Talk:Islam - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 182.182.85.1 (talk) at 22:48, 2 April 2014 (→Remove). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:48, 2 April 2014 by 182.182.85.1 (talk) (→Remove)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islam article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Islam. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Islam at the Reference desk.

Islam is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

[REDACTED]

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 1, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 11, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 17, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
October 20, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
November 20, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
December 11, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 3, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
May 22, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
January 9, 2008	Featured article review	Kept
July 30, 2010	Featured article review	Demoted
May 20, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of November 18, 2006.
Current status: Former featured article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam Top‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Middle Ages Top‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007.
Comments: "quite impressed"; "looks like something that might have been done by a young graduate student, or assistant professor, or two or three"; "clinical and straightforward, but not boring"; "where important translations of Arabic language or fine religious distinctions are required, Misplaced Pages acquits itself well." Please examine the findings.
For more information about external reviews of Misplaced Pages articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

To-do list for Islam: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2022-03-20

It needs to be integrated better internally; some sections do not flow properly
Article reviews have pointed out the citations. Primary sources alone are discouraged. And many books cited here only have title and author.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following sources:

Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Contemporary Islamic philosophy: Islam, philosophy, modernity, Western philosophy, Jamal-al-Din Afghani, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Iqbal, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic philosophy, Alphascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2009), Islam and modernity: Modernity, islam, sociology of religion, Islamism, Arab socialism, liberal movements within Islam, Islamic feminism, Alphascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Islamic view of Ishmael: Islam, Ishmael, Abraham, Rasul, God, Adnan, Muhammad, Alphascript Publishing{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Additional comments
OCLC 697554244, ISBN 9786130678883.

English versus Arabic

I undid a revision that changed the heading from "God" to "Allah". We do not translate everything into Arabic; Angels would be "malaika", revelations would be "wahy", fasting would be "sawm", government might be "hukumah". Where to draw the line? Even for those who do not know Arabic or the Arabic word for God, the English title is more accessible, while its contents explain the etymology in detail. I would judge having all titles in English, instead of some, is something we can get most editors to agree to. Sodicadl (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Has there been previous discussion about this? This strikes me as somewhat odd. Yes, as one of the Abrahamic religions, one would generally say that Allah is equivalent to the English word God, and moreover the deity being described is the same. However, in terms of usage, Allah is not just the arabic word for God by non-english speakers. It's the specific nomenclature for the deity used by muslims in English as well as arabic. I'm not sure one can make the argument we should be using God because this is an english language wiki..the use of Allah is not just an untrasnlated version, it has a specific connotation. It delineates the generic word in English for the Abrahamic deity ("God") from the specific word for that deity in Islam, Allah. There is nuance beyond the rough approximation of both words...they are not just the same word in two languages. And looking about, this is generally the approach we have taken in many other articles....Al-Aqsa is "the farthest", but we call it Al-Aqsa. There are pretty yawning doctoral differences betyween the way the Abrahamic traditions specifically conceptualize the general deity. I think it's hard to make the argument that Allah, as commonly used, is indistinguishable from using "God". I also think we'd be hard pressed to find the preponderence of sources to support this decision. What are the arguments for using God instead of Allah here, in the context of the specific name for the deity? I don't really have skin in the game so to speak, but I'm trying to figure out what, beyond the general approximation of the deity in the two traditions, makes "God" a better use than "Allah" in an article about Islam. The wiki article for the specific conceptualization of the Abrahamic deity is entitled "Allah" not God (Islamic). I don't think "Allah" is any less accessible than "God" to anyone who's read a newspaper in the last 30 years. "Allah" IS in English...just because it's not an English word to begin with doesn't mean that in the specific context of naming the Islamic personification of the Abrahamic deity is failing to translate. They are not specifically equivalent enough to make that argument. I am suggesting we change this to Allah, to match the existing Wiki article on Allah.204.65.34.128 (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Allah" is extremely well known in English, much more so than the other Arabic words mentioned. In fact, if you consult recent dictionaries you will see that many consider it to be an English word adopted from Arabic. There is nothing wrong with using "God", but the argument given for not using "Allah" is incorrect. Zero 03:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Technically speaking, English-vs-Arabic is not the right description methinks, because "God" is the anglicized English-language-word for the Islamic deity, whereas "Allah" is a romanized/transliterated English-language-word for the Islamic deity, which is quite distinct from the right-to-left arabic glyphs used to refer to the Islamic deity. In any case, support changeover from God to Allah when speaking specifically of the deity of Islam, per extremely common use (I would say dominant use but will let folks with more experience have their say) in the sources. By contrast, it is extremely common to say "God" in the articles on Judaism most of the time, once again per dominance in the English-language sources, which do not say YHWH, nor the Hebrew-language-glyphs thereof. Speaking theologically, there is still a huge gulf, but speaking in terms of the linguistic prevalence in WP:RS, Allah is typical for describing Islam, and YHWH is only used in very specialized circumstances when describing Judaism. As an aside, nowadays the christian sources almost invariably say God, whereas in previous centuries The Lord methinks was more common. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I support the change from God to Allah. Alternatively, I'd strongly encourage using "their god" or other neutral terms to indicate clearly the article is discussing a mythological being, as using just captial-G 'God' suggests that the Judeo-Christian deity factually exists. The use of "God" is also ambiguous enough that it could lead to confusion for non-native English readers or people with limited knowledge of the Judeo-Christian deity. Finally, if I recall correctly, 'Allah' in English is supposed to be the name of that deity, much like Odin is; 'God' is a capitalized synonym for 'deity,' and as names only exist in order to distinguish between entities, using it asserts subtly that it's the only one of its type. —xyzzy 11:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Islam, third edition (so far) uses "God" almost exclusively. Second edition uses "God" or transliteration "Allāh", e.g., main article is titled "Allāh", but generally uses "God" within the body. Blackwell Companion to the Qur'ān generally uses "God". Cambridge Companion to the Qur'ān generally uses "God". Qur'ān translations: Ali, Pickthall, and Khan use "Allah"; Arberry, Bell, and Jones use "God". --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

