Jump to content

Talk:Islamization/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Conversion to Islam

The section of conversion to Islam should not belong here. Zoroastrians are not people of book in Islam. There are 4 books in Islam: Tevrat+ Zebur(Old testament), İncil(new testatemnt); and Quran. Zoroastrians are seen as mushriks (people who deny the unity of God) by Islam. burgaz 16:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Debate

Statement "It is thought that French resistance to this lead to the rejection of Turkey in the 2005 European Referendum." makes no sense. The French were not voting on Turkey, or anything to do with Turkey.. they were voting on a Written Constitution to the European Union, but I think I understand what you mean so will re-phrase it. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If the term is used in a college textbook, and multiple ones at that, I'm sure that it can stay and be used on this website. It is in no way discrimanetory.

{{Totally disputed}}

It appears that there is an edit war between supporters of islam and those who are in Opposition_to_Islam called Islamophobic by the supporters of Islam. Many edits have been removing explaintions on what rules may compell a person to convert to islam. This includes links explaining islam to believers including the ruling on whether a Muslim man may marry a non-Muslim woman and vice versa [1] 7:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC-5)

Some writers believe:

Personally I'm not even sure this article should exist since it seems like little more than a stomping-ground for various islamophobes, but if it's going to exist than those of you who are responsible for its upkeep should at least try to not include blatant pov and factual inaccuracies. I'm not even going to touch on the other paragraphs, but just overlooking the fourth one down.

  1. "During the Ottoman rule of Balkans, many christians were forced conversion to Islam." Asides from horrible English, this statement is blatantly false: conversion in the Balkans was not forced; otherwise you would have seen far more wide-spread conversion throughout Ottoman domains.
  2. "To ensure their rule and domination over the indigenous Christian Serbian and Croat populations, the Turks forcefully converted the local policy under a policy of Turkification or Islamicization..." Complete lack of knowledge regarding the nature of the 15th century Ottoman state; this "historiography" seems like the juvenile rabble of an adolescent nationalist.
  3. "...or applied intense pressure which was tantamount to forced conversion to create Islamicized Slavs (Serbo-Croatian: po-Turcenaci), the ancestors of the present-day Bosnian Slavic Muslims (Bosniaks)." What intense pressure? Who says it’s intense? Tantamount to forced conversion according to whom? What about the large segment of the Bosnian population that didn't convert? Complete disregard of modern knowledge about the etymology of "Poturi". Ridiculous and primitive disregard for differences in the concept of nationality between the middle ages and modern times.

Basically the paragraph is a joke, and every sentence contains at least two disputable components. I suggest those of you who are interested in this page remove it completely if you want to maintain any sense of credibility it has. Live Forever 17:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi, The article was reeking of Islamophobia and I have made some unbiased changes. There was incorrect information given on the concept of 'Jizya' and self-made theories on the growth of Islam, such as the uneducated statement of 'high reproduction rates among muslims is the cause for growth of Islam.' Most of the theories described were penned by European orientalists during the Imperialist age to discourage the growth of Islam, and have now been unanimously rejected. I will provide citation to the new information handed in in a few days time. Besides this, may I inform everyone that the term Islamization itself is a derogatory term used by 19th century Orientalists. However I have not deleted the article. The person who wrote the article is clearly an islamophobe if he is sourcing his information from Le Pen! --Neonbulb.

Orientalism

A note on this pragraph:

Orientalists are attributed with the formulation that the successful conversion of non-Muslims to Islam was due to compulsion and "ill treatment of non-Muslims", such as by oppressive and discriminatory tax codes. Muslims point out that Islamic law does not mandate conversion to Islam, but that non-Muslims in an Islamic state are expected to pay a special tax, "Jizya" in return for protection by the state and right to refuse military duty during emergencies. In contrast, Muslims do not have to pay Jizya, but rather "Zakat" (a religious tax directed to charity rather than the state) and are required to defend the country during foreign invasions. Conversely, a tax code that warrants different tax classifications for citizens based on religious affiliations, a concept alien to modern Western democracies, leaves the Islamic system, vulnerable to presentist criticism. An alternative hypothesis forwarded is the gradual assimilation of Islamic culture by populaces in lands newly conquered by Muslims or demographically transformed through mass Muslim migration putting forward a gentler image of conversion through acculturation, religious education programs in newly conquered lands and marriages among Muslim conquerors/migrants and the local people.

This is from my point of view a very weired definition which I have never heard before. Who wrote that and could the person provide reference? I have studied Middle Eastern Politics for years, including the Edward Said Orientalism controversy but this is neither referenced, nor does it sound academic to me at all. --Arabist 10:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A side note to the ever present claim of Islamaphobia..one should take a look at the entrys for Americanization and westerniaztion..those articles DO NOT begin with a denouncment Of anti-american-phobia.. In short this article has (like many Islamic article) been politically edited, i would suggest removing the first two parts (chap 1 and 1.1 ).

India

A paragraph on Islamization in India in the past and present and its effects would be nice. Zulfikkur 04:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No sources, POV, neologism... this article deserves the "least likely to be a featured article" award

Does someone disagree? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 05:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds of "citation needed" tags.

