Talk:Muslims/Archive 5

Population

The population of Muslims is now considered at 1.5 to 1.7 billion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myownself12 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. That is a scary statistic. Do you have a source?

-Yes that is a very "scary" statistic. Did you know there are 7 billion people on earth. BOO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.77.66 (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't think anything of it. Just a troll trying to get reactions. --mboverload@ 08:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That is quite frightening actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.10.221 (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

-It is rather scary of a number considering that submitting to god as a muslim means you accept the Quran as the true word of god, which clearly dictates the rest of us arent humans must convert, be enslaved or die.Muslims are fair to everyone. They are the best people on this Earth! But that is irrevelevant to the definition of the word Muslim. Recent population estimates for muslims were last i read around 1.7 - 1.8 billion, will attempt to find a reviewed source. (83.245.137.233 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC))

Muslimah

The link to Wordnet for MUSLIMAH was broken (as noted by User:Wolfdog). A working link is http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=muslimah&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h= En.Wiktionary doesn't include any info on "Muslimah".

However, I'm much more interested in understanding the extent to which "Muslimah" is actually being used in spoken + written English. Who is using it? Where? For what purposes? Personally, I've never used the word, though that of course is irrelevant. Once upon a time, I had never used the word "Latina", either.

A website that might shed light on linguistic trends is "Muslimah Media Watch". http://muslimahmediawatch.org/ I must admit that I've only glanced at the stie. A Google search for "Muslimah" yields 1.2 million examples. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=muslimah&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Muslim and Muslimah are both loanwords from the Arabic language, to describe one who surrenders (to God); Muslimah is the feminine form, as it adds the taa marbuuta to the end of the word ( ــة) - all/most Arabic feminine words will end with this letter. Typically English has only bothered to use "Muslim" and use it improperly even when referring only to a female; though with the increased attention on the Muslim world and Arabic language in the past ten years (gee, why would that be...), English speakers have begun noticing their earlier mistake and using "Muslimah" as well. (Though it is still far from common). So far as my understanding takes me, and I could be mistaken, Muslimah is only used as a noun, the adjective is still Muslim regardless of gender. So you would say "See that Muslimah standing over there under the umbrella?", but you would say "See that Muslim woman standing over there under the umbrella?". Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Zakir Naik's image is removed: Nothing against Mr Zakir Naik but his image shouldn't be here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharif Chowdhury (talk • contribs) 14:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Image of Mongols

An editor who I assume is a Hindu keeps putting the image of Mongoloid boys at the lead intro after I aked him/her to stop. The average Muslim does not in any way look Mongol or Mongoloid, and the entire Muslim population in China is less than 1%. I placed Zakir Naik's image because he is a proven Muslim, and his appearance is that of a typical Muslim. I believe that the editor who keeps putting the image of Mongoloid boys is trying to mock Muslims because labelling someone as Mongoloid in any way is offensive and derogatory.[1], [2]--AYousefzai (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Hindu, I'm African-American. And what does the the fact that only China is less than 1% have to do with anything. How do you know what the "average" Muslim looks like???? Most of my Muslims friends just happens to be asian. The article itself says, "With 60% in Asia and 20% of Muslims living in the Middle East and North Africa" Your comments alone shows your bigotry. This article should not have one individual as the symbol of all Muslims and your bigotry toward Mongoloids is simply pathetic. I am Muslim and I'm not trying to mock anyone. But your needless prejudice toward people who are not Arab or Muslim is sickening. Simply switching the pictures doesn't say anything to that extent but your comments here say everything about who you are. By the way, you do not own this article. Dumaka (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you were a Hindu, and stop with the personal attacks. How do I know what the "average" Muslim looks like? That's very easy, and I can't believe you even ask me such a question. The single major Muslim group is in the Indian subcontinent (1 race of about 500 million people), around 170 million in Pakistan, 150 million in India, and 130 million in Bangladesh, and etc. Dr. Zakir Naik is among one of them if you don't know who he is. The other major Muslim group is Middle Easterners (Arabs, Turks and Persians). Zakir also looks like a Middle Easterner, which includes the looks of Muslims in Northern African nations such as Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morroco, and so on. This article is about Muslim (singular) and this image of Zakir Naik being alone with his white Kufi hat is just perfect for the intro at the top. My aim is to help improve articles so people can understand stuff very quickly, and I'm aware that I don't own anything on Wikipedia. Putting an image of Mongols at the into on the top is confusing for many readers who come here to try to learn about a Muslim. I don't think there is anything wrong with Chinese people, I think they are wonderful people. My message at the top is not my view about Mongols but the views of the people in the West, particularly in America and there are sources provided.--AYousefzai (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see how it is confusing. It shouldn't matter what a persons race is, what matters is if the person is muslim or not. Just because the majority of Muslims are not Chinese doesn't mean there should not be a picture of them in the article. There is no "average" looking muslim; Muslims come in all colors and races. Dumaka (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

just wanted to point out the original poster, yousefzai, said it is derogatory and offensive to call someone mongol; this is derogatory and offensive towards mongols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.173.92 (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you two should take this off line. My Muslim friends think that this is in bad form and reflects poorly on your faith. This has generated some uncomplimentary comments. Twhanna (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)twhanna 21:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the word muslim is synonymous with religion. Catholicism ultimately destined to its fate. Its no wonder why muslims are connected to the sunnis and not shiites, because they were turkish christians reverted or going backwards. See the turkish people in Palestine? They are going backwards too. The orthodox greeks, backwards. Ultimately the hindu christians have a say in this. Ever hear of the chechens? Masar? Thats what happens when you deviate from your immediate god or race, the primitive homo-sapien. When you do something make sure to do it right.--64.9.233.101 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the image is rather good, actually! People picture Muslims as Arabs but Muslims are all over the world! I highly support this image. It's good for the article. I often just think of the Middle East when I think of Muslims and this reminded me what a narrow view that is. --mboverload@ 23:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead image of a religious page should not be a person at all. Look at other religious persons' pages, Christians, Hindus. Placing a picture of a person in in this context is not useful and misleading.--Tallard (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

I'm currently not up to the task, but the introduction must be rewritten with some explanation of the highly specific terms in the current version( "sunnah", "madhab" etc). Right now, the introduction includes no explanation of those terms and is only meaningful to people with existing knowledge of Islam--Nomenphile (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Moslem"

I know the statement is sourced, but is "Moslem" really regarded as offensive by some? This is complete news to me; I've always assumed it to be a totally innocuous and acceptable alternative spelling. 86.138.104.23 (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC).

Yes. It is considered offensive. It may have been innocuous during ignorant times but those times are a thing of the past. It's a little like saying "Christ-ians" (Christ pronounced as Jesus Christ) for Christians, Judaists for Jews, Hinduists for Hindus, etc. Also, no one likes it when you mispronounce their name, especially when you have the knowledge to do it (in this case, spelling). Please understand the correct term to be Muslim, not Moslem.
-- Sun NY (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a lie told by politically-correct liberals. "Moslem" is not offensive, and it is not incorrect, either. It is simply a minor spelling variation, which is not uncommon in the English language. By the way, "Judaists" and "Hinduists" are also real alternative words and are not offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Dillinger (talk • contribs) 02:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This bit makes no sense. Which shia consider themselves sunni? And Ahmadiyya are not considered muslim bij the vast majority of muslims since they reject the finality of the prophethood of Muhammed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.11.150 (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have improved it. But imposing point of view of the Muslims on Wikipedia about the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community will not be accepted. If they claim to be Muslims, Wikipedia will address them as Muslims. ThankYou. Peaceworld111 (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the most horribly written and misinformed articles I have read to date

1. The style is very negative as the article starts with talking about everything that separates muslims, rather than starting off with the 2nd paragraph which talks about the beliefs that they share. 2. AHMEDIYA'S are NOT considered MUSLIM as they reject verses of the Quran and they reject the finality of the Prophet Mohammed (peace and blessings be upon him). This is an agreed consensus of the very large majority of the wider muslim community, whether Sunni or Shia. To make the statement that they claim to be muslims, therefore wikipedia will address them as Muslims is utter nonesense. What if tomorrow I make a group with the set of beliefs that I wish according to my own desires, and call my group muslims without regard to the incongruence of my beliefs with the original Islam. Will wikipedia also address me as Muslim? By stating so Wikipedia has seriously infringed on the respect for Islam as is historically documented, undermining the right of the general public and preventing them from appreciating that knowledge from a fair scholarly, academic and historical perspective. So much for wanting to spread knowledge. More like it is spreading distorted and unfactual knowledge. The 'Ahmediyya' movement is a VERY recent organization, which has nothing to do with the true Islam as is documented. 3. The statement or claim that Ahmediyya community is the most organized is referenced with a reference to the very website of Ahmediyya community, which is just ridiculous. So much for being impartial. Honestly, I am disgusted with how parts of this article is presented. You really wonder who writes these articles. I was always told to be careful on Wikipedia. These are the sort of articles which make me understand exactly why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korosx (talk • contribs) 15:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That is your point of view.Peaceworld111 (talk)

No I think Korosx has a very good point and as far as I can see his argument is infallible. This article is a train wreck and there needs to be better moderation of it if it is to become anything more then one of the single most poorly written and biased articles on the entire site.

Half the stuff in this article is not cited or the things that are cited are not reliable sources. This article also makes no mention of the controversies that accompany the religion. Almost every other religious article on wikipedia has a section specifically for the controversial practices or ideologies. Has everybody forgotten that this is an extremely high priority article and it is following the standards of a user talk page? If somebody edited the Christianity article to say that jesus worse stockings and had long pink pigtails then it would get reverted and the user punished. Why then are the blatant and rapaciously satirical entries in this article completely ignored? 67.84.159.28 (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comment that the controversies like jihadists and fundamentalists versus moderates and the range of inbetween is not at all addressed. Its very one sided in that respect. I also would like to see some of the controversies involving muslims and nonassimilation in nonmuslim countries they immigrate to including the creation of zones where shariah is practiced and violent protests and litigation involving muslims versus laws within the country they are living. I think to leave these things does not give a fair evaluation of this so called religion. That also leads me to wanting to see a discussion of what signifies a religion versus a cult. I believe from my investigation that islam has a lot of similarities to cults for example their punishment in mideastern countries for apostasy or leaving islam. How about some discussion on the ostracisim that former muslims have received in the UK, the US, and other europian countries. How about all the terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah and their connections with islam and what that means for so called moderate muslims. How about historical atrocities of islam. A lot of stuff has been left out and that makes this article sound very much like propaganda. What if an article on christianity left out the inquisition for example and didn't discuss the historical record in that light compared to today. That would be nice here also. I think anyone who is not a devout muslim would objectively agree that a lot has been left out of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevefnp1 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Shia. Must have been written by Sunnis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff4cpa (talk • contribs) 02:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Instead of making general complaints and rants, please be productive and either make specific suggestions (with reputable sources to back them up) to be edited, or find sources, and add the content yourself. Given the controversial nature of the article, it is recommended that you discuss specific changes here first, to avoid edit wars. Please keep in mind this is not a political/religious forum, and does not exist for you to soapbox your personal biases.204.65.34.216 (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead makes no sense (still not):quotes from article:

1 All Muslims observe Sunnah

2 Those who fall outside of this fold are mainly the Shia Muslims, though often thinking themselves to be Sunni Muslims (about Sunni and Shia)

3 Etymology

Sunni is a broad term derived from sunnah (سنة [ˈsunna], plural سنن sunan [ˈsunæn]), which is an Arabic word that means "habit" or "usual practice".[2] The Muslim usage of this term refers to the sayings and living habits of Muhammad, the last prophet of Islam.

Obviosly those statments don't make any sense together, so at least one has to be wrong. Quote 3 has a reference that appears reasonably sound.

The refrence for 1 and 2 appears to be a site from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association UK which seems to be a dead link since I can't access it. However given the unlikelihood that the association would call the Sunnis well-organised cohesive traditional classical, while having nothing positive to say about Shias except the very insightful (irony)Those who fall outside of this fold are mainly the Shia Muslims, though often thinking themselves to be Sunni and nothing more to say about their own community than organised and disciplined. The whole section between reference 1 and 2 appears (mainly) to be unreferenced POV, perhaps altered from some original pristine state.--Alcea setosa (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Update I have removed the claims about the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community-(Other Muslims, for example the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, are well known as being an organised and a disciplined community. )-that were apparantly added by Peaceworld111 (talk) because as noted by Korosx in the above section it's not very appropriate to use Primary sources.--Alcea setosa (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's secondary.Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The source is primary as it is affiliated with a particular religious organisation. Such sources should also be avoided on a page that can be sensitive. Mar4d (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sensitive? In what way is my edit sensitive? Is it because some muslims disagree that Ahmadis are not muslims? And the source is not primary, it is gained from a magazine - thus secondary. Thanks.Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The website is apparently affiliated with some official Ahmadiyya Muslim Community website since it states "Visit our other sites:(......)Ahmadiyya Muslim Community UK".--Alcea setosa (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

better source, Ive added? Peaceworld111 (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is a muslim ?

Ahmad Hussain differentiates between "Muslims" and "Muhammedans". He finds that "Muhammedans" have lost the spirit of Islam, which "Muslims" have retained. [3]

According to the Koran, Abraham is ancestor ("father") to the Muslims, nothing is mentioned about the Muhammedans:

[22.78] And strive hard in (the way of) Allah, (such) a striving a is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion; the faith of your father Ibrahim; He named you Muslims before and in this, that the Apostle may be a bearer of witness to you, and you may be bearers of witness to the people; therefore keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and hold fast by Allah; He is your Guardian; how excellent the Guardian and how excellent the Helper! [4]

In the Koran we also find that most of us, in the eyes of the Muslims, will have to obey the words of descendants of Abraham (i.e. the Muslims), not receiving info from Allah:

[3.33] Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations.[5]

St.Trond (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Because the definition of Muslim is "intact" and circumcision by the covenant law causes you to become "unintact" Islam is an oxi-moron, and because Allah is masculine and reproduction is feminine, the belief in Mohammad as the prophet of Allah, is also an oxi-moron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.140.40.104 (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mohammedan should be added as a word for an adherent of Islam, not for a Muslim. Mamluk is an adherent of Islam. A mamluk is not of Abraham's tribe. "Mamluk" means slave in Arabic. Mamluk should be added to the list of adherents of Islam in the list of "other words for Muslim".St.Trond (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Ahmad Hussain's usage represents the mainstream, and I am utterly unsurprised that Muhammad didn't use the word "Mohammedan" himself. Jesus didn't speak of Christianity, either. The article is about the current usage which, as the article notes, has changed since Ahmad Hussain's book was written, more so since the Quran was written.

And while the Mamluks were adherents of Islam, by far not all adherents of Islam were Mamluks. Thus "Mamluk" is hardly fitting for the "other words for Muslim" section, no more so than "Janissary" or "Dervish". Huon (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.162.64 (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph of introduction

Would it be possible for someone with edit privileges to put a break in the fourth paragraph of the introduction so that the discussion of ritual prayer is separated from the estimation of the Muslim population?

CarleneB (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Poor representation of minority Muslims

{{edit semi-protected}} The text currently reads: All Muslims observe Sunnah, but differences in the definition of what is and what is not Sunnah has led to the emergence of sectarian movements.[citation needed] The well-organised and cohesive community of Muslims who accept the Sunnah as defined within one of the traditional Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi or Hanbali madhabs are the classical Sunni Muslims.[citation needed]Other Muslims, for example the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, are also well known as being an organised and a disciplined community[3]

Though I'm sure it was an accident, the paragraph reads as if Sunni Islam is the "original" Islam, while all other sects are movements that occurred later. Historically, this is simply not true, as no sects existed during the life of the Prophet and came into existence simultaneously (Shi'a/Sunni) after that. This paragraph actually excludes Shi'a Muslims entirely, though they are the largest minority, and accidentally implies that while Ahmadiyyah Muslims are organized and disciplined, that they don't adhere to the Sunnah. A better paragraph might read:

All Muslims observe Sunnah, but differences in the definition of what is and what is not Sunnah has been a dividing force within the larger community.[citation needed] The majority of of Muslims are Sunni, and follow one of the four traditional madhabs: Maliki, Hanafi, Shafi or Hanbali.[citation needed]With 15-20% of the global Muslim population, Shi'a Muslims are the largest minority, followed by relatively smaller denominations including Sufis, Ismailis, Ahmadiyyah, and many others.[3]

68.173.27.152 (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it needs fixing, but currently, parts of it - which you re-stated - lack a reference.

Please provide an appropriately, fully-referenced suggestion, and re-request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  22:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Since this section is only addressing two sects of Islam, i.e. Sunni & Ahmadyya, it is a perfect match for NPOV tag. I noticed that Chzz agrees on the fact that it is not well written. Well, then we need to leave the NPOV tag on until it is fixed.Kazemita1 (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit while page remains locked

I'd like to move some dashes around in the sentence that begins, at postdate,

'Currently, the most up to date reports from an American think-tank and PBS...'

Since 'reports' is being modified, its modifiers can take the hyphen; and since even its own Wkpi entry foreswears the dash, 'think tank' can stand alone - - so, the edit would make the sentence become, instead,

'Currently, the most up-to-date reports from an American think tank and PBS...'

Thanks for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RR Lyrae (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Wiqixtalk 10:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)