What about general-readership sources, like World Book / Britannica / Encarta / and friends? When we talk about the ancient Greek gods, we usually say gods, or The Gods maybe... as do most sources, if memory serves. We don't say "God" when we refer to Zeus as the chief deity, although we might say "the god Zeus did this" or maybe "the god Hermes did that" colloquially in some section describing a narrative about one of the Olympians. The situation with Islam it trickier, since it is monotheistic and Abrahamic, just like Christianity. But I'd like to know what the various old-school printed and CDROM encyclopedias did, and specifically, whether or not they had an article Allah/Allāh, and if so what they used in the body-text thereof... and secondly, whether in their articles on Islam/Muslim/etc whether those old-school tertiary sources spoke of Allah/Allāh in the body, or of God, or of god, or of deity, or of some other phraseology. Does anybody with access to some printed general-purpose sources feel like helping out? Thanks much to Atethnekos for the specialist-sources. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Islam & Sharia law vs. the To-do list for this article

The To-do list for this article states that it: ".. should cover the fact that sharia law is only a personal law b/t someone and God (not a political or non-Muslim law), ..".
This is not a fact at all ! This seems to be an opinion of the editor, and far from neutral !

The fact is that, according to the article "Application of sharia law by country", about ten countries have applied sharia law in full, or for the most part, including application of sharia (elements) in criminal law.
Another thirty (or more) countries apply sharia law at least to matters like ".. marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody ..". Even though this is termed (personal) Status law, it regulates an individuals position ".. in regards to the rest of the community ..", in other words: between a person and other persons, not just ".. b/t someone and God.. ".

As for how sharia is intended to be used, a neutral article should be very careful to reach a conclusion, and should certainly look at various sources. One aspect worth mentioning is the sharia concept of Jizya, ".. a per capita tax, levied on an Islamic state's non-Muslim citizens ..", which is clearly a law pertaining to non-muslims ! --GeeTeeBee (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Moreover: the lead section of this very article states, that sharia law: ".. touches on virtually every aspect of life and society, providing guidance on multifarious topics from banking and welfare, to warfare and the environment ..". --GeeTeeBee (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Spread of Islam from Afghanistan to Hindustan

Why the history section doesn't mention anything about this important event? It talks heavily about Arab areas and Ottoman empire stuff but not a single thing is mentioned about the powerful Muslims (the Ghaznavids) who first started by defending Ghazna (present-day Afghanistan) against powerful Hindu army led by Jayapala, eventually defeating the Hindus and proceeding to conquer (present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan, northern India and Bangladesh) in the name of Islam. Muslims ruled that area for the next 1,000 years. The largest population of Muslims is found in this area and the only Muslim country to have nuclear bombs is Pakistan. Muslims from this area are found in very large number in the UK, North America, all over Middle East, Australia and everywhere else in the world. Their ancestors became Muslims after Ghaznavids conquests of Hindustan. In addition to all this, many famous Islamic figures are from this area.--39.41.188.248 (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Tighten up prose, and fix accidentally-mangled parens, of the first entry in the Islam#Other_denominations subsection. Please change:

Ahmadiyya is... ((no changes)) ...two subgroups: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (5th Khalifa of Ahmad, who believe Ahmad to be the second coming) and subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (6th Emirate of Ahmad, who believe him to be the second coming), but not a prophet.

To:

Ahmadiyya is... ((no changes)) ...two subgroups: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (5th Khalifa of Ahmad the second coming plus subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (6th Emirate of Ahmad the second coming only).

Thanks to Salaamthebody for fixing up the accuracy of my original suggestion made at Talk:Islam. This change-request is not intended to adjust the meaning of the words currently in mainspace, but merely to fix parens and omit needless words.

74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I tried to keep the original wording. It now looks like this:

...two subgroups: the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (5th Khalifa of Ahmad, who believe Ahmad to be the second coming and subordinate prophet) and the Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement (6th Emirate of Ahmad, who believe him to be the second coming, but not a prophet).

I wasn't sure if "but not a prophet" was unnecessary, so I left it in.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Asking that the date of this religion be stated as A.D. .. It does not state this fact anywhere and while many other "religions" broke away from both Judaism and Christianity (Orthodoxy) to become Catholic and on and on .. At least the others say A.D. .

It is only fair that this page show the true date of this formation of Muslim religion .. That is all we are asking ..

74.4.114.94 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Farida baby (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You haven't said what edit you want to be made. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden and slogan of Islam

I would have liked to see Osama bin Laden being mentioned here because he is a notable figure. If muslims condemn what he did, even that should be mentioned. The slogan of Islam is, 'La Ilahi il Allah, Muhammadur Rasool Allah', which means Allah is the only God and Muhhammad (peace be upon him) is his prophet and that also needs a mention - it is just as important. I am new here and would prefer someone more experienced to do this.—Khabboos (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason it does not mention the millionaire terrorist-organiser is explained in Misplaced Pages:Handling trivia.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Definition of Islam is simply inaccurate

In the Misplaced Pages article entitled, "Islam," Islam is defined as a religion, which completely misses the essence of what it actually is. Islam is primarily a geo-politcal system of governance created to be spread by any means, worldwide. Islam includes a set of religious beliefs, but it is not a religion independent of government. Is simply is not, and any Islamic scholar knows this, as do the following skeptics about the peaceful nature of Islam: Abdullah Al-Araby, Director, The Pen vs. The Sword Publications, Serge Trifkov, Author, The Sword of the Prophet, Robert Spencer, Director of JhadWatch.org

The word Islam does not mean "peace" in the sense of no conflict, but peace that comes from having all of mankind obedient to god's perfect words as dictated to Mohammed by ArchAngel Gabriel, words that have been replaced by later Q'ran entries over time by Mohammed himself, that deprecate earlier verses. "Jihad" means struggle, both personal and at war against infidels, to become martyrs in the name of Allah.

Sure, let's be objective as possible in Misplaced Pages, but let's not get PC, okay? Islam is a single world governance system with a government called a "Califate," a legal system called "Sharia," and a religion that justifies in the name of Allah, the two fates for all non-believers: Conversion to Islam or subservient second-class status. This is crystal clear. Ask any scholar.

Fundamentalist Islamists follow the teachings of Islam. So called "Peaceful Muslims" are actually not practicing Islam, just a minor piece of it. And btw, Christians are Mesionic Jews either, so let's not be afraid to call a spade a space. I'll say again, Islam is not primarily a religion, but a system of world goverance.

I give donations annual donations to Misplaced Pages, and expect objectivity and truth, not PC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.94.3 (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you have some reliable sources for this? Please see WP:RS.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"Conversion to Islam or subservient second-class status. This is crystal clear. Ask any scholar." - Half-truth: various Muslim leaders througout history showed varying degrees of tolerance towards non-Muslim subjects. To try and suggest this was solely based on Islamic-related texts is an erroneous argument. "Robert Spencer, Director of JhadWatch.org" - Robert Spencer is not a reliable source on anything Islam-related. "Fundamentalist Islamists follow the teachings of Islam" - No, they follow their interpretation of Islam. "So called "Peaceful Muslims" are actually not practicing Islam" - Thanks for exposing your bigotry. "So-called" my ass, their are peaceful Muslims, plenty of them - and no matter how many times you spout "Taqqiya taqqiya!" it doesn't change the fact there are. Also, the fundamental tenants of Islam AKA the five pillars (funny how you guys always miss this out) are the most major part of Islam, so they are hardly following a "little bit".

And I suppose Christians who don't support their Gods genocidal ambitions are only "following a little bit" then? It's a perfectly valid comparison: Direct orders Vs stories and pseudo-historical events. "And btw, Christians are Mesionic Jews either" - irrelevant to this page & discussion entirely. "I give donations annual donations to Misplaced Pages, and expect objectivity and truth, not PC." - Congrats on that, but again entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Nice try. --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Somchai Sun, I think you meant "... the fundamental tenets of Islam AKA the five pillars...". —ШαмıQ✍ @ 20:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Yes I did. Thank you. But oddly enough "tenants" Sort of works as well. Sort of. Just a bit. A little tiny bit. OK, I'm leaving now. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

many people in world believe Islam is religion of violence because of how some muslims act. on the other hand, there are mistranslating or errors of how Qura'n translated to other languages and how extremist muslim define Qura'n. If we look in history ottoman empire had huge influence on how some muslims act today which not part of Islam. for example, inheriting leadership of country from the father, this in not in islamic act. changing the name of islamic empire to ottoman empire not islamic act. ottoman declared war and high merchant tax on european causing them to suffer hunger also not islamic act. the ottoman resulted in many other changes on islam that made islamic world very violence today. therefore, i will list words mistranslated in other languages. and whats tradition and culture thats not is islam. on the table below the words, tradition or culture that ottoman empire resulted in changing from peaceful to violence.

(before ottoman empire) (after ottoman empire) the word muslim or islam meaning: submitting to one god or any person fellowed islam, christian, jewish. muslim or islam meaning: a person who fellow islam only. the word "Kafer": any person who act barbaric or savage. "Kafer" meaning: any person who do not practice radical islam. do not argue with anyone about religion. argue with everyone about religion because muslim religion is perfect. the word "Jihad" meaning: achievements in life. the word "Jihad" meaning: killing anyone that not muslim. religion is not meant be extermist or radical, but successful. religion is to be stubborn and its like sword. woman are our nurses, mothers and the key of happiness. woman are something a man need only. and force is the best way to treat them.

ottoman empire ruled from Morroco to pakistan nearly 500 years caused muslims to suffer uncivilized ideology. the ottoman empire resulted heavily radical muslims today that they believe there are no history before islam and denying any history before islam, while in Qura'n has rich history before islam. also they believe islam is sword and radical muslim very stubborn. on other hand, Qura'n rich of how to treat people with respect. for example, "Do not argue with the People of the Book except only by the best manner, except the unjust among them. Tell them, "We believe in what is revealed to us and to you. Our Lord and your Lord is one. We have submitted ourselves to His will". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samiaqel (talk • contribs) 09:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Shias versus Sunnis

There is an ongoing strife between Shias and Sunnis (killing each other) and we need to mention it in this article. Can someone help with good references?—Khabboos (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There´s a big article called Shia–Sunni relations. Perhaps it should (at least) be linked to under See Also in this article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please remove the picture of angel Gabriel giving a message to Muhammad (peace be upon him) as it is very offensive to Islam and all Muslims. ParadiseCars (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} 18:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Request to remove image of pig..

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove an image of pig from this page. 27.106.4.70 (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

There is some vandalism at {{Quran}}, but it should be fixed now. RudolfRed (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this pique anyone else's interest?

