Billal were blocked after having been charged as sock puppets. I have no clue whether they tried and were unable to gain a voice here or not. But anyone who attempted to support FFI links was automatically considered a sock puppet. The bias is clear. So perhaps before this poll concludes, we should clear up the bias against FFI, a mediocre site at best. We do not have to like FFI to recognize it as a legitimate site of secular muslims and ex-muslims. What are the criteria by which Wikipedia decides the worthiness of a site? FFI is not porn site. It does not support mass murder. It does not support Al-Qaeda and its mass murder ideology. Where are the rules according to which we are to judge the worthiness of FFI as site? Nickbee 18:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

Why is my vote crossed out by you, DAB? Exmuslim 22:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Exmuslim Not much of a chance to contribute so far. I tried engaging but no one cared to answer under NPOV. SlimVirgin wrapped my knuckles for unacceptable language. Now my vote does not count? Real open system, I say. Looks very familiar .... Islamic democracy? Exmuslim 22:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)Exmuslim

dab, if Wikipedia is not a "link farm" (as you claim) and if the Islam article is not an appropriate places for a link to a directory of websites that are critical of Islam, then why do we link to the DMOZ Islam direoctyr, which lists every manner of apologetic Islamic websites? Let's be clear here - this is not a debate over whether or not to include a list of websites that are critical of Islam, this is a debate over WHICH list or lists to include. If it were a debate over the very existance of a link to a critical website directory, then you should have made your poll about whether or not to delete ALL links to ALL website directories. Instead you SEEM to be advocating merely deleting all links to all directories of websites that are critical of Islam (a clear double standard). --Zeno of Elea 01:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC) I'm sorry, but that's an utter misrepresentation. The situation is: As far as I'm concerned, a single link to dmoz would be enough. However, we add a gartuitous link to the anti-Islamic subsection, to accomodate anti-Islamic editors. I see no reason to add the ffi links link on top of that, beyond a desire of the people frequenting that site to drive more traffic to it. dab (ᛏ) 10:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * we need to be restrictive about which links to add. The alternative would be a competition of adding links to the pov of your choice, which would swamp the article.
 * so far there has been no objecting to the dmoz opposing views link, even though it is a subcategory of the dmoz "Islam" category, which is also linked.
 * that's right, far from being a collection of proselytizing links, the first dmoz link already includes the "Opposing views" section.
 * said opposing views section includes practically all links on the ffi link page, and a link to ffi.

DMOZ contra link subdirectory is not good enough and that has been pointed out by zeno before. I was asking for one lousy link to a list of links on an ex-muslim site so the views of secular and ex-muslims could be represented. The fact is that the page does read like a pamphlet from your friendly imam. I think [User:Shanes] advice should be heeded: "That was all the content after almost 3 years of revert-wars and bickering on the talk-page. And then there was a long list of external links to various web sites. I was the one nominating it for deletion on June 5, for which I not only was flamed for being a Islamist (I'm not a muslim, trust me...) but also accused of having invited my islamists friends to vote (I don't even know any muslims). Anyway, I still stand by my nomination. But after seing some other and actually quite good "criticism" articles on other topics, I'm not completely against it myself if it can be made NPOV and encyclopedic. But at the very least come up with some lasting agreable "criticism" content in this, the Islam article, first before thinking about spawning it out to it's own "criticism" article again. If people really feel like going for it I sugest using this talk-page to come up with and agree on content (content, not just links) to avoid further revert-wars. Shanes 08:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)" I had requested the link to the directory of links at FFI to give a voice to the secular and ex-muslims viewpoint. I have been stating it again and again that personally I don't give a hoot for FFI or a link to it.  Requesting a mere lousy one link to the voices of secular and ex-muslims was the minimum that I thought would not be begrudged by the editors of wikipedia. Obviously I was wrong.  The choke hold of the information being supplied by the editors on Islam is biased and far from a NPOV policy of wikipedia.  Providing a link or not providing a link will not stop the bickering as Shanes already points out.  I think his suggestion to come up with an agreement on the CONTENT and not just the links ought to be taken up.  Once the content has been decided, the links will become irrelevant.  In that spirit, I am starting the suggestions for changes in the content of the page. Nickbee 17:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

Notable Ex-Muslims
As there is a marked tendency of ex-Muslims to be opposed to Islam (much greater than the tendency of those who convert between Christian faiths or away from other faiths) a section of notable ex-Muslims might be in order.

How about we start a list of names who may or may not be worthy of being on the list? Ali Sina Walid Shoebat Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Feel free to add more as they come to mind.Existentializer 16:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Ibn Warraq Anwar Sheik Dr. Yusuf Sheikh Salman Rushdie Taslima Nasrin Irfan Khawaja

Nickbee 17:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * There is that awful lesbian writer, Irshad Manji, who says many mean things about the beauty that is Islam. She should not be allowed to write because she is intolerant and offensive. Saduj al-Dahij 19:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes and lets not forget that blood thirsty butcher of women and children and child molester Muhammad while you are at it Saduj.
 * Saduj al-Dahij, I'm not sure if you're being serious or satiricial. It's difficult to tell. In any case, Irshad Manji is not an ex-Muslim, she still claims to be a believer. --Zeno of Elea 00:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Zeno, I don't say this often, but after reading this guy's user page he's just a nutcase.Ni-ju-Ichi 01:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How about we start a section on notable Muslims, which would include thousands of people. Or how about we don't try to put as much slander as possible on this page. Make Ex-Muslims if you feel the need. Cunado19 17:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I have a solution. The page Apostasy in Islam could use a list of notable ex-Muslims.Heraclius 17:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You can start a section on notable muslims if you wish too... be sure to include all the terrorists though. Can't leave off two-faced tin-pot dictators like Saddam Hussein or Moammar Gadhafi or Arafat either. Oh, and Heraclius, shut up. I have no truck with people like you who want to hide things that they don't like in articles that don't exist, just so that they can POV the hell out of existing articles.Existentializer 17:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, that article does exist.Heraclius 21:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And I have just included it in the appropriate article. Thanks for your suggestions.Heraclius 21:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * let's do the Ex Muslims thing, and have Ex Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Atheists while we're at it... What's good for the goose... -- GNU 4 Eva 02:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Adding the terrorists and Saddam would be like going to Christianity and showcasing the Dominican Order, which "saved" Spain through the torture and murder of millions. Or the masterminds of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, led by the Catholic church. Or even better, the multitude of "heroes" who orchestrated the Siege of Jerusalem (1099) which left not a single person alive, man, woman, child, Jew, Muslim or Christian. Not recent enough? How about Adolf Hitler or the Ku Klux Klan?

Still think there's a trend in Islam that's not in Christianity? If you feel the need to exact justice, go put all these on the Christianity page, which right now is lacking in negativity. Or is your justice only applied to religions you don't like?

 * How I Became An Ex-Christian
 * List of ex-Christian web sites
 * list of ex-Christian stories
 * more testimonies of ex-Christians

Don't take my comments as negative to Christianity, which is a religion I love. Just using it to make a point. Cunado19 16:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I whole heartedly agree with this particular reponse. After reading the entire talk page, it just seems like the anti-Islam editors want to turn the Islam page into a debate which is not what it is supposed to be. This article is meant as a source of information on the topic of Islam. There are many other articles which have the typical Islamophobic tenants exposed by some editors here which would be more suited as a playing field for their agendas. Hrana98 01:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * well if you're going to put notable ex muslims, make sure they actually exist before listing them. With regards to Ali Sina, there is no proof that he ever was a muslim... -- GNU 4</B> Eva 02:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Recommended Changes to the Contents of the page Islam
To get the topic rolling:

 * There needs to be a proper discussion of Jihad and the central role this concept plays in Islam. How many Islamic scholars have voiced it as the sixth pillar of Islam.Hasan Al Banna on Jihad (link added Nickbee 18:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee)
 * There needs to be a mention of the role of women and what is Islam for them.Status of Women in Islam by Dr.Yusuf Al Qaradawy
 * What Islam has meant and been for religious minorities, homosexuals, and other cultrual minorities.

Please add your suggestions in a constructive and helpful way. We can make this page the best page on Islam available at any encylopedia. Nickbee 17:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * Explain what deen or "way of life" means ... Why politics and religion is intertwined in Islam ... Why Sharia is a BIG deal ... Why muslims always tell you that there is no islamic country at present ... Why a non-muslim cannot be the leader in ANY muslim country including Turkey.

 * All the topics mentioned are deceptively negative to Islam. There is already a page for women in Islam, Jihad, Homosexuality and Islam, and others. If you think they're missing information that is the place to go. Cunado19 02:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * They are not deceptively negative to Islam. Islam is a great civilisation and has a long history in its own right. This encyclopedia is in English and presumeably for english speakers.  Islam has its strengths and it has its problems.  The page on Islam skirts around the problem areas instead of dealing with them in a straight forward and forthright manner.  That makes it apologetic.  In the west these days, the big interest is in Jihad, Women's rights and the other topics I have mentioned.  Or are we going to deny that there are a lot of people out there who suggest that Jihad is fundamental to Islam.  Now I did a search on the main page on these two topics, and this is what I came up with:

" Striving to seek God's approval (Jihad). See Also Jihad Notes: The Egyptian Islamic Jihad group claims, as did a few long-extinct early medieval Kharijite sects, that Jihad is the "sixth pillar of Islam." Some Ismaili groups consider "Allegiance to the Imam" to be the so-called sixth pillar of Islam. For more information, see the article entitled Sixth pillar of Islam."

on jihad and the only sentence containing the word women is "Muhammad's insistence that women have God-given rights that no human being may legally infringe upon." And that is it!!! No one finds that absurd?

Look at the link I have given for Jihad, and it is from the muslim students in Canada, and it is by the founder of Muslim Brotherhood and he is calling it the sixth pillar of Islam. Taliban called it the sixth pillar of Islam. The note suggesting that only the Islamic Jihad group and a few long-extinct is just plain inaccurate. Mawdudi is also on record in calling jihad the sixth pillar. Islam is what it is. We should tell the facts as they are. Why cannot we do that?

I am not suggesting that the Islam page become a topic on Jihad or Women in Islam but a couple of sentences that address the topic in a forthright manner and with a link to the subsidiary page. What is wrong with that? Then you go to the page on Jihad and you find there is no mention of Hassan Al Banna, Mawdudi, Qutb, etc, the people who defined what jihad is as being practiced by Al-Qaeda. What is wrong in asking for and expecting an honest and straightforward view of the proponents and of the critics laid out clearly and succinctly? Nickbee 04:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee.

 * I was mistaken. I thought I remembered a short section on Jihad and women on the main page. I agree, one or two summary paragraphs should be on the main page with links to the Jihad and Women in Islam pages.

 * What I was opposing was trying to put the entire Jihad debate on the main page, or giving the impression that all Muslims think Jihad is what Osama Bin Laden thinks. A lot of topics on the main Islam page need to be summarized and moved to a separate page. Cunado19 05:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

what do I consider decent anti-Islamic sites?
besides websites that I consider hilarious, but less-than-academic ("Attack of the Mujahid Tomatoes"), well, the Internet may not be the best place for that (there's books, remember?), but what about this: ,. It's biased, it knows it is biased and it is lucid, coherent and doesn't indulge in ranting. Can you believe it? Rational criticism, no ranting about pedophilia or evil moon cults, or sinister armies of haters of freedom. Critics of Islam: more like this, please. dab (ᛏ) 17:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[copy-paste of ffi links section by removed]

 * Pasting the links section of FFI with the commentary and all is very unhelpful. gren グレン 05:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The title of the section is "what I consider decent anti islamic links sites", do you have others to add?
 * It is dab replying to what anti-Islamic sites he finds to have some integrity. The reason is because those sites you listed obviously are not all good.  I say obviously because you have a Swedish site linked... not to mention many blogs.  As for something I think might provide a decent critique of Islam (I have not read it all but it surely is not completely ranting drivel) The Literary Critique of Islamic Popular Relgiion in the Guise of Traditional Mysticism, or the Abused Woman by Jamal Malik.  I found it while researching but since I haven't fully read it I don't know if it's good source.  It is a critique and I'm not sure if it is intra-Muslim or not but I don't see why that would matter.  It was published in Die Welt des Islams so it is slightly more credible than our geocities  hosted sites posted above. gren グレン 08:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject
Hi!

I wonder if this guild is anything that you may benefit from, and in that case, feel invited to sign in :)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild

Have a good day :)

--Striver 01:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed contemporary Islam section
OK, I wrote a new section on contemporary Islam. It's way too long, but I'm too tired to try to cut it down. Let's see what others think of it in its current form. Still needs some wikifying and a list of terrorist incidents (I didn't know the exact titles of the articles). Zora 09:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Most contemporary Muslims still live in Muslim-majority countries. Many of these countries recognize an official relationship between the state and the Islamic faith, though the details of that relationship vary dramatically from country to country. Mosque-state relations run the gamut from Turkey (an aggressively secularist country) to Iran (where the state is run by the Shi'a clergy). Some of the countries that grant a special status to Islam are still relatively tolerant of other faiths; others, like Saudi Arabia, forbid the practice of anything other than the official Wahabi (or Salafi) faith.

There are also some countries, like India, where there is a sizable and long-established Muslim minority. All these countries are part of the old Dar-ul-Islam, the Muslim realm.

Muslim life and belief in the Dar-ul-Islam, the world of Islam, is shaped by centuries of tradition. In many cases, that tradition is heavily Sufi-influenced. Traditional Islam often consists not only of Fridays at the mosque, but also of pilgrimages to the shrines of Sufi saints, membership in traditional Sufi orders, and the leadership of Sufi teachers.

This syncretic, tolerant Sufi-influenced Islam is on the defensive. Various reform movements, such as the Salafi or Wahabi and the Deobandi, have denounced this traditional Islam as idolatrous (shirk) and an innovation (bid'ah) upon the "pure" Islam of Muhammad's time. They turn their backs upon the rich tradition of Muslim figurative and decorative art and build mosques as plain as warehouses. They tear down the tombs of saints, forbid community celebrations of Mawlid (Muhammad's birthday), and stress a strict legalism rather than Sufi mysticism. This movement is far from unified. There are many currents within it. However, the Saudi Arabian Wahabi tendency has been dominant, thanks to the torrent of Arabian petrodollars that has been diverted to missionary work and the building of mosques and schools in many countries throughout the world.

Another strain in contemporary Islam is liberalism. Islamic liberals are recasting Islam in a form that they feel is fully modern, fully compatible with living an ordinary life in a Western-style secular state. Islamic liberals tend to have had Western-style educations, to respect Western secular learning, and to reject what they see as ossified traditions and repressive, antiquated clerical establishments. They argue that the Islamic law, or sharia, needs to be reconsidered in relation to modern times; interpretations that assume the social institutions of seventh century Arabia, or tenth century Baghdad, are inadequate and out-dated. They demand the revival of the principle of ijtihad, or independent reasoning by a qualified Islamic scholar, which has lain dormant for centuries. They form a third strain in modern Islamic thought, neither Sufi nor Salafi.

Conflicts between these three strains of thought are most pronounced in the Muslim diaspora, the old Dar-ul-harb, the portion of the world where Islam has not been historically predominant. Since World War II, there has been an ever-increasing migration of Muslims into Europe, Canada, the United States, and Australia, in search of education and economic opportunity. While there is a tendency for Muslims from certain areas to congregate (Pakistanis in the UK, Turks in Germany, etc.), Muslims in diaspora are often of diverse origins and different Muslim traditions. It is a difficult task to form functioning communities, with associated mosques and schools, from such disparate materials in completely new conditions. Adding to the complexity are increasing numbers of Western converts to Islam. The largest group of these are African-Americans in the U.S., who bring their own culture to the mosque.

