Talk:Islam/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Islam. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Semi-Protection

Semiprotected like Moslem to deal with recurring vandal. DJ Clayworth 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Virtues of Islam

Could someone add some information on what virtues are considered most important among believers and practitioners of Islam?

Dominio 15:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That would vary from teacher to teacher, sect to sect. It is a huge topic. Better to explore this via material in the references and links. Zora 21:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Joturner's Comment

Joturner wrote the following under the "Terrorism Portal" discussion: "No one has ever called Eric Rudolph or Timothy McVeigh "Christian terrorists", and yet everyday Islam is being connected with terror in this manner."

Muslims often attempt to make this analogy, however, it is clearly false. Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh had to violate the Bible's explicit and implicit commands when they did their dirty work. They also had to run counter to the example of Christ. Muslim terrorists, however, can call upon numerous passages from the Qu'ran and various Hadiths to validate their actions. Muhammad was also an incredibly violent man. Please don't say that I "don't understand real Islam." I know how to read. If you would like me to cite the references from the Qu'ran I will do so, but I think that you know them already. These are facts, not opinions. This analogy fails miserably. If you have any sort of response that doesn't involve calling me, either directly or indirectly, "ignorant," or "bigoted," I would love to hear it. RussianBoy 20:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Muslims have to violate "dont kill unarmed civialans" command when they kill common people . But then....the other side is doing the same thing , so its more like "never mind religion" condition . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW how about calling Hitler "Christian terrorist" , Sharon "Zionist terrorist" , & GWB * ahem * ...."Evangelist war crimnal" . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 20:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Like F.a.y. said, terrorists are in violation of the Qur'an as well. As I said in my other post (in case you didn't read the entire thing) they are far from good Muslims. Drinking alcohol, hiring prostitutes, and gambling in Las Vegas just prior 9|11 are in clear violation of Islam. And I know Rudolph and McVeigh are in violation of Christianity. What I am saying is that we don't refer to someone's religion (or race, gender, etc) every time we mention someone's occupation. When introducing myself, I don't say I'm a Muslim student. I don't expect my mother to greet people by saying she's a Christian teacher. And George W. Bush isn't addressed as Christian President George W. Bush. But often times were "Muslim" terrorists are mentioned, they are referred to as Islamist or Islamic terrorists. That extra modifier causes many people to associate Islam with terrorism.

I don't need you to cite passages from the Qur'an that mention violence. I know they exist in the Qur'an although in my eyes, they promote only violence only after reasonable provocation. But what you fail to mention is that the Bible has verses that appear to promot violence as well. Take for example the following from the Book of Exodus:

"And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren." (Exodus 2:11)

"And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand." (Exodus 2:12)

Is the Bible promote gratuitous murder? Judging by those verses, one could say so. But that is only a small excerpt from the Bible and therefore that assessment would most likely be incorrect. As I believe I said in my original post, many religious texts involve violence. In the same way you cannot look at one or two petty thefts in a man's life and say he's a disgrace to society, you cannot look at one or two (or more) verses of a religious text and say it promotes violence. That same arguement goes for your portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him); he was not a violent man. Although I know you did not want me to, RussianBoy, I am going to say that you do not understand the real Islam. If you think the terrorists are not violating Islamic law, you are wrong.

May Allah bless you in this world and the Hereafter. joturner 22:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

RussianBoy, you claimed that Prophet Muhammad (p) was an "incredibly violent man". I have absolutely no doubt that you are amongst the group of people who hate Islam before you read. This is just one type of bias and is similar to those who love an ideology/religion/belief before they read. You claim that you know how to read, and I have no doubt that you do; but I am very certain that you are selective about your reading. This can be changed. In essence, it may very well be the case that people such as Joturner are wasting their time with you. Before learning about religion, and Prophet Muhammad's struggle to create a perfect society in accordance with God's commands, you need to do what many people need to do: learn how to use your intellect. Intellect is a strong guide for many issues. Intellect instructs you to be free of unfounded bias. Intellect guides you to analyse a subject in the correct order, and in its entirety. With comments such as yours, it is clearly evident that you have failed to this. It also clearly indicates your intentions. Of course, your comments have been repeated by many people throughout the centuries, and they have been answered by people time and time again. For the mean time, I shall make it clear that all of Prophet Muhammad's battles were defensive, not offensive. Secondly, one of Prophet Muhammad's objectives was a peaceful society. The evidence for this is in absolute abundance. Please clear your prejudices before you contribute to an encyclopedia. I advise that you read War, Peace and Non-violence: An Islamic Perspective by Ayatullah Muhammad Shirazi. Adamcaliph 00:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

RussianBoy stated: "Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh had to violate the Bible's explicit and implicit commands when they did their dirty work." I do not agree. There are a lot of explicit and implicit commands telling Christians to do a dirty job.

1. As a hot-headed angry Jesus Christ himself violently chased out the money-hungry traders from the holy temple, smashed their trade goods, and --since no-one likes their trage goods to be smashed-- must have gotten himself into a fierce fist fighting... Jesus Christ the prophet setting an example for human kind... this could very well be interpreted by Christian terrorists like Rudolph and McVeigh to mean that the earth (a holy temple built by God) must be cleansed (with fierce hate and violence) of unholy tradesmen.