We have two editors who have tried to remove the image of the angel and Muhammad, each using terms giving the reason that Islam rejects images by mistakenly stating that Islam rejects the doctrine of rejecting images (i.e. aniconism or iconoclasm):

1 and 2.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that one of the editors also did this edit.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything comparable in Walid562's edits yet. Is there a third editor who was making similar edits? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who reverted Walid562's removal. I participated in the long debate on the removal of images in the Muhammad article and I favoured removing them from that article (nothing to do with offending Muslim belief, however). I reverted Walid for two reasons: he didn't give a coherent reason for it and the picture does seem to be valid in the context of its place in this article. DeCausa (talk)○

I'm not as concerned with who was removing it, but that "two" editors both misused synonyms to mean the exact opposite thing. Both editors said "Islam rejects aniconism/iconoclasm," to try to justify removing the image. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is it of interest? Maybe they're socks or meats. If it is, it's pretty minor compared to what goes on at Muhammad. DeCausa (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I felt that your justification for keeping the image is even more ridiculous,, given that those images were not part of an established religious tradition (after all, this is an article on Islam). Also, the interpretation (usually sectarian) of a tiny minority of Muslims shouldn't be given more weight then the beliefs of most Muslims. Wiqi 23:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was a mistake on my part, I tried to use a big word "aniconism" However I did give you a legitimate reason to remove it " the reliable source part", I think that it's quite clear that this website "http://www.zombietime.com" is not a reliable source, it can claim many thingsWalid562 (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

So, are you saying that this picture does not exist, is not in the Topkapi Library and was created by that website? DeCausa (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe it's from the Mi'rajnama, Tabriz, mid to late 14th century. I'll improve the description at commons. Wiqi 01:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wiqi55, I remind you that the belief of any religion or lack thereof does not drive any site policy or guidelines. My statement (which was not part of the article) was countering the claim that Islam, as a whole, without exception, is aniconistic; when it is in fact only portions of Islam. WP:Undue applied to this situation would be stopping someone from flooding the angels section with every bloody Islamic picture of angels and/or all the info we have on Islamic angelology, so that it was more than one paragraph was on angels with a single picture. A single picture for the whole section, especially when that section is more than a couple of lines, is well within the boundaries for due weight.

Walid562, how is it that you and Septate made the exact same total vocabulary blunder for the exact same edit? (And at any rate, zombietime is not the origin of the image, but merely copied it from it's original and true source, which would be reliable if primary source for an example of Islamic art and of Islamic depictions of angels).

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

In that case, you're using this section not to teach about Angels in Islam (its topic), but to counter an irrelevant claim about aniconism. Most readers would not expect that. Moreover, these images were created to promote certain theological views. Given how general this section is, I'm not sure how the use of imagery that promotes one theological POV over others meets WP:NPOV. Wiqi 01:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

How is it not teaching while still promoting a certain theological view? You've got it backwards. The section says "Islam believes in angels," and there's a picture of an angel just to get the point across. It's not a picture of an angel by a Christian or Jewish artist, it's one by a Muslim artist.

Are you implying that *I* put the picture there to specifically push a certain theological view? At any point, did ever once I imply that you were arguing against it because your religious beliefs (whatever they are) or anything like that? No? Oh, right, because I assumed good faith from you even though I disagree with your position. Try reading that link sometime, it's actually kind of important around here.

Also, drop the argument that having or not having the picture is a matter of one theology versus another theology, with NPOV judging between the two. NPOV is completely unconcerned with either theology, it's merely concerned with "does the picture connect with or represent the accompanied text in any way?" And that it does. Assuming that it is one theology versus another does say that your position is ultimately based on theology, which means your are editing from a biased position, regardless of your religion. That you are completely ignoring the sockpuppetry going on just because they're on your side only makes you look more biased. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I meant historically they were created to promote certain theological views. In other words, to quote an RS, these are "not simply generic images arising out of Ilkhanid Iran's Buddhist context, but rather they serve a particular purpose." Also, the "by a Muslim artist" claim is not entirely true. There was a strong Buddhist influence on these images -- an angel in this book is even "modeled after the Buddhist deity Avalokiteśvara". Thus, as a side effect of your anti-aniconism agenda, you have actually introduced sectarian and Buddhist biases to this section. Wiqi 03:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Assume good faith. Read it, or leave. If you cannot assume good faith from other editors (and statements such as "your anti-aniconism agenda" are bad faith and nothing else), then you should not be here.

And by insisting that my edits are "anti-aniconism," does that not amount to an admission that your express purpose is aniconism? I have not stated any personal opposition to the doctrine of aniconism, but have pointed out that Misplaced Pages is not censored. Again, this is not a matter of aniconism against anti-aniconism, quit trying to make this a theological issue.

As for your citations, two pages later (p. 169, thanks for properly your source, by the way) it says that art "it was precisely this Buddhist technique that competing Shi'a and Sunni groups not only came into contact with in Il-khanid Iran, but also emulated." The source you cite supports the idea that the image was by Muslims, originally for Muslims. Two pages before the page you cited (p. 165), it says "Muslim tradition had already moved in the direction of representational art," and that "evidence of direct Buddhist artistic influence is extremely limited, "indicating that Buddhist influence did not start the trend.

As for the second book, to connect it with the first would be original research. By itself, it merely indicates that a completely different painting (featuring a multi-headed angel, which is not the one in the article) had some visual influence from Buddhist art. That is not unusual: Roman era Jewish and Christian artwork feature many Jewish and Christian figures and ideas depicted in a Hellenistic style: Elijah as Helios, Jesus as Dionysus, Cupid recast as Putto angels, the gods of the zodiac repurposed as the angels of the zodiac... When a world religion moves into a new area and gets involved in the local art it does so by borrowing from the local art (otherwise it's not really getting into the local art, it's erasing it).