These tags make the article unreadable and amount to vandalism by someone who seems to disagree witht he decision not to delete the article. Don't be a sore loser. If you think something is wrong, talk about here, don't make the article unreadable. I am also removing the "factual dispute header" because it refers to the talk page, but there are currently no factual disputes discussed here (all of the factually disputed items have been removed)Grz77

19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly "hundreds" but there are quite a few unsourced statements. I didn't add the original requests for citations but I can see why they are there. I have reverted. Perhaps we should just use the 'articles with unsourced statements' tag. --Lee Hunter 22:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
That will also work, I am making the change. I have never seen an article with a 'fact' tag after almost every sentence. It makes it ugly and unreadable. Grz77 00:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Hopefully this article is more useful now, still needs a lot of work but I hope I have raised the bar for quality and set the tone at the least.--Tigeroo 09:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would wish that someone from the Wiki team decides to delete some of the unreferenced text entirely. Much of this stuff is opinion rather than fact. Removing it would be more beneficial than anthing - the only reason I am not doing it is that I don't want to be told that I am vandalising the article. --Arabist 10:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought your edits today were a big improvement and I'd encourage you to go ahead and delete stuff that's not supported by citations. --Lee Hunter 18:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Lee Hunter, thanks for your welcome message and your encouraging words... Will certainly continue working on this and other related sites. Greetings, --Arabist 19:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference, please note

Could those of you who edit or edited parts of the article please make sure that you provide references for your texts. Please also ensure that references work - I have found several ones on this page which either all refer to the same page number (in which case you have to change the "name" of the reference slightly in order to refer to different pages in the same book), or simply to a book without any page numbers, which is slightly useless because in this way everyone can reference any statement by refering to a book which nobody knows and where nobody can verify the content. It is really important in an article about such a politiced topic to stick to certain rules. Greetings,--Arabist 13:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Merged with Spread of Islam

Please note that a major chunk of this article has been merged with the article Spread of Islam. The article is left to deal with the neologism and increased observances of existing communities.--Tigeroo (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Did everything get moved? Arrow740 (talk) 08:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Everything that no longer appears in this article.--Tigeroo (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

"Although one can never speak for an entire community or people" sounds a bit weasly... 202.89.153.149 (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No detrimental effects?

Although it is true that islamification / islamisation has consistently resulted in overreactions from conservatives and christians, this article mentions absolutely nothing about the perceived downsides of islamisation. Additionally, it treats it as purely an intra-islamic idea, which is almost entirely the opposite of what the average person thinks of when they hear the word.

This article simply seems to suffer from the idea that you should remain completely neutral, instead of pointing out both the good (greater unity, greater social order, and perhaps increased cultural vigor) and the bad (violence, non-extremist support for islamisation as opposed to solely extremist groups, and the problems of western, far eastern, and african governments in finding ways to accommodate islamisation without losing their own values). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.211.87 (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

A good model

A good model for what this article might become is Christianization. Certainly, as it stands, it is whollly inadewuate, an embarrassment to Wikipedia.Historicist (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing good in this world

The articles doesn't shows that islamization never made good things, in this world. Poverty, corruption, violence ever became bigger, not smaller, after islamization. See the case of Iran. In 1977, before the Islamic Revolution, average Iranian was richer than an average Portuguese. Today, average Iranian is more than three times poorer than a Portuguese. And Portugal hasn't any oil.Agre22 (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)agre22

page move

to Islamisation as per wikipedia convention spelling norms should be per the place this article is based on, which is not the American spelling (unless im unaware of some american islamization). Predominantly Pakistan too, where is an s.Lihaas (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you. I'll do it. 84.13.15.67 (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

German version

The german version of that article has interesting data on the islamisation of europe and sums up the debate about that issue pretty well. Maybe someone - with good English and German skills - should have a look?-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.4.214 (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed

As stated in previous discussions, many statements lack citations. This is problematic in the "Modern Day" section as these un-sourced statements suggest that contemporary revival of Islam is fueled by fundamental/radical Islamic beliefs. I've added additional citation tags for statements that suggest such strong theories with sources. I invite the community to find reliable sources to reference those statements. Otherwise, I will plan to remove such statements if no sources could be found. Djrun (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Premodern vs. Modern Islamization, Unfortunate Scholarship, and Talibanization

This article (and Wikipedia more generally) has two notions of Islamization: (1) The process by which a non-Muslim society becomes Muslim and (2) The process by which a Muslim society acquires Muslim leadership and policies, often with a postcolonial undercurrent. (Contrast this with the one notion of Christianization: The process by which a non-Christian society becomes Christian. The notion parallel to (2) is in fact manifest in Franco's Spain and Post-Soviet Russia, but is never referenced as "Christianization.") It's the difference between the Islamization of a populace and the Islamization of a regime. The former is a process which has not taken place to any significant degree since the height of the Ottoman empire in the Balkans. The latter is a largely postcolonial process with roots in Arab dissidence against the Ottoman empire and later the French and British empires. Arguably, the two processes meet in the relatively recent expansion of Islam over and beyond the Sahara, in competition with Christianity to replace Africa's native religious beliefs such as animism and shamanism. The causes, etiologies, and historiographies of these two processes, aside from the unique situation in Africa, are highly distinct. However, it is unfortunately the case that much scholarship and popular regard does not care to draw a careful distinction. Adding to the confusion, a distinction between (1) and (2) did not exist in the era of cuius regio, eius religio, i.e. all of pre-modernity including almost all of Muslim expansion.

(WP:OR, obviously.) I believe the carelessness has some rather straightforward explanations. First, apart from the episodes in Iberia and the Balkans, the Western academy and to a much more perfect extent Western people have shown triflingly little interest in the original spread of Islam (these two are not coincidentally the only major areas that have experienced unilateral de-Islamization), shortchanging the utility of notion (1) above. Second, the presumption in the West is that governments are secular (i.e. "cuius regio, eius religio" is pre-discursively rejected), which can be interpreted as a mild manifestation of Western ethnocentrism. My position is that "Islamization" is best used in parallel to "Christianization," and not as an unreflective lexicographic fall-back in the face of the necessity for a word describing (2) above by the spread of Islamism.

Of course, these sentiments are not reflected in word usage in Anglophone society at large, but that is because Anglophone society is confused about Islam, especially political Islam, and not because it has better plans for the lexicon. Talibanization is a neologism that clearly identifies only process (2). However, it still carries with it strong connotations of the political developments in Afghanistan/Pakistan, very plausibly making it unfit as a general-purpose term for that process. Consequently, despite my position on "Religionization" terms, there are no strongly forthcoming contenders for relabeling notion (2). Wikipedia is a place meant to reflect human knowledge at large. It is clear, however, that the English Wikipedia suffers from various cultural confusions, as is to be expected from any group of people drawing their heritage from a small slice of history. It is highly unfortunate that these confusions afflict the terminology itself, as article titles do not provide a flexible ground for cultural commentary. So it is clear upon reflection that Wikipedia is confused. But because Anglophone "knowledge" is confused as well, it is not inappropriate for Wikipedia to reflect that confusion. Hopefully, Anglophones can reach greater understandings of ancient and modern Islam in the near future. -0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I do believe, however, that there is a path out of this quandary, predicated on using a different construction. For instance, "Islamization of," when employed as notion (2), can be replaced with "Islamism in." 0nlyth3truth (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The world is filled with words with ambiguous, dual, and even contradictory meanings, get over it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
And sometimes those ambiguous, dual, and even contradictory meanings can be avoided. And when they can, they must be, per WP:Precision. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit; Jihad Watch

I concur with the removal of this material: diff. It's struck me as POV and unsuitable for inclusion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss whether or not this content should be included

I added the following six items, but they were deleted.

I would like to hear other people's opinions on whether or not these things should be included:

In Rotherham, U.K., between 1997 and 2013, police, social workers, and the media knew that Muslim men were repeatedly raping 1,400 girls, but they did nothing to try to stop it.[1][2].

In 2010 in the U.K., Muslim health care workers were given exemptions from some of the hygiene rules. The rules had originally been adopted in order to reduce the spread of superbugs such as MRSA and Clostridium difficile.[3]

In 2015, after Hamtramck, Michigan became the first U.S. city with a Muslim majority city council, the city banned liquor licenses for businesses within 500 feet of any mosque, and allowed mosques to use electronic amplification to broadcast the Muslim call to prayer five times a day, at a volume loud enough that nearby residents complained about it and said it woke them up at 6 a.m.[4]

In Italy in 2016, a cemetery banned Christian nativity scenes in order to avoid offending Muslims.[5]

In the Netherlands in 2016, a government funded watchdog organization said it was OK for Muslims to send death threats to homosexuals.[6]

In Sweden by 2014, many cities and towns had ended their annual Saint Lucy's Day celebration in order to avoid offending Muslims.[7]

Bk33725681 (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Rotherham child abuse scandal: 1,400 children exploited, report finds, BBC, August 26, 2014
  2. ^ Why Did British Police Ignore Pakistani Gangs Abusing 1,400 Rotherham Children? Political Correctness, Forbes, August 30, 2014
  3. ^ Muslim staff escape NHS hygiene rule, Telegraph, April 11, 2010
  4. ^ In the first majority-Muslim U.S. city, residents tense about its future, Washington Post, November 21, 2015
  5. ^ Italy: Priest bans Nativity scene for fear of offending Muslims, Jihad Watch, December 12, 2016
  6. ^ Netherlands: Government-funded watchdog says it’s ok for Muslims to send death threats to gays, Jihad Watch, December 3, 2016
  7. ^ För få vill bli lucia – tågen ställs in, aftonbladet.se, November 21, 2014
Do reliable sources characterize these incidents as instances of "Islamization"? Not that I can see. Eperoton (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The original definition of Islamization?

I noticed that the word "islamization" occurs in some very old documents. I wonder what might be the original definition? I suppose one should blow dust off some over hundred years old documents to reach the original definition. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islamization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamization/Archive_1&oldid=1141958390"