Is the neighborhood mosque to be Sunni or Shi'a, Sufi, Salafi, or liberal? Should Saudi Arabian money be accepted for construction and books? Should the Friday sermons (khutbah) be delivered in Turkish, Urdu, Farsi, Moroccan, English, French? If there is a school, what should it teach? How are imams and teachers to be recruited? All these questions have roiled or split Muslim communities and often led to a proliferation of mosques serving different ethnic communities and strains of belief.

These conflicts have become of great concern to non-Muslims insofar as they facilitate the spread of the religio-political ideology of Islamism. Islamists reject Western political theories, such as the socialism and nationalism that were once preeminent in the Arab world, and insist that the Muslim community, the ummah, will only regain its former power and unity if it returns to its Islamic roots. They want state to function like the Medinan community under Muhammad, obedient to a religious or clerical leader, and subject to Muslim law, or sharia. Many of them dream of a unified world Islamic state, covering the whole globe, uniting the ummah, leading humanity into the Islamic fold.

Islamism has been extremely attractive to some idealistic young Muslims.

 * It is an ideology of protest against repressive, corrupt, autocratic governments in Muslim-majority countries.

 * It is an ideology of protest against Western interference in the affairs of Muslim-majority countries, against colonialism.

 * It is an ideology that provides an identity to some second-generation Muslims of the diaspora, who reject assimilation and assume a new Muslim identity that distinguishes them both from their Western surroundings and from their more traditionalist parents.

Islamists are a minority among Muslims, both in Muslim-majority countries and in the Muslim diaspora, but they are newsworthy out of all proportion to their numbers because of their belief in direct action -- violence -- as an acceptable means of bringing about the Islamist millennium. Shi'a Islamists overthrew the Shah of Iran and have attempted to export Shi'a Islamism to surrounding countries. Sunni Islamists such as [[al-Qaeda temporarily had their own state (the Taliban of Afghanistan) and have been responsible for numerous high-profile, high-casualty terrorist incidents such as (insert links). Sunni Islamists are usually extreme Salafis. (Some Salafis regard them as heretics, and call them Qutbis.)

For majority, non-Islamist contemporary Muslims, dealing with the threat that Islamism poses to their own safety and security is a pressing issue. Islamists seem prepared to kill other Muslims in pursuit of their goals. Islamism threatens whatever assimilation and acceptance the Muslims of the diaspora have been able to achieve. However, the Muslim communities, fractured as they are both in the Dar-ul-Islam and the Dar-ul-harb, have so far been unable to speak with one voice in condemnation of Islamism.

See User:Grenavitar/Contemporary Islam to help get this ready to be put onto the Islam page

 * HI Zora, the section is I think all encompassing, except for few things

 * 1 . Dar-al-islam & dar-al-harb ... I dont think these termonologies are relevent now . Since we are dealing with "contemporary Islam", so some other better word should be used.

 * 2 . a special status to Islam are still relatively tolerant of other faithsexamples sholud be given, Malaysia, Lebneon e.t.c.

 * 3 . There is a difference b/w salfi& wahhabi.

 * 4 . In many cases, that tradition is heavily Sufi-influencede.g.Indian sub-continent, north africa, Iran, turkey

 * 5 . Deobandi is a very different thing then wahhabi .Deobandi

 * 6 . They turn their backs upon the rich tradition of Muslim figurative and decorative art and build mosques as plain as warehouses. They tear down the tombs of saints, forbid community celebrations of Mawlid (Muhammad's birthday), and stress a strict legalism rather than Sufi mysticism.

 * Deobandi mosques arnt plain as warehouses . They dont tear down tombs of saints ( Wahhabis do it ), Mawlid is forbidden by a lot of them, stress a strict legalism rather than Sufi mysticism. is again not very right

 * 7 . Islamic liberals tend to have had Western-style educationsthere are a lot of Muslims who get western education, doesnt have to be liberals . Alot of Wahhabis and others do it

 * 8 . In between Sufi & Salafi, there are a lot who are not any three of them . So this sentence shouldnt be used.

 * 8 . Is the neighborhood mosque to be Sunni or Shi'a, Sufi, Salafi, or liberalthere is no Sufi or liberal mosque

 * 9 . Should the Friday sermons (khutbah) be delivered in Turkish, Urdu, Farsi, Moroccan, English, French? If there is a school, what should it teach? How are imams and teachers to be recruited?

 * One part of Khutba is always in arabic, the other in mother tongue . Can U explain about school & teachers , makes no sense to me.

 * 10 . Sunnis arnt salfis . About Iran, why are they Islamist.

Farhansher 20:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Frankly, this is total nonsense. Almost all of it is factually incorrect, none of it sourced, and is almost certainly original research. The section has no clearly defined content, and no clear purpose or thesis. There is no need for the inclusion of this section. --Zeno of Elea 13:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I take special exception to the claim that nations which have a sizable minority Muslim population are part of Dar al-Islam; Zora ought to know full well how factually incorrect that is.Ni-ju-Ichi 14:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Dar al-Islam (abode of Islam) is an Islamic legal concept that can only be understood in terms of the related legal concept of Dar al-Harb (abode of war) and in the context of an Islamic state led by a Caliph. It is an ideological utopian ideal that has rarely been a true historical reality, as the Muslim world has been fiercly divided for most of its history, resulting in several different competing "dar al-Islams" fighting eachother with disputed claims to the Caliphate going all the way back to the schism between Shiahs and Sunnis. A region did not have to be a Muslim majority to be part of "dar al-Islam," as the Moghuls claimed the title of Caliph and ruled India as a "dar al-Islam" despite Muslims being a minority in India. Similarly, the Ummayads ruled over Visigoth Christian Spain as a minority, and Al-Andalus was undoubtably considered as "dar al-Islam" before the Abbasids overthrew the Baghdad Ummayad Caliphate and Al-Andalus became a seperate empire ruled by the Ummayad. But to use the phrase "dar al-Islam" in the context of present reality is clearly wrong. "Muslim majority" was never the requirement for a region to be considered "dar al-Islam" and in the absense of a Caliphate there is no clear defintion of which countries are "dar al-Islam" and which are not. The famous 20th century Muslim philosopher Sayed Qutb concluded that since "dar al-Islam" no longer exists, the whole world is now "dar al-Harb" (abode of war). Whether or not Qutb was right, the point is that "dar al-Islam" is a political term that is no longer applied in the modern political Muslim world (no country claims to be "dar al-Islam," and different views about Islam clearly lead to different ideas about what and where "dar al-Islam" is). It is a naive mistake to refer to modern nation-states as "dar al-Islam." --Zeno of Elea 16:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Sheesh. Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play? I'd like to know what is "factually incorrect". I'll agree that the older terms Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-harb may not not have been the best terms to use (I was just looking for usable verbal shorthand) and I'd be open to using others. But so far as I know, the rest of the section does represent the current state of Islam. I'll be interested to see what the Muslims here have to say, as opposed to the anti-Muslim team. I didn't cite and footnote everything, as it would involve lots of trawling through blogs like alt.muslim, but I don't think it's original research, it's just repeating what Muslims say about themselves. Zora 17:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Zora, but the fact is that you have 0 sources. It looks like original research to me, and this has nothing to with being Muslim or not being Muslim or being on some imaginary "anti-Muslim team." Your section uses the term "dar al-Islam" heavily, but now you've decided to retract this usage. I can't give you a suggestion for what to use instead of "dar al-Islam" because you use it in a number of different and inconsistent ways. Sometimes you mean "lands that were once ruled by Muslims" (e.g. India), sometimes you mean "Muslims" (easy enough to understand), sometimes you mean "Muslim majority countries" (like Pakistan), and sometimes you might mean "Muslim controlled countries" (like Malaysia). I don't really understand what this section is supposed to be about. An example of an unsourced and incorrect claim is: "Muslim life and belief in the Dar-ul-Islam, the world of Islam, is shaped by centuries of tradition. In many cases, that tradition is heavily Sufi-influenced. Traditional Islam often consists not only of Fridays at the mosque, but also of pilgrimages to the shrines of Sufi saints, membership in traditional Sufi orders, and the leadership of Sufi teachers." Sufism has a limited influence on Muslim society, especially when we're talking about "many cases" and "traditional Islam." Your article sets up the overly simplistic and insuffuciently inclusive dichotemies of salafi/deobandi vs sufi vs liberal Muslims. Then your article goes on to discuss Islamism in a completely erroneous and highly POV manner. This is not an article about Islamism, it is not the place to try to come up with defintions and descriptions of Islamism. You even have some strange, POV-driven claims about Islamism being anti-traditionalist and the children of Muslim immigrants in Western countries being somehow exceptionally attracted to Islamism due to (you claim) some sort Freudian psychoanlytic rebelion against "traditionalist parents" and "Western society." There is no reason to believe that there are more Islamists amongst the children of Muslim immigrants to Western countries than there are amongst the children of Muslims living in Muslim countries. You have written a lengthy, meandering piece here, a controversial powder keg, and you havent bothered to provide a single source. I really don't think that it's a good idea to have a seperate section in the article dedicated to the tenuous concept of "contemporary Islam," especially in the absense of sources and in the presence of unusual usage of the word "dar al-Islam." --Zeno of Elea 19:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Zora: Good start. However, you do need to decide from your 'start' whether this can be tightened up to be added in as a section of the Islam page. From Farhansher's comments and his "all encompassing" nature of it, I think it is very likely going to become another page with a brief intro on the Islam page and then a listing under see also. I suggest that before you write the various sections, you may want to make a list of the topics that need to be given under this topic. It would be a good idea since we are going to be reporting to always anchor the main topics to a definite source which then others can build and contribute. That should take care of zeno's objection of "new research". I agree with you that Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-harb is still a valid way to look at the politics of the world. However, some have also introduced couple of other variations such as House of Order (I cannot remember the Arabic form and would have to look it up) and House of valid Contract. Contemporary islam is definately influenced by political islam and its influence. I suggest that you start a page on Contemporary islam and make an outline of topics. Then you can farm out subtopics to people who have the time to pitch in. I would like to help.Nickbee 20:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

Zora: It's an interesting idea, but I have a few suggestions. There is no need to list all the terrorist attacks under the article Islam, that's a bit unfair and unbalanced. They were condemned by mainstream Muslims worldwide, and I think that including them all goes a bit too far. Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb is an outdated way to look at the world, it ended when the Caliphate fell, and now there exists no Dar-ul-Islam (Why else do terrorists strike in Muslim countries?). mr100percent 20:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Zeno, it's not nonensense ~_~ .... There are definitely areas that do need cleaning though.  Usage of Dar al-Islam and Harb need to be made clear, I thinke Zora was using them in a generic form as in Muslim world verse non-Muslim world but since they are often used in more specific definitions it needs to be clarified.  It is certainly not mainly factually incorrect unless you are attempting to twist the meanings that way.  One of my main problems is with the portrayal of Islamism.  I know that a great deal of it is violent and not friendly but not all Islamists are that way...  I studied Qutb for a while and he is quite interesting but.. there are certainly Islamists who take his "freedom of conscience" arguments very seriously and violence is one reason why freedom of conscience is not possible.  But, Islamists is definitely a mixed bag.  This is just an introduction so we do not need to explain the difference between salafi and wahhabi... they are similar but for such things it needs to be made clear that they are not the same.  Zeno, I believe you are being harsh and not necessarily constructive I do agree with a fair amount of what you say but help to fix his work, etc.  I have set up User:Grenavitar/Contemporary Islam with Zora's text (for now) for us to work together to make the section and maybe Contemporary Islam too out of this.  I hope this will help foster group work but if it doesn't then... it doesn't... please don't be arbitrary and work in accordance with thoughts and opinions from this talk. (and if this idea fails miserably I will move the reference to it from above gren グレン 21:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Making a new article on this subject might be a good idea, IF everyone agreed to stick to sourceable material. But adding this into the Islam] article seems like a very bad idea to me. --Zeno of Elea 21:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * What does the dispute between Sufi and non-Sufi Muslims have to do with contemporary Muslims? Sufis have been persecuted by the more othrodox since the begining. Such sectarian differences should be described in some other place, such as Sufism. Many historical sectarian differences exist in contemporary Islam. Is the article going to address ALL such sectarian differences? I think it's a certain sort of bias that is asking that particular attention to be given to one specific historical sectarian dispute between Muslims. Sufism is not just rejected by Wahabis or militants, and Sufism is not necessarily in opposition to "Islamism." Where Sufism does play an important role in contemporary Islam is its popularity in the West including heretical forms of Sufism that are very different from traditional Islam and can perhaps be thought of as Sufi movements with liberal movements within Islam. I think it is an overly simplistic, originally researched and fundamenally flawed hypothesis that contemporary Muslim sectarian differences are summed up as a rivalry between three groups ("Sufis," "Wahabis," and "Liberals.") --Zeno of Elea 21:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think this concept deserves a section shorter than what Zora wrote however. I believe you are assuming things that you shouldn't be about what Zora wrote but that leads me to believe the writing must be cleaned up in how it is written.  It's not about the sectarian debate, it's about how these struggles have led to the modern movements in Islam.  I don't think his thesis is so simplistic but if you are reading it that way help to make what he has written be more comprehensive yet concise. gren グレン 21:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Muslim Creed?
The article states that the Muslim creed is: "I believe in God; and in His Angels; and in His Scriptures; and in His Messengers; and in The Final Day; and in Fate, that Good and Evil are from God, and Resurrection after death be Truth. "I testify that there is nothing worthy of worship but God; and I testify that Muhammad is His Messenger." No source is given, and it is not explained what this creed is called, or where it comes froms. The Islamic creed is generally considered to be the Shahada, which is only the second part of the above "Muslim creed," and not the first part. Can anyone explain where this creed statement came from? --Zeno of Elea 16:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Try this source.Heraclius 16:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Your source does not contain the text, "I believe in God; and in His Angels; and in His Scriptures; and in His Messengers; and in The Final Day; and in Fate, that Good and Evil are from God, and Resurrection after death be Truth." As such, it is not relevant. You have merely linked to a particular Muslim philosophical school of thought. We know that the shahada is the Islamic creed. Where did this additional text come from? It clearly didn't come from the source you have cited. --Zeno of Elea 17:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Creeds are often built round either the shahada (as al-Ghazali's) or the tradition, which elaborates a kur'anic formula, that faith is faith in God, His angels, His books, His prophets, etc. (as Birgewi's).Heraclius 17:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * From your own source: The earliest and simplest creed is the shahada or confession of faith [q.v.], and this alone appears to be used liturgically. Though the term `akida is usually not applied to the shahada, there is a sense in which most of the later creeds are expansions of it. Sectarian discussions, however, also led to the development of doctrine, and an important source of the later creeds is the succinct formula defining the position of an individual, school or sect on some disputed point. I think the point is clear. The shahada is the liturgical creed of Islam, universal to all Muslims. Additional statements of creed are subject to sectarian disputes and vary depending on philosophical positions, such as those held by the philosopher al-Ghazali. I dont think that this "expanded" creed is entirely appropriate, especially since it is stated without reference to sectarian differences. --Zeno of Elea 17:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly the Shahada is the universal creed. Other creeds should also be mentioned, however.Heraclius 17:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Such a discussion belongs in Aqidah, not here. --Zeno of Elea 17:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