And you still remain silent about illicit sockpuppetry. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant image. The image which is coming from this website: http://www.zombietime.com/ has no significance for inclusion. Please, provide here reasons for inclusion. Thanks,--Edmondhills (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Its an Islamic depiction of an angel and is used in a section on Islamic belief in angels; just as a picture of a page from the Quran is used in the section on Revelations, a picture of Muslims on the Hajj is used in the section on the Hajj section, and a picture of Muslims praying is used in the prayer section. The Apple article almost starts with a picture of an apple, even if it's not a universal depiction of an apple that applies to all apples. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The points which Wiqi55 put forward were done to death at Muhammad. The case here is stronger: it's one picture by a muslim artist depicting the topic specifically covered in the section. That's perfectly good for WP:PERTINENCE. DeCausa (talk) 15:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You're comparing real pictures with a fantasy drawing made by some unknown individual. Can you provide proof to check the authenticity of that drawing, I still haven't seen a single reliable source. I really don't understand why you keep arguing about this, this image has no significance for inclusion. I got this from[REDACTED] "Contentious material about persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Walid562 (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

What you're quoting is from Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. This isn't a biography, and the picture doesn't depict anyone living.

Your bad attempt at wikilawyering to game the system and your repetition of the same dismissed arguments over and over are getting tendentious. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not "simply" an Islamic depiction, but a mixture of Islamic, sectarian, and Buddhist influences. Why would anyone use syncratic and polemical imagery in a general section about Islamic beliefs? Also, the identity of the artist and the accompanying text are disputed or unknown. So many of your justifications are not true. By contrast, the current Hajj and Prayer images exhibit widely-held Muslim beliefs. They were not created to promote a certain theological view, nor do they contain tiny minority views, such as Buddhist influences. Wiqi 16:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

And the apple in the Apple article isn't representative of every species of apple, or is the Labrador retriever in Dog representative of all dogs. And as I replied above last night (did you read it?), the sources you brought in did not demonstrate any Buddhist influence in that picture, unless you want to engage in a lot of original research. The first source admitted that there was Islamic depictionist art before Buddhist influence, and held that the Buddhist influence was a matter of technique, not theology or ideology. The second source discussed a completely different picture, as was plainly obvious to anyone who read the word "multi-headed" and looked at the picture in question. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Your quotes were selective. For instance, you ignored his major point that the images were created for promoting certain theological views. And I'm not sure what does the apple example have to do with anything; no source suggests that it promotes a pov (unlike this image). Wiqi 19:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

And your distorting the source you're relying on. Clearly the refence to Budhist influences is artistic not theological. And if the images were created to promote a certain theological point within Islam, so what? We've heard all this stuff before at Muhammad and it got nowhere because ultimately these are relevant images, created by muslims (and btw represent a significant artistic strain within Islam). DeCausa (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Buddhist influence is both artistic and theological, as p.144 explains: "Rather we need to recognize that the bringing together of Buddhists and Muslims within the Ilkhanid domains for a period of almost a half-century resulted not only in a new intellectual engagement between the two traditions, but also in the creation of a whole new visual culture -- one that even allowed the representation of Muhammad". This influence is more clear in other works, though. The artist/commissioner of these specific 10 paintings is open for speculation (so your "created by Muslims" is just a guess). I also checked the written tradition concerning the event depicted and found no mention of an angel. So for now this is just some gratuitous misinformation (yes, probably not so different than some of the depictions at Muhammad). Wiqi 21:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

...and which is a view that was rejected by the Misplaced Pages community at Muhammad. The quote you give is nowhere near your distortion of the source to claim an attribution for the theology of the image to "Buddhist influences". That's just about artistic style not underlying doctine. Pure fiction. DeCausa (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I never said anything close to a "theology of the image". I used theology to refer to the sectarian/promotional purpose of these images, which is the same word used in p.167. And I only attributed "Buddhist influences" to motifs/styles/elements and "context", which is directly quoted above. Wiqi 00:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You said the "Buddhist influence is both artistic and theological". If you are now back-tracking because you've been caught out, then your point is just irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I was introducing a quote explaining how Buddhist influences triggered the doctrinal shift to depict Muhammad, a main thesis of the chapter (p. 144, 174, etc). Moreover, the Buddhist artistic influences shouldn't be underestimated in this context, becuase "the similarity between the representation of Muslim angels and Buddhist apsaras" (p. 165) "clearly confirms the presence of Buddhist influence on Islamic art" (p. 165). Hence in a short section about Islamic views, I don't see the point of using a Buddhist-influenced representation of an angel. Seems misleading and needs an explanation (especially given the denial and selective quoting shown by Ian Thomson on this same point). Wiqi 09:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You were introducing the quote in a misleading way. Artistic influences are neither here nor there, are not misleading and need no "explanation". If this were an article about art, that may be the case, but it is not. You will see in the Christianity article a Japanese woodcut of the Madonna and child in the Kakure Kirishitan style. The article on the latter says that their "figures of the saints and the Virgin Mary were transformed into figurines that looked like the traditional statues of the Buddha and bodhisattvas." There's no issue with artistic borrowing - it has no bearing on WP:PERTINENCE. DeCausa (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Christianity is a long article, not a small section on religious beliefs. Even on Christianity an explanation is given by linking to the Kakure Kirishitan style. For you to argue that it "needs no explanation" is inconsistent and just reflects how irrelevant your example is. Also, when dealing with a small section there's an issue in presenting minority views in proportion to widely-held views. How many Muslims currently believe in these Buddhist-influenced representation of angels? And how many of them believe that the event depicted involves an angel? Wiqi 11:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What's this "small section"/"long article" comment supposed to mean? The two articles are directly comparable; what's sections got to do with it? But, your post contains the silliest point I've seen you make. Are you really saying that the article leads readers to believe muslims think this is what angels look like? So, the Christianity article implies that Christians believe that angels look like chubby babies per Francesco Albani's The Baptism of Christ. Please tell me that's not your point: it brings you down to the "prove the Prophet looked like your cartoon" mob.DeCausa (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read our due weight policy. It should explain how much weight and space should be given to minority/majority views. Obviously, how much space given to each view would be different in a long article vs a small section in a general article. As for your other point, I think readers will react differently to our careless disregard of neutrality and weight. I'm mainly concerned with readers that would get the impression that insignificant or fringe views are more widespread. What would they end up believing is up to them. But I've seen rather bright editors make false assumptions about events of Muhammad's life based on looking at depictions. As a result of that experience, I no longer consider that point silly. Wiqi 23:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No you got it wrong, I am quoting this "https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources" It clearly states living & deceased!Walid562 (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

