Difference between revisions of "Talk:Islam"

Revision as of 23:58, August 14, 2011

!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

See Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad? if you have an opinion.

Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

Good point. The Roman Emperor, among other people was called Son of God and was believed to be born of a virgin. The Egyptian god Horus also was born of a virgin. In addition Dionysian cults celebrated by eating their god. The Cult of Isis influenced early belief on the Virgin Mary. Mirthaism and the Egyptian god Osiris may have had an influence on belief in Christ's resurrection. It was only natural that pagan converts would bring their old religions with them when the converted to Christianity.

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. Dpbsmith 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

The Crusades were acts of self - defense occasioned by centuries of Islamic belligerence. -VoteGOP21

Wow, I never knew that marching a thousand miles away, stopping to loot Constantinople and give Jews a, shall we say, hard time, constitutes an act of self-defence. Usually when I am defending mySELF, it's because I was directly confronted where I stand. I don't know, maybe it's just me... Jros83 23:47, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

This is entirely, entirely false, and I would encourage you to study history before you make claims like this. FlightlessOstrich 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Not self defence, but retaking of Palestine from the Muslim invaders, so I'm not sure that I'd be repeating "entirely" like that. In other words, the truth is somewhere between what VotGOP21 said and what you appear to be indicating, although you're being somewhat vague. Philip J. Rayment 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

"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 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 is good that you think so tolerantly of God, and I agree with you, however, many people do not, and controversial statements should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Good point with the Sura 5, though, I hadn't known about that before. That should go up on the page. FlightlessOstrich 16:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Regarding "controversial" statements in encyclopedias, please read Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎. Philip J. Rayment 09:03, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

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.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. Cletje

We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --User:Czolgosz 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

There is still misleading information in here

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

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 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.

I agree and it makes me very disappointed. Everwill 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. RobS 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.Archibald 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)

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

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

I laugh at your concept of truth. Your truth is not independently verifiable. Bias is the act of "putting across" your point of view. It is not so obvious that Jesus is the son of God. Contradiction does not imply falsehood, as Christianity knows well (I'm thinking of a Holy Trinity...). And I think the reader has the right to decide whether Christianity or Islam is the true faith. FlightlessOstrich 16:06, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

As above, see Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia‎. I think it's quite obvious that Jesus is the Son of God. Contradiction does imply falsehood, but apparent contradiction need not mean that. And nobody's denying the read the right to make up his mind. Philip J. Rayment 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google "the Arian crisis" to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.

What about the Koranic justification for violence against infidels / the dhimma / mistreatment of women? - VoteGOP21

Look up Luke 19:27, or the entire Old Testament, and any number of episodes about stoning people. Christianity is not so innocent either. Any spirited leader can take any number of contradictory (and violent) verses from a book of scripture and make something violent out of it. The mistreatment of women question is a popular one... the general consensus is that hurting anyone, especially your wife, is bad. And let me again reference something from our Good Book, not violent but just funny... "Let your women keep silence in the churches," 1 Corinthians 7:1. Remember that!! FlightlessOstrich 16:11, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

If your point is that verses taken out of context appear to say something that they don't really say, then I'll agree with you, and that is why I don't quote such verses from the Koran, because I'm not familiar with the context. But if you are saying that the Bible endorses unjustified violence, then I disagree. Luke 19:27 is part of a parable; not an instruction. The "entire Old Testament" is a silly thing to say, as it is simply not true that the entire Old Testament endorses violence. The Bible actually preaches a higher view of women than was current in its time. Philip J. Rayment 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

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

Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.

Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at Criticism of Islam. --Hojimachong^talk 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

The role of an "encyclopedia" is not to convert others from other, "wrong" (i.e. "not my") points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.Archibald 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Well, Muslims may say the Son of God doctrine came a little later, but the more damning condemnation is that Christians have made a Son of God in the first place. This can be viewed as polytheistic. FlightlessOstrich 16:14, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Christians didn't make anything, only recorded it. Learn together 18:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Anything "can be viewed" as almost anything, but that doesn't mean that it can reasonably mean that. Christianity clearly teaches one God, comprising three persons. Unlike polytheistic religions which have multiple gods squabbling or disagreeing, the Christian God is of one mind. And as Learn together says, Christians didn't "make" a Son of God. Philip J. Rayment 09:16, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Five Pillars

We should make clear these are the five Sunni pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--Dave3172 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --Hojimachong^talk 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. ColinR^talk 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter^talk?

Wikinterpreter, please see your talk page --Jrp32 13:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Spelling

The apostrophe in "Qur'an" is between the "r" and "a," not after the "u." Ylmw21 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Islam and Judaism

There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? