Talk: Islam

False statement: Traditionally however, the statement Muhammadur rasulullah - ";Muhammad is the messenger of God" is appended to the statement by Sunnite muslims.
No reference for the following statement: In modern times there has been much controversy over whether the ahadith are necessary for the guidance of an individual. There are groups of God-alone muslims who accept only the Quran as being binding and they therefore reject the ahadith as necessary for guidance.
Vague statement: from a vastly larger body of sayings numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

Hiwamy 04:09, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

BIG PROBLEM editing this page!

it is too long. i just tried and have lost half the page!!!! i think we need to move Islamic law to a seperate page because that is a very long section. also i wish to change the 'denomination' section to state that SHiah, Sunni and SUfi are distinct currents in Islam. the article states that sufi sects can easily be subsumed into either Shiah or Sunni. this is NONSENCE! anyone who is a muslim will have problems with this view. - User:Kara Kadija

That's partly true, but not entirely. Some Sufis are hard to categorize, but some (like the Sanusis or Abd al-Kadir) are pretty orthodox Sunnis or Shia. - Mustafaa 19:53, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I reverted the page, by the way - I don't think I eliminated anything you wrote (hope not!). Now that you're signed in, you should be able to edit individual sections rather than having to edit the whole page at once. - Mustafaa 20:02, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

creating an Islamic law page is a good idea. I have added Islamic Law under religious studies, subheading Islamic studies and under law to the List of academic disciplines--Samuel J. Howard 20:12, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

At the moment, Islamic Law redirects to Sharia, which is already a reasonable-sized article. Maybe a bit of merging is in order? - Mustafaa 21:05, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanx 4 the help guys. I agree with a merger of Sharia and Islamic Law. I'll have a go at it soon and then try and clarify the issue regarding sufism which i still think is significantly distinct in the main, to be a seperate 'denomination' of Islam, albeit one that crosses over into shiah and sunni and indeed there are forms of sufism that can appear to be , ie are understood as both sunni and shiah at the same time (eg the Brelvi) . . . User:Kara Kadija

Review requested of Aashurah article

Could some knowledgeable person please have a look at Aashurah? It really needs a bit of clarification regarding the meaning of the festival. -- ChrisO 20:54, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How should criticism be presented?

I am wondering if we should have any "criticism" links section in any of the religion articles. Having one for this article opens it up for all the religion articles, and I can see this section exploding in length for each of our religion articles. It could be used as a form of tit-for-tat attacking. Critics of Judaism, critics of Islam, critics of Christianity, critics of Hinduism, etc., all will have a grand time adding links to all sorts of websites, to websites that are probably not going to be very impartial. Perhaps Wikipedia policy should deal with criticisms like other topics, as discussions within an article. That way we could have peer review and a decent shot at attaining NPOV. Any thoughts? RK 03:03, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

I agree that the Critics section is ballooning out of control (compare with older versions of the article), but putting a criticism section in the article proper is just asking for even more trouble. Perhaps a culling of links is in order. silsor 05:04, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

Balloning? I disagree [they haven't much changed since they were implemented] ... AND there are less than the number of "pro" links (which most of the others are) ...

As to the Critics sections [content and links] ... they are needed to provide alternative views (not just the pro view of the article). They provide resources for editor to use for NPOV, also. They allow citation of those views ... and mabey the articles can attain a NPOV status (as most are not) ... Sicerely, JDR

~~Not true. Check 150 revisions ago; none of the Critics links were in the article at that time.~~ "Since implementation" silsor 18:17, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be lovely if Wikipedia could have a transliteration preferences pane -- click if you want Qur'an or Koran? Click if you want Trotsky or Trotskii? And then THAT paricular edit wouldn't take place so often. --Michael Tinkler, who has been poking his nose in Wikipedia again.

I faced a related problem in Rachel Corrie, where people kept wanting to link to external articles saying either "Corrie is a saint" or "Corrie is the devil". In the end I found three lists of links of opinions and used those as a replacement. Links to web directories might help a little, for example. Martin 23:23, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have removed the following links to websites critical of Islam. I am in favor of discussion on this topic in the article, but this long list has no context, and might violate the conditions of "NPOV". Such lists can easily be abused by linking to hostile or bigoted websites. Maybe as discussion in the article grows, revelvant websites can be added one at a time? Maybe we will find that some of these links are highly relevant, and others are not. JeMa

I have moved back to the article the links to websites critical of Islam.

Discussion on this topic while the link stay in there should be possible ...

"long list"? not really that long .. there is a "long" list of pro sites ... It has context (i.e., the notes to the sides) and the heading of it ... also it allows editors to use them as a resource to give BALANCE to this unbalanced article ... (which others or I can do in the future (as time permits for me I plan to...))

violate the conditions of "NPOV"? What? umm no ... the links are one step to provide a NPOV stance ... notice the neutrality disclaimer @ the top of the article? That was there because the Islam article has NO critical info / sites of reference (as someone metioned earlier, it sounds like more of a pro conversion article)...

"easily be abused"? Sure ... but that is why you keep the links [and monitor those] that try to shed light on Islam [pro and con] ...

Revelvant websites can help editors provide content to wikipedia to neutralize this unbalanced article ... all the links are relevant and should be included ...

Sincerely, JDR

JeMa, I support your decision and edit [12:50, 19 Nov 2003 . . JeMa], including the three added links: Notes on Islam, from a Bahá'í Perspective; A history of Islam in America; Jewish Virtual Library - Islam analysis. Realistically, our encyclopedic articles have their limited space allocated for eternal links. I hope we keep this section for neutral academic sources that deal with Islam by worthy scholars who will present the religion and deal fairly with the opposing arguments. Perhaps the academic sites that so vehemently oppose Islam should be placed in a new article like Opposition to Islam? People using the external links, to further their study in Islam, deserve neutrality, and the links should offer more than pictures of swords and corpses. If a student arrives to this article to study Islam and finds links of material for him/her to reject the study of Islam, than he just may question if this is an encyclopedia at all. Lets work together to further the neutrality of our articles for Wikipedia has great potential. Usedbook 14:13, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[SNIP links (that belong in article)]

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed?

The neutrality dispute notice has been at the top for a long time but nobody seems to be working on this article. Is it just a relic? silsor 21:03, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Too many links

We have about 3 pages of links now. How about putting them in a separate article? silsor 20:44, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, there are too many links. Some of them appear bias like '"Harun Yahya - An Invitation to The Truth,"' or 'Muslim-Answers.' Ones of Islamic Art (like the "Los Angeles County Museum of Art" one) should be put as a link in the "Islamic art" wikipedia entry. - tanna

Islam - Fastest Growing Religion?

I did an NPOV modification yesterday, changing the statement "Islam is the fastest growing religion" to "according to many Muslims, it is the fastest growing religion}". Someone changed it to "according to many sources" - without naming any, of course. The edit comment made a reference to CNN, without any specifics.

Are there any sources beyond Muslims repeating, without any attribution, that Islam is the fastest growing religion? "According to many sources" is not a good reference - if there are many sources, surely specific references can be provided?

I will change this back to the NPOV "according to many Muslims" unless I see specific references, or some other convincing evidence that "Islam is the fastest growing religion" is NPOV. --Michael V

[1] - Mustafaa 05:50, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps it might be appropriate for the Islam article to state "according to a CNN item" rather than the very vague "many sources". In general, many Muslims seem to not regard CNN as a reliable source of information about Islam - I am curious why you disagree with this view.

Also, this article provided no numbers or further attribution. Are there any actual, reliable numbers, preferably gathered by a neutral party? Plugging "Islam fastest growing religion" into Google provides mostly Islamic websites that simply repeat this assertion, and to some Christan website that simply deny it. Neither seem to be big on actual evidence. --Michael V

[2] has a bit more detail from a wider range of sources. As you can see, actual knowledge seems pretty sketchy; however, if the U.S. Center for World Mission came up with Islam growing faster than Christianity, I for one am inclined to believe them! In any event, it provides sufficient evidence that "many sources" is correct. I suspect the main factor in this is simply the birth rate. I also note a reference from the World Network of Religious Futurists, led by a rabbi: [3]. Google also comes up with a few claims that atheism is growing faster; true or false, that would be irrelevant, because atheism is not a religion, but the absence of religion. It should probably also say "numerically highest" - the highest religions in percentage growth rates are of course the small ones (Falun Gong, Bahai, Scientology, etc.) - Mustafaa 06:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, this is much better. So a good NPOV statement would be "According to (list sources), Islam is the fastest growing religion in terms of straight membership numbers, and most of this growth attributed to population growth". Simply saying "it is the fastest growing religion" is too unqualified to be an especially useful statement. I know many Muslims take it to mean that they are getting more converts that anyone else - which, AFAIK, is not the case.

Scientology also claims to be the fastest growing religion - which it is not, since ever their own numbers have not changed for at least a decade - that is part of the reason I tend to be very skeptical of any claims of any religion being "the fastest growing". --Michael V

How about "According to sources such as the World Network of Religious Futurists[4], the U.S. Center for World Mission[5], and Samuel Huntingdon, Islam is growing faster numerically than any other religion; the largest factor in this is natural population growth." - Mustafaa 19:45, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is true and meaningful and NPOV. Thank you. --Michael V

I have deleted the "attributed to faster birthrates", because it is false and essentially bigoted. While the stats support that Islam is the fastest growing major religion, no reliable sources show that this has to do with birthrates.

Islam and the Separation of Church and State

An unrelated question, if I may. Would it be fair to say that the Separation of Church and State is not part of Islam or Islamic tradition? This is, in my experience, a view shared by supporters and detractors of Islam - although of course they do not agree on whether or not this is a good thing. --Michael V

Well, that depends what you mean by "separation of Church and State". Really, this separates into two issues:

Does Islam or the "Islamic tradition" involve rule by religious figures?

That is the recent Iranian doctrine of velayat-e-faqih; the Ismaili sect of Shiism, and the probably non-Muslim Druzes have similar doctrines. This has very little support in the mainstream tradition; even the caliphs were only rarely well-versed in religious law, and very few Islamic rulers ever reached their position through a religiously oriented career (to say the least!) Exceptions include Ibn Tumart, Usman dan Fodio, and of course the first four "rightly guided" Caliphs.

Do they involve rule in accordance with religion?

In a Muslim country - well, yeah, of course. Government figures are supposed to behave in accordance with Islam like everyone else, right? And the secular state was a rare beast in the medieval Middle East, so it's not really clear what "tradition" has to say on that subject.

To be more precise - traditionally, a state ruled by Muslims is supposed to apply the rules of Islamic law among Muslims, or to disputes between Muslims and non-Muslims, and the rules of the Torah or Church to Jews and Christians. For religions not mentioned in the Quran (eg Zoroastrianism), there is no firm legal tradition, allowing it to vary more or less according to the whim of the rulers. The idea of laws without a religious basis (eg extra taxes!) was historically controversial; the idea of legally allowing Muslims to drink, or even non-Muslims to, say, have sex outside marriage, was unthinkable (and still strikes many or most Muslims as reprehensible.) This was blunted in practice by an extremely strong emphasis on the right to privacy - evidence of illegal drinking obtained by looking over someone's wall (even by a policeman), for instance, was deemed void.

What would you say "separation of Church and State" means in Christianity, exactly? Mustafaa 21:49, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, within Christianity there is no single notion of "separation of Church and State", but I will summarize the at the risk of overgeneralizing.

Essentially, since the late Middle Ages the Church (and later the churches) have been losing political influence, and although they did not like it, they have since gotten more or less used to it.

In the modern West outside of the United States the statement "the state should not pass laws that are contrary to the Bible" will not be well received even most serious Christians - i.e. people for who religion is not just a once-a-week social outing. In Canada the debate over same-sex marriage, for instance, has not been framed in religious terms - the opposition to gay marriage uses spurious but mostly non-religious arguments.

Are you familiar with the writings of C.S.Lewis? He was a Christian and thus opposed to divorce. But his view was that the UK was a non-Christian nation (in everything but name) and Christians had no business imposing their laws on everyone else - much like the Mohammedans (his term) have no business imposing their laws on others. So if someone wants to get divorced or drink, it is simply not the business of the state. Most modern Protestants - and probably most Catholics - would, I suspect, support this view. (The USA may be different, but it is not a typical Western country.)

So there is no "exact" meaning - the above is as much as I can do on short notice.

But perhaps I should put my earlier question into context.

I often hear, or participate in, a conversation that goes something like this:

Non-Muslim: Which Western freedoms would not exist in an Islamic state?

Muslim: <answers>

Non-Muslim: Man, an Islamic state blows.

What is going on here?

--Michael Voytinsky

Yes, I am familiar with C. S. Lewis (and incidentally, despite his frequently heavy-handed propaganda in the Narnia series, he rocks - anyone capable of producing the Screwtape Letters, or Perelandra, can't be all bad!) As for that conversation - the thing about Western countries is that (as CS Lewis noted) they are for the most part post-Christian. What was it, something like 10% of Britons go to church on Sundays? Under such circumstances, a Christian state would be a real surprise! Muslim countries, for the most part, are not in that situation; as Ernest Gellner noted, levels of religiosity have if anything gone up, not down, over the past two or three generations, with the spread of the traditionally more religious urban culture as against rural culture and the standardization of religion allowed by mass media and improved communications.

What Muslims thinking of the quite ill-defined concept of an Islamic state are generally envisioning is a utopia practically all of whose inhabitants are devout Muslims - and whose laws, therefore, are framed according to the premise that the potential criminal was brought up in the those moral norms; that even if the citizen drinks, they'll at least feel guilty about it! Christian countries' laws were often framed along similar lines - hence, say, Victorian prohibitions on divorce - until the voices of those who did not accept those norms grew sufficiently loud to force others to take them into account. Even the most partisan supporters of an Islamic state admit that Christian and Jewish religious minorities should - in accordance with tradition - be governed by their own religion's laws, and they usually allow that other _religious_ groups should have the same freedom; but irreligious or merely non-religious minorities strike them not as other belief systems worthy of their own courts, but as unnatural and deplorable results of foreign influence, to be eliminated through education and prevented from practising their sins by law... A society of a different religion, or of multiple religions, makes perfect sense to a traditionally raised Muslim observer, as long as religion is important in it. One where religion is a quite minor factor in people's lives does not. The inevitable presence of the irreligious is the real obstacle to an idealized Islamic state, just as the inevitable presence of egoism is to an idealized Communist (or Christian?) state.

I think that answers your question, but I'm not 100% sure - is that what you were asking? ;) - Mustafaa 05:07, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have just made the following change to the Islamic law paragraph on the main page:

"The study of scripture is strongly emphasized, and leads to the modern debate over Islamic law. Since scriptural passages explicitly mention rules concerning slavery, inheritance, divorce, women's attire etc. as well as punishments for theft and adultery, a traditional body of Islamic law has developed. This body of knowledge greatly influenced the traditional norms of Muslim societies. However, its application in Muslim nation-states today is far from uniform. Many Muslim majority countries such as Turkey, Indonesia and Bangladesh have mainly secular constitutions with a few religious provisions. However, conservative Muslims view Islamic law as essential to their religious outlook."

I think this helps address the whole separation of church and state in the way it objectively exists in Muslim countries; namely through a current political debate over national laws and the extent to which they should reflect scriptures. --Zeeshanhasan 21:32, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Islamic and Western Values

It answers my questions, sort of.

What I am trying to do is to think of some NPOV way to describe the conflict of values between some aspects of Islam and some aspects of the West. (I think it it an overstatement to say that there is a conflict between "Islam" and the "West" - since neither is a unified entity.)

The general view among Muslims, and among educated Western liberals, is that the negative perception of Islam is due to misinformation. I think this view is in many cases mistaken. The negative perception is there because the values are different - not because one side or another necessarily has its facts wrong.

For example, I enjoy drinking alcohol, I see nothing wrong with fornication or gay sex, and I think demolishing the arguments in favour of God's existence is good, clean fun. Further, I think that any attempt to ban the above activities (beyond reasonable restrictions like no drinking and driving, ages of consent, etc.) is morally wrong - and if I found myself in a state that tried to ban these activities I would either fight it (I would not rule out using violence) or go elsewhere. By Islamic standards, I am a bad person. Am I missing anything here? --Michael V.

Islam - like, apart from the alcohol, Christianity and Judaism - is of course opposed to all those things* - and a state dominated by committed members of any of those three religions will almost certainly try to ban, or at least severely restrict, them - as history proves. That does not happen in the West today because no Western country is in fact dominated by committed Christians (nor is Israel dominated by religious Jews, despite the growing power of the ultra-Orthodox); if one truly were, I suspect (along with many a liberal warning against American or Israeli fundamentalists) that you would quickly see their historically recent traditions of accomodating secularism weaken. So yes, there is a deep value conflict at work - but it's not between Islam and the West, it's between revealed religion and libertarianism. And that line cuts right through the middle of the West, through the old Western battle between the "Enlightenment" and the "Church".

And of course what counts as "reasonable restrictions" is very culture-dependent indeed; 100 years ago I guarantee you would have said banning gay sex was a perfectly "reasonable restriction" on fornication! We ban drunk driving because of its consequences to other people; but alcoholism and extramarital pregnancies have terrible consequences for other people too... Where you draw the line on consequences is a very finicky decision, and in fact is the Trojan horse by which restrictions on other people's behavior (aka law) can be reintroduced to almost any degree into non-anarchist libertarianism. - Mustafaa 06:50, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Except for arguing God's existence. I don't know any explicit statements on the subject, but presumably that is perfectly reasonable coming from someone who doesn't believe in God anyway! I do know the early Caliphate used to hold religious debates featuring materialists as well as other religions.

WikiMoron Insists on Bringing Up "Honor Killing"

Mustafaa - thank you for your comments about secularism vs. religion. I will comment more on this, as there are issues there that need to be added to the Wikipedia, but are very difficult to NPOV.

But first I would like to make a suggestion concerning dealing with the anonymous moron who insists on bringing up honor killings.

I agree with you that honor killings have no place in the discussion of Islam per se. They are not part of Islamic doctrine, and there are many Islamic cultures where this practice is not present - e.g. Indonesia, which is the most populous Islamic country in the world.

Unfortunately, the practice is firmly linked with Islam in the mind of some poorly educated induhviduals, and in this case this moron may continue adding the totally POV honor killing entry whether we like it or not.

Rather than engaging in a Wikiwar with him, perhaps this issue should be addressed. I have just done an NPOV edit for the honor killing entry - perhaps a link to that should be placed from the Islam page, or a summary of that entry should appear under "Honor Killing" heading.