According to that very article, In Sahih Al-Muslim and Al-Bukhari, Muhammad explains, "It (Al-Iman/faith) is to affirm your faith in Allah, His angels, His Books His Messengers and the Last Day, and to believe in the Divine Destiny whether it be good or bad."Heraclius 17:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, well (a) not all Muslims believe in Sahih Bukhari (e.g. Shiahs, who don't believe in density at all), and (b) the wording of this hadith is not the same as the wording of the creed written in the Islam article. --Zeno of Elea 17:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's merely a different translation.Heraclius 17:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It is not muslim philosphy. This creed was enunciated by the famous Salafi ibn Baz.  It was the first line in his famous book on muslim beliefs.  Here is a summary of it: . It is by no means universally accepted in the muslim world. But recently because of petro dollars most young muslims usually will espouse the ibn baz line knowingly or  unknowingly.  Nickbee 17:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * However, looking at it again, I find it misleading because it is given in qoutes and it precedes the Shahada which is also given in quotes giving the mistaken belief that the first part is also needed. It is not.  Muslims merely need to say the Qalima to testify their faith; the first part is not required.  However shias tend to add some testament to Ali at the end as well. Nickbee 18:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Nickbee.
 * It should still be mentioned. But I agree that the universal shahada should be placed before it.Heraclius 18:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As Nickbee points out, there's no universal shahada since Shiahs add something about Ali to the end. --Zeno of Elea 20:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Then that should be mentioned as well.Heraclius 22:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
Users that have been crossed out are: 23:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Exmuslim:Account with less than 20 edits that have all been made to this article and talkpage with the re-adding of links.
 * Immanuel:Same as above
 * Siegerz:Same as above
 * Saduj Al Dahij:New satirical role account that is probably a sockpuppet
 * Ni-ju-Ichi:Confirmed sockpuppet of Enviroknot
 * Existentializer: Confirmed sockpuppet of Enviroknot

 * The above message is unsigned. Anyway, Wikipedia policy is that new users can vote in surveys and VfD's. Sock puppets, on the other hand, are obviously a problem for vote counting. But the cases of Ni-ju-Ichi and Existentializer are still open, and nothing has been "confirmed." Siegerz is obviously a sock puppet. I'm not sure if Saduj Al Dahij is a satirical role. --Zeno of Elea 23:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're not even trying to hide your bias. Siegerz is obviously a sockpuppet because his vote is pro-Muslim, but Ni-ju-Ichi and Existentializer are not because their votes are anti-Muslim?  Looking at their userpages it doesn't seem their case is open anymore.Heraclius 23:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Siegerz is obviously a sock puppet because this user account was registered right after Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG was started. SIIEG --> siege --> Seigerz. See? Existentializer and Ni-ju-Ichi's userpages say "SUSEPCTED" sockpuppets; the matter is still being decided by administrators. Ni-ju-Ichi has also been unblocked, contrary to what his userpage says. --Zeno of Elea 23:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please look at the blocklog . Unfortunately, Nijulchi was just re-blocked.Heraclius 23:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, and user Existentializer's username starts with an E. Enviroknot starts with an E as well.  That is the rationale that was used for blocking them as sockpuppets.Heraclius 23:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * that, oh, and identical behaviour, identical edit patterns, and identical IP addresses. You don't get any more rationale than that. dab (ᛏ) 07:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

discounting sock and newbie votes (Ni-ju-Ichi and Existentializer have both been blocked as socks of banned user Enviroknot), the vote is at 14:17 against linking ffi now. This is more support for the ffi link that I would have imagined, I admit, but it amounts to 'no consensus, no majority'. ffi is two clicks away from this page, which considering its overall relevance to Islam as a whole is certainly fair enough. Also, its content is virtually identical to the dmoz listing, people: nothing is being censored, this is about 'Wikipedia is not a link farm'. Therefore, pending significant changes in majority, I will continue to oppose addition of the link. dab (ᛏ) 07:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to discounting "newbie votes." It is Wikipedia policy that new users may take part in surveys. That makes it 15:17 against linking to FFI, and the poll has not ended yet. The question of the poll is not "should WIkipedia be a link farm." I am not sure what a "link farm" is, but perhaps you should start a campaign to delete all External Links sections from Wikipedia articles if that is how you feel. --Zeno of Elea 09:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * yeah, yeah, 15:17 if you like. roughly even, in any case. Note that for the board election, voting was reserved to editors with >400 edits. There is such a thing as credibility in the WP community, meaning your word will have more weight if you are well-known as a hard-working serious contributor, and less weight if you are only known as a troll or point-pusher. dab (ᛏ) 12:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Zeno, on controversial VfDs where there is constant talk about sockpuppets I have seen vote weighting... if they did that here then the odds would be incredibly off. gren グレン 12:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If polls are evil, vote weighing is satanic, I suppose, since it rewards not using the preview button and revert-warring. As far as I'm concerned, no clear majority, let alone consensus, for adding this controversial link is in sight. If people keep haggling about it, well, let's try weighing the votes by number of article space edits and see how it turns out. But I won't perform the weighing, I deign I have better things to do. dab (ᛏ) 12:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's necessary or even completely a good idea. I just know that it is done and was trying to make a point that this is not nearly outside of the realm of fairness.  gren グレン 12:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The wiki way it appears is not within the realm of fairness. It is turf war between the priesthood of admins and those that have been admitted to it. Sockpuppets is a real phenomanon and perhaps the achilles heel of the wiki way. I am sure that there are a few sock puppets on the "no" side as well, and the incentive to create and maintain sock puppets is great given the way decisions are made here. It should come as no surprise that many regular editors will have sock puppets in reserve to win the occasional polls. There can be no consensus on controversial topics; that is the nature of the beast. Hopefully, it is not a matter of winning or losing polls but of delivering solid "free" information to everyone that is important. Nickbee 14:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee
 * that's why we don't vote whenever we can avoid it. This vote is a strawpoll, i.e. we invite people to express their opinion. The upshot is that the link has considerable support as well as considerable opposition, that's it. We conclude that there is no consensus for adding the link. In such situations, compromise solutions are welcome. I attempted one with the linking from the Opposition to Islam article, where the link is more on-topic. Importance is in the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia organizes information, and if you are looking for anti-Muslim sites, you will find them, ffi is two clicks away from this page. dab (ᛏ) 15:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There's also a link to Ali Sina and his website at the Apostasy in Islam article. I think that should be enough.Heraclius 15:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * " We conclude that there is no consensus for adding the link." That's a clever way of putting it dab, but it could just as easily be said "We conclude that there is no consensus for removing the link." --Zeno of Elea 05:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * But then it would not be a priesthood. New users banned wholesale without a warning for being sockpuppets.  Zeno you are not an admin.  Learn to kiss ass before you will be allowed into the brotherhood.Exmuslim 16:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Exmuslim

you really have a hard time hearing another's views. It is not an issue of looking for ANTI-MUSLIM sites! There is a lot of secular muslims and ex-muslims whose views you and gren knowingly or unknowingly suppress. I gave you the views of a muslim in UK the other day. There was another one in a candian paper a few days ago. Here is one from a pakistani paper and an inter view on Al-Jazzeera. All these are muslims speaking, not "Islamophobes" or muslim haters. It is their opinion on Islam that you are lumping as anti-muslim. This is what the muslims of UK are putting on their website: "Jihad is a powerful invigorating yearning for Islam's might and glory ... which makes you cry when looking at the weakness of Muslims today and the humiliating tragedies crushing him to death everywhere. " Jihad is to be a soldier for Allah. When the bugle calls ... you should be the first to answer the call to join the ranks for jihad." ....

And what does wikipedia's Islam page say? Wiki is not even organising information on the Islam page. You guys are drowning in your consensus with a bunch of people who are unwilling to consider any attempt at honesty and forthrightness.

July 30th issue: We are very touchy when we are criticized by westerners, so I am reproducing excerpts from another e-mail, this time from a Pakistani reader living in the United States:

“... a lawyer [of Pakistani descent] at the Justice Department ...informed us that ... more and more mosques are telling people present for prayers that ‘we need to have separate schools so that we could protect our children from American culture’... Finally, wherever we go, Muslims in general and Pakistanis in particular, we create and spread hatred, nothing else. I fear for the time when Christians, Jews and Hindus will put the rest of the work on hold and focus their undivided attention on eliminating terrorism around the globe. We cannot comprehend what will happen, but I guess that’s the only way out.”

Wafa Sultan: Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up? How and why does he blow himself up in a bus full of innocent passengers?

In our countries, religion is the sole source of education, and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched. He was not born a terrorist, and did not become a terrorist overnight. Islamic teachings played a role in weaving his ideological fabric, thread by thread, and did not allow other sources – I am referring to scientific sources – to play a role. It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity. It was not (the terrorist) who distorted the religious teachings and misunderstood them, as some ignorant people claim.

When you recite to a child still in his early years the verse: "They will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off," regardless of this verse's interpretation, and regardless of the reasons it was conveyed or its time – you have made the first step towards creating a great terrorist...

 Youth wing of UK Muslim group calls for jihad 01.08.05 By S. Malik Children as young as 11 are being targeted by radical Muslims who appear to have infiltrated a mainstream Muslim website, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. Literature aimed at children between 11 and 18 on the youth section of the Islamic Society of Britain (ISB) website calls on them to "boycott those who openly wage war against Allah".

The article containing that quote, entitled "Imam Hassan al-Banna on jihad", goes on to say: "Jihad is a powerful invigorating yearning for Islam's might and glory ... which makes you cry when looking at the weakness of Muslims today and the humiliating tragedies crushing him to death everywhere. "

Jihad is to be a soldier for Allah. When the bugle calls ... you should be the first to answer the call to join the ranks for jihad." .... Nickbee 17:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

Opposition to Islam
since trolling and haggling is apparently so much easier than writing encyclopedia articles (which is supposed to be the reason we are all here for, remember?) I took it upon myself to create Opposition to Islam, which should be linked from the see also here, once the article is unprotected. So far, the article is largely informed by the Catholic Encyclopedia. Note my caveat on the talkpage there: If at all possible, attribute every statement you make. Once that article expands and stabilizes, it can be summarized in a short "Criticism" section on this article. dab (ᛏ) 12:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I also made your === into == because I think that's what you wanted.... gren グレン 12:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ok, I may regret I did this yet. Minutes after its creation, I am already edit-warring over the article. Refreshingly, with a pro-Islamic editor, for a change. All editors of good faith around here, please add it to your watchlist :) dab (ᛏ) 13:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It has been added to my watchlist (I hope I count as good faith) ...although, I no longer can tell the difference between pro- and anti-Islamic forces. gren グレン 13:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

btw, Zeno et al, I have added with my own fingers the ffi link page to the Opposition article, as a collection of anti-Islamic sites. I maintain that it is on-topic there, but off-topic here. Your precious site is linked from Wikipedia, at least twice now, so stop saying I want to censor things or am suffering from Islamophilia or whatever. dab (ᛏ) 13:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * On topic or off topic, the requirements for notability become less in sub-articles. gren グレン 13:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not "opposition to Islam" as far as I am concerned. The issue is providing a balanced and fair view of Islam for the english speaking world. That is not being acheived by what is on the Islam page. Take a look at the Islam pages on Encyclopedia Brittanica or the Encyclopedia Americana, and the difference of what is on "free" wikipedia and those "for subscription" services is redily apparent. A few phrases here and there on wikipedia Islam's page have been directly lifted off the other two, but the bias twowards Islamic proleytizing at wikipedia is unmistakable when one compares wiki with the other two encyclopedia. And the article written for Ency. Americana is by a group of muslims, and it comes accross as far more objective than what is on wikipedia! I am not sure whether it is possible to provide a real quality given the design by committee and turf protection bureaucratic mentality that appears to be institutionally fostered. I still hope there is some mechanism to improve the quality of the information provided on the Islam page, but I have not found a sensible way yet. I am hoping that the adage 'you get what you pay for' is not strictly applicable to general information. Nickbee 15:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * Nickbee, in what ways do you want to improve this article? Looking at the article, most of the sections are about what Muslims themselves believe.  Most of this article should not even be about POV or NPOV.  There are one or two sections, such as the Apostasy in Islam section and the one about Islamic law, that you could put criticism in if you really feel like it. Heraclius 15:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * As I can see there is far more criticism on Wikipedia than in my paper encyclopaedia Britannica set I own. You are going to have to explain what these major differences you are seeing between the major encyclopedias and this one.... gren グレン 17:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, look at my attempt above about what should be on the page. Look at the very first section, the section is repetious. The muslim creed statement in english is given in quotes suggesting that is what muslims assert. That is not true. It is a rehash of the information covered above it. Now you tell me which muslim other than the Quran only talks about giving Shahadatain (and it is a plural and not "two testimonies"). Muslims are obliged to give "Shahada". If creed is a mix of the Qalima and the Aqidah then let us state it. But muslims do not verbalise the Aqidah as a statemennt! Then there is absolutely no mention how central within Islam is the respect and love for Muhammad. Muslims attempt to emulate Muhammed because he is considered special. The article barely touches "seal of prophet" and the "final messanger" without even a nod what that implies. Again there is nothing mentioned on Women, nothing on Jihad, Nothing on the issues that a lot of muslims are struggling with these days. Again I am not saying the page should concentrate on these topics, but for crying out loud if they are important enough to go under "see also" they deserve a sentence or two. Now it is obvious gren has great deal of respect for Fazl-ur-Rahman but do a search on where he has been used by the islamic scholars following him and he is barely above Edip Yuksel level. Look at how the muslims after him have treated his views. Why is getting a central exposure here? Another example: Under symbols of Islam, there is no mention of hijab and that has become a symbol of Islam (why else does turkey ban it and why else would france make such a big deal about it?). The OIC did not sign the UN human rights but decided to put out the Islamic human rights charter, and there are differences there. There is a lot of how fast Islam is growing but why is that important or why that should be considered ... no context is provided. If we want to talk about the Islamic world and muslims then some organisation to the information is needed. +	-	There are a lot of other little details, but read the page with a clear and open mind and see how it is unintentionally reacting to a lot of criticism and not presenting what is central to understanding Islam and muslims in the present. I honestly believe that if you will clear you mind and not be defensive that I am trying to thrust on you an anti-islam view, and read the page, you will realise that it truly does read like a cheap dawa pamphlet from your not very intelligent but friendly imam. Nickbee 17:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee.

gren, here is the table of contents of the article on Islam in Encyclopedia Brittanica:

* Islam * The foundations of Islam o The legacy of Muhammad o Sources of Islamic doctrinal and social views o Doctrines of the Qur'an               + God + The universe + Man + Satan, sin, and repentance + Prophecy + Eschatology + Social service o Fundamental practices and institutions of Islam + The five pillars # The shahadah, or profession of faith # Prayer # The zakat # Fasting # The hajj + Sacred places and days # Shrines of Sufi saints # The mosque # Holy days * Islamic thought o Origins, nature, and significance of Islamic theology + Early developments + The Hellenistic legacy o Theology and sectarianism + The Khawarij + The Mu'tazilah + The Sunnah # The way of the majority # Tolerance of diversity # Influence of al-Ash'ari and al-Maturidi + The Shi'ah                     # Isma'iliI # Related sects # The SufiI + Other groups # The Ahmadiyah # The “Black Muslims” o Islamic philosophy + The Eastern philosophers # Background and scope of philosophical interest in Islam # Relation to the Mu'tazilah and interpretation of theological issues * The teachings of al-Kindi * The teachings of Abu Bakr ar-Razi # The teachings of al-Farabi * Political philosophy and the study of religion * Interpretation of Plato and Aristotle * The analogy of religion and philosophy * Impact on Isma'ili theology # The teachings of Avicenna * The “Oriental Philosophy” * Distinction between essence and existence and the doctrine of creation * The immortality of individual souls * Philosophy, religion, and mysticism + The Western philosophers # Background and characteristics of the Western Muslim philosophical tradition # The teachings of Ibn Bajjah * Theoretical science and intuitive knowledge * Unconcern of philosophy with reform # The teachings of Ibn Tufayl * The philosopher as a solitary individual * Concern for reform * The hidden secret of Avicenna's “Oriental Philosophy” # The teachings of Averroës * Philosophy * The divine law * Theology o The new wisdom: synthesis of philosophy and mysticism + Philosophy, traditionalism, and the new wisdom # Philosophy # Traditionalism and the new wisdom # Characteristic features of the new wisdom # Critiques of Aristotle in Islamic theology # Synthesis of philosophy and mysticism + Primary teachers of the new wisdom # The teachings of as-Suhrawardi # The teachings of Ibn al-'Arabi # The teachings of Twelver Shi'ism and the school of Esfahan * The teachings of Mir Damah * The teachings of Mulla Sadra + Impact of modernism o Social and ethical principles + Family life + The state + Education + Cultural diversity o Religion and the arts + The visual arts + Music + Literature + Architecture o Islamic myth and legend + Sources and variations # The Qur'an and non-Islamic influences # The mystics + Types of myth and legend # Cosmogony and eschatology # Tales and legends concerning religious figures * Muhammad * Other Qur'anic figures * Mystics and other later figures # Mythologization of secular tales # Tales and beliefs about numbers and letters + Illustration of myth and legend + Significance and modern interpretations * Additional Reading o General works o Education o Political theory and institutions o Islamic arts o Theology and philosophy o Islamic myth and legend

And this is what is given as the very first paragraph under there: major world religion belonging to the Semitic family; it was promulgated by the Prophet Muhammad in Arabia in the 7th century AD. The Arabic term islam, literally “surrender,” illuminates the fundamental religious idea of Islam—that the believer (called a Muslim, from the active particle of islam) accepts “surrender to the will of Allah (Arabic: God).” Allah is viewed as the sole God—creator, sustainer, and restorer of the world. The will of Allah, to which man must submit, is made known through the sacred scriptures, the Qur'an (Koran), which Allah revealed to his messenger, Muhammad. In Islam Muhammad is considered the last of a series of prophets (including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and others), and his message simultaneously consummates and completes the “revelations” attributed to earlier prophets.

Retaining its emphasis on an uncompromising monotheism and a strict adherence to certain essential religious practices, the religion taught by Muhammad to a small group of followers spread rapidly through the Middle East to Africa, Europe, the Indian subcontinent, the Malay Peninsula, and China. Although many sectarian movements have arisen within Islam, all Muslims are bound by a common faith and a sense of belonging to a single community.

This article deals with the fundamental beliefs and practices of Islam and with the connection of religion and society in the Islamic world. The history of the various peoples who embraced Islam is covered in the article Islamic world.

Do you detect a difference in style and content? Nickbee 17:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

well, not really, that looks like a perfectly fine article to me, and any of the sections you list yet absent here would be welcome. dab (ᛏ) 20:59, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Why is it not surprising that dab cannot detect a difference? Yeah, they would be welcome and distorted to present only the muslim view. Do you see honesty in Hirsi Ali's writings?  The key figure in the struggle between Muslim reformers and fundamentalists is Muhammad. Ordinary Muslims must be allowed to think clearly about the Prophet's moral example.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  The dhimmi admins here work overtime to make sure that information needed to think clearly is not available at wikipedia. Exmuslim 17:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Exmuslim

Okay,dab, you do not see a difference there. Let's try another example which should be very very obvious. This is what is said on Islam page: "In Arabic, God is called Allah, a contraction of al-ilah or "the only god". Allāh thus translates to "God" in English." Now go to wikipedia's page on Allah and see whether that is correct. If there is any dispute over that there, then how can the Islam page present it as a fact? Then the Islam page states: "Muslims believe that the God they worship is the same as the Judeo-Christian God. However, Muslims reject the Christian theology concerning the unity of God (the doctrine of the Trinity which regards Jesus as the eternal Son of God), seeing it as akin to polytheism." which gives rise to "You present muslims believe this ..." but why are you ignoring what christians or jews believe about "Allah". Do they in your readership not count? What is implied when it is stated that "muslims believe ..."? Then a need is felt to explain reject the concept of trinity by quoting the Quran and in the verse one sees: "Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son." Now some would suggest (and there is a long history to this particular religious discussion) that by rejecting the Son, it is far more than the rejection of the trinity. But the writiers are totally oblivious to this discussion on the chrisitian side at all. The perspective is that of the muslims and muslims alone. As I read more from Wikipedia, I am starting to realise that the "quality" of the articles is very very uneven, and there really is apparently no mechanism to rate, rank or correct for quality. That seems to be a built in limitation of the wiki way. So yes information is available, but how reliable and good it is seems to be a matter of the quality of the admins who managed to form a clique to control its contents, and block rowdy dissenters quickly and efficiently. Nickbee 17:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee
 * I am not sure I get you, but let me say that I am glad you seem to be taking an interest in Wikipedia articles. Now if you only start citing scholarly sources for the 'some would suggest', I am sure you will make valuable contributions to Criticism of Islam. As for "Allah", since it is an Islamic concept (but we duly note that Arab Christians call the Christian God Allah as well, but the Christian concept of God happens to be treated under Trinity and related articles), well, I don't see what you mean, surely it is pointless to cite Sikhs', Inuits', musketeers', goalkeepers' and marine biologists' views about Allah? As for your comment on Wikipedia article quality: well observed. And the workforce you have tied to this talkpage would probably equal about one or two excellent articles. But there is such a mechanism, kindly see WP:FA. The problem is less with content control, but with work. Writing articles is much more work than trolling talkpages. Locating scholarly references takes time. How many such references exactly have you brought forward in the time you spent here, again? Really, you can ramble on all day. If you'd just pick up some respected theologists' book, you could pile up references, and while we could move them around for pertinence, we could not 'censor' them. Wikipedia is all about citing your [academic!] sources. If only you could have learned that from reading a few guidelines instead of giving us grief for weeks. dab (ᛏ) 20:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Dab, I was trying to give you an example of how britannica steps through the minefield of controversy by not plunking itself squarely with a Muslims POV. But you do not want to listen. Shanes was correct that bickering on this page has been going on for a long time, and I wonder how much of it is contributed by the "controlling" editors abilities and knowledge of Islam. It is obvious that the bickering will keep on going for a long time. Nickbee 02:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * I am not sure how it is relevant to say that Christians reject that Christians may their God is the Muslims God... I mean, I wouldn't really care if it was added (and surely you cannot say Christians as a whole) but that would take a sentence or two and would be complete digression. From the outline I don't see how that Brittanica is much different (besides more orderly) than we are... but, of course paper is going to be more organized... in fact, I think a nessted outline page like that could be useful possibly.  In fact if you would like to help create a nice outline like that I think it might be useful (I'm not sure if wiki policy allows for outlines for subjects like that).  But, to me in the article structure it seems that we have more explicit critiques of Islam with the opposition page.  Really, please state more explicitly what you mean because I don't see it.  Feel free to come to my talk page if it's not pertinent to any article's specific talk page.  gren グレン 17:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

gren, I have taken your suggestion and started an entry on your talk page. Nickbee 19:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee.

Might I suggest that the links section is divided into two sections. One secton could be for pro and one for anti. Even the various factions in this debate should be able to agree if a site is either for or aginst. The reader can then make a more informed move to an external link. Having looked (briefly) at faithfreedom web site I am inclined to think it is a little anti for my tastes, but it is an example of some peoples opinion of Islam. An encylopedia should strive to be as NPOV as possible but that is not to say that it should sweep Non-neutral points of view (NNPOVs?) under the carpet.

Sorry - I'm not very good at editing stuff 4 Aug 2005

Interwiki
add Hungarian please: hu:Iszlám Marriex 15:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Setting up PRO and ANTI link lists
The links section used to have pro and anti sections -- as well as links to academic/neutral sites -- and it became a mess. If the only criteria is that the site be pro or anti, there are potentially thousands of sites to be included in each list. No one could agree on which of these sites were the most useful or notable, and the lists grew like cancer. I'm sure that the anon has good intentions, but we've tried that route and it didn't work! That's why we linked to the directories, so as not to have to argue about the choices. The editors who are clamoring for a links list would do better, IMHO, to go volunteer at DMOZ (they're a volunteer group just like Wikipedia) and make sure the DMOZ lists are comprehensive and well-organized. Zora 21:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Really appreciate the editors not being cowed to serve interests of any group. That would be like Muslims attempting to add anti christian links that promote their view. This current thought is all over the yahoo chat rooms. It has nothing to do with academic and scholarly work just opinions and hate. Hopefully this same approach is being applied to the Christian and Jewish pages. But doubt you will have people so dedicated to attach their proselytizing views and sites. User:creativeconsultinggroup 15:44, 4 August 2005

Apostasy- death penalty?
I was wondering, I keep hearing in Islam that apostasy requires the death penalty. I don't know how true that is. What source does that come from? I know treason is punishable by death, but is apostasy always treason in Islamic law? I would appreciate Qur'anic or other credible evidences to show this. Thank You. (---)

 * It's a somewhat sketchy situation. I believe most traditionalist would say that death is prescribed for apostasy under the Caliphate.  (I read a Shia source that said that was because it was akin to treason.)  We have the article Apostasy in Islam but last time I checked it wasn't so great... gren グレン 08:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Apostasy is punishable by death penalty. Check this link with references to the quran. However, you won't be able to add any factual information to any of the articles regarding islam. They are all watched by some sort of fundamentalist group that aims to dominate wikipedia (their words not mine). Check these users and ther comments in various islam related articles. user:Saduj_al-Dahij (read this guys user page, its scary), user:Farhansher, User:Anonymous_editor. It goes on, these have hijacked every article regarding islam and sugar coated everything. Any criticism against islam is not tolerated. Even links to external sites providing alternative views are not allowed. --MvD 09:12, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

 * "Saduj" isn't a Muslim -- he's an anti-Muslim bigot pretending to be a Muslim, in a highly offensive way. And the links are there, through DMOZ, or in the Criticism of Islam article. Zora 11:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Evidence about Saduj? The Criticism of Islam article is pathetic attempt to criticize islam. The introduction about Greek atheists is completely off-topic. Of course atheists are not going to many special exceptions for islam. So why mention it? The History of criticizing islam should talk about people/societies specifically criticizing islam. The article fails to mention that islamic nations are among the worst abusers of human rights around the world. Why aren't there any links to Homosexuality_laws_of_the_world? Perhaps because it shows that islamic nations are the most homophobic on the planet? The article on Women_in_Islam, it fails to explicitly women are considered sub-human in islam. E.g. they can't pray along with men, they have to do what their husbands tell them. The whole article smells of apolagists. Why? whats wrong with the truth? Whether you like it or not, islam promotes exism (come on start the usual BS, all muslims are liberals, only bin laden et al are bad, bla bla bla). There seems to be no article on wikipedia regarding the growth of fundemental islam. Why not? This issue is important? I am not syaing there should be more anti-islam articles. I just want a fair representation. The list goes on and on. The Inequality sections in Gender_roles_in_Islam is pathetic, it fails point out that islam is sexist. Everything is sugar couted. The Equality section lack credibility, it basically demonstrates that Islam is fair because allah will have same punishments for both women and men when they commit sin. They work, quote is just lame. Is that all the apolagists can come up with? --MvD 12:09, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

 * O_____O, So... we should write... "in Islam women are sub-human" and that will create neutrality? How do I stop smelling like an apolagist (sic)?  Please, read any other encyclopedia's articles on Islam... gren グレン 12:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying women are equal to men in Islam? I just proved you wrong in my prevous post. If its a fact that women are considered below men in islam, why shouldn't I have the right to let people know about that? Again why isn't there any information on the fact that islam and islamic nations are among the most homophobic societies on earth? Isn't that fact? In Russia there are a lot of homophobes, but certainly no one stones homosexuals to death? As I understand that is the common penality in many muslim nations and things like that do happen (recent incident in Nigierian north). I am not aaking for a total anti-islam viewpoint. I am asking for a balanced article that doesn't present people with a view that islam is all nice and caring about our rights and liberties. Readers have the right to know, and neutrality is not giving readers some BS. Of course, it seems that truth will be ignored. Do you understand that what your doing is just as bad as the hypocricy of the neo-cons and bush et al. You lying to people about reality. Get real, whether you like it or not, islam and islamic nations are of the biggest abusers of human rights and if anything the fact that the quaran can be so easily misinterpreted points out that something is not right. Just because everyone else writes BS about islam and fails to note the aweful way the treat everyone else, doesn't mean that what you are doing here is right. --MvD 15:15, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

 * Are women equal to men in Islam... well... it depends on which brand of Islam you take. A "nation being homophobic" speaks to the government's goals... and, I wouldn't say they always have the best governmental systems.  In fact the post colonial revolutions were often secular... or at least a great part that way... I don't think the Muslim Brotherhood was (or is) the biggest fan of the Egyptian government.  I'm lying to the people?  I believe I am trying to make it seem like a more than one sided issue... which seems to be a good idea because it is more than one sided.  So, are woemn equal in Islam? You say no.  I say sometimes.  How deceptive of me! gren グレン 01:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Usual bla bla. I shouldn't have expected more. Dumping islam's problems on government (not that government's don't contribute to homophobia). Ok, the revolution were secular, so? Whats you point? You just said that "its all the government and nothing to with the most liberal religion on earth, islam." So why the hell are contradicting yourself? Whether you like it or not, governments are usually do go hand in hand with what people want. Think about it, if people in Saudi Arabia consider laws about women not being able to drive and killing homosexuals wrong, wouldn't they try and do something about it? Or perhaps this group is a tiny minority? If islam is so liberal (as you want to make it seem by not pointing out that in most muslim governments killing homosexuals is ok) then aren't there any revolutions in these islamic nations, why are there not secret (liberal) movements against the government? You haven't addressed a single of my complaints (read my previous post about the women in islam page). All you've done is basically said "STFU, I am right you are wrong!" and other editors start saying things like "but christianity also bla bla" So what? Go edit the christianity section if you want to. just because other religions are bad doesn't make islam any better. Justify your "sometimes" with information. My side has loads of evidence. Islam mistreats women in wide variety of ways. Women have to listen to what their husbands tell them. They can get killed for having a relationship outside marriage. Women cannot pray in the same areas as men. The largest and most powerful muslim country bans women from driving and considers them to worth half as much as a male. Why have there been cases when women from countries that practice the extremely liberal and fair religion of islam gone to totalitarian nations like Canada to seek asylum due to gender related issues? After all, islam in its core believes that men a nd women are equal, no? And why haven't any Canadian women tried to seek asylum in Saudi Arabia? After all, islam considers men and women to be equal? And since the only court in use is the fair shariat, they would have nothing to worry about, unlike in their home country of canada? Right? Why are you so willing to ignore the impact of islam on human rights? why? Ignorance is what allows such terrible things to grow and become accepted. You how many people died for promoting human rights? And there you go, just brushing it off, (ah its only happens sometimes bla bla bla). You remind of the Russian government talking about chechnya, "everything is good and everything is developing, the situation will be normal tomorrow." --MvD 08:42, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

 * I don't think I could hide this even if I tried. Nor do I want to.  The government is not necessarily the folk.  My country allows abortion.  There is a huge anti-abortion lobby.  I don't claim to know what the individual Muslims think I just know that you don't either.  Your problem is you complete generalize "Islam mistreats women"... well, if I meet him I'll tell him not to.  However Muslims' theology can vary on this issue... and also on what mistreat means.  You seem to have a chip on your shoulder.  I have no problem with representing Islamic scholars and nations with Muslim majorities or interpretations of sharia that violate different human rights conventions... that's fine as long as its cited.  However you are just completely wrong, because you are saying these things are mandated in Islam.  I think Muslim  countries have loads of problems but... I fail to see your point in that.  ~_~ gren グレン 10:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not generalizing anything. You have to agree that, whatever your view on global politics and religion, nations where the official governments are islammic (aka islamic theocracies) have a very bad history of human rights abuse. In such situations you cannot say that religion has nothing to do with anything, its all the government. It's a theocracy afterall! Why isn't this not worthwhile information? Again, why is Stalin mentioned under the communism page? He had nothing to do with communism or the rule of the working class. So why are we making an exception for islam? You cannot say that there are no problems with hman rights within islam as a religion and as a political doctrine. Why are you willing to ignore things? I am not asking to be allowed to write some crap like "Islam is evil and threatens our civilization bla bla", all I want is a fair overview including the negative aspects. How is islam any more special than communism? In communism a bunch of morons created a dictatorship and called it socialist/communist, that's it. Yet in every page about communism, they are mentioned. Why shouldn't the same apply for islam? --MvD 10:05, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

Pakistan and Saudia Arabia have put apostates to death in the last 5 years or so. They have also executed blasphemers. An islamic statement on apostates is given by "The punishment of the apostate according to Islamic law, by Abul Ala Mawdudi, translated and annotated by Syed Silas Husain and Ernest Hahn 1994". It is availbale on the net. The islamic apologists will tone down the position articulated by Mawdudi, but the bottom line is that muslim apostates who openly and "vocally" express their apostacy are usually killed off by someone and the state does not have to take action. In the islamic tribal countries, blasphemy and/or declaration of apostacy usually ends up death by an angry mob before the state even gets a chance to step in. Do a search of the news and you will find a few cases sprinkled through out the muslim world Nickbee 19:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee.

 * Mawdudi is something of an extremist, guys. He's not the Muslim mainstream.

 * Every time there's another Islamist extremist bombing, there's another rush of critics into the Islam article. The critics seem to feel that they've got to save the world from Islam, and Wikipedia is the place to do it. Islam is seen as some sort of grand, monolithic conspiracy, presenting a nice-nice face to the world but really dedicated to terror, murder, the revival of the caliphate, oppression of non-Muslims, women, homosexuals, blah, blah. Snippets of the Qur'an, discreditable episodes from Islamic history, pronouncements of various extremists and wing-nuts, all are plucked out of context and presented as evidence for the Islamic Frankenstein that the conspiracy theorists have created.

 * I'm not a Muslim. There are many versions of Islam that I dislike extremely. However, I've got to be FAIR. I have to recognize that Islam is as fragmented as Christianity, even if the fractures in Sunni Islam aren't formalized as denominations. I can't take the words of some Deobandi fundamentalist as representing the views of a cultivated Alexandrian Muslim or a London Sufi, just as I can't equate Jack Chick and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

 * Now can we get back to trying to make a useful encyclopedia? Zora 22:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Dismissing Mawdudi as an extremist is the most outrageous partisan stand! Mawdudi is cited by more muslim writers and more muslim scholars than the minor figure of Fazl-ur-Rahman! Are Salafis more extremist than Sunnis? Mawdudi is the founder of Jamiat Islami a party that has millions of members in Pakistan. Why does a "buddhist" editor Zora feel the need to take sides and dismiss one voice of Islam over another? It is not a question of what you like and what you do not like as an editor. Deobandi school has an extensive history and people are dying in Pakistan as the Deobandi are exerting their power over the other branches of thoughts in Islam. Why not report as factually as possible what is out there? Mawdudi is a voice in Islam, not the only voice, perhaps not even a determining voice, but his voice is in the camp of those who have led to the ideology of Osama and Aymen Zawaheri. This is a prime example of what is wrong with the set of editors that are controlling the pages of Islam. They are censoring information and crafting it instead of honestly trying to present all sides of it. Have apostates been put to death in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia or not in recent years? Archbishop of Canterbury not withstanding! The voice of Mawdudi is more influential in the Islamic world right now than the London Sufi's. That is a fact and an encyclopedia should report it honestly. Nickbee 22:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee.

This is what wikipedia says about Mawdudi:" Maulana Maududi’s philosophy, literary productivity and tireless activism contributed immensely to the development of Islamic political and social movements around the world. Maulana Maududi’s ideas profoundly influenced Sayyid Qutb of Egypt’s Jamiat al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun (“Muslim Brotherhood”) another leading Muslim philosopher of the 20th century. Together, Maududi and Qutb are considered the founding fathers of the global Islamic revival movement." On one page he is the founding father of global Islamic revial movement and here Zora is dismissing him as an extremist! Go figure! Nickbee 22:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

STOP. Way off topic. to clarify some things, in Islam, men and women ARE equal, not gonna get into that bc its off topic. Last verse in faithfreedom.com link is not contradictory, dont wanna get into that either. Back to apostasy, none of those verses clearly say that apostasy must be punished by death. Some of them even seemed to say that God will be responsible for their punishment. Do I think apostasy isn't necessarily punishable by death? No, I'm not sure, but those verses aren't exactly proof either way. If someone wants to discuss this or any other Islamic points of view with me, my email is lose6060@yahoo.com. Thanks. (---)

 * The thing is... it varies from group to group and we have to recognize that here. There are surely Muslims that have a good and coherent theology that allows for equality of women and freedom of religion... but, there are definitely some that do not.  gren グレン 02:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Evidence? How are men and women equal in islam? If islam considers them to equal and all the sites in the internet that provide references to the quaran demonstrating the opposite are just doing that because of hate without any reason. You know after all, muslim women have the most rights in the world. Look, they can wear what they want, they don't have to listen to their husbands as men aren't considered the leaders of the family in islam. Lets just say, that you are right and islam in itself considered men and women to be equal. So where do all those sexist policies in muslim nations come from? Your excuse would be that they are not proper muslims. Ok, fine? So, that doesn't mean we shouldn't mention the fact that a considerable amount of people who call themselves muslims are responsible for a whole range of human rights abuses. Take a look at the communism page. Stalinism is mentioned even though it has nothing with true communism. The whole events of 1917 in Russia in reality have nothing to do with communism, though they are mentioned because thos people called themselves communists. The same should apple to islam. Whether you like it or not, calling conservative muslims, "not real muslims" doesn't change the fact that a large amount of self-proclaimed muslims are involved in human rights abuse. --MvD 08:44, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

 * Yes, and a number aren't. I don't think we should take either group as completely representative of Islam. Instead, we should describe the currents of opinion within current Islam. I tried to write a section doing that and got howled down. MvD, I'd suggest that you broaden your horizons a bit. There are two blogs that I read: alt.muslim and ijtihad.org. Neither is updated all that often, but there should be backlog of old articles keeping you busy. Those are blogs for "progressive" Muslims, who are just as unhappy as you are about abuse in the name of Islam. Sure, they're a minority, but I wouldn't want to write anything about Islam as a whole that lumped those guys together with the Deobandis and the Wahabis and the violent Islamists. Now it is possible that you are of the ilk that would see them as simply deluded, trying to turn Islam into something that it can't be -- much like someone I know on Usenet who sees any well-meaning progressive or leftish politics as inevitably leading to Stalin, Mao, and "piles of skulls" (his favorite phrase). But if you're going to make that argument, you should be do so knowing something about the progressives, rather than generalizing from the other extreme. Zora 10:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Did I ever in any of my posts say that liberal islam is impossible and that everyone who tries to change it is deluded? Why are putting words in my mouth? Read all my posts in this discussion thread, where do I say anything like that. For your information, I actually believe that the west should do everything to support and spread liberalism within Islam. I would love if richer nations started a more diplomatic foreign policy and initiated programs like student exchanges and funding of pro-democracy movements. What worries me about the present Islam page is that it fails to demonstrate that at least indirectly islam promotes human rights abuses. To the apologists editors these abuses might not seem like much, but to me they are important. People gave their lives to secure our liberties and I don't want them just ignored in the name of someone's agenda. --MvD 07:50, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. People arguing that apostates are not executed in Islam. This is absolutely revolting. The fact that the apologetic point of view is so easily pushed into articles brings the fundamental credability of wikipedia into question. Anyone who doubts that apostates are not executed in Islam or thinks that it has anything to do with apologetic bullshit about "treason" should carefully read over Martyrs of Cordoba. Fact is that certain "apostate" editors right here on Wikipedia are liable to be executed for what they write about Islam, and meanwhile we have Western liberal apologists for Islam explaining to them that penalties for apostasy are really just about political treason and are a bygone relic of the era of the vile imperial "caliphate." It certainly is true that the classical madbhabs had differing views of the penalties for apostacy. But it amounts to pedestrian apologetics to deny the basic fact that the death penalty for apostacy from Islam it is widely believed in and practiced in the present day and throughout the history of Islam. As for the Islamic treatment of women - you have to be kidding me. --Zeno of Elea 13:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, your broad generalizations are getting a bit stale. What do you mean "apostates are executed in Islam"? What do you mean by Islam? The Islamic world? Societies where there are Muslims? I can tell you that there are countries in the Arab/Muslim world where apostates are not executed, take Lebanon/Syria/Jordan. There are conflicting opinions about whether or not apostates should be executed. Furthermore, The Martyrs of Cordoba was one incident over a millenia ago. It has little or no relevance today.Heraclius 15:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Martyrs of Cordoba was one incident over a millenia ago. It has little or no relevance today Why is that? Has Islam changed since then? hAH. It's also conveniently not being mentioned that while there is debate over whether or not to execute all apostates, there is a far more agreement on executing blasphemers. --Zeno of Elea 21:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Martyrs of Cordoba is an age old story, things change . Ever heard of Ijtahad , Ijma e.t.c. Thats why we have Malki madhab after Hanafi , & Hanbali after Malki . Farhansher 04:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Women's Rights in Islam
How about we mention these? Or is the truth verboten as it relates to Islam?

Qur’an 33:59 “Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and all Muslim women to draw cloaks and veils all over their bodies (screening themselves completely except for one or two eyes to see the way). That will be better.”

Tabari IX:113 “Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.”

Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’” —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.109.206.212 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 5 August 2005.

 * I fixed your markup since you made your text run off the page. I also add the unsigned template.  For future reference you can add ~ to stamp your posts.  And, what kind of translation of 33:59 is that? gren グレン 21:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The widely accepted translations of 33:59 are: 033.059 YUSUFALI: O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. PICKTHAL: O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. SHAKIR: O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. There is no mention of one eyes or two eyes. As Bidawi in UK stated in the last couple of days that the injunction to cover was to avoid harm and being molested. But the muslim dress in the west has become a "political statement", especially the hijab (see Amina Wudud's statements on it), and may end up becoming a cause of harm and hence against the Quranic injunction. Further Muslim female writers are suggesting that the traditional chador or Burqa might be the result of interpretation by the male dominated Islamic heirarchy (See Asma Barlas for example in "Believing Women" in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Quran; Qur'an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective by Amina Wudud; or Standing Alone in Mecca : An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam by Asra Nomani). However, I do agree that there should be some mention of Women in Islam on the Islam page with a link to the page on Women in Islam. Nickbee 22:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee
 * Surprising (sic) that a religion invented by a medieval Arab male would reinforce the male hierarchy. Oh, but that would be "POV" - in order to be "NPOV," we have to assume that Islam wasnt an invention of medieval Arab men. In addition we have to admit to the possibility that not only was Islam not an invention of Arab men but that it is sexist only because Arab men AFTER Muhammad accidently MISinterpreted Islam (which of course was invented by Allah and as such requires a great deal of mystical spiritual Arabic knowledge in order properly interpret). The concept of sexism being immoral and unethical is a modern idea, it has little to do with the customs and beliefs of older societies and the belief systems that they produced  - but of course, in order to appease fanatical apologists, we have to make an exception for Islam.  At least for now (Reuters is reporting that Wikipedia is introducing tighter editorial control ). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeno of Elea (talk • contribs) 09:57, 6 August 2005.

 * You see, your scepticism (and about the 4/5 billion non-Muslims in the world as well) does not mean that we do not report Islam's claims. There is no assertion of their validity just a reporting of their theology.  Zeno, I would hope by now that you knew what an encyclopedia was.  It's not a litany of your views and it is not ironic in the least that Islam should mention primarily Islamic views and not anti-Islamic ones.  As, you see, it is the Islam article.  Thanks for that article, it was interesting.  I'm also think that had Jimmy Wales seen the crescent moon on Allah instead of Palpatine on Benedict he might have come to the same conclusion. :) gren グレン 20:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * gren, I would hope by now that you knew what an encyclopedia was. It's not a litany of your silly liberal apologetic views and it is not ironic in the least that Islam should mention primarily Islamic views and not your silly fringe views on Islam. --Zeno of Elea 21:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Zeno, what's the point of calling people liberals? All that does is further reaffirm my view of you, that is you are a neo-conservative Christian polemicist living in South Carolina.  Your experience with the Islamic world probably consists of a 2 minute chat with some gas-station worker.  Please, give it a rest.Heraclius 17:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I also feel Zeno is on the fringe of WP username policy. I cringe to see the name of Zeno of Elea associated with such an agenda, and to have to address as Zeno somebody with such a thinly-veiled religious conservative agenda. If he was at least arguing from an atheist or philosophical perspective! I would suggest change of username to User:Calvin and Hobbes or something. dab (ᛏ) 18:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "I also feel Zeno is on the fringe of WP username policy. I cringe to see the name of Zeno of Elea associated with such an agenda" I will have you know that I'm an expert mathematician and this is the reason for my choice of username. You need not worry, I'm quite fit to be called Zeno.
 * "If he was at least arguing from an atheist or philosophical perspective!" NEWSFLASH dab! I am arguing from a philosophical, atheist perspective. WHat the hell other perspective do you see me arguing from? Calvin and Hobbes! STOP THAT, I could come up with a litany of user names for all of you too, but that would violate WP policy. --Zeno of Elea 01:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If you're arguing from a philosophical, atheist perspective, why the labeling of others as "liberal"? You're not hiding this too well, Zeno.  I really couldn't care less if you're a rocket scientist, that gives you no right to go around Islam-related articles calling people liberals and disputing every one.Heraclius 01:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "If you're arguing from a philosophical, atheist perspective, why the labeling of others as "liberal"?" I think you are having severe difficulties understanding the discourse here. Maybe you should review Liberal movements within Islam. Perhaps you would like to file VfD against that article. By the way, could you explain why you are going around calling people "Christians from South Carolina?"  --Zeno of Elea 01:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, so you called Gren "liberal" as in a "liberal Muslim"? Like I'm going to believe that.  You were definitely referring to liberal as in political views.  The reason I called you a Christian from South Carolina (which you are) is because of your labeling of people as liberal.Heraclius 01:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not calling gren anything. I do not know what gren's religious beliefs are, though I have my own theories, but I have never and never do call anyone anything on Wikipedia. I do, however, categorize specific ideas and rhetoric as I see fit. I argue against the idea, not against the person, and I would advise (from a strategic viewpoint) that you consider doing the same. Just so that you have some idea of what I'm trying to convey to you, you should know that calling people "Christians from South Carolina" is an example of what is meant by "arguing against the person." Not to mention the fact that your open prejudice and hostility against members of the Christian faith and inhabitants of the southern United States is inappropriate and shocking in and of itself.  --Zeno of Elea 01:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no open prejudice and hostility against members of the Christian faith from the southern United States. I do, however, believe that such people have specific POV's to push and have little to no experience with the Islamic world besides polemical writings on the internet.  You were, in fact, arguing against the person when you used the word liberal.  You can continue to claim that you are speaking of "Liberal Islam" but you were referring to liberal in a political sense.  I have seen the word liberal used too many times against people who defend Islam to believe that it is referring to anything but political views.Heraclius 02:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Either way I'm not Muslim so referring to me as a liberal Muslim is rather odd... and my political views are rather mixed. So... uhhh? gren グレン 02:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not refer to you as a liberal Muslim. See above. --Zeno of Elea 03:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, sorry, I was just basking in all of the attention. It makes a man feel warm inside. gren グレン 15:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Is a "liberal Muslim" a worse insult than "Such views may have stout majorities in certain bible thumping communities, but thank goodness not anywhere in the civilized world (which would of course cease to be civilized, so that's really a null statement) dab (ᛏ) 19:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)" or "Christians from South Carolina"?  What is wrong with christians from South Carolina? Nickbee 01:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

When was the last time the uncivilized bible thumpers of South Carolina celebrated the death of the Kaffirs in the London tubes of 7/7? You guys don't push your POV? Take a look at the civilized world of London: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1724923_1,00.html  Nickbee 02:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * What could possibly be the relevance of that? gren グレン 02:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You can lead a horse to the water,... as they say. The relevance is 1) this is the Islam Page 2) The news is about people who claim to be representing Islam 3) if you would care to read the article you would see the difference between real actual hate and some people expressing their frustration 4) what information on the Islam page would allow the wiki readers to understand how could these people be claiming to be muslims? Does Islam really suggest as Bakri says in the interview that a toe of a muslim is better than the life of a kaffir? And there are questions about women that also arise from the news.  But are the "liberal Muslim" mindset capable of ever seeing that real information needs to be provided?

Nickbee 02:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

Poll closed
The poll has officially closed, as of August 6. No consensus and no majority to remove or include the link has been reached. What now? --Zeno of Elea 17:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * my count would be about 17:13 against (let's spare ourselves the details, it's roughly 55%:45%). I said I would be swayed towards inclusion by a simple majority. This was not reached, but I recognize the link has some support. We have created Opposition to Islam, which, along with Islam and apostasy can be linked prominently from this article. I have no objections now to adding the link on these pages (although I still clearly consider ffi a hate site without notability or credibility, academic or otherwise), and suggest this is a fair compromise. I suppose the site may be notable within the realm of "Internet Islam-bashing", and since that may be a valid topic on the Opposition to Islam article, the link is arguably pertinent there. I will not start an all-out edit war should people add the link again here, but I will consider these partisan edits, and consider it within reason to prune the link along with other random links that may pile up from time to time. dab (ᛏ) 18:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * How can anyone consider this site valid? I just looked at the top article.  It's about nuking Mecca.  Here are some great quotes:
 * As Hiroshima saved more lives than it took 60 years ago, so will thoroughly nuking Islamic sites save more lives than will be taken otherwise, including possibly yours, mine, and your children and my children.
 * Our Persian allies in this effort need to understand that they will likely die with the Mullahs in the inevitable nuclear storm :which will follow should they fail. The Kurds of northern Syria are also salvageable, but there is hardly anything else worth :preserving in Syria. As I have been informed by Jordanian and Lebanon Arabs, Syrians are not to be trusted, and for reason.
 * No Hiroshima class atomic wimp-weapon will do, only the 1,000 times more powerful hydrogen fusion device will work for this :important job. To be done correctly, a grid of 9 of our most powerful Hydrogen bombs (3x3, every 12 miles, the black stone at the :center) are set off at the surface to be as dirty as possible, rendering the entire region uninhabitable for the next few decades. :The strike is then repeated every 5 years or so if any kind of clean-up is attempted. Medina needs one too, to prevent Arabs from :declaring the transference of the holy site to the secondary location, but Mecca needs to be thoroughly ‘glassified’.
 * I really don't understand how anyone can take this shit seriously.Heraclius 19:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh my. Make it go away, please.  Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  19:11, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * like I say, a hate site, and not a very intelligent one at that. What does it tell you about WP that we get a dozen editors who think this site adds valuable information to the Islam article? It's a point of view, granted. The point here is notability. Such views may have stout majorities in certain bible thumping communities, but thank goodness not anywhere in the civilized world (which would of course cease to be civilized, so that's really a null statement) dab (ᛏ) 19:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a clue why the US has the first and the second amendments to its Constitution? Even with a 55% to 45% rigged vote, your arrogance is an eye opener. "Such views have stout majorities in certain bible thumping communities, but thank goodness not anywhere in the civilized world?" And that is not hate? Hypocritical? Nauseating? Nickbee 00:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

dab (ᛏ) 07:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * so I am discriminating against people who advocate all-out nuclear religious war? how very arrogant and insensitive of me, I should be ashamed. I hope I will not be sued for emotional cruelty.
 * your amendments mean that you are allowed to stick your head up your ass as far as you like, the government will not come after you for that. that's it. I am not saying it is illegal in the US to call for the nuking or gassing of everyone that refuses to believe in Christ the Saviour. You are free to make a perfect fool of yourself. However, the amendments do not mean anyone is forced to listen to you, or to disseminate your propaganda. It's not hateful to call barbarism barbarism, and Heraclius' quote is a disconcerting example of barbarism.
 * If you cannot tell the difference between wikipedia and a hate site, you will probably never be happy here; that's good for you, and good for wikipedia.

 * You brought in "bible-thumping" as uncivilised without any provocation. Where did bible thumpers come into the discussion at FFI's article?  Where in that article did anyone talk about Christ the Savior?  Where in any of Vernon Richard's articles at FFI is there a mention of accepting Christ as the Savior? Okay you hate christians.  You have made that perfectly clear. Nickbee 15:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * Wow, how did you derive "hatred of Christians" from a denouncement of the idea of nuking holy sites?Heraclius 16:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Look at your post above quoting the stupid article on nuking. Then read dab's comment's below. dab states: "It's a point of view, granted. The point here is notability. Such views may have stout majorities in certain bible thumping communities, but thank goodness not anywhere in the civilized world (which would of course cease to be civilized, so that's really a null statement)" Now you tell me where does bible-thumping uncivilised communities came into the discussion? And then he proceeds to wrap himself up in self righteousness with :"I am not saying it is illegal in the US to call for the nuking or gassing of everyone that refuses to believe in Christ the Saviour. You are free to make a perfect fool of yourself. However, the amendments do not mean anyone is forced to listen to you, or to disseminate your propaganda." You care to explain to me where does Christ the Saviour comes into the article at all? Where does the author Vernon Richard talk about Christianty or Christ the Saviour? If that is not an outburst against christians and christianity, then I do not know what would be. Go ahead I am waiting to find out what is it that I am missing here. Nickbee 17:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * Are you really that blind? Are you saying that Vernon Richard isn't speaking of defending his religion, Christianity?Heraclius 19:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps I am. Please quote where Vernon Richard talks about defending his religion, where does he claim to be a christian.  Please quote me the sentence that he uses that even implies that he is talking about christianity and christians.  Please help me on this, I really would like to see.  Yes, often blindness prevents people from seeing the obvious, and I want to make sure that I am not blind.  So I will really and truly be grateful if you will quote the line, the words, the implications that bring christians and christianity into it. Nickbee 21:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

Page protection
The page has been locked since July 23, so we should probably think about unprotecting it soon. Do the editors here feel it needs to stay locked for any longer? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:05, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing has been resolved. The "established" editors are not interested in entertaining any steps to arrive at a NPOV on Islam. I expect that you will be asked to lock the page up again within a few days of unlocking it. The page will be edited and it will not be acceptable to many of the editors who have been controlling this page for some time now. Nickbee 00:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * Has this dispute still to do with the link? I don't find that website encyclopedic myself. It seems to accept submissions from anyone, and the article quoted earlier by Heraclius was absurd, yet it features prominently on their website. I can't vote because I protected the page, but if I had a vote, I'd say it shouldn't be used. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:42, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * The dispute is now no longer about the link. What the poll acheived is to demonstrate that there is about a about an even split between those who think the Islam pages are being controlled by editors who are way too sympathetic to Islamic POV and unwilling to entertain any NPOV editing, and those who want the page to reflect on the problem areas of Islam like women in Islam, jihad, treatment of minorites, treatment of dhimmis, lack of human rights, etc.  The hope of dab is that by offering subsidiary pages, the critics of the Islam page will be mollified.  If there was any hope of that happening, it just evaporated with  epithets like "bible thumpers uncivilized" and "North Carolina Christians" and "left wing liberals".  I suspect that the page will be edited and reverted and edited and this time it will not be 5 on either side but likely more, and the edits will be on substance and not merely a link.  Nickbee 01:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee.

Nickbee/Nick the Socialist, many of those epithets were used to refer to the article about nuking Mecca, which you as a supporter of FFI apparently back.Heraclius 03:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well actually it was going well ( like on other religion pages ) untill a regrouping of severe Islamophobic POV occured at that site. There are people here who like to add a picture of Moon on Allah, may be they wanted to imply something like Allah is the creater of Moon , Sun , Earth , ........ but I really doubt that . Also see other religion pages , like Christianity , Judaism , Hinduism . for examples on How/what to write on religion article. In hinduism , wife was supposed to be burnt alive with the chita ( burning dead body ) of her husband . I wonder... would it ever be added on main hinduism article . It was actually a muslim, Muhammad bin Qasim , who prohibited this practice . Likewise a lot can be written about treatment of gentiles/goyim by Jews/Judaism , I dont find it anywhere.

 * See the Judaism or Hinduism page, this is what religion article should be , it explains the basic concepts followed by that belief system & its followers . There is a difference in encyclopedia a thesis-anti-thesis forum . So unless these not so important aspects are discussed in all major religion pages , they arnt legitimate here.

 * Please make your replies brief.

 * Slim virgin, doooont unlock !!! As soon as you unlock it, there are gonna be multiple IDs & gazallions anon IPs trying to make this article NPOV. Just look at this talk page ,disgusting, is there nothing more important to discuss here then what FFI says or what Sina says.

 * AS for people who like to add Maududi & Syed Qutub as leading voice in Islam . Firstly OBL association is not the most important philosophy in Islam . there is a difference b/w encyclopedia & news paper . Secondly, I had asked this question before, & nobody liked to give the answer . What is the name of university/Jamia that gave Maududi his degree ????

Farhansher 04:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Go to the Judaism, Christianity or Hinduism page and edit whatever you wan to. All religions with a few exceptions are pretty similar. Btw, you also forgot to mention that your saint Qasim enforced degrading Sheriat laws in india and taxed all non-muslims to hell. And lets not forget about all temples and libraries that muslim leaders destroyed. While I am an atheist, I don't support the destruction of any temples. The reason why so many people want a more fair article about islam (even liberals) is that other religions aren't all that abusive of human rights. Overall christians are more or less ok with in comes to human rights, though they have their own set of problems. Same can be said about most religions except perhaps Budhism and Taosim. However, no other religion is as abusive of human rights as islam is. --MvD 16:26, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

 * So you dont want anyone to use Maududi or Qutb as a source. Which scholars, then, are we "allowed" to reference? Please tell. --Zeno of Elea 05:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Dab's idea seems like a good one - to have separate pages for criticism. If those who are critical of Islam stick to recognized scholarly sources and write in a disinterested, encyclopedic style, then perhaps some criticism could be allowed on this page too. Would the editors who don't want the criticism accept it if only academic sources formerly or currently employed by universities were used? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 07:37, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I support unprotection. Nickbee from evidence in this (the poll was about 'is this site controlled by Islamists'?!) and the preceding section (no comment necessary) I cannot take seriously as a good faith editor at this point, at all. A single troll, and a single link addition, should not be allowed to hold a major article hostage. I predict that the reverting will die down after a few 3RRvios. If not, we can always reprotect. dab (ᛏ) 07:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm inclined to agree with Dab. I'll wait until tomorrow in case there are other comments. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 08:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe it's because my glass of Ovaltine is half-empty at the moment but I predict a lot of annoying bickering with editors whom any time I try to talk with show me again and again that they cannot easily be worked with. It's pathetic that there was even an argument over the FFI link on a site claiming to be encyclopedic and to me shows how zealots can easily stop progress on wikipedia.  In the fray Zora, whom I remember fighting pro-Islamic POV when I got here, was disparagingly referred to as a Muslim.  I have no problem with legitimate criticism in context but when we're dealing with the mentality of "women have no rights in islam" - Gren:"No, it is very dependent on how one is practicing Islam" - "no, women have now rights in islam" you aren't going to get very far.  And about sources... there needs to be some criteria (or at least criteria that is adhered to) for articles mired in controversy.  Also a re-assertion that we are not here to interpret primary sources like Qur'an and hadith and then call it their religion would be nice. gren グレン 13:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * yes, we need to cut the usenet-style bickering. Too much time was lost over this. We must make sure to address well-cited and well-argued points, but we should decline to continue giving debate on such a pathetic level. I am biased towards quality (encyclopedicity), not towards either a pro- or an anti-Islamic viewpoint. I will decline to argue about websites or Muhammad's pants. People should either cite respectable secondary sources, or put up with the article as it is. dab (ᛏ) 14:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not think the page is acceptable as it is. It does need major changes. And I assure you that I intend to be bring in a whole lot of relevant secondary sources. And your outburst about Christianity and Christ the Savior is very useful. I am sure the stout majorities have internet connections as well and they will be delighted to know how a dawa page is being protected. If you guys did not like the FFI crowd, you are going to love the Club 700 crowd. Nickbee 18:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * Nickbee, what do you mean by that exactly? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Slim, I thought it was clear. When you start calling "bible thumping" as uncivilised and suggesting that the region of the world that has bible thumpers are uncivilised when the issue is that some stupid idiotic article on "Nuking Mecca" and that article or its author never said a word about christ or christianity to begin with and then when you start throwing around "South Carolina Christians" as insults you are likely going to attract the attetion of people who disagree with those opinions strongly.  Those people, I assume, are the audience of the 700 Club.  Wikipedia is a popular site with a heavy traffic, and I assume that it also attracts members of 700 Club and its associated sites.  They have a memebership in the millions, if I am not mistaken.  Comments like the above are just what might end up on the CBN network and I can just imagine a preacher intoning about atheist takeover at wikipedia, and you will have traffic.  Have you seen and read the comments on Islam by Pat Robertson?  You may want to and you may want to compare them with those at FFI and judge for yourself.   Nickbee 20:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * And as far as my writing style goes please take a look at the Apostasy_in_Islam page and its discussion page and that should clear up what I mean by secondary sources. I am a strict believer in reporting only secondary sources and opinions of others, and keeping my own out of the articles. Nickbee 21:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * Okay, I'm going to unlock it because I don't like leaving pages locked for ages, but there can't be any more personal attacks and reverting. Everyone has to source their edits to respectable, secondary sources, academics employed by universities wherever possible, and preferably non-partisan (or not too partisan). No dodgy websites, no personal opinions, and stick to a dry, disinterested style of writing. Happy editing! ;-) SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 09:08, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

DMOZ
I don't feel those links from Dmoz criticizing Islam do any justice for they are all nonsense and emotional sites. I think that the section Opposition_to_Islam created by the user above does more justice. I Thank You SlimVirgin for taking the time to properly maintain this page along with the other editors. Tehmasp 18:06, August 09 2005