That part of the page is quoting the WP:Biographies of Living Persons page. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Ian.thomson" Could you stop spamming my talk page with your bullshit, accusing me of using multiple accounts? get a mod to check the Ip addresses, I keep using the same argument because it's a valid one, none of you have been able to provide a source you keep beating around the bush...Walid562 (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to get one computer to register different accounts on two different IP addresses. Your behavior and writing voice does indicate that you probably have multiple accounts. That's how this whole thread got started, that was the original point of it, despite getting sidetracked by arguments over the pic, which, as far as anyone is reasonably concerned, is from a late medieval work found in the Topkapi Library. Even Wiqi55, who is in favor of removing it, doesn't pretend that the picture was originally from zombietime. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

You claim that the image is from "a late medieval work found in the Topkapi Library", am I to take your word for it? show me some proof/source that backs up your claim. I don't have 2 accounts this is the only account I have ever used on Misplaced Pages, still waiting for your sourceWalid562 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa there won't be a general agreement, we're clearly not on the same page. If General agreement is the only way to get that image removed then there should be a general agreement for it to stay!Walid562 (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what does the word aniconism and iconoclasm means and where someone named as walid got this. But I have stated the reason behind my use of this word "iconoclasm" on sock puppet investigation case. Read it there. When it comes to image about angle, it seems that it is an attempt to cartoonify Islamic prophet Muhammed. Unlike Jesus there is no precise image or depiction of Islamic prophet Mohammed. So I doubt which person was in the mind of the artist while he was drawing the picture.Septate (talk) 10: 54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Walid562, this book (www.academia.edu/456889/_The_Ilkhanid_Mirajnama_as_an_Illustrated_Sunni_Prayer_Manual_) (I am unable to link it for some reason) states that it can be found in Topkapi Library as does the images first location. AcidSnow (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

This link should work. And it also says that the painting was part of a book of Sunni propaganda, and therefore representative of the largest sect of Islam, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I read most of this book. She was referring to a text-only anonymous manuscript about the Mi'raj. Wiqi 14:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, and it's common to take time to painstakingly paint pictures that have absolutely nothing to do with the main text and have no ideological connection whatsoever despite depicting portions of the work involved. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The paintings were not part of any text. The accompanying text was lost, and the 10 plates only found in a Safavid manuscript. You need a source that directly links Buddhist apsaras to Sunni beliefs. Wiqi 14:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal viewpoint unrelated to above discussion

The Shahadah (testimony) of Islam is, "I testify that there are no deities other than Allah alone and I testify that Muhammad is his Messenger", which is a fanatic one (because it means Jehovah, Yāhweh, Jesus, the Buddha, Ahura Mazda, Amun Re, the Pagan and Hindu Gods and Godesses etc. are not deities) and so, I had put it in the criticism section as well. Please tell me why it was removed, despite having the right references/citations (I'm planning to restore it in the criticism section).—Khabboos (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What you did was simply to repeat what the Shahada is in the criticism section. That's not criticism. To make a reference to the shahada you would have to say "the shahada has been criticized because of X, Y and Z" and, importantly, you would need to cite a reliable source supporting that. It can't simply be your opinion. DeCausa (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What's in the testimony section has the citations, so I'm planning to use the same and also mention that this is considered fanatic because it means that other deities aren't God/s.—Khabboos (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you would need a reliable source that says it is considered "fanatical" and you would need to cite that source. Your personal opnion that it is fanatical is insufficient. The citations you refer to don't say that. They just say what the shahada is. Secondly, I don't think you'll find that reliable source. Almost all religions, and certainly the major monotheistic religions, say that "their" God is the one true god and must be worshipped exclusively eg the first of the Ten Commandments and the Apostles' Creed. While you could argue that all religions are inherently "fanatical" (I personally would agree with that) you couldn't single out Islam for that just because of the shahada. DeCausa (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Not all religions are fanatical. However, I'm a novice here; why don't you insert that sentence in the criticism section appropriately yourself?—Khabboos (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Because I don't think it should be there. Didn't you read what I've written? DeCausa (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is another reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

OTTOMAN???

There is too much Ottoman pictures in this article, Topkapi palace, the last so-called Caliph, Nicopolis and finally the Anti-Hijab picture is going to flare up Islamophobia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.8.220 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

How was the picture of women just wearing head coverings anti-hijab? And how us all that intended to incite fear of Islam? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Caliph???