2. There are passages in the Bible where Christ is telling the believer to sell his robe and buy a sword to fight injustice, etc.

The point I want to make is not that Christianity is terrorism. I only want to say thet terrorists (already being terrorists) can "find" their "ligitimacy" anywhere: from Christian texts to Islam texts, from liberal texts to fascist texts. This means that we (wikipedians) should not connect Christianity (or Islam) to terrorism, but that we should look at the causes of terrorism (colonization of the Middle East, or social exclusion in the USA) and understand that terrorism will always vocalized in a local vocabulary: an American in Christian vocabulary, an Arab in Islam vocabulary. Wikipedians should not make the mistake of substituting the form (religious vocabulary) for the content (the societal cause of terrorism, and the terrorist act itself).

-- ActiveSelective 12:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK guys, I must say that you all have done what I had hoped you wouldn't do. To repeat myself, I don't doubt that the majority of Muslims condemn violence, and that there are many Islamic schools of thought with various and conflicting interpretations of the Qur'an. My point, however, is that there is an important distinction to make: the minority groups in Islam who resort to violence are not an aberration to Islam but in fact can legitimately claim to be working within the basic parameters of Islamic Jihad, whereas the Christian terrorists must betray the explicit teachings and example of Jesus Christ. In the temple, Jesus did not kill anyone, and we have no reason to believe that he got into any "fierce fist fighting," as you put it. Now, if he had his Qur'an with him at the time, he might have behaved differently, perhaps turning to 2:190-193, "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you... And slay them wherever ye catch them... And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God..." Instead, when he and his disciples are accosted in the garden by armed men intending to do lethal violence, he tells Peter to put his sword away, and heals the man whom Peter wounded. How about 8:59-60: "Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly). They will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of God and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know..." All I am saying here is that those are strong words. Keep in mind, the Qur'an was supposedly dictated directly from God and is completely perfect. Finally, to the person who said that Muhammad wasn't violent, perhaps you should consider reading the earliest biography of the prophet Muhammad, written by Ibn Ishaq in the second century of the Islamic era, translated into English under the title The Life of Muhammad by A. Guillaume and published by Oxford University Press in 1955. It contains gems like this quote, attributed to the Prophet, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power." (369) Hmmm.... or how about the many examples of the Prophet ordering assassinations? (See pages, 551, 550, 672, etc., etc., ad nauseum.). So in conclusion, I would just like to ask you all to stop saying the Qur'an is a "peaceful" book. It isn't! I can give you a dozen more quotes if you want to press the issue. Now, are there also "peace loving" quotes? Yes there are. I guess God contradicts himself in your world. Fair enough. RussianBoy 18:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess that's why nobody wears, "What Would Muhammad Do?" bracelets!24.130.228.70 18:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

When do we pay so much attention to someone who is probably just a chrisian missionary? He calls himself "Russianboy". People often bring this extremist crap here and they really don't know anything about the bible especially being so stupid as to lie and call it a peaceful book. Stuff in there will show you just how sanguine christians really are. Russianboy's rant shows that christians are getting more miserable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:70.50.122.30 (talk • contribs) .

Why did you delete my comment? What the heck?!?!?!? Also, genius, the word sanguine means cheerfully optimistic. I think you meant to use sanguinary. 24.130.228.70 20:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Anonymous, I am a bit puzzled by your comments and actions. First you delete someone else's comment about the possibility of WWMD bracelets, which was pretty funny, and then you accuse me of a "rant.". Let's see here, in my "rant," I responded to someone else's argument directly with a counter argument of my own, using specific examples from relevant texts, which I cited as fully as I could. Now in your, "non-rant," you accused me of being a "christian missionary [sic]" (ad hominem, I guess?), called my well reasoned arguments "extremist crap," said that I didn't, "know anything about the bible [sic]," even though you had just accused me of being a "christian missionary [sic]," called me "stupid," called me a liar, and then said that "christians [sic] are getting more miserable," all while failing to respond to even a single one of my arguments, or provide any evidence for your asserstions (such as when you called me a "stupid" liar, for example). Finally, you failed to sign your post. Yes, I guess I am the one who is "ranting." Perhaps I should delete your comment like you did to that other guy? Please, if there is anyone who has anything intelligent to say, I would love to hear it.RussianBoy 19:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot to point out this great line in Mr. Anonymous' "non-rant," "He calls himself 'Russianboy'." What is the story there? It's my screen name! I should have put in my first post, "She calls herself 'Joturner!'" I guess that adds some weight to your "arguments!" This is completely out of control! RussianBoy 19:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it would probably be more appropriate to say "He calls himself 'Joturner!'". joturner 21:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were a lady for some reason. My mistake! RussianBoy 05:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally, to the person who said that Muhammad wasn't violent, perhaps you should consider reading the earliest biography of the prophet Muhammad, written by Ibn Ishaq in the second century of the Islamic era, translated into English under the title The Life of Muhammad by A. Guillaume and published by Oxford University Press in 1955. It contains gems like this quote, attributed to the Prophet, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power." (369) Hmmm.... or how about the many examples of the Prophet ordering assassinations? (See pages, 551, 550, 672, etc., etc., ad nauseum.). So in conclusion, I would just like to ask you all to stop saying the Qur'an is a "peaceful" book. It isn't! I can give you a dozen more quotes if you want to press the issue.