 * I added your comments to a new section because, it's not really related to page protection. Okay, I added opposition to Islam in "See also" where it should have been and I re-added the DMOZ.  This is because you are going to need a lot of discussion to get users to agree on your removal.  In fact, there have already been a number of users that wished to add FaithFreedom which is far worse than that in my opinion.  If you remove the contra-Islam links then you also need to remove the Islam links... both are full of emotional and non-encyclopedic sites.  Internal links (as Opposition to Islam is) belong in See also, not external links.  So, if you can get a concensus here then you can remove the contra-Islam links but I really doubt it.  It is meant to give a broad view of sites crticizing Islam as the Islam directory is meant to give a broad view of ones about Islam.  They have their flaws but they are online directories.  Personally I think a wikimedia website directory for subjects would be interesting... but, that is surely not something coming in the near future so we must settle with the DMOZ (which you can help there and volunteer).  As I said I think both DMOZ for and against Islam have some pretty bad sites in them... but, that is the nature of online.  So, get a concensus before you remove that because we have spent much time already debating about external link issues and what we have now is a delicate balance.  Personally my view is keep them as they are... the DMOZ (for and against) are the best directories of Islam related sites I've seen.  gren グレン 00:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This debate might belong in Talk:Islam/External links - I think Zeno told me it is for current external link debates? I don't know... I don't think many people see that. gren グレン 00:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I agree that Opposition_to_Islam should have been under 'see also', sorry about that. But I was also consolidating because if you look those same dmoz links and faithfreedom are in the external links section of Opposition_to_Islam and thus don't need to be in the external links section for the Islam page again.  If people want to keep them then a new subsection should be created called 'Criticism' like on the Christianity page so that the user can see the difference instead of placing pro-Islamic sites next to anti-Islamic sites.  ALSO, in the external links section, the entire 'Islam and the arts, sciences & philosophy' should come before any list of sites critical of Islam.  I suggest doing the same as the Christianity page, that is having all the sites actually pertaining to the topic first, then any anti/pro sites that may seem controversial last.  Thanks, waiting to hear from you. Tehmasp 21:27, August 09 2005

 * I think Christianity lends itself to a different structure of external links than does Islam. With Christianity you have the Vatican website and websites of many central administrations... you don't quite have the same ability to do that with Islam.  If we made a pro and against Islam sections it would cause (as happened before) anonymous users just adding their websites and debates about what is worthwhile to add.  We have one link for the amalgam of pro sites and one for the contra sites.  Then we have encyclopedic sources which should parallel this article.  For Islamic art and philosophy we have allowed a section of a few links.  I know faithfreedom is two links away through opposition but a lot of other sites aren't through opposition.  I agree that many of the sites there aren't good... but many in the Islam DMOZ aren't... we're trying to give a broad view of what's online.  I think doing the same as the Christianity page will just cause problems.  We don't want a list of critical and uncritical sites... it will just lead to "nonsense and emotional sites" from both sides being added to the page.  I think those two links do a lot of good.  gren グレン 02:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Archiving
Would it be alright if I archived everything before the section Apostasy- death penalty?? This is already bigger than most of hte archives seem to be and discussion on everything above that has ended I believe. (feel free to remove this section if archiving is done) gren グレン 00:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Notice
There are related VFDs - Votes for deletion/Opposition to Islam and Votes for deletion/Klonimus/AINB     ( ! | ? | * ) 19:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Eating meat is not a ritual
However, Sikhs are forbidden from practices such as eating ritually prepared meat (halal) that are central in Islam. This is none-factual; not because of what Sikhs practise, but because Muslims have no rituals for preparing meat, save for the slaughter method. No need to mention that eating meat itself isn't a ritual. --Alif 14:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It is important to make the meaning of 'Deen' clear.
The article starts out with "In Arabic, Islām means "submission" (understood as submission to God) and is described as a Dīn or Deen, meaning "way of life" and/or "religion." Islam is a "Deen" has deep implications and it does not translate to "religion" in the western sense.  It is important to make that distinction.  Without that distinction there is always a lot of confusion and impossible to understand the principles of Islam.  Here are some sources:  <i>These four linguistic meanings constitute the concept of the word “deen” in the Qur’an. Therefore, “deen” implies a comprehensive system of life that is composed of four parts: 1-The ruler ship and the authority belong to Allah (swt) only. 2-The obedience and submission are to Allah (swt). 3-The comprehensive system (intellectual and practical) is established by this authority (Allah). 4-The reward given by this authority (Allah) to those who followed the system and submitted to him and the punishment inflicted upon those who rebel against it and disobey it. Based on this definition of “deen”, we can conclude that it is a submission, and worship by man for the creator, the ruler, the subjugator in a comprehensive system of life with all its belief, intellectual, moral and practical aspects. After understanding this definition of the Arabic word “deen”, we realize that it is not correct to translate it into English using the word “religion". Muslims must do their best to clarify to others the reality of the word “deen” in the Islamic perspective; also they should implant this reality in their youth’s minds so that they will not confuse the concept of “deen” with all other erroneous and distorting definitions.  ....  Islam is a divine system, with it Allah (swt) sealed all other “deens” and religions, and he made it a comprehensive system that deals with all aspects of human life (Belief, intellectual, moral and practical). This system is based on total submission to Allah (swt) alone, purifying worship to him only, and following the traditions (sunnah) of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).		</i> Maududi states in Maududi page 34 in A fundamental Misconception <i>Currently religion is considered to be a belief or thought which a person selects with reference to metaphysical concerns. To obtain salvation in the life after death there is a way on which a man acts according to his belief. ... In fact, this has not at all been the nature of Islam. It is not only a "religion" in the modern technical sense of that term but a complete order of life. It relates not only to the metaphysical but also to nature and everything in nature. It discourses not only on the salvation of life after death but also on the questions of prosperity, improvement and the true ordering of life before death. It establishes a dependence of salvation after death upon the true ordering of life before death. Granted that it is nevertheless only a belief. Yet it is not a belief which is concerned only with some remote phase of life. Rather, it is that belief on whose foundation a plan for the whole of life rests. It is not a belief whose existence or change has no noticeable effect on the great and significant ramifications of human life but a belief on whose continuation the continuation of civilization and the state depend and the changing of which means changing the order of civilization and state. It is not a faith which a person may choose with only the concern of the individual in mind. It is that faith on the basis of which a society of people establishes a complete order of a civilization in a particular form and brings into existence a state to operate it. A faith and idea of this nature cannot be made into a game for the liberties of individuals. Nor can the society, which establishes the order of civilization and state on that faith, make way for any brainwave to enter, then to be displaced by another brainwave, to come and go at will. This is not a game or picnic intended to entertain a person in a totally irresponsible manner. This is a terribly serious and extremely delicate work whose fine balance affects the order of society and state. Its success and failure affect the success and failure of thousands and millions of God's servants.</i> Here is another site with a similar message:''There is perhaps no word in the terminology of any country or people-other than Muslims-which would comprehensively embrace all these factors. The word `state' as employed in our own day does, to some extent, approximate to the sense, but even this word lacks the far wider connotation which would bring it on a par with the word Deen. Examples of the Qur'anic use of deen in this comprehensive sense are as follows:...''

There are many other references that can be cited but the central point is that an explicit statement that by deen, or a complete way of life, it is meant that Islam covers 'religion' as understood in the west, jurisprudence (i.e. Sharia), and a body politic. In short the separation of state and religion is not envisioned in the fundamentals of Islam. That central concept leads to a clear idea of the role of Sharia for muslims and why the muslims in the west are pushed to ask for Sharia to rule their lives, for without it their 'religion'is incomplete. I suggest that a few sentences to a small paragraph be added to clearly make that distinction. Do you guys agree? Nickbee 20:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

I have put up a proposed page for Din. Please check it out and offer any suggestions. Thanks Nickbee 19:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * I object strenuously to your page and to your explication of Din. You are using the article to put forth your conception of what Islam really is -- which you believe to be identical to the Islam preached by Maududi, the Deobandis, the Wahabis, and the Islamists. Which is, of course, the strand of Islam that supports terrorists and al-Qaeda. You're preaching Islam = terrorism. No. There's no place for this kind of crude stereotyping in Wikipedia. It's not true and it's not fair. It dismisses the majority of Muslims who would not agree with the Islamists as "not really Muslim". It's as if I insisted that Kentucky snake-handling fundamentalists were the "real" Christians.

 * I agree that there is a conflict in Islam, between Muslims who believe in a state-supported Islam and the Muslims who are prepared to live under a secular government. I don't think an article on Din is the place to discuss it. It's covered in Liberal Islam and Islamism. Zora 20:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Zora, I am not preaching anything. I am showing how "Din" has been explained by muslims themselves. I have quoted Maududi, but I have also quoted others. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the Muslims themselvs. Do you know who Parwez was? He was the leading Quran only Muslim and not a deobandi. He wrote that in the 1940's. Why don't you provide good secondary sources about your understanding of din and I will incorporate those in the page? Again this is an encyclopedia, and we are here not to give our take on things. Those are the words of the muslims themselves. Calling Deobandi's Kentucky snake handlers is dismissing hundreds of millions of muslims around the world. This is what Inayat Bunglawala and has to say about your snake handlers of Islam: "The MCB's Inayat Bunglawala said he had a deep respect for Maududi and defended the MCB's affiliation to Khurshid Ahmad's Islamic Foundation. He said: 'Maududi is a very important Muslim thinker. The book that brought me to practise Islam was Now Let Us Be Muslims by Maududi. As for Jamaat-i-Islami, it is a perfectly legal body in Pakistan. There is no suggestion that the Islamic Foundation has done anything wrong. They have done fantastic work in publishing literature on Islam, including works for children.'"  MCB is the leading organisation of Muslims in UK and the head is SIR Iqbal Sacranie (knighted only recently) who also happens to be an admirer of Maududi unlike yourself (read the observer articles). Nickbee 21:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * Zora, that is why I have put the page for discussion. Please tell me 1) which fact or reference you dispute, and 2) what are your sources for any alternative meaning of din?  Please post on the talk page of Din and I will be more than happy to incorporate any respectable and solid sources.  If you will see, I have not included a single opinion of my own on that page.  It is literally all quotations of Islamic scholars.  Nickbee 21:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee.

 * Yes, I could do a similar hatchet job on Christians using quotations from Jack Chick, who is undeniably a Christian. I don't deny that Maududi said those things. I just assert that folks like Fazlur Rahman and Reza Aslan and the contributors to alt.muslim also exist. Do you think that you could possibly relax your information filter enough to just LOOK at ? Zora 00:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Feel free to do a hatchet job on whoever you feel like. I did not do a hatchet job.  I have tried to present an accurate view of the meaning of "din" or a complete code of Life as presented by muslims.  I assure you I have looked at Fazlur Rahman long before you had ever heard of his name.  I look at altmuslim all the time.  This is not a discussion about the politics of Islam as you are trying to make it out to be.  This is about "DIN".  If you have quotations about DIN from Fazlur Rahman, I will be delighted to get and include.  I will go to the library tomorrow again and look up what he says or Reza Aslan. Reza has written one book as far as I know.  The book I own and a few references I have, he did not have anything to say on the topic. If you know of any -- ANY muslim scholar who has explained what is meant by DIN, please tell me so I may include that POV. Nickbee 00:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

Just googling on din - islam - definition brings up this quote:

The use of din in the last words of it, Atakum yu‘allimukum dinakum, "came to you to teach you your religion" entails that the religion of Islam is composed of the three fundamentals mentioned in the hadith: Islam, or external compliance with what Allah asks of us; Iman, or the belief in the unseen that the prophets have informed us of; and Ihsan, or to worship Allah as though one sees Him.

--from a Sufi, Ha Mim Keller.

Another Sufi:

From this hadith it is apparent that the Din has three basic components, Islam, Iman and Ihsan. We can compare these three elements to the three parts of an egg. Islam which is the practical outer practises, we can for example see people performing Salah or performing Hajj, of the Din corresponds to the hard outer protective shell of the egg. Iman which are the basic beliefs and world-view of the Din, corresponds to the white unseen part of the egg. And finally Ihsan corresponds to the yolk of the egg, its heart and from which eventually a life will evolve. Ihsan according to the words of the Nabi, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, has two aspects; 1) Mushahadah, or Spiritual Vision, or the inward vision of Allah ...

Din = religion = self-cultivation

If you read Islamists, you're going to get definitions like Din = religion = living in Islamic states/communities.

Please try to recognize the diversity in the Muslim world. Frankly, from a self-protective POV, as in, "I don't want those Islamists to blow me up", it makes a lot more sense to make common cause with the non-violent Muslims than it does to try to demonize them all as Islamists. Zora 02:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I will not dignify some of your silly charges. I have zero interest in demonizing anyone. I am interested in providing unbiased information about "din" at the moment. So you agree that many do consider 'din' to include the state. Now where do I get references for din=self-cultivation? Even the sufi literature does not restrict din to mean just self-cultivation. Do you know what the hadiath is talking about? You have given me two references for Tasawwuf. Do you understand the "context" of tasawwuf? I will include something on the view of the Sufi on din and the criticism it generated historically. Do you have additional references? Nickbee 05:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

Zero interest in demonizing anyone? Ok Nick the Socialist from FFI.Heraclius 22:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Instead of attacking me and calling me names etc. why don't you get some solid second sources that show that my sources are wrong. Do you dispute with the sources? Do you have other sources that state things differently? Please provide other sources and I will gladly incorporate them as alternatives. The whole idea is to present as an accurate image and information as possible. You guys have an agenda apparently. Nickbee 04:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)Nickbee

 * I'm not attacking you nor am I calling you names. Nick the Socialist is the name you have taken on other websites.  I just find it funny that you think you have zero interest in demonizing anyone.Heraclius 05:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

So "Deen" refers to a way of life. How is this different from "Religion"? (*Religion*, mind you, not *Church*). How many Christians would describe their faith as a hobby for lazy Sunday afternoons? Critics of Islam as "inherently backward" generally seem entirely ignorant of Christianity between the fourth and 16th century (i.e., they blissfully ignore 60% of Christian history!). If anything, pre-Reformation Christianity was *worse* than Islam, by their own standards. Much worse. 12th century Christians were simply barbarians compared to the Muslim world. The Modern Age is not "inherent" in Christianity any more than it is "inherently foreign" to Islam. Bottom line: "Religion" is a fair translation of Deen. dab (ᛏ) 09:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * dab, the Church is a part of "religion" when Christians say that Christianity is a "religion," but there is no Church in Islam. The state is a part of "deen" when Muslims say that Islam is a "deen," which differs from most other religions. This is why Muslims are often heard saying that, "Islam is not just a religion, it is a deen," or when they say, ""Islam is not just a religion. It is a way of life," or "Islam is not just a religion but a complete way of life, guiding

and governing all their life aspects."    --Zeno of Elea 10:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * sigh, yes these are muslims looking down on the separation of church and state, implying that Christanity is not a "Deen", and therefore inferior. Christianity used to "govern all life aspects" before it became essentially folklore in the West (Oriental Christians and fundamentalist retro-Christians of course excluded). dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Zeno, none of those sources even mention Din. Din is just an Arabic word meaning religion.  That's it.  When people say "Islam is not a religion, but a deen" they are showing their faithfullness to the description of Islam in the Qur'an.  Yes Din may have some original root meanings that are "obedience" or whatever, but today it just means religion.14:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Din means path & judgement . Both meanings combined, it means faith/religion . Since unlike a lot of religions, Islam provides DOs & DONTs for every aspect of life , thats why its said that Islam isnt only a religion , its a way of life . AS always , every path starts from one's home , i.e. one's own self , so self cultivation is the starting point of Din. Its that easy , plz dont try to complicate everything associated with Islam . Farhansher 20:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Length of the page
The page is over 40k long. Why not spawn some sections near the end off as separate pages? They stick out as separate topics anyway.

