Changes

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a seperate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates.  Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well.  It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions.  So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates.  Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well.  It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions.  So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalised Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definatly be putting accross our point of view.  It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false.  This page should also contain evidence that Christainity and not Islam is the one true faith.  Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view.  It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false.  This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith.  Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)