Well its always better to keep the discussion to Quran & authentic hadeeth . A. Guillaume was a christian missionary , he did what missionaries do best . Collect all unauthentic references from here & there , & call it earliest biography , which it isnt . He mixes authentic traditions with unauthentic ones , & the whole west reads it as what Ibn Ishaq wrote . Later F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 20:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

F.a.y., I would agree that the Qur'an and the Hadith would be the most authoritative sources. But with regards to the reliability of Guillaume's translation, it is still being published by the Oxford University Press, and is described officially by the university press in the following manner: "Alfred Guillaume's authoritative translation of the Sira of Ibn Ishaq presents in English the complete history of the life of Prophet Muhammad. No book can compare in comprehensiveness, arrangement, or systematic treatment with Ibn Ishaq's work." Now, you and I are not professional scholars (well, perhaps you are, I don't know) but I find it hard to believe that the people at the Oxford University Press would continue to publish something that is as misrepresentative as you claim. Where do you get your information? RussianBoy 05:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

(to last anonymous) Now you are a missionary too. How is an anti-Christian attack better than an anti-Muslim attack? Please, keep your contributions focussed on the wiki-article, and stop adding these personal attacks! Go to the arguments, and stop using labels like "stupid" etc. Let me show you how to keep a discussion civil and scientific:

(back to the discussion) Well, as an atheist I think all religions are contradictory to the bone, in everything. In both Christianity and Islam there are peaceloving quotes and violent quotes, there are passages that say "A" and quotes that say "not A". This contradictory nature of religions make statements about religious texts always partly true and partly wrong.

What should wikipedians do? (according to me) The important thing is to always give the context in which a text is interpreted. Because it is the person in that context that has chosen certain phrases from a religious book, gave it only a certain interpretation to make it fit his perspective on that context. In other words, the context says more about the actions taken by a reciting person than the multi-interpretable religeous texts do. By leaving out the context and by isolating phrases on itself, the explanation power is lost.

For example, the religiosity of suicide bombers does not explain the suicide bombing. On the one hand, killing oneself and killing other persons is condemned in all the Abrahamic religions. On the other hand, there are passages and traditions that make someone a hero if they die in course of battle. Then again, no Bible, Quran or Torah ever used the words "suicide bombings". In other words, taking a text angle on these issues does not explain the phenomenon. Taking a context angle on them, however, does explain it. For example, the context of living in dictatorships supported by the West, or poverty countries economically isolated by the West, does explain the hatred of the persons (religious or not) towards what they think is West.

An article on Islam should be on Islam - and not on the random contexts in which random people give random interpretations to random parts of an islamic text. If you really want to focus on terrorist content with an islamic form, then add your info to Islamic terrorism. If you want to focus on terrorist content with an christian form, then add your info to Christian terrorism. Also on those pages, however, you should not confuse form for content and content for form. You can say "terrorism is violent and has an islamic form sometimes" which is true, but not the fashionably confused "islam is violent and has a terrorist form sometimes".

-- ActiveSelective 20:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

ActiveSelective, I see what you are saying, and there is a lot of truth to it. However, let's not get too carried away with the "randomness" of these Quranic interpretations. After reviewing the Christian/Jewish scriptures and then reviewing the Islamic scriptures, an objective person would have to conclude that the Islamic scriptures give far more support to religious violence then do the Judeo-Christian. I just don't see how you can argue otherwise. Comparing your examples of Biblical support for violence with those supplied from the Quran by RussianBoy, one has to say that his are far more conclusive. This theory also seems to cash out in practice. If you go to the Wikipedia entry on terrorism, you will find three Christian terrorist groups listed, and one Jewish terrorist group listed. Contrast these numbers with thirty-six different Muslim terrorist groups. Now, reading your previous posts, I realize at this point in the discussion you would argue that this overwhelming majority of Muslim terrorist groups stems more from socio-economic circumstances than from any religious motivations. I would counter with the fact that the same Wikipedia article (terrorism) cites only three Hindu terrorist groups -- only three groups from a population that is also poverty stricken and oppressed. Furthermore, when you say that these terrorists are motivated by poverty and oppression, how do you explain the actions of those that fund them? Finally, if social circumstances are the exclusive determinant of terrorist activity, then why do we not see more terrorist activity coming from the millions of oppressed and impoverished Christians around the world, living in, say, African or South American nations? What about those Christians that have struggled under the persecution of oppressive states like China and the Soviet Union? I have enjoyed the dialog so far, and hope that it might continue. Mcb197 00:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Scriptures - "But the Islamic scriptures are more violent than Christian/Jewish/..." I have three things to say about that.

1. If it has more violence potential, it is only a matter of degree. There are many things in common between the Scriptures: the stoning of homosexuals is recommended in all three books Torah/Bible/Quran. The rest is a variation on this violent theme in more/lesser degree. Most important, however, is not what is on-paper but happens off-paper. In Saudi-Arabia the 'crime' of homosexuality is physical punishment. In the USA it is not an official law (maybe George Michael might beg to differ) but I can show you very Christian places in Texas and N&S-Carolina where homosexuality means you will get a good beating.

The question is: what makes this violence potential on-paper an actual violence off-paper? In the above example it is a matter of urbanization, or the lack of it. Where masses of different people live together, they learn that perseved differences are not that important. Even in conservative Saudi-Arabia, in the city of Riyadh, there is one neighbourhood where homosexuals can have their own night life (more or less isolated from view) where they are safer than in some small Christian towns of Carolina. Socio-economics play an undeniable part in the interpretation of religious texts - if religious text play a role at all.

2. Back to the text itself: there are more violent phrases in the Quran? But there are also much more charity rules in Islam: the shakat (share a third of your property with the poor) and the ramadan (feel how it is to be poor and grow solidarity). How do you balance that?

3. Most of all: measuring violence in religious text is a hard thing to do. A very hard thing because of the metaphores, the many contradictions, the many interpretations, the language and meanings that have changed overtime, and the thing only being a paper text. If you would ask me which belief is the most violent, I would not know. If you would force me to choose one, I would hesitate but finally choose the philosophy that convinces victims to: "accept pain, not fight back, if you are hit then just turn the other cheek and accept more; it is better to keep the moral highground, be tortured, help your enemy, and let him hang you on a wooden cross with nails through your wrists, than to use a sword and cut off the bastards ear in order to stop the violence." Imagine what violence this philosophy leads to! A few examples. Telling slaves they should be obedient, accept being slaves, and turn the other cheek when they are whipped - like on the Christian American slave owners did. The Catholic church covering up the mass abuse of obedient little boys in Catholic school who have turned the other cheek too often - like has been revealed recently in the USA, and which is a good founded tradition in Catholic Ireland. The list is endless: colonialisms all around the world by Christian powers telling exploited to be obedient and turn the other cheek, Apartheid in South Africa by Christian rulers telling Africans to be obedient and turn the other cheek, the Christian advice to Jews to not resist the Nazi terror but turn the other cheek, etc. If you really really really want to link terror to texts, than all this terror is linked to the nonviolence in the Bible. What if Jews and African slaves and Catholic boys had the Quran 2:190-193, "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you... And slay them wherever ye catch them... And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God..." (quote from Quran according to RussianBoy - I hope it is correct) This would have stopped a lot of violence, saved a lot of people. Therefore, the measuring of violence in a text by counting the violent words is an absolutely flawed method. You have to look at the context.

Terrorism - In all times, there has been one consistancy in terrorism and one consistancy only. It was always the ruling party who determined what to call 'terrorist'. And they never called their own violence 'violence' and their own terror 'terrorist'. The CIA? The CIA is a very violent organization specialized in organizing, financing, and executing terrorism. They even managed to instigate overthrows of a democratic chosen governments, the ultimate terrorist dream. In Chili it helped Pinochet to take the throne. Same way it helped its agent Noriega to throne in Panama. Same way it overthrew the Iraqi government and placed Saddam Hussein (in the 50s). Same way it helped Osama bin Laden (in the 80s). Why has everyone forgotten this? Why has everyone forgotten this? The CIA should top the list of terrorist groups, but it isn't there. Why is that? CIA did more damage than the thirty-six different Muslim terrorist groups beneath it did. The terrorism list is not a good argument in general, and especially not a good argument this discussion on religion.

The paradigm today of calling some things 'terrorist' is utterly POV and unscientific. Just like some very terrorists may not be linked to terrorism (CIA), some non-terrorists must be linked to terrorism. Saddam? He must be linked to Al-Qaeda. I hope this bastard will rot in hell in a very painful way... but the link of Saddam to terrorism was simply not true. It has even been proven wrong. Now this ruling pradigm says: "Islam? It must be linked to terrorism." Links are being made that are not real, and real links are being denied.

--ActiveSelective 11:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you quote me as saying, "But the Islamic scriptures are more violent than Christian/Jewish/..." While this does capture the idea that I was attempting to convey, I never used that particular combination of words and so I would appreciate it in the future if you would only put quotes around my exact words.

In your last post, you begin by apparently admitting that yes, the Islamic scriptures do have more, “violence potential,” as you put it: “If it has more violence potential, it is only a matter of degree.” Then, however, in later paragraphs, you distance yourself from this stance, and argue that in fact it is the Christian faith that has more violence potential due to the fact that it explicitly condemns violence, even when provoked: “If you would force me to choose one, I would hesitate but finally choose [as having more violence potential] the philosophy that convinces victims to: ‘accept pain, not fight back…’” You go on to say, that, “If you really really really want to link terror to texts, than all this terror is linked to the nonviolence in the Bible.” So now the Bible promotes terror by explicitly condemning violent acts? Sir, with all due respect to you as an intelligent man (and clearly you are), this is bordering on the nonsensical. If you had strong examples of Biblical passages encouraging violent behavior I would imagine that you would have used them by now. It appears that since you do not have any, you have tried this tactic where you equate non-violence with increased violence.

You mention the law that all homosexuals should be stoned, and point out, correctly, that it is present in all three religions. Yet it is only in the Christian scripture that the aforementioned law is explicitly overturned. A reoccurring theme in the New Testament is the replacement of the old Jewish law with the new. Therefore, if you can find any Christian church sanctioned examples of homosexual stoning, those individuals would clearly be in violation of the scripture, whereas the same could not be said about those Muslims who choose to do so (it’s a pretty safe bet that the lawmakers in Saudi-Arabia have studied Islamic scriptures far more than you or I have). Furthermore, you say that the homosexual stoning example is, “a matter of urbanization, or the lack of it” and then go on to say that homosexuality is a crime in Saudi-Arabia. Are the government officials in Saudi Arabia not sufficiently urbanized?

You discuss the CIA and its alleged links to what you would term terrorist activity: “The CIA should top the list of terrorist groups, but it isn't there.” You make this claim despite your later assertion that, “The paradigm today of calling some things 'terrorist' is utterly POV and unscientific.” I will overlook that for now. With regards to the CIA’s involvement in terrorist activities, even if you could conclusively demonstrate that the CIA is directly responsible for more terrorist activities than every other terrorist group combined, it would still be irrelevant to our discussion. This thread was started in order to examine whether or not the Islamic scriptures are more pro-terrorist than the Judeo-Christian. The CIA is not a Christian organization in any sense, and so I don’t see why you bother to bring this into the conversation, except perhaps as some sort of red herring.

I will return briefly to your assertion that, “The paradigm today of calling some things 'terrorist' is utterly POV and unscientific.” This is a very popular viewpoint in our day, but I really don’t think it holds much weight. My dictionary defines terrorism in this way: “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.” If a person or group fits those criteria then they are guilty of terrorism. Where is the ambiguity there? If that makes the CIA a terrorist organization, then fair enough.

You write that, “The terrorism list is not a good argument in general, and especially not a good argument this discussion on religion [sic],” but you fail to explain why it is such a poor argument. You simply state that it is. Do you believe that many of the terrorist groups listed there are fictitious? Do you think that many of them have been wrongly placed under the Islamic heading? If not, then I don’t see how you can criticize my using that list to demonstrate a connection between Islam and terrorism. Do you believe that the overwhelming majority of Islamic terrorist groups on that list is just a coincidence?

Lastly, you write: “Saddam? He must be linked to Al-Qaeda. I hope this bastard will rot in hell in a very painful way... but the link of Saddam to terrorism was simply not true. It has even been proven wrong.” This stance has become fairly well accepted over the past year or so, but there is an increasing amount of evidence to the contrary. In Deroy Murdock’s January 13, 2006 article from the ‘’National Review Online’’ he outlines some of this evidence, along with powerful evidence to suggest that Saddam was not the great secularist that many believed him to be.

In conclusion, A.S., I do not feel that you have responded to the arguments I made prior to your last post. You made some claims about the root causes of terrorism, and I presented some reasons why I believe your analysis to be incorrect. You then proceeded to talk about everything but my arguments, instead choosing to explore the CIA’s activity and your theories on how non-violence actually is the root cause of violence. Nowhere did you directly take on my arguments. In the future I would suggest that you do so, and if you don’t have any counter-arguments, it is acceptable to say, “Well you know MCB, you might have a point there,” and we can call it a day. I won’t think any less of you. Mcb197 17:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Might i add, this entire arguement is based on ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS [ie not accurate, nor 100% correct] versions of the Quran. It is best when someone looks to the Quran for other than jsut reading [such as studiyng, etc] that he use the arabic version, which is unchanged, might i suggest ordering one from egypt, or lebenon, saudi arabia edits thier books. Don't know arabic?..oh well, learn it. You don't do trigganometry without learning algerbra, you don't study a religioun revealed in arabic, without first learning arabic, that much should seem obvious.[i am refering to the first part of the argument, of course :)] - cronodevir

(to Mcb197) Wow, please, hold your horses. Stop twisting my words! You completely missed my point by doing that, and therefore you criticism doesn't counter anything.

The word "if" in "if it has more violence potential..." means that I am not saying Islam has more violence. What part of 'if' is not clear? I was only showing that if you were given the benefit of the doubt and I would suppose your assertion were true that Islam has more violent passages, then still we would have to conclude that it is actually not at all that different from other religions. (an important conclusion, since the people wanting to label Islam as 'terrorist' are coninually portraiting it as a different kind of religion) The "if" is a conditional reasoning -a very commonly used logical formulation actually- and not an assertion on my behalf. Even the word "potential" is conditional. I also stated before that Christ was violent now and then (I've been brought up with the Holy Book before I turned atheist; my Brazilian uncle was one of the liberation theologists). So stop saying that I admit to the nonviolence-interpretation of the text while I clearly do not.

The same thing with my Christianity-has-more-violence-example. I did not say Christianity is nonviolent. You and others continually emphasize how very 'nonviolent' the Christian texts are supposed to be as opposed to texts from Islam. Well, I say: if you were right and if I should see the nonviolence-interpretation as the correct interpretation of Christianity, then I see in the history of Christianity how your nonviolence has destroyed people's self-defence against great evil and great violence (making slaves accept violence, and passively standing-by at the Holocaust). How 'nonviolent' is your nonviolence now? Even a selected 'violent' passage of the Quran is many many times less violent than your 'nonviolent' passage of the Bible. The Quranic verse encourages people to actively stop the violence, while your Biblical quote wants to accept violence. If you hold on to the nonviolence-interpretation of the Holy Book, then you should take that nonviolent passivity during great evils as your responsibility. My question "do you really really really want to link terror to texts..." was a double warning: (1) do you really want to carry your part in helping slavery and Holocaust by your historic abstaining from "violent" obstruction of such great evil?

According to me, however, the two religions are interchangable: nonviolent passages can be taken from the Quran and violent passages can be taken from the Bible. Also the Quran has its nonviolence-interpretation, and the Bible has its violent interpretations. To me there is no difference.

You, however, prefer the one because it is supposedly 'less violent' (which can actually mean 'more violence'). A preference based on taking the text out of its context from which it usually gets its meaning. However, the liberation theologists used the exact same text in the 1970s but in a different context, and they organized peasant protests, blessed Christian peasant resistance against an injustice poverty system, and some peasant preists learned their community how to handle guns. Therefore, the second part of the double warning: (2) do you really really really want to disregard the context from which texts get their meaning? How unscientific. There are so many interpretations due to so many contexts in which texts come alive.

About the terrorism list, you ask me: "Do you believe that the overwhelming majority of Islamic terrorist groups on that list is just a coincidence?" No, I said, it is not a coincidence. Just like it was not an coincidence that the official Brazilian terrorism list of the 1970s contained a lot of liberation theologists. It was also not a coincidence that not a single Muslim organization was on that Brazilian list, by the way. Another example, it was not a coincidence that the official terrorism list of the 1650s contained Christian 'terrorist' sects of Lutherians and Calvinists, and Jews who called themselves free thinkers or freedom fighters and referenced to the Holy Scriptures when they battled with the Catholic authorities. Again, it was also not a coincidence that not a single Muslim organization was on that list either. Yesterday it was the Calvinists, today the Muslims, and tomorrow who knows what.

Why is it not a coincidence? The selectiveness of labeling something officially 'terrorism' has always had one consistancy: the labeling is done by the ruling party who gets to choose what is and what is not called 'terrorism'. Today it is USA, yesterday it was the Brazilian government, centuries ago the Catholic church, etc. The terrorism list is not a good argument here because it guarantees little about what is or is not 'terrorist'. The list today leaves out the 'God Bless American' CIA of which almost all officers are Christians who solomny swore on the Bible to protect their country, whose leader is a Reborn Christian, and all are paid by "In God We Trust" tax dollars. Just as it left out the Christian Brazilian secret police in the 1970s, and the Catholic Inquisitions of the 1650s. These secretive terror organizations are as much (or as little) Christian as Al-Qaeda is Muslim.

In conclusion, you can state your own particular nonviolence-interpretation of the Holy Book, but that is just not good enough. In every religion I can easily find a dozen other interpretations; especially in Christianity! You can say yours is best, but I can show you dozens of others stating the very same.

Even your method of criticism is utterly unfair: you emphasize a particular version of Christianity which 'must' be regarded as the 'true' Christianity and the many others are 'false' interpretations. However, you allow yourself to overstep this particularity when it comes to Islam: then you make statements about Islam in general, regardless of particular interpretations.

Well, my logical reasoning above shows: OR your nonviolence-interpretation of Christianity is incorrect (then Christianity is violent), OR your interpretation is correct (which makes Christians denounce the resistance against slavery and Holocaust and cheer "turn the other cheek! turn the other cheek!", which makes Christianity even more violent). Allow a little violence or a lot of violence, but Christianity can never escape being violent in some form or another. Say again, Islam was violent?

The newly invented word 'Judeo-Christian tradition' is also utterly strange. Christians have supressed, abused and slaughtered Jews throughout all centuries. 'Judeo-Christian' is a bad joke.

Since this discussion is not about revising the wiki-article anymore, we should continu it elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a discussion board.