Jinns made of 'fire' ?
In the subsection 'Other beliefs' of 'Beliefs', it is stated (paraphrasing) '... Jinns are made of fire ...' I think we should be careful about what we mean by 'fire' in the context of jinns. The word 'fire', Islamically, doesn't necessarily mean the hot stuff we're all familiar with, rather it can refer to a state of punishment (not necessarily by burning). Also, if jinns are truly made of the fire that we're familiar with, then we should be able to see or interact with them in some physical way. What I'm trying to say is that if we're not absolutely sure of the facts (and the ambiguities present in the word 'fire'), then we should change the above clause to something less definite. Any comments/suggestions ? ---Mpatel (talk) 16:04, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * "he word 'fire', Islamically, doesn't necessarily mean the hot stuff we're all familiar with, rather it can refer to a state of punishment (not necessarily by burning)" Um the most common "fire" theme in Islam is the Hell fire. This is the eternal punishment of the afterlife, the same Hell fire that the Jews and Christians preached. Muslims, at least traditionally, did interperet the punishment of Hell fire as an actual burning of the body. The proof of this is in the Qur'an itself: "Those who reject our signs, We shall soon cast into the fire. As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the chastisement. Verily Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise." (Qur’an 4:56). The Qur'an also says uses the same word for Hell fire to describe that the Jinn are made from fire: "And the jinn We created before, of intensely hot fire." (15:27). The Qur'an further explains that the fire from which the Jinn are made is "a smokeless fire": "And the jinn did He create of smokeless fire." (55:15). It is generally believed that the Hell fire is also a "smokeless fire." Evidentently, the medieval Arabs believed that all earthly fire is accompanied by smoke. The fire of Hell in which evildoers will burn in the afterlife, and the fire from which the Jinn are made, is an unearthly fire - a miraculously smokeless fire. So as a matter of fact the word "fire," Islamically, does necessarily mean something akin to the hot stuff we're all famaliar with. --Zeno of Elea 23:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Is the same word for fire (in the context of hellfire and jinns) the same in Arabic too (or just the translation) ? Even if it is, the point is that the afterlife (according to Islam) is on a completely different plane of existence form the physical one that we are familiar with (see Yusuf Ali's translation), so it doesn't even make sense to say that there is a 'fire' of the sort of hot stuff we're all famaliar with. The point I'm trying to make is that there is no consensus on this issue, and therefore the present statement about jinns being made of fire is too dogmatic (unless you can prove that jinns really are made of fire - the hot stuff we're familiar with) and hence should be changed. Note also that many issues in Islam articles contain statements like, 'Muslims generally believe...' and the like. We don't do dogmatism on Wikipedia. ---Mpatel (talk) 16:20, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * How is "fire" inaccurate? The Qur'an says that the jinn are made from "fire." What kind of fire? It's not the article's job to explain what kind of fire. The Qur'an says jinns are made from "fire." The Arabic word used here is the Arabic word for "fire" (i.e. the hot stuff we are all famaliar with). That is why English Wikipedia has also used the same word - "fire." This is not dogma. The article is not specifying what is meant by "fire" and no one should be trying to explain what is meant by "fire" in the article. --Zeno of Elea 08:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, not dogmatic, I can accept that. If it's left as "fire" then at best it's misleading (as it's not conclusive). If you think you can convincingly prove that what you believe to be a literal statement in the Qur'an is actually meant to be literal, then I welcome your thoughts on this. I'm arguing that wherever the Qur'an mentions 'fire', it doesn't necessarily mean the hot stuff we're familiar with. Hence, that's why I've put the single quotes around the word. In surah Baqara, a fire is mentioned (and this certainly seems to refer to the hot stuff...), but the verses you quoted which mentioned fire (btw, which translation are they from?) don't necessarily exclude other possibilities. ---Mpatel (talk) 10:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see a big deal here. It is said that Jinns are made from a fire that creates no smoke. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that clinches it then. ---Mpatel (talk) 16:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

New demographic statistics not good news for Islam
2005 demographics trends of Islam. This info has been added to article

Kharijite
Is the Kharijite belief a major branch of belief ? ---Mpatel (talk) 16:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * The current survivors of the Kharijites, the Ibadis, are concentrated in Oman, and numerically insignificant. However, I think that the existence, and the example of the Kharijites, has had a big influence on Sunni Islam, and so they are worth mentioning. That is, the Kharijites considered any Muslims who didn't meet THEIR standards as infidels, kufar, and as a result, the Kharijites splintered into many little sects and mainly died out. The Sunni have therefore stressed the need to stay united by accepting people who say that they are Muslim, even if they are lax or hold unpopular opinions. I've started to wonder if the intolerant strain in Salafi thought (the thinking that allowed the Saudis to raid other Muslims because they were considered kafirs) owes something to the Kharijite tradition in Arabia. Zora 10:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Pakistani mosque picture
Zeno, why did you remove the picture of the Islamabad mosque? Shouldn't there have been some discussion? I can't say that I liked the picture much, or the architecture of the mosque. But the article is looking even drier and more forbidding now. Zora 10:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Explaining my reverts
Mpatel, I don't think it's necessary to add "Kitab" after "Books". Giving the Arabic word for book is an unnecessary detail and taxes the reader to no end. Also, an anon saved numerous times as he/she fiddled with the list of Muslim beliefs, changing it for the worse in terms of style. Zora 19:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Zora, at least consistency should be maintained; look at points 5 and 6 in the list. The same argument can be used to take out "Qiyamah" and "Qadr". ---Mpatel (talk) 09:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that it is unnecessary... however, I personally like to know that... (because when you read books on fiqh you get Arabic thrown left and right at you) ...and I don't think it really gets too much in the way since it's a list. Just my two cents. gren グレン 13:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I've tried out my suggestions. Had some fun: I was surprised to find that links to Malaikah and Qadar already exist, although the former is a redirect to Angel (which is OK) and the second one should not be confused with Qadr. Unfortunately, Kitab doesn't exactly take us to where we would want it. I might include links to Rasul etc. too - suggestions please. ---Mpatel (talk) 16:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Regarding the discussion of the six articles of belief section, and the consistency issue, I have deliberately lower-cased the translations of the important terms, as, for example, I think that "Nabi" (almost ?) exclusively refers to the Prophet Muhammad, whereas "nabi" is general (and similarly for "Rasul" and "rasul"). Also, it might be worth creating a new page called kutub where, amongst other things, the Injil, Zabur, Tawrat and Qur'an are discussed together. In fact, this would make a nice article, as these books could be compared (from an Islamic perspective and others, maybe) and also the present articles on the Injil, Tawrat and Zabur (all of which need attention) could be merged into this new article. I'm thinking way ahead of myself here, but it's perhaps worthy of consideration. ---Mpatel (talk) 18:03, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that most of the arabic words should be removed to improve readability. This is an encyclopedia article so it should provide a clear overview of the topic. If the reader wants to know the arabic word for 'angel' there are plenty of other resources. I think some arabic words should be retained such as words commonly heard in English-speaking media ie. jihad, halaal and words that have no English word that accurately covers its meaning, again jihad and hajj and zakat. But 'malaikah' for example, even the link just goes to 'Angel'. Ashmoo 23:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that only commenly heard Arabic words related to Islam can be retained. Otherwise, we'll never finish to list all words in Arabic. I agree also about the redirect of Malaikah to Angels as there's no difference between the concept in Islam and other religions, while Qadar deserves one because it is a specific concept to Islam. Cheers -- Svest 17:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

 * It's essential to have links to other articles explaining the six fundamental beliefs - noone wants to scour the whole page looking for these links. A reader goes to the 'Six articles of belief' and immediately sees the links to the crucial articles explicating those beliefs. Therefore, I still say keep them. ---Mpatel (talk) 18:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Absolutely, links must stay. I was only talking about avoiding the usage of too much Arabic translations of the words. As I said, unless the terms are specific to Islam, there's no need to mention them quite often (example of Malaikah). Cheers -- Svest 17:18, August 27, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

Ashmoo mentioned that the Islamic view of angels is the same as in other religions - I'm not absolutely convinced of this yet, which is why I just redirected malaikah to Angels in Islam. Anyway, regarding the 'links' issue, Svest, I agree that if the terms are not specific to Islam, then clearly it would be silly to have too much translation. As the article is specific to Islam, however, there should be some translations and links (at least for 'the 6 articles of belief'); reason: many Arabic words have become part and parcel of Islamic terminology and this should be considered. ---Mpatel (talk) 17:29, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ashmoo is right in what he said about the "general" view of angels. Of course there are particularities and differences of interpretations of the concept between Judaism, Christianity and Islam (that's why it's interesting to have Angels in Islam), but the general view and root is the same. Therefore, I just don't understand that Malaikah is redirected to Angels in Islam and not to the general Angel article? Otherwise, Angels in Judaism and Angels in Christianity should exist as well. Cheers Svest 17:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

 * Aha... the general view is the same. The fact that there's a difference is why I redirected it to Angels in Islam. Differences of interpretation is presumably why the article was created. ---Mpatel (talk) 18:00, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Correct. Nothing wrong about that. My question is that is there anyone interested in creating Angels in Judaism and Angels in Christianity as I am no expert?! Cheers -- Svest 18:13, August 27, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

Political is not fundamental
The opening is more or less undisputable fundamentals. Political movement, while it can no doubt be true, is not fundamental. So, why would it ever be there? gren グレン 13:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Can I have help with this?
07:10, 27 August 2005 Free them (rv - prank edit?) (→Islamic law)

Islamic law advises against charging interest on loans for it can lead people to a life of servitude.

I believe this to be true can I have help with it? Political hack 16:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, firstly... I don't believe a US law such as that has any place in the Islam article. Secondly you have to source what you put in articles, what you believe is not so important.  If you can find a source and show how it's relevant then maybe something of what you want might be added.  But, I think this fits more into Islamic economics articles... hah, I read what you wrote incorrectly the first time... however the US law is irrelevant and I don't think it really belongs on this already over-crowded page. gren グレン 17:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Gren is right. Indeed, in the 7th century, there was no such law, neither in Islamic law nor in American law. Basically, charging interest on loans is forbidden in Islamic law because it is simply considered as "opportunistic".  Cheers -- Svest 17:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up ™

Can I use the words "advises against" instead of "forbidden"? Because millions of Muslim and me are charging or paying interest on loans. In 7th century and through out recorded time there were and are today "opportunistic" interest charging laws. Is it fair to say today under Islamic law that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (had a 30% interest rate cap removed form the bill) is a "opportunistic" law?

The Act contains a compulsory adult education program to forcibly teach people to pay there interest charging loans. Can a Muslim on religious grounds refuse to go to a compulsory adult education class that forcibly teaches about paying interest charging loans that is "forbidden" under Islamic law? Political hack 04:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If you are planning to convert to Islam and then argue that you don't have to attend the program because it's haram (forbidden) -- that's not sincere, and in the current political climate, I don't think it would work anyway. Zora 05:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, if the program is a "haram" many more people will convert to Islam. Political hack 08:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Editing this article
Can I please urge editors to read the whole article (I know that takes time, but that's just tough) before making edits. I've just reverted some (presumably well-intentioned) edits by Nourah who has clearly not read enough of the article (or related articles) before making changes. ---Mpatel (talk) 14:03, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. People should read the article because it doesn't make sense if someone comes and just edits some edits in a section and go. However Nourah did nothing wrong. The user explained and reported an encyclopedic information. Cheers -- Svest 15:31, August 28, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Quran-only
I've noticed lately that many edits refer to Quran-only. I am one of the partizans but that doesn't mean we have to make this article a comparison of the two views. The section "See also" is set-up for that purpose. Cheers. -- Svest 20:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Peace. The Quran-only part in relation with the shahaada is very VERY important and should not have been removed. Both mainstream "Muslims" and Quran Alone Muslims believe in the Quran and the shahaadah so it would be wrong to say that all Muslims excvept the shahaadatAAN(TWO shahaadahs) as part of their faith coz we dont and consider it flagrant idolatry to mention muhammad's name next to GOD's. I hope you understand this. GOD Bless! user:idmkhizar

Online academic sources
Dear 72.225.24.119. I think I explained very well my reverts when i did them! I was expecting you to do the same. I am going to explain them here as well... We are not going to source all pages of any single website unless they are extremely irrelevant. Due to the nature of this article (a general article about Islam), we cannot afford listing all of those pages. Note that you can do so at the Ahmadiyya article if you wish to do so. !!! So let's stick with referencing the main page of Al Ahmadiyya website. Please call me at this number in case: Wiki me up™. Cheers -- Svest 21:02, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

God -> Allah
"There is no god but God; Muhammad is the messenger of God."

in the last edit (by 219.95.134.10) this sentence was modified with Allah instead of God, wich one is more correct? --Melaen 15:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It all depends on the debate if Allah is the proper name of the Isalmic conception of God. That has proved to be a contentious issue between some editors and using "no god but God" leaves it more vague I suppose and gets the same point across.  I've seen both used by Muslims... but, just because one uses Allah, doesn't mean they think it's a proper name either... since it is often used to leave out ambiguity and show that the Islamic conception of god is God. gren グレン 19:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This is a debate that will go on forever. But note that arabic speaking christians also call God, Allah. Ashmoo 06:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Unacceptable inaccurate interpretation of Qur'an 5:51 and 9:29
Still don't understand why Wikipedia still contain mis-interpretation on Qur'an 5:51 and 9:29. This paragraph is mentioned in Islam article in "Islam and other religion" section

"Earlier passages of the Qur'an are more tolerant towards Jews and Christians. Later passages of the Qur'an are more critical of them. Sura 5:51 commands Muslims not to take Jews and Christians as friends. Sura 9:29 commands Muslims to fight against Jews and Christians until they either submit to Allah or else agree to pay a special tax."

First, 5:51

It is totally ILLOGICAL that Qur'an forbid muslim take jews and christian as friends, when we see the fact of history on early Islam years! The major source of confusion is the word 'awliyaa', which has ambiguous meaning in English, it can be friend, allies, supporter, leader and protector. Muhammad (pbuh) had shown exemplary social relationship with idol worshippers in his early years as prophets, as the results many of these pagan people deeply attracted to Islam and become the devout defender of Islam, the classical example is Umar bin Khattab.

If these pagan worshippers who has no clear concept of God become good friends of Muhammad (pbuh), then Jews and Christian as the 'people of the book' should receive even better treatment. If Muhammad never take any non-muslims as friends, then logically he will become the sole muslim, this interpretation of 5:51 is totally inconsistent with the rapid growth of Islam in the first 100 years of Islam history.

In my country, Indonesia, as non-arabic speaking country, the word 'awliyaa' is translated as leader or protector. Hence, it is forbidden for non-muslim to become a leader of a homogenous muslim community, because it may bring many problems due to the cultural and core belief differences. This is the LOGICAL interpretation!!!!!!!

Then, 9:29

I don't believe this! Why anyone who wrote this article didn't refer to the exact translation of 9:29, instead he/she use free assumption. The 9:29 mentions:

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

The interpretation of 'fight', is not always means a physical confrontation. Just like examples given by Muhammad (pbuh), it is the belief that should be fought, while the believer as a human being should receive good treatment.

War is the last resort and defense measure, it is the sole option when the safety of Islam and ummah is under direct attack.

Conclusion: Many words in arabic have no direct meaning with English words. Then, Qur'an translation to English cannot be solely on grammatical consideration but also include historical examples of Muhammad, in how to apply Qur'an verses.

 * That is your interpretation of the Quran. Other Muslims interpret those passages differently. Zora 01:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * What Zora said and, I'm sure some do interpret it your way... find a notable source (preferably a well known book, etc.) and then cite it in favor of your interpretation... if you have more than one book do that as well. We are open to suggestions... but, not if they are merely your opinions.  Thanks for the input though. gren グレン 06:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Islam/Archive 8