Most Muslims will completely agree that the last Caliph of Islam was Ali ibn Abi Talib not the Ottoman Sultan..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.22.101 (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Most historians will agree that the last figure to be recognized as a Caliph, whether or not he was religiously legitimate, was the Ottoman Sultan. Misplaced Pages is not here for you to push your personal religious views on. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

ISLAMIC THEOLOGY

This article needs more information on Islamic Theology and Sufism..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.8.220 (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The article covers theology held by almost all sects of Islam, and a rather balanced introduction of each major sects' differences, with links to full articles on them and their theology. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture censorship

Demonstration against Hejab, days after Iranian revolution. After 1979 revolution in Iran, women (Muslim or non-Muslim) are obliged to have Islamic Hejab.

User:Septate has repeatedly removed a picture that he/she does not like.

He/she/their IP has also posted his/her thoughts on this at User talk:Ian.thomson#IRANIAN PROTESTORS and User talk:Ian.thomson#Dubious. Let's discuss it here.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ keep. The edit summary "we can't afford a picture like this" is of course repugnant and it's tempting to react to that to say "keep". But, objectively it does seem a pertinent illustration of the section, if we are to have a criticism section (which is a different question). It's a "weak" keep for me in that the protesters could be protesting about the legal recognition rather than the religious injunction, I.e. a criticism of the regime rather than the religion, but I think that's probably splitting hairs. Clearly, the women are not supportive of the religious injunction too. DeCausa (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the other comments has led me to strike "weak". Whether or not the protest is in relation to a specific Iranian law, the pertinence of the picture is not diminished. The Hijab is a feature of Islam (even if its exact nature and degree of "compulsoriness" is debated). These women (from a translation of the Farsi placard) are clearly protesting about a law making a feature of Islam a mandated requirement. It is obviously a rejection and a criticism of that feature of Islam as well as of the Iranian law: they have chosen to not wear the hijab and are holding up a placard saying "With or Without Hijab we fought against the Shah; With or without Hijab we guard freedom." To make a distinction between a protest against the law and a rejection of the hijab is artificial and contrived. It would be different if they were wearing the hijab but nevertheless protesting against the law. DeCausa (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You got it wrong. The law is against Islam and Quran. Although Quran ask women to cover their heads but Quran also says that "There is no compulsion in religion". We cannot force someone. Hence this is IRONIC that a law which most certainly is AGAINST Islam's teaching (and is not mentioned in Quran at all) is used to critise Islam. Best of my knowledge no such law is made during Prophet Muhammad era. May be more appropriate is to add critisum of laws against drinking alcohol etc which existed in Prophet era and mentioned in Quran too?? --- A. L. M. 17:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That's just one interpretation, which you happen to share, but plenty of Muslims don't. But it's irrelevant anyway: my point is those women aren't wearing the hijab - the image isn't just about the law. Btw, you've deleted Septate's second "delete" post (and my note to it). Per WP:TPO you should not edit other people's posts in that way and you should self-revert. DeCausa (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

So do you have any figures which says that how many Muslims do support that law. In my support there are only two countries which has less than 5% of the Muslim population which has this law. Furthermore, Quran do NOT have this law when it has several laws in it. I have deleted Septate vote because it was duplicate vote. It was to make sure that his vote is not counted twice. You should at least assume good fait towards me. I am not going to revert my post made with good intentions. If you want then go ahead and revert it yourself. --- A. L. M. 17:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert it - it's up to Septate. I'm just pointing out to you that deleting someone's post is taken seriously and is not permitted by WP:TPO - please read it. It's nothing to do AGF or having "good intentions". It's just not allowed. As far as your other point is concerned, as I've said several times the legal issue is not the point and is irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The deleted posts have been restored. We all make errors of judgment.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep until we're discussing this removal for reasons other than going through the motions with a socking POV pusher (which includes the IPs). If someone who hasn't been trying to censor the article using bad arguments wants to bring it up later for the reasons such as those DeCausa listed, I'll have more to say then. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete The picture has nothing to do with Islam. It presents a protest against a law made in a specific country. Although Quran says women to cover their heads but it never says to force them to do that. That law does not exist is most of the Muslim countries. As the law was not a Quranic law hence the picture misleads readers -- A. L. M. 21:01, 23 March 2014‎ (UTC)
Delete: Primarily per A. L. M.. In addition, this is emphatically not the same situation as the historical angel art-museum piece discussed above or other pictures which have been disputed in the past. It's a low quality photo, and the relevance is not clear to anyone reading the English Misplaced Pages unless they also read Farsi. Also, this discussion seems a bit backwards, per WP:BRD; it's not long-standing stable content whose removal has been reverted and disputed. It's a brand new addition (uploaded on 6 March 2014 and spammed into several articles by the uploader on 17 March). It needs a clear consensus to be kept, not a clear consensus to delete. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep : According to Sharia Law, a women has to wear Hijab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fundarise (talk • contribs) 03:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete : The image needs to be placed on article Criticism of Islam if informative, and not here, since it does not distinguish between political and religious motives.Septate (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep I appreciate you because of separation between Politics and Religion. But you know, according to Islamic rules, political issues must be according to religious norms. Conclusion: This image IS a political image, but remember, criticism of political Islam in Iran is first of all criticism of Islam because basically Islam is a political religion. Soroush90gh (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Note, the following is the second "Delete" post by Septate, who already recorded his"Delete" view above. DeCausa (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete The image is of extemrly low quality, further the image is just a prolongation of criticism section, so its better that this image should be placed on criticism of Islam article per wp:burden.Septate (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment Guys there are several laws mentioned in Quran. For example cutting hand of a thief or punishing someone on drinking. For which you can provide a healthy criticism and it will be valid to mentioned that in the article too. Instead you guys want to choose something that is not in Quran and many Muslim think that is unIslamic. That buffles me big time. --- A. L. M. 17:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages does not publish original thought". Whilst it is a pity that European countries do not cut the hands off thieves and Saudi supermarkets do not sell wine and spirits, there are no demonstrations in favour of such things (or if there are, reliable sources do not report them). On the other hand, the wearing of head/hair coverings by Moslems are reported on unfavourably by reliable sources. In Western perception of Islam, the oppression of women by forcing them to wear head/hair coverings is very important. Ultimately, Misplaced Pages policy as described at Misplaced Pages:No original research#Neutral point of view governs why some elements of Islam are given greater prominence than others.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep, essential picture for describing one of the most popular event of Islamic world. Foggas (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete, essentially NOT a picture for describing any of the events in the "Islamic" world. Equally, one could dictate similar pictures representing Christian world, merely on the basis on its location, Europe, for example. Secondly, it's a super bad image, honestly. --Peaceworld 20:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete: This is a copyvio and cannot be included anyways. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 10:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment Unfortunately Septate thinks that he has more than one ballot. He has repeated his dogmatic ideas and views times and times in different pages. I just want to add, here is Misplaced Pages, Islam is a cultural issue here, not a sacred religion. Protest against obliged Hijab, is a kind of criticism, So that image is necessary if we are a neutral observer. You said Iran is not whole of Islamic world, I agree, but Hijab is definitely an Islamic "rule". It's a rule and not a recommendation, If a woman doesn't wear hijab it's a sin written for her. If other countries don't oblige women, it's because of their compromise. Someone said it's a bad image, low quality, I accept. I searched for a high definition image but I didn't find. The content is valuable. A conciliatory movement, a criticism but not by terror. By talking. This image is necessary if people are eager to know whole of the story. Story of Islam and people. Soroush90gh (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The picture has been deleted (probably on 31 March or 1 April). I have no idea what the nominal reason given for deleting it was.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please Remove the image depicting the angel and MOHAMMED(Peace be upon him) in Articles of faith -God section.