--ActiveSelective 11:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

"Since this discussion is not about revising the wiki-article anymore, we should continu it elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a discussion board." TRANSLATION: "I really don't have an answer, and I know I am wrong, but since I can't admit that, I will just make up some garbage about the proper uses for the talk page." LOL! Very humorous! RussianBoy 20:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"Since this discussion is not about revising the wiki-article anymore, we should continu it elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a discussion board [sic]." Looking through this talk page, you didn't seem to have a problem using it as a discussion board previously. It would seem that since you are unable to respond to any of my original arguments, you have resorted to calling off the discussion. Why can't you just admit that maybe I have a point? Your whole idea about terrorism only being the product of poverty and oppression was completely destroyed by my original post, and then after I picked apart your red herring of a response, you come back with more of the same. I have already explained to you why the CIA is not relevant to this discussion, and yet you keep talking about it, making statements like, "...the list today leaves out the 'God Bless American' CIA of which almost all officers are Christians..." Would you care to explain how you got this information? When you are finished, would you care to explain how, even if every single person associated with the CIA, all the way down to the washroom attendant, were a Bible-thumping fundamentalist it would be in any way relevant to our discussion? And then when you are finished with that, please explain why you continue to call the CIA a terrorist organization, even after you made the following statement: "The paradigm today of calling some things 'terrorist' is utterly POV and unscientific." You say things like, "The newly invented word 'Judeo-Christian tradition' is also utterly strange. Christians have supressed, abused and slaughtered Jews throughout all centuries. 'Judeo-Christian' is a bad joke [sic]." Is this statement a "bad joke?" Do I really need to explain this linkage? You persist in holding to the idea that, "Even a selected 'violent' passage of the Quran is many many times less violent than your 'nonviolent' passage of the Bible [sic]." Go ahead and read that sentence again, and let it sink in: "Even a selected 'violent' passage of the Quran is many many times less violent than your 'nonviolent' passage of the Bible [sic]." This is amazing. If there are any objective parties out there that wish to agree with that statement, I would invite them to do so now.

Sir, you have now twice refused to deal with my arguments, instead choosing to lead us down numerous rabbit trails in your inane attempt to defend the Islamic faith at all costs, refusing to admit even the most painfully obvious linkages between Islam and terrorism. When you have butted up against that to which you have no response, you choose to throw out red herrings. If you ever do think of any sort of response that actually addresses my criticisms, I would love to hear it. If not, then I wish you the best of luck as you continue your Muslim apologetic crusade. (At this point please, please don't respond with, "But I'm an atheist! I have no stake in religion!" You might very well be an atheist, I don't know you, but I do know what you do on Wikipedia, and you clearly, for whatever reason, are very interested in defending Islam. Again, I am not questioning your commitment to atheism. I don't know why you are so interested in Islam, but you clearly are. (At this point I'm feeling a, "No! I am just interested in defending truth!" coming on! Perhaps, accusing me of being "unscientific," one of your favorite pet-insults, would buttress your argument nicely?)) Mcb197 15:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate revert

The phrase, "like other religious communities" in the sentence, "Islamic communities, like other religious communities, often exclude those they regard as apostates and blasphemers from their community of believers" is irrelevant, POV and false. It is irrelevant because it doesn't matter what other religious communities do, this article is about Islam. It is POV because it is a deliberate attempt to cast Islam in a more favorable light. Finally, it is false to imply that this is the state of all other religious communities. That just isn't true. I would appreciate it if the user "Anonymous Editor" would please refrain from reverting without discussion. I really don't even see why this should be up for discussion at all. 24.130.228.70 05:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually thought that removing the clause "like other religious communities" was a questionable edit and nearly reverted it myself. I think that not including that clause would make it seem as though only Islamic communities engage in this practice while other religious communities don't, and that is patently false. I tend to be of the opinion that very few religious communities don't exclude "blasphemers" or other non-believers, and I'd be genuinely interested to hear of any examples that you could come up with. Hbackman 05:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism for one, does not have a problem with other religions.

Except the BJP and the RSS and their ilk. Communal riots? Babri Mosque? Gujerat massacres? Zora 06:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism in general does not have a problem with other religions.

That's it, disregard anything that disproves your theories and carry on as if nothing had happened. Zora 06:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And what are you doing by focusing exclusively on the Hindu example? Incredible.

I don't think that the specific groups/incidents that you bring up have any bearing here. My advice to you would be to avoid using extremist examples as representative of the whole. Muslims stand to profit more than any other faith from keeping the discussion general and not bringing up certain, "undesirable" specific representatives. Wouldn't you agree? RussianBoy 06:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, this is rich ... RussianBoy thinks I'm a Muslim. RB, I'm a Buddhist -- a Hindu Protestant so to speak. The RSS wouldn't kill me. Now, if you think the Hindus are so peaceful, please go to the Rajput article and meet some of the editors there. Zora 06:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that I thought you were a Muslim. Read things carefully, please. RussianBoy 15:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There are also many movements that would probably be called "New Age," that also view all paths as leading to basically the same place. Even in the Abrahamic religions there are many liberal strains that see all religious paths as leading to God. Thus, I maintain that the statement is false. However, even if all other religious communities behaved in the same way, this would still not free the phrase in question from being irrelevant and POV. 24.130.228.70 06:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just a matter of being fair. Most groups have mechanisms for declaring someone an apostate, excommunicate, or outcaste. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism ... even Buddhist monasteries have been known to throw people out. Pointing that out is not being unduly apologetic. Zora 06:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, even if the phrase is not factually false, which it is, it is still irrelevant and POV. It is irrelevant to mention something about other religions in an article about Islam. In this case, it is also POV. Nowhere else in the article is any such phrase inserted. It has only been inserted here in an attempt to paint a more positive picture of Islam. Here are just three examples from the article to illustrate my point:

The article says: “Islam is open to all, regardless of race, age, gender, or previous beliefs…” Why doesn’t it say, “just like many other religions” afterward?

The article says: “There are a number of Islamic religious denominations…” Why doesn’t it say, “just like many other religions” afterward?

The article says: “The Qur'an contains injunctions to respect other religions.” Why doesn’t it say, “just like many other religions’ scriptures do” afterward?

In each of the above examples, the article is correct in leaving out the reminder that, “FYI, other religions do the same thing.” Why has it been included in the case of apostacy? The answer is simple: certain editors want to mitigate any negative impression that might be given by the comments in question. There are other pages where you could include this sort of compare and contrast stuff, but this page is not it. It is irrelevant, POV and of course, it is still factually incorrect. 24.130.228.70 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The prophet "Daud" (David)

I might be wrong but how can anyone read "Daud" as "Dawood," which is David's arabic name. I suggest that transliterating names should be made to sound like the original even if it might look a little funny to the average english speaker/reader. --A.Khalil 02:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Great Tradition

Check out these photographs from the British Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/galleries/galleries.html?in_page_id=711&in_gallery_type_id=3 (see the 5th gallery down, first column)

I think we should post these photos in the article, and explain to the general public why these Muslims are cutting their children's heads with razors. This makes a lump of coal in the stocking look like a pretty tame holiday punishment. RussianBoy 19:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

These pictures, or pictures of the like, belong on in the Day of Ashurah article, where you just posted the same link on the talk page over there. Pepsidrinka 19:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You are on the ball: I did post the same link on Ashurah article. We could post them on both pages if you like. In the meantime, could someone knowledgable please explain why these Muslim fathers are cutting their children's heads with razor blades? RussianBoy 20:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Read ashura page then. It is for symbolizing sacrifice and obedience.

Oh OK, that explains it. Thanks. 4.18.35.37 21:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits of User: CltFn

CltFn added edited the intro in the following way: " Islam (Arabic: الإسلام; al-islām (listen (help•info)), "submission (to the will of the Islamic god)") is a monotheistic faith, one of the Abrahamic religions, and believed by some sources to be the world's second-largest religion. Followers of Islam are known as Muslims. Muslims believe that the entity they call God revealed his alleged divine word directly to mankind through many prophets and that Muhammad was the final prophet of Islam. "

First of All: When we say "Muslims believe that God revealed his divine word directly to mankind through many prophets and that Muhammad was the final prophet of Islam." then it is what Muslims believe and not what Non-Musilms believe. The change is unjustified to my mind.

Secondly, "submission (to the will of God)" was replaced with "submission (to the will of the Islamic god)"). This change is not honest for the following reasons: In the Christianity article we read:

"Jesus Christ as God" This should be changed to "Jesus Christ as christian god"

Please note that to jews, Christians are worshiping a different God. Jews are forbiden to enter Churches BUT they can enter mosques. See : http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=255&o=2400

Jews recognize Islamic God, but don't recognize Christian God. Christians recognize Jewish God but not Islamic God.

Muslims recognize Jewish God but not Jesus as God. Now, CltFn please tell me should I go over all the Christian related articles and change God with “christian god”?

--Aminz 04:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the Christian article. The point is that you are using a monotheistic POV in the intro as though the Islamic God was everyone else's. The Islamic God is particular to islam and that is the NPOV that we should present.--CltFn 05:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes... but still, I don't understand most of your deletions/changes either -- what you remove as like a "sermon" is valid information that is important to understanding Islam. It's not prosletyzing. I'd never convert, but I'd be interested to know what the Islamic creed is, for instance. How is providing that information POV? I've reverted to reinstate the information that you deleted; I think that your edits to the first paragraph are questionable, but if you make those particular edits again I, for one, will let them be. Hbackman 06:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

CltFn, I really think that your version is just overly verbose. Once we've said 'Muslims believe...' we don't need to add caveats to every clause in the rest of the sentence. We've stated it is their belief so the reader can assume that their belief is their own POV. Ashmoo 06:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

CltFn, My whole argument is that why you have left all other articles on Christianity and Judaism and only want to change this article. Can't your argument be applied to those articles as well? --Aminz 06:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is not new of CltFn, he has done this a lot in the past to start a revert war on many Islamic articles and now he's trying it here. He never understood is that God in the monotheistic use of Judaism, Islam and Christianity is very different from god of other religions such as Hinduism. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs section and 5 pillars

I don't know if this issue has been discussed before and if so, what the outcome was: the 'Beliefs' section outlines the main Sunni and Shia beliefs, but I think there should at least be a subsection on the five pillars of Islam, as it's one of the first things that non-Muslims, when first learning about Islam, associate (rightly so, as they are compulsory for most Muslims) with the religion. MP (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I added references to three articles, including the Five Pillars of Islam, but I didn't add a sub-section because that may be considered too Sunni-centric. joturner 22:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Peace be upon him

Is the phrase peace be upon him after mentioning the prophet appropriate for an encyclopedia article? This implies a narrative / personal article and potentially bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.154.95 (talk • contribs) .

I have since removed them. They must have been snuck in, in between other vandalous edits. Feel free to remove them in the future. Pepsidrinka 20:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)