Thoughts? - Michael Voytinsky 03:39, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oy. . . the user in question used to go by the handle OneVoice, and did exactly the same sort of thing back then. I suggest a phrasing like this, with neutral wording of course: "Western media often associate honor killings with Islam, and feeble-minded ignoramuses accept this view uncritically, even trying to force it into encyclopedia articles on Islam, but the association is a load of bullshit; as evidence, X, Y, and Z."—and put it in the section on Islam in the modern world, not in the section on the role of women. How's that? —No-One Jones 06:35, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Or we could write something to the effect that a strict interpretation of Islamic law prescribes severe punishment, up to and including death, for all adultery (including premarital sex), whether by men or by women; then describe how this law has been interpreted in different ages and places, and mention honor killings in Islamic countries within this context, where it belongs. (But that would be so much harder than saying "Muslim women are liable to be murdered, if family members believe that the woman has misused her sexuality. See Honor killings", eh, OneVoice?) —No-One Jones 06:46, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, since 69.138.236.221 (a.k.a. OneVoice) continued to revert to his version without so much as an edit summary's worth of explanation, I've gone ahead and implemented some of my suggestions on top of Yosri's version. How does it look now? —No-One Jones 14:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Much better. The topic would be worth researching; I'll look into it. I would have thought the link belongs more in an article on machismo than anything else... Mustafaa 17:48, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Islam and Fundamentalism

I have been looking at the following part of the Islam article:

The Qur'an, also spelled Quran or Koran, is the holy book of Islam. Its title means "Recitation" or "Reading". It consists of 114 chapters or Surahs laid out roughly in order of size, the largest being near the front, the smallest near the back. It describes the origins of the Universe, Man, and their relationship to each other and their Creator. It sets out laws for society, morality, economics and many other topics. It is intended for recitation and memorization. The Qur'an is primarily taught from one generation to the next this way. Muslims regard the Qur'an as sacred and inviolable.

The problem with it is that it sounds like all Muslims are fundamentalists.

I mean, a Christian who believes that the Bible "sets out laws for society, morality, economics, etc" would generally be described as a fundamentalist.

Most Christians are not, however, fundamentalist. In a discussion of Christianity it would be highly inaccurate to state that Christians believe that the Bible sets out laws for society, morality, etc. - since not all, and probably not most, Christians believe this.

Does this description of the Qur'an suffer from the same problem? Or are Muslims much more prone to fundamentalism - which is a claim made by some people (e.g. Daniel Pipes). -Michael Voytinsky 20:15, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I would say virtually all Muslims agree that the Quran sets out some rules for society, morality, etc. - though they disagree on whether these rules should be implemented as law. In that sense, virtually all Muslims are "fundamentalist". However, in an Islamic context the word fundamentalist normally has a more specific meaning - someone who believes that the Sunna and Hadith, together with the Quran, are a complete source of law and morality, and should form their sole basis. Fundamentalists in that sense are a small minority, though their numbers vary with the country. But really, the definition of "fundamentalist" is pretty unclear; its usage varies so widely. - Mustafaa 20:36, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the term 'fundamentalism' is much too broad in its usage. It can simply be a western term of derision for all conservative muslims, or a self-applied Muslim term indicating a particular focus on scriptures, as Mustafaa has mentioned. Wikipedia's NPOV would be best served by avoiding the term altogether, as it is so loaded. I prefer talking about Muslim 'conservatives' when I mean conservative religious people, and 'militants' when I talk of groups like Al-Qaeda, etc.

Removed Jihad reference in Qur'an section

I removed the following paragraph:

The Qur'an describes two forms of Jihad ("struggle"). One form, the "Greater Jihad", is described as a struggle with oneself for mastery of the soul, another form, the "Lesser Jihad", is described as a holy war that Muslims are obligated to wage against those who are enemies of Islam. There are differing opinions as to what forms of conflict are considered Jihad. Jihad may only be waged to defend Islam. However, some groups hold that this applies not only to the physical defense of Muslims, but to the reclamation of land once belonging to Muslims, or even the protection of Islam itself against corrupting influences. The idea of Jihad as a violent war has become more popular in the latter half of the 20th century, especially within the Wahabbi movement and in the Islamist movement. According to most forms of Islam, if a person dies in the middle of Jihad, he is sent directly to heaven without punishment for any sins.

The Qur'an does not describe two forms of Jihad as above. This paragraph doesn't even belong here. Who put it here? If you're a Muslim, I suggest you check carefully before making a statement on what the Qur'an says or doesn't say. Misquoting the Qur'an is a grave sin. --Aidfarh 09:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Dunno, but you can find out by checking the history. Mustafaa 18:49, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

BTW, well spotted - keep checking... The number of errors that creep into this page is phenomenal. I've managed to remove a few, but I've never gotten around to giving it the thorough, careful going-over it needs. - Mustafaa 19:13, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this paragraph? It looks fishy to me (what parts of the Quran specify tahref-ma'any as opposed to tahref-lafzy? Is that terminology even normal?), but I'm not sure enough of the details:

Some parts of the Qur'an attribute differences between Muslims and non-Muslims to tahref-ma'any, a "corruption of the meaning" of the words. In this view, the Jewish Bible and Christian New Testament are true, but the Jews and Christians misunderstood the meaning of their own Scripture, and thus need the Qur'an to clearly understand the will of God. However, other parts of the Qur'an make clear that many Jews and Christians used deliberately altered versions of their scripture, and had altered the word of God. This belief was developed further in medieval Islamic polemics, and is a mainstream part of both Sunni and Shi'ite Islam today. This is known as the doctrine of tahref-lafzy, "the corruption of the text".

- Mustafaa 20:35, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

People of the Book

Although it is commonly held that this group includes the Jews, Christians and Muslims, it is equally evident that Muslims are the only extant group to legitimately hold this title. - I strongly suspect this section is the politically motivated opinion of a small segment of radical Islamic fundamentalists, who promote this view as justification to be intolerant, if not actually violent, to Christians and Jews. In fact, this section is inserted, I believe, as part of a war on the West. On NPOV grounds alone, this section could be deleted, as it is advocating an opinion on the part of the article writer, and not stating a fact. It is NOT "equally evident" that Christians and Jews are today not "People of the Book." Many Christians and Jews will assert that their "book" has not changed from the time that the protections given to "People of the Book" were instituted, and therefore this entire section is, in my opinion, utter trash, and vicious to boot, as this philosophy is used in the Islamic world to justify violence against Christians and Jews. Wikipedia editors should not tolerate Wikipedia being used to promote violence. Bear in mind, that the protections given to "People of the Book" historically were responsible for Islamic society to being tolerant of Christians and Jews living in Muslim countries, as long as they paid the special tax imposed on them. By asserting that Christians and Jews of today are NOT "People of the Book", but rather polytheists, radical Islam sects and the Wahabists such as Bin Laden, justify actions against Christians and Jews. ChessPlayer 09:30, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this was put in by an apparent Westerner mainly interested in Buddhism, User:Usedbook - and I suspect it has more to do with his disaffection with Islam than with a crusade against the West. But it's wrong in any event, so I support your delete. - Mustafaa 07:00, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Chessplayer, I'm glad you've brought this up. Although I agree with your decision to remove the sentence, I'd like to point out that controversy surrounds the term 'People of the Book'. It is evident that Muslims are not equal to 'Jews and Christians', as repeatedly the Qur'an states:
The Way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians). [Surah Al Fatiha 7, Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan edition]
O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers, etc.) [Surah Al-Ma'idah 51, Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan edition]
And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth! They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) to worship none but One Ilah (God - Allah). [Surah At-Taubah 30-31, Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan edition]
Thus, we have these two views in the Muslim world which are, as I've stated, equally evident. Nevertheless, it is expressed from notable Qur'anic commentaries that the Injeel/Gospel and Tawrah/Torah documents that passed through certain rabbis and priests became corrupt, thus, ending the older convenants and ushering the new one declared by Muhammad. This is in no way my personal belief but it is a popular one in the Muslim world which should be mentioned in the article. One major abrogation occured in the history of Islam which, according to literalists, rendered the 'People of the Book' status invalid with:
And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers. [Surah Al-'Imran 85, Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan edition] I'd be interested if anyone could shed light on this issue. What is the current status of the 'People of the Book' today and has it been annuled or did Muhammad keep it? Usedbook 22:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I said "tolerant" not "equal". Historically, Muslims have been tolerant towards Christians and Jews living in Muslim lands, allowing them to practice their religions and live in peace, based on the teachings of Islam. Islam has not changed, nor Christianity or Judaism; what has changed today is politics. ChessPlayer 23:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Historically, indeed, those claiming to be Muslim have been tolerant and intolerant towards Christians and Jews living in Muslim lands. Whether or not religious institutions, their creed and documents change is another issue. Returning to the discussion, I'd appreciate seeing more written concerning abrogation in this and other articles. Take care. Usedbook 01:22, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Repetition of 'belief' section?

Why is section 3 (belief) separate from section 4.2 (Six elements of belief)? There should be only one section on belief, with perhaps a subsection called 'six basic elements' and another called 'additional beliefs'. This would be a much better way of organizing it all.

Creed/Shahadah

There's a little bit of trouble in translating: La ilaha illallah, wa Muhammadan rasulullah. The thing is: I normally translate it to: There is no deity but God, and Mohammed is a messenger of God. The reason: Should we use God instead of deity, it would seem very odd and unclear and confusing: "There is no god but God." And one hearing that would find it hard to understand. But if it is "There is no deity but God." It would be much more logical. Since God is a deity. It is much more clearer, too, than: "There is no god but Allah" since not all muslims speak Arabic, or even non-muslims would find that odd, since it would seem that we, as muslims, have a different God than Jehovah (of the bible), which is wrong. I've already changed it once to "deity" instead of "god" but it was changed back.

I'm suggesting that it is much more logical to translate the creed from Arabic as "There is no deity but God, and Mohammed is a messenger of God."

I disagree entirely. I think it is quite clear and a well-known rule to differentiate god and God with capitalization, and anyone with a decent knowledge of English should know that. Also, in addition, by saying 'deity' one is pointing to a much more ambiguous term that means nothing else but 'god' or 'goddess.' In fact, by saying 'god' as opposed to 'deity,' it is much more clear that we're speaking of tawhid, or a monotheistic, singular concept, as opposed to, say, one main deity among others. Also, deity almost implies a sense of singular personality and form, whereas Maula/Khoda/Allah is formless. Also, " it would seem that we, as muslims, have a different God than Jehovah (of the bible), which is wrong." This problem is exacerbated by the use of deity, which almost implies MORE of a separation between Abrahamic God concepts/beliefs.

ilaha has always been translated as 'god' and I think, especially in the context of the rest of the article, it's made evidently and plainly clear that the biblical God is one and the same according to Muslims.--LordSuryaofShropshire 18:03, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV dispute?

Would whoever added the NPOV dispute notice please explain, below, why the neutrality of the article is disputed? —No-One Jones 23:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Six Pillars of belief is incorrect...

<original> Six Pillars of belief

There are six basic beliefs shared by Muslims:

   * Belief in God (in Arabic, Allah)
   * Belief in Prophets and Messengers (sent by God)
   * Belief in the Books (sent by God)
   * Belief in the Day of Judgment (Qiyamah)
   * Belief in Angels
   * Belief in al-Qadr, (Divine Predestination)

</original>

The last, Divine Predestination is not 'shared' by the Twelver Shias. We believe in neither absolute free will nor absolute pre-destination. Humanity has free-will, but within the contraints set by God.

God is Just and to punish someone for commiting acts ordained by Him is injustice. BTW, Sunnis do not believe in Divine Justice for precisely this reason...

Hope that helps.

--azaidi

azaidi, can you please provide sources for your contention? Note to editors: any attempt to address this should change sections 2.1 and section 10 to keep the two in synch. --Ibn Raza 16:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Quoting from "Shi'ism in Relation to Various Islamic Sects" by Dr. Abulqasim Gorji (http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/sects/1.htm (point 6.))

<quote>

6. Is man really free to perform actions which are apparently done of his own free will, or is he compelled to perform such actions? A group of the Ash'arites are of the opinion that man's will and power have no effect in bringing about these actions, and it is only God's Will and Power that is effectual in their taking place. This belief is called "Jabr".

The Mu'tazilites hold that the only factor causing these actions to take place is man's will and power. God has only created man and given him power, will and intelligence. As long as God has not taken these forces and potentialities away from him, he can independently do whatever he wants; there is no need for him to be instantaneously and constantly given power, will and other potentialities by God. This belief is called "al‑tafwid".

However, the Shiites believe that man's actions depend on his own will, but not in the sense that he is totally independent in doing them. Rather, just as God is the initiating cause (al‑`illah al‑muhdithah) of man's life, power and will‑that is, God has originally given man these qualities and abilities ‑ so God is as well the maintaining cause (al‑`illah al‑mubqiyah) of these potentialities and qualities. That is to say, God grants these powers and abilities constantly and perpetually, otherwise man cannot perform any action. Thus, such actions can be attributed both to God and man. This belief is neither determinism nor free will, but something between the two (amr bayn al‑'amrayn).

</quote>

Also from "God and His Attributes" by Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari (http://www.al-islam.org/GodAttributes/free.htm)

<quote>

The authentic view of Shi'ism, which is drawn from the Quran and the words of the Imams, represents a third school, intermediate between the determinists and the proponents of absolute free will. This school does not suffer from the inadequacies and weaknesses of determinism, which contradicts reason, conscience and all ethical and social criteria and denies God's justice by attributing to Him all the atrocities and injustices that take place, nor by asserting absolute free will does it deny the universality of God's power and reject the oneness of God's acts.

</quote>

Basically there's loads more at http://www.al-islam.org. Most of the stuff they have online are texts of various well-known books... It's an excellent place to double-check any stuff on Shi'ism in particular and Islam in general.

HTH

--Azaidi 11:16, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic practices

"Some Islamic rituals are similar to pre-Islamic practices from the 
Arabian Peninsula—in particular, the hajj and three of its associated 
practices: circling the Kaaba, kissing the Black Stone, and the stoning of 
three pillars outside Mecca.

These practices were probably left over from Ishmael son of Abraham.???? Abraham had built the first Ka'ba in Mecca.???? Adam ??? Muhammad is a direct descendent of Abraham - WOW - a genealogy of 2500 years" So, the Arab pagans (pre-islam) did the hajj, circling (naked!!), kissing the stone for 2500 year for no reason?? ALL THIS IS A 'BELIEF' - NOT A FACT ; please edit - STAY OBJECTIVE

There is no need to shout or to become angry. The hadith clearly states that men from many countries came to that place to make a pilgrimage; although not an islamic. A. 16:23, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please review Muslim religious dress article

I've been working on the clothing section and I'm planning a number of pages on religious uniforms/vestments/habits/attire. The only one I've done so far is the Muslim religious dress article. Since I'm not a Muslim, I'm sure the article could use some editing and additions. Please take a look! Zora 20:26, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reformation and Inclusive/Exclusive Religions

This intro sentence seems suspect and Christian-centric:

Unlike Christianity, Islam has not undergone any period of reformation; however, that is essentially the goal of various liberal movements within Islam.

Reformation links to Protestant Reformation. Which begs the question: why would Islam undergo a very specific historical process that occurred to ONE other religion which was in completely different circumstances to Islam today? Furthermore, Islamic fundamentalism seems more similar to Protestantism then than the liberal movements. Maybe if it linked to the general topic of religious reformism, it would make sense.

Secondly, the paragraph on inclusive/exclusive religions seems unsupported, shallow and utterly biased. I checked both the Christianity and Hinduism pages and neither of them mention their status as either "exclusive" or "inclusive" religions.

-- Style 15:13, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC)

I agree completely that the inclusive/exclusive religions section is very biased, and intended to change it. But lately I am finding that all my edits have been reverted by user 68.94.198.21 - oh well.

I have no idea why reformation was mentioned. However, since it was mentioned, I put in the link to liberal movements in Islam.

--Zeeshanhasan 18:41, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to delete the whole paragraph (I'm new), but it's hard to see how the inclusivist/exclusivist thing could be salvaged as NPOV. -- Style 05:00, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)

I think you're right, but rather than simply delete this material I've moved it to a new article called Islam and other religions. I think this is quite justified, as Muslims view themselves as heirs to the Judeo-Christian tradition; so its views of religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Native American religions, etc should be in a separate place. --Zeeshanhasan 10:07, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

disambig header

I took out the disambiguation header for Yusuf Islam because there are many people who have Islam as part of their names (Islam Karimov, Afrika Islam, and Islam Akhun are a few I pulled up in a search) and we don't need to disambiguate all of them here. —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:11, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Complete replacement of online sources?

Someone named Saeed Bak (new to Wikipedia, no user page) has taken out most of the online sources and replaced them with Salafi websites. This is blatant sectarian attack. I'm reverting the article. Zora 10:24, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Persistent Salafi propaganda attacks

We've had at least three attempts in the last 24 hours to replace the external links with ones pointing only to Salafi websites. The users involved, Saeed Bak and 195.235.227.10, are new to Wikipedia, do not have user pages, have not engaged in dialogue, and seem dedicated only to "capturing" the article for their viewpoint. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia myself and am not sure of the best way to deal with this. I'm not sure it's vandalism in progress, so I reported it in Requests for Comment. We've had to do three reverts in the last day; I don't know if this will be enough to discourage them. If anyone else has any ideas for dealing with this, please pipe up! Zora 18:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Zora, you might want to place a gentle and polite informative comment in the article source at the problem location like this (press 'edit' to see source): Tom - Talk 17:12, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Saeed Bak and 195.235.227.10. We value your contributions and we hope to see more of you. Be sure to read WP:NPOV to understand our absolute and non-negotiable policy on bias, and feel free to drop by my user page to say hi at any time. Tom - Talk 17:12, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chart template

I was just wondering how the Islam chart on the right was added to the page, as the template and text contained in the chart is not present in the "edit this page" text.Pizzahunks 11:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's a template; the text {{Islam}} transcludes it into the article. If you want to edit it go to Template:Islam. —No-One Jones ^(m) 14:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Editing online sources

The recent Salafi attempt to hijack many of the links was noteworthy only because they deleted all the other links instead of just adding their own.

The links section seems to me to be growing, as followers of various sects try to stake a claim on the attention of Wikipedia readers. This is eventually going to make the links section worthless as a research tool.

I'd suggest that any links to specific sects, teachers, whatever, be limited to Wikipedia articles specifically devoted to that subject. Links in the main article should either be academic, or for sites and organizations without any pronounced sectarian position. Good general knowledge sites.

If there are any links to sects or teachers that don't at present have their own Wikipedia articles, we should create the articles. We should make sure that all such articles are connected in some way to the main Islam page, so that no group is featured and no group is shut out.

Any comments? Zora 11:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mirv, thank you for adding the links to the Open Directory. The directory contains most of the links that I had edited out, plus others. It seems to be truly all-inclusive, so is a good resource. This is a great solution! Zora 21:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. . . but probably only a temporary fix, I'm afraid. This article seems to require merciless link-trimming every month or so. :-) —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Prophet's wives

I am no muslim scholar, but I am suspicious of an anon removing many of the names on the list of the wives of The Prophet. There are only two listed now, I am pretty sure that Muhammed had more than two wives. Someone who actually knows about Islam please check this edit. --</b>metta, The Sunborn ☸ 05:05, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edited Qur'an section

Someone had added a line to the Qur'an section of the article stating firmly that the Qur'an had been revealed by Allah and had never been changed or altered in any way. While this view is widespread among Muslims, it is not the view of impartial scholars in the field, nor even of Muslims who accept academic textual criticism and see the Qur'an as a man-made object.

Preaching a particular point of view is directly contrary to the main Wikipedia guideline, NPOV. The Islam article has been increasingly elaborated by zealots and reads more like a religious tract than an encyclopedia article in places.

So while I was at it, I removed a number of other passages from the Qur'an section that glorified the Qur'an without conveying any real information about it. I also added the sentence re obscurities in the text of the Qur'an -- which I'm prepared to buttress with cites, if necessary. Note that the sentence doesn't say that there ARE obscurities; just that critics say that there are obscurities. I'm aware that this is a controversial subject! Zora 21:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni has restored the old Qur'an section and accused me of adding POV material. This is strange. Religious propagandizing is NPOV and any hint of that other people might dissent is POV? Zora 02:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you read the existing version and comment on what you find POV. Alberuni 02:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's POV to state that all Muslims regard the Qur'an as sacred, inviolable, a guide to science, etc. as there were and are Muslims, like the Mu'tazilites, who see it as human-created thing and not a proper object of worship. By implying that ALL Muslims believe the statements listed in the article, you are saying that a prominent philosophical school, a Caliph, and many present-day reformist Muslims are NOT properly Muslims. It's also POV to edit out the statement re obscurities in the Qu'ran.

The next section, on the revelation of the Qur'an, also needs work, as it completely ignores the process by which the Qur'an was actually collected and written down. In the most widely accepted story, it was the Caliph Uthman, who released the "official version" between 750-756 C.E. and ordered the destruction of the other versions. So that's at least 28 years between the death of Muhammed and the collection of the Qur'an for versions to proliferate and one, by processes now unknown, to be chosen as the "official" version. Then of course there's the Shiite belief that sections of the Qur'an that were favorable to Ali were suppressed and the current Qur'an is not complete. And there are the scholars who point out there is no real evidence for the story re Caliph Uthman and that only research in Qur'an graveyards, looking for the earliest possible texts, will find real scholarly evidence.

The section may seem NPOV to Muslims of a certain POV, but to someone outside the magic circle of belief, it looks biased. Zora 04:40, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you go work on the definitions in the "Jew" article and see how far you get if you note that some Jews deny that Jews are, and always have been, a "nation." Alberuni 04:54, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's not a particularly useful response. Are you assuming I'm Jewish? I'm not. The difficulty of rooting partisan passion and prejudice out of one article is no excuse for leaving it in another. Zora 06:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No I am not assuming your religious heritage. I am just pointing out that on the Jew page, concepts of Judaism by Jews take precedence over critiques of Judaism by non-Jews. Yet, here the critiques of Islam by hostile and bigoted non-Muslims are considered NPOV and the views of Islam by Muslims are considered POV. Alberuni 14:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This Talk page could do with a little effort for civility. It's funny how nobody thinks their own group is treated fairly, but other groups always seem to have hidden supporters among the WP community. You may want to go and ask User:IZAK if he thinks that Wikipedia is particularly pro-jewish. dab 12:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What you omitted about the Qur'an is part of Muslim belief. It's not POV to describe what Muslims believe about the Qur'an. I noticed that you also added this POV line "Critics say that translations are shunned because translation highlights the many obscurities in the text of the Qur'an, one of the first written works in the Arabic language" .. Can you back this statement with some explanation and facts? OneGuy 07:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm putting a dividing line (rule) because we're getting very indented. I had to do some searching to find the quote I rememembered, and here it is, from the notorious 1999 Atlantic article. [6]

GERD-R. Puin speaks with disdain about the traditional willingness, on the part of Muslim and Western scholars, to accept the conventional understanding of the Koran. "The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear,'" he says. "But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims -- and Orientalists -- will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible -- if it can't even be understood in Arabic -- then it's not translatable. People fear that. And since the Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not -- as even speakers of Arabic will tell you -- there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on."

So there's one quote, from one prominent scholar. Zora 09:13, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, that's the claim of one Western scholar, though he doesn't quote a Muslim so we can check his claim. Now all you need to do is quote a Muslim scholar who gave this reason for avoiding the translation of Qur'an. If this was really the reason, it should be easy to find it, wouldn't it? After all, R. Puin claims that that's the reason *Muslims* gave for not translating the Qur'an. Now you need to show that Puin claim is correct by finding that quote from a Muslim OneGuy 14:21, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. Someone can feel uncomfortable with something, and shy away from it, without even putting into words why it feels so frightening. That's what Puin is saying. Translation makes Muslims think about problems with the text of the Qur'an, it makes them uncomfortable, they shy away from it. That may not be the TRUTH, but it's true that it's his view. Here's another quote, from Hurgronje:

"This book, once a world reforming power, now serves but to be chanted by teachers and laymen according to definite rules. The rules are not difficult, but not a thought is ever given to the meaning of the words; the Qur'an is chanted because its recital is believed to be a meritorious work. This disregard of the sense of the words rises to such a pitch that even pundits who have studied the commentaries -- not to speak of laymen -- fail to notice when the verse they recite condemn as sinful things which both they and the listeners do every day, nay even during the very common ceremony itself."

Reminds me of a magazine article I read recently about a celebration in Pakistan for children who had memorized the whole Qur'an. Public ceremony, feast, special clothes, praise. None of the children knew Arabic, but they could rattle off the suras. So how useful is that, really, for being a good Muslim? Zora 23:24, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's the view of one man, Puin, then, and he is also completely wrong. I am pretty sure about that. It's easy to check that the debate about translation involved around the question whether it's permissible to translate God's literal words (as Muslims believe the Qur'an is) into something else. It had nothing to do with what Puin claimed.

Contrary to Puin claim, Saudi (and others) seems eager to give away free translations of the Qur'an.

As for reading the Qur'an without comprehension, just search the web; every Islamic site that I found preached against that, like (1), (2), and (3).

In other words, the line that you inserted was completely false (unless you can find some evidence to back it up or explain the above sites). OneGuy 03:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't dare ask what kind of magazine that was. Your critiques of the Qur'an and Muslim practices reek of Orientalist condescension and hostility. They are basically superficial outsider attacks on the Islamic faith and against Muslims who practice a faith in God that your cited authors find alien and incomprehensible. Translation of the Qur'an invites interpretation and loss of the original meaning. Look at the history of the Bible and the numerous sects that have emanated from the various translations, King James version, etc. Translations of religious texts always lose fidelity and are subject to misinterpretation, such as the Biblical saying that, "It is harder for a rich man to enter heavan than it is to thread a camel through the eye of a needle." Well, it sounds rather impossible, doesn't it? Until you learn that "camel" was the incorrect translation of the Aramaic word for both "camel" and "camel hair". Then you realize it is not impossible, just very difficult. Big difference in meaning. To obviate the loss of meaning by faulty translation, the Qur'an can only be translated if the Arabic text is provided alongside. You can be sure that an English only translation is not authorized. The children who memorize the Qur'an in Arabic also have the opportunity to read it in their native tongues because it is no doubt translated. Memorization of the original provides students with the poetry of the Arabic version which cannot be duplicated in translation. It is also itself a challenging mental exercise, similar to English students memorizing sonnets by Shakespeare without necessarily understanding their meaning. So please, keep the insulting, hostile critique of Islam for another page, like Orientalist Diatribes Against Islam. You may be surprised to know that Islamic scholars have discussed the issue of translation for centuries and if you really care, you might find this article of interest.--Alberuni 00:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The sidebar

--> Template talk:Islam

Classic

Some pinhead is disrespecting Islam and updating the Texas Revolution entry. Hilarious!

the "creed"

I moved the hyphens to the proper morphological boundaries: Lā ilāhā illāllāh; Muhammadu-r-rasulu-llāh. Wouldn't it be more correct to give the full i'rab, though, i.e. Lā ilāhā illā-llāhu; Muhammadu-r-rasulu-llāhi? dab 15:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ٍSounds good to me. - Mustafaa 16:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ok. you may have noticed I'm on a "unify arabic transliteration" campaign, at the moment. Another thing is this: I am not a native (or even fluent) speaker, but according to my understanding, it should be Muhammadu-rasulu-llāhi rather than Muhammadu-r-rasulu-llāhi (rasul in construct state). I found both versions on the internet. Which is correct? dab 18:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The latter; Muhammadun rasuulu llaahi > Muhammadur rasuulu llaahi, by the regular contraction n+r > rr. I think the process is termed sandhi in English. - Mustafaa 20:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wait (sorry if I seem to abuse this page for arabic lessons), you mean to say that the first r is really nunation, i.e. indefinite state? Then the literal translation would be "there is a certain Muhammad who is the messenger of God" rather than "(the well-known) Muhammad is the messenger of God"? In that case, the properly hyphenated transcription would be Muhammadur-rasulu-llāhi. dab 08:39, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not exactly; just as some names require the definite article (eg Al-Amiin or al-`Aas), some require the indefinite article (eg Faatimah). It has no particular implication of indefiniteness, because it would be impossible to say *al-Muhammad to mean "the Muhammad" (that would rather be taken to mean "the praised".) Incidentally, good work on this unification business - how did you learn Arabic? - Mustafaa 22:20, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

just from books, and from a few expatriates... I would have expected Muhammadu for "the Muhammad" and Muhammadun for "a Muhammad", but I believe you, of course. dab 09:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edited Qur'an section

I've attempted an NPOV discussion of what most Muslims believe, rather than stating those beliefs as if they were facts. I will rewrite the main Qur'an article too, but that's going to take me some time; I ordered WAY too many expensive books from Powell's and I'm going to have to read them once they arrive. Plus there are a fair number of books I'd like to read that are out of print and unavailable. Dunno what I'm going to do about those.

I've left a question mark where there should be the Unicode for Qur'an in Arabic. I would also appreciate it if someone could put A.H. dates in parentheses after the C.E. dates -- or, if you wish, put the A.H. dates in the place of honor and add the C.E. dates in parentheses. I should think that more Wikipedia readers are going to recognize C.E. dates, which would mean putting them first, but ... it doesn't really matter as long as both are available. Zora 00:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Many errors there:

(1) The rest of the article spells the name "Muhammad," not Muhammed.

Aargh. I've been doing so much reading, and the name has at least three common variants. Sorry. I'll edit. Zora 08:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(2)The Qur'an originally didn't have vowels but this was not a problem at that time. They wrote everything without vowels (not just the Qur'an). They knew how to pronounce the words; it was their native tongue.

Reading Arabic without the vowels is like reading English without the vowels; t's hrd bt t s pssbl. But you can perhaps see why some sentences might be hard to parse. Islamic commentators argued long and hard about some sections, and there are still several accepted interpretations of some of the rasm. I don't think you can just shrug this off as "that's just the way it was".

No, it was never an issue for early Muslims. You don't know what you are talking about. Notice the so-called "vowels" (or diacritic marks) are not even used that much today. See for example Al Jazeera site. Only a few diacritic marks are there. This was not a big problem for Arabs. Notice that the "vowels" (or diacritic marks) were not put in the Qur'an by Uthman (he didn't see any problem there). They were invented much latter by Haljaj.OneGuy 09:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

please be polite. yes, diacritics are still not commonly written. But it's not as simple as you would have us believe. vowelless scripts were an improvement over earlier syllabaries in about 1000 BC (Ugarit), but one that has been superseded for more than 2500 years now. The adherence to such a system shows, shall we say, a remarkably conservative attitude. The diacritics are a half-hearted medieval patch that can be used for disambiguation. It can be argued that arab illiteracy wouldn't be quite as high if the language would use a more convenient alphabet. It may not have been a problem for native arabs, but even in early Islam (8th century), a substantial portion of Muslims were converts. The desinences were lost very early, even among native speakers. The very reason the diacritics were introduced was that people didn't know how to recite the text without them, so it certainly was not "never an issue". dab

8th century isn't "early." That's like 70 years latter. You didn't show it was problem earler at the time of Muhammad or immediate after his death OneGuy 12:00, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I consider "early Christianity" to be more or less the first three centuries (pre-Nicaea) (of a total 2000). I consider early Islam to be the first 200 years or so (of 1400) or the age of conquest. No, Muhammad probably didn't need the diacritics. But then he didn't need the letters, either, seeing as he had other sources, so to speak. dab 12:20, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not just Muhammad but the Arabs at the time or immediatly after his death. The section on the Qur'an seems confused about "seven reading" and what happened at the time of Uthman and so-called "vowels" (or diacritic marks) that were put in much latter by hajjaj. OneGuy 13:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we need to get that correct. However, Muhammad's dialect must have been one of the latest to preserve desinences (i'rab), and already at that time, many native arab speakers didn't have them. For non-final vowels you are right in principle. But note that no matter how good your arabic, many non-vocalized forms, and also notably forms without shadda (or even worse, undotted letters, also commonly used in those days), are ambiguous, and you have to *guess* the meaning (eg. person, verbal voice, mood, verbal stem). Now, to have to guess what may have been the word of God is of course not acceptable (and I am convinced you could get some pretty far out (but grammatically correct) readings from an unvocalized quran!). The intricacies of this belong on Arabic alphabet, however. dab 09:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This had nothing to do with why Muslims (early or now) memorized the Qur'an. The vowels were added for nonnatives by Al-Hajjaj bin Yousef (d 714) latter on when Islam spread to other parts outside Arabia., and only after that these vowels became part of the written language.

Again, there wouldn't be seven accepted readings of the rasm (some scholars accepted more) if it hadn't been a problem even for Arabic speakers. Though I will say that some of my sources argued that it was an increasing problem as the Arabic of the Qur'an and colloquial Arabic diverged, under the pressures of distance and mixing with the tongues of the conquered peoples. Which is why there's a story about the redactors of the Qur'an under Uthman being advised to go to the Bedouin of the desert if they didn't understand something. Zora 08:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about. The seven readings has nothing to do with these "vowels" (or diacritic marks). That is totally different issue. There were seven "Ahruf" ("letters" or "dialects") of the Qu'ran which according to a hadith, Muhammad referred to as all having divine authority. This has nothing to do with vowels. Read this article to clear at least some confusion. (Read the article before you reply here again). OneGuy 09:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've just looked at that article, and spent about three hours flipping through books and websites. The question is whether or not the seven ahruf mentioned in a hadith of Bukhari (died 870 C.E.) are the same thing as the seven acceptable pointings, or vowellings, of Uthman's rasm, as defined by Ibn Mujahid in 934 C.E. (322 A.H.). The only source I found that tackled this head on was an actual Christian missionary source, Gilchrist. So I'm a little suspicious of it. I much prefer academic sources, and I can't find any on this particular topic. (At least until my book order from Powell's arrives!) Gilchist says that the hadith, or the hadith tradition, had previously been interpreted as sanctioning all existing traditions of Qur'an recitation, even though there were more than seven known. Ibn Mujahid identified seven of those traditions as the seven ahruf and rejected the rest. His ruling prevailed. Of his seven traditions, five are not recited often, if at all, leaving one majority tradition (Hafs) and one minority tradition (Warsh).

That site also has a section on Gilchrist. Did you see it? OneGuy 00:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By academic standards, the hadiths are LATE sources and unreliable. There's no evidence at all as to what the hadith understood as the seven acceptable variants, and no evidence to confirm or deny that Ibn Mujahid made the right choices in matching existing recitation traditions to the hadith. I'm probably going to look over this paragraph in the Qur'an section and make sure it's accuration in the light of my recent travails. Zora 23:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(3) Mu'tazili argument was that the Qur'an is created by GOD (not created by human as the article claims). Others argued that if God is eternal then his knowledge and words (like the Qur'an) must be eternal too. At any rate, whether the Qur'an is eternal or a creation of God is not a big issue among ordinary Muslims. It's not an article of faith to believe that the Qur'an is eternal.

Hmmm. I think you're right. It's a subtle point, but important. Eternal versus created by Allah at one point in time for one particular purpose. OK, I'll revise. But ... there seem to be a lot of Muslims out there who DO believe that the Qur'an is eternal and perfect. YOU tell THEM not to threaten scholars. Zora 08:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Only Western scholars and Christian evangelicals (while debating Muslims and having to defend trinity) seem to be obsessed with this theological debate. You don't have to believe that the Qur'an is eternal to be a Muslim (I doubt most Muslims even heard about this theological debate).

No, their side has won so thoroughly that they don't even KNOW that there's another side.

(4) The article goes on to repeat the claim by some western scholars that Muslims don't like textual criticism and that textual criticism of the Qur'an is in its infancy; ignoring the fact that the books these scholars write (like Arthur Jeffery's book on the variants of the Qur'an) are borrowed entirely from Muslim writers/scholars like Abu Hayyan (930-1023), Suyuti, and Ibn Abi Dawud (from whom Jeffery got material for his book). OneGuy 03:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Um, no. Academics and scholars are increasingly trying to break out of the trap of relying exclusively on LATE Islamic sources. They're trying to find extremely old Qur'an manuscripts, working on paleography and dating, looking at inscriptions and archaeological evidence, and scouring contemporary reports from non-Muslim observers (who had their own axes to grind, of course, but it's at least an outside viewpoint). They've come up with some off-the-wall theories (IMHO) but I think we're getting somewhere in the course of arguing them. And yes, a lot of Muslims think textual criticism is blasphemy. Some of the online commentators I read were certainly quite angry. Angry enough, in fact, that some scholars publish under pseudonyms so as not to attract fatwas, a la Rushdie. Or murder attempts, like the Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz.

Not that Christians and Jews didn't/don't react much the same way to textual criticism. I don't think it went as far as fatwas, but there was public vilification and lost jobs and social ostracism and suchlike. Humans! We can be so ugly ... Zora 08:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are relying again too much on that Atlantic article and so making completely silly points (like that article did). If you knew anything about Rushdie affair, you would have known that the reason he got in trouble was because he supposedly insulted Muhammad (by calling him Mahound) and calling his wives prostitutes.

I haven't even read the book (I don't particularily enjoy Rushdie as a writer) but as I understand it, the author gave the names of the Prophet's wives to the inmates of a brothel. A shocking juxtaposition, but not a declaration of any sort. Are you suggesting that it's NOT PERMISSIBLE to diss Muhammad, his wives, the Qur'an, Islam, in any way, and that death is the appropriate punishment? And then you claim that there's no problem doing research on Islamic history?

No, what I said was that the book had nothing to with textual criticism of the Qur'an. To give that as an example that Muslims are against "textual criticism" and "scientific research" shows the person is really confused and doesn't know what he is taking about OneGuy 00:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BTW, my reading hasn't been limited to the Atlantic article. But I don't see why you have so much animus against it. It still seems like a reasonable article to me. Zora 23:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This had nothing to do with questioning the text of the Qur'an (like that Atlantic article claimed). There was nothing about the Qur'an in his novel. The phrase "Satanic Verses" was not invented by Rushdie. He got it from William Muir (no one issued a death sentence on Muir). As for the manuscript evidence, these scholars completely ignore the fact that primary source for the preservation of the Qur'an was memorization. You cannot ignore that part (as these scholars do). OneGuy 09:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since when did I ignore it? I said that there were several accounts of the chain of transmission -- some stressing oral transmission, some stressing writings -- and that given the nature of the writing system at the time, they could be seen as much the same thing. Any "manuscripts" would have been ambiguous at some points without an oral tradition to disambiguate them. Zora 23:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Besides everything I said above, if you are really interested watch this debate on the Qur'an. You will see arguments for both sides here. That will clear some confusion about what issues are. OneGuy 10:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the first few minutes of the debate. Hey, it's a debate between Christians and Muslims, and I'm not even a Christian. If I have a side, it's the side of trying to figure out exactly what happened -- which I hope is the scholarly or academic side. I'm definitely not on the "Christian" side.

What does that have to do with anything? I am neither a Muslim nor a Christian, but yet I watched the debate. Watch the whole debate. You will see many of the same arguments about Ibn Masoud, variant text , and seven reading. 00:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And to add more to the errors (and POV) in this section, the article goes on to repeat the same POV assertion from confused Atlantic article (as if it was a fact), that Muslims are hostile to scientific research of the Qur'an (ignoring thousands of books written on the topic by both Western and Muslim scholars). The section from A to Z is messed up OneGuy 14:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I said many Muslims are -- and frankly, the responses I'm getting here rather supports the conclusion. One incident I didn't mention -- one researcher in early Islamic history, Suliman Bashear, who taught at the University of Nablus, was thrown out of a second-story window by students who felt that his research was un-Islamic.

The response you got was from me, and I am not Muslim. You got that response because you inserted confused POV and other weak and condfused arguments in the article. OneGuy 00:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Under attack again

I reverted one anonymous edit that replaced the whole "Belief" section with "Islam is shit". Zora 02:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is unbearable. I've been watching this page for two days now, and it has been vandalized about five times. Is there an option to protect a page from anonymous edits while still allowing logged-in users to edit? dab 08:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

transliteration, capitalisation, diacritics

I have given some thought as to how to present arabic terms in this (and related) articles. There are several stages of "latinization"/"anglicization":

arabic in arabic script: الإسلام

arabic phrases in scientific transliteration: lā ilāhā illā-llāhu
transliterated arabic words in english context: Allāh
arabic words, dropped diacritics: Usul, Din.
"english orthography" phonetic transcription: Usool, Deen
hybrid arabic words with english morphology: Sunnite, Shiite
Arabic loan-words in English: Moslem, Muslim, Islam, Allah....... Admiral, magazine, alcohol

They all have legitimate uses, but we should not mingle them randomly. For example, "Deen" next to "Usul" (or "Usool" next to "Din") is inconsequent. My suggestion is:

for entire phrases in arabic, like the creed, to use scientific transliteration with no capitalisation (it's tempting to capitalise Muhammad for example, but the name of God is difficult to capitalise consistently, because looks weird to have Llāh besides Allāh.
For newly introduced terms, give full diacritics (Allāh, Dīn), but later occurrences can well drop the diacritics (Allah, Din), since many readers will not know what to make of them anyway, and people who want to know can take the information from the first occurrence
loanwords and words with English morphology can be treated as English words (no italics): Muslim, Allah, Islam, Sunnite.
transliteration options: the "official" transcriptions of alif, gim, shin, ayin are ʾ, ǧ, š, ʿ but it doesn't do any harm to use ', j, sh, `

dab 08:58, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa's edits to Qur'an section

Many of the edits were OK and I'm not going to quibble over them. However, Mustafa quotes hadith as being the actual words of the historical figures, which no scholar would accept. Hadith are late and unreliable. An oral chain of transmission hundreds of years long cannot be taken as reliable for reproducing every single spoken word, though it might indeed be evidence for the gist of the matter transmitted. Also, Mustafa seems to paper over disagreements in the actual sources, and put together a synthetic version that stresses the reliability of the Quranic transmission. Again, this is putting piety over scholarly rigor. I'll be working on tweaking the para -- when I finish doing some mending for my daughter, and baking some cookies to send to her at college. Zora 00:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

More confused assertions. No scholar accepts hadith? LOL.

Skeptical, cautious scholars would accept hadith as being PRIMARY sources for the time that they were written down, if that can be documented. Bukhari rejected thousands of spurious hadith, which were invented in order to glorify Islam, buttress current political or legal arguments, etc. But there's no way to KNOW if the ones he, and the other reputable collectors, reflect in any way things that happened hundreds of years ago. There may be truths there, there may be falsehoods, they may be mingled, and there's no way to know. So hadith are SECONDARY sources for the times they purport to describe. Zora 13:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You claimed that no scholar accepts hadith. That was a factually incorrect statement. Many Western scholars do. OneGuy 15:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Many scholars accept sciences of hadith (isnad or different methods to see if a hadith is authentic or fabricated and such).

Isnads are fabricated easily enough. In fact, academics say that the more impeccable the isnad, the more likely it is that the hadith is fabricated. Zora

Only obnoxious "academics" make that claim. There is assumption here that everyone is a liar and everything is fabricated, and if isnad proves that a tradition could be true, it must have been deliberately fabricated. If you don't make that stupid assumption, then isnad does help to see if a tradition could be believable or not. OneGuy 16:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You can also reject hadith if they include anachronisms, etc. But when it comes down to it, you don't know. Any written document that can be dated, or dated inscription, or archaeological dig, take precedence over oral tradition. If they corroborate some aspects of an oral tradition, that's great -- it means that the tradition is more likely to be true. But there's too darn little of the evidence that can be used to corroborate oral tradition. It will be wonderful if researches start using some of the new dating methods and date manuscripts with something other than paleography (which is a slippery "science"). Zora 13:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No written document goes back to the original source. You always have copies of copes of copies, etc. How do you know that Pluto and Aristotle existed? There is no manuscript that dates back at that time. Jewish historian Josephus wrote Jewish Antiquities (supposedly 94 AD). How do you know that a guy called Josephus existed? All the manuscripts are much older. If the historian Josephus didn't exist, there goes your source for much of history. It would be hard for you to prove 99% of history if you take this idiotic approach that everyone is a liar and everything is fabricated. You have to assume that historical record is correct until there is a reason to believe otherwise. OneGuy 15:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, well, that's what textual criticism is all about. You have umpteen texts, of various dates, and perhaps some minor differences between them, and you're trying to figure out how they're all related and what the lost original might have looked like. Indeed, that's what history is all about -- being very clear about primary and secondary sources, dating things as precisely as you can, and collating different types of information to see if they can be used as cross-checks. That's the reason that historians don't just work with documents any longer, but pay a great deal of attention to archaeological digs, rock inscriptions, and the like. Historians have to be detectives and doubt everyone, because people DO lie and fabricate.

I speak as someone who trained as an anthropologist but actually ended up spending a lot of time in dusty archives. Also a lot of time collecting stories from people, trying to figure out their sources and motives, and get some sense of what "really" happened. As elusive as that is. If as a scholar you are truly devoted to looking for "truth", you soon realize that it's as precious and as elusive as salvation, or enlightenment, or whatever your religion calls it. The quest should make you humble. Not that it always does, alas. Zora 22:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A few question some collections that Muslims consider authentic, but to make that into no scholar "accepts" hadith is silly. If you really believe that no scholar accepts hadith (what a joke) .. can you explain why do you believe Uthman compiled the Qur'an and not Muhammad himself (what source are you going to use to prove that?)

I didn't say that I believed Uthman did the collection. The section that I wrote said that Muslim scholars say. I'm not at all sure that Uthman did it. I think it's more likely than not, but the exact details given may be wrong in all kinds of ways. Zora 13:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See above. You have to prove that they wrong (one by one). You cannot assume that that everything is wrong, like Wansbrough did. He assumed that all Islamic sources are fabricated and ended up reaching a really idiotic conclusion that Qur'an was "written" (or came into existence) in the 8th century. This shows that a "scholar" can also be an idiot. The Islamic empire was stretched from India to North Africa around 8th century. If the Qur'an came into existence in the 8th century , there should have been dozens of different versions in different parts of the world. Shows how stupid the guy is OneGuy 15:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Hadith" are just oral traditions .... all scholars have to use it. Without that, you don't know if there was a guy called Uthman who even existed. OneGuy 01:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You see the problem. Zora 13:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would certainly question your wholesale rejection of the hadith - some hadith are unreliable, but a considerable body of scholarship exists dedicated to sifting out the unreliable ones - but I'm happy to add the proviso "according to Muslim historians". As to the supposed papering over of disagreements - I'll be interested to see what you can come up with; such claimed examples as I've seen are single-letter differences with no effect on meaning. - Mustafaa 00:23, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You didn't have to add "according to Muslim" historians. Many (or most) Western scholars accept that. Only very few people question these facts (like Wansbrough). She claims that the "scholars" don't accept early Islamic sources (what a joke). If that's the case, why did she wrote that Western scholars have compiled the Qur'an in chronological order? Where did these scholars get this data from?

I said Islamic scholars; I should have said Muslim. And it's not just Wansbrough, Crone and Cook, and the like. They're just the most radical of the recent scholars. There have been any number of skeptics during the last 100 years of academic study of Islam. I was just looking over a 1916 essay by Hurgronje (recently published online by Distributed Proofreaders -- I was one of the proofreaders) and found a quote saying that scholars "knew" less and less of Islamic history, and that this was good. Zora 13:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are a little behind. As far as I know, Crone (not sure about Cook) has revised most of her earlier views. That leaves you with Wansbrough. You can remove Crone from that list. And 1916 essay? A lot of nonsense was written in 1916, as it is being written now. Nothing new there. OneGuy 15:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So the fact that it was written in 1916 proves it was nonsense? I was surprised, as I was proofing it, by how contemporary and clear-headed it seemed. As to Crone, Cook, and Wansbrough -- I've only read excerpts from their works. I've got a Wansbrough reprint on order and I'm not looking forward to reading it. His style is horrible. As for Hagarism, the book that cocked a snook at staid academia, it's out of print, the local libraries don't have it, and the used-book services list one copy at $400. Anyone have a pirate e-book copy? Zora 22:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How does she know that the there were at least seven different readings and variants, or that Uthman burned variant readings? What were some of these variant readings? If you reject all Islamic sources, then you don't know any of this ever happened OneGuy 02:00, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Right, we don't know that. All the evidence for it is late, hundreds of years after the events. Bukhari died in 870 C.E., and Uthman's recension was supposedly done in 650-656 C.E., or thereabouts. A two hundred year old oral tradition will get all the details right? Doesn't seem likely to me. I'm not saying that people can't memorize things and pass them on, but you need a social context for the memorizing (a college of memorizers, frex, ready to criticize deviance) and usually a poetic form as a framework (harder to alter things). Most scholars, even the skeptics, would agree that there was such a context and framework for the Qur'an, but it's not clear that there was such a thing for the hadith. Zora 13:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By the way, even what you wrote about why Uthman standardized the text is not entirely correct. There were several different readings (supposedly authorized by Muhammad). These readings didn't change the meaning, but some Muslims started to argue that their reading (or dialectic) is better than the others. In response to these arguments, Uthman standardized the text to the reading (or dialectic) of Quraish (the tribe of Muhammad). Read this article. The article is just a collection of quotes from Tabari and other sources.

But the story of the several different readings is, I believe, found in a hadith from Bukhari, which is 300 years from the time of the story. Does anyone know of an earlier source? It's possible. I wondered if it would be in Ibn Ishaq and an hour of searching later, I can't find anything. Just the story of the Satanic verses, and the missing aya re stoning for adultery. Zora 13:43, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now it has become 300 years? LOL. You are getting desperate there.

Well, I wrote that at 4 AM and it was tired. Yes, it's a mistake. Zora 22:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How do you know that a guy called Bukari existed? What's the oldest manuscript? How do you know Ibn Ishaq existed? At any rate, to answer your question, Ibn Ishaq sira survives only via the edition of Ib Hisham (died . 834 -- not that early than Bukari). But now you need to prove that Ibn Hisham existed OneGuy

Yes, that's a problem too. Especially since Ibn Hisham is supposed to have edited Ibn Ishaq and taken out some things he considered scandalous. More scandalous than the Satanic verses section, which some Muslims completely refuse to accept?

Figuring out which evidence is reliable is a big problem, since I'm using mostly secondary sources, many of which are not at all rigorous. If I'm reading an Islamic site that says "it is related in a hadith that ... " often enough the source for the hadith is not given. Perhaps it's from one of the respected collections, perhaps it isn't. (And of course, even if it were, its reliability is not guaranteed.) The Christian missionary anti-Islam sites are only interested in ammunition to upset Muslims, not in ferreting out the truth, so they'll just use anything. Nobody seems to talk about oldest surviving document, except in the case of the Qur'an. Some of the Western scholars, like Karen Armstrong, are so nicey-nice that they're not going to doubt ANYTHING that a majority of Muslim scholars believe.

My own take is that the later you get in Islamic history, the more sources you have, the more outside sources you have, the more cross-checks possible. There's also less incentive to fabricate, since details of the reign of a particular Abbasid caliph, say, aren't usually considered the basis for Islamic law and practice. But everyone who had a pronounced viewpoint in religious matters had an incentive to fabricate hadith to support their claims.

It's not just Islam that does this. There are late Hellenic and Christian authors like Pseudo-Dionysius, trying to give their ideas spurious prestige. Most of the Mahayana Buddhist scriptures are pious frauds -- but then they don't even try to be historical. It's just the Buddha preaching to an assembled multitude of devotees and celestial beings, in never-never land.

So while I'd reject most Hadith as history, I don't think they're necessarily useless from a religious viewpoint. If someone of great piety and learning had an idea to convey, and chose to attribute it to Muhammad, the attribution may be wrong, but the idea or sentiment may be helpful. However, that's me speaking as a religious person, not as a scholar. Zora 22:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's why there was this controversy. The opponent of Uthman argued that Uthman is suppressing readings (or dialectic) authorized by Muhammad himself (notice Uthman was killed by some people due to this controversy). OneGuy 02:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

history

To avoid clutter, I will put responses to different parts here:

If the oldest manuscript is hundreds (or in some cases thousands) of years latter, how do you know that everything is not a lie and fabricated? If you assume everything is fabricated, you cannot know anything about history. Archeology cannot give you a detail history of say Romans. That's not the answer. As for comparing different manuscripts, you can also compare different oral traditions in different cities and countries and see if they are consistent. That's a part of sciences of hadith (i.e. if a hadith was reported by different people at different places in such a way that it would make it impossible for all of them to conspire -- that would make it a stronger hadith). You can examine each tradition one by one and give a reason to reject each, but you cannot start with assumption that everything is fabricated and everyone is a liar (like Crone did in her book). That's clearly stupidity.

As for Satanic Verses, they do give reasons why they do not accept the story. Like Satanic Verses

And Karen Armstrong is not an Islamic scholar, but someone like Montgomery Watt is. I don't think he (like most other scholars) reject all Islamic sources. Only a very few loony "scholars" start with the assumption that everything is fabricated. OneGuy 02:47, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph removed

Zora wrote:

Because of the widespread belief that the Qur'an in heaven, the Qur'an revealed to Muhammad, and the Qur'an codified by Caliph Uthman are identical and perfect, many Muslims have been extremely hostile to the attempts of scholars to study the Qur'an with the same tools of textual criticism and scientific research that have been applied to the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.

Something kinda like this might be worth putting in, but I question its NPOV status. The traditional study of isnad is textual criticism, refined to a rather high degree, and is exacting enough that its standards would exclude almost all of the Bible from consideration.

Isnad, proof by assertion, hardly constitutes "textual criticism." For example, no hadith claims to be revelation from Allah tompainetompaine

Academic scholars do not consider this a sufficient guarantee that the oral traditions recorded reflect occurences several hundred years ago. People can be honest, upright, and well-meaning, but still distort the truth. An isnad can be forged. Claiming that isnad is reliable IS a POV. Zora 02:32, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Several hundred? From this site Malik ibn Anas died 795 (so his collection must be earlier than his death), Abu Dawud died 818, ibn Humama died 826, Muslim died 875, Darimi died 869, Bukhari died 870. None of that is several hundred years. At any rate, as I said, you can examine each hadith one by one, you can consider that if a hadith is reported by several different people at several different places (making it impossible for them to collaborate; thus making it a stronger hadith), you can examine the isnad and criticize that, you can give other specific reason to reject a specific hadith (like if it can be proven to be false logically or if it contradicts a stronger narration or historical fact), but you cannot start with assumption that everything is fabricated and everyone is a liar. OneGuy 03:13, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You know, Zora, it's really quite patronizing to treat "academic scholars" as a category with no overlap with "Muslim scholars". - Mustafaa 11:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it sounds patronizing because I'm tiptoeing around the subject. There ARE people like Suliman Bashear and one fellow -- Al-Rawandi -- who seems to have taken Crone and Cook quite to heart. I found another scholar who might be Muslim, guessing from his name, Sajjad Rizvi. I found this review he wrote [7] Zora

Al-Rawandi is not a Muslim; he is just another pseudonym anti-Islamic bigot, like Ibn Warraq. Moreover, there are Arab Christians too. Just because you have a name that sounds Arabic doesn't mean the guy is a Muslim

Open Encyclopedia

Talk: Islam

Reverting Edits

BIG PROBLEM editing this page!

Review requested of Aashurah article

How should criticism be presented?

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed?

Too many links

Islam - Fastest Growing Religion?

Islam and the Separation of Church and State

Islamic and Western Values

WikiMoron Insists on Bringing Up "Honor Killing"

Islam and Fundamentalism

Removed Jihad reference in Qur'an section

People of the Book

Repetition of 'belief' section?

Creed/Shahadah

NPOV dispute?

Six Pillars of belief is incorrect...

Pre-Islamic practices

Please review Muslim religious dress article

Reformation and Inclusive/Exclusive Religions

disambig header

Complete replacement of online sources?

Persistent Salafi propaganda attacks

Chart template

Editing online sources

The Prophet's wives

Edited Qur'an section

The sidebar

Classic

the "creed"

Edited Qur'an section

Under attack again

transliteration, capitalisation, diacritics

Mustafaa's edits to Qur'an section

history

Paragraph removed