Drawing pictures of MOHAMMED(Peace be upon him) is unacceptable by all the Muslim world and we strictly condemn it. Khadeer4u786 (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Not done: see WP:NOTCENSORED. Cannolis (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Septate's removal of image again, with a dishonest edit summary

User:Septate attempted to remove the Muahammad/angel image yet again with this edit. Aside from the edit warring and clearly having no consensus to do this (per earlier talk page thread), please note that this was done with the dishonest edit summary that he "moved image to the right section". I have reinstated the image, but Septate's edit summaries need to be treated with caution. DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Image replacement

An Islamic depiction of archangel Gabriel from book 'The Wonders of Creation and the Oddities of Existence', 14th century.

Dear fellows, I am really sorry for what I have done to replace the image in angel section with this one through dishonest edit summary. I have realized that, in order to replace the image I need a concensus.

This image depicts angel Gabriel from Islamic perspective. I want to replace the image in angel section with this one because the image about angel|Islamic prophet Mohammed, has attracted a lot of controversy. It was the source of a lot of edit wars. It depicts Islamic prophet Mohammad and other unknown people along with an angel. The name of angel is also not mentioned. So, I believe that it will be a better move to replace the image with this one which only depicts angel Gabriel. Furthur more, its pretty nice and more clearer as compared to the other one. Please share your views. Thanks.Septate (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that "removing images of Mohammed" is not an acceptable motivation for removing images, don't you?—Kww(talk) 14:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The section is about angels not Islamic prophet Mohammad, that's why the image has resulted in a lot of edit wars. There is nothing wrong with this image. It completely describes the Islamic beliefs about angels while avoiding any controversy. So, in general you should not have any problem with this image.Septate (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your post about the edit summary. The image of Gabriel is a nice one, but what is distinctively Islamic about it? The other image has the advantage of being a picture of an agel with the Islamic prophet. QED. DeCausa (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't need the image of Islamic prophet Muhammad, we only need image of angel to describe the Islamic views about angels and to avoid a lot of controversy.Septate (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"to avoid a lot of controversy" isn't a valid Misplaced Pages reason. I hate to say this because it's so over used but your comment does prompt a reference to WP:NOTCENSORED. Have you read it?DeCausa (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Remove the Image of the Prophet Muhammad drawn by some obscure Ottoman painter (unknown to Islam and the Muslim World) and also remove the picture of the last so-called Ottoman Caliph whom no modern Muslim generally even recognizes as a Caliph...instead you can add the calligraphic symbol of Muhammad and the calligraphic symbol of Ali the last Rashidun Caliph of Islam.182.182.120.24 (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem with erasing from history people who are not currently in favour is that you end up living in a real life version of the book Nineteen Eighty-Four. This is not a good idea.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Van Gogh???

The death of Van Gogh is a Dutch problem, clearly restricted to the peoples of that country, it has nothing to do with the Muslim World.182.182.126.113 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Remove

Remove the painting of the Prophet Muhammad note: this painting is not recognized by any sect or even the Turks of Topkapi or the Ottomans or any modern Muslim...the painting has nothing to do with the Muslim World or its values...note the Painting his heavily sourced from Hadith which is not exactly clear or affirmative about Gabriel or the Prophet Muhammad or this fabled city that is being presented...this painting should be removed because it is clearly baseless...182.182.85.1 (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sultanates and Khanates

You fail to mention that Sultanates and Khanates are also among the types of Islamic governance systems like the Caliphates of the past.182.182.85.1 (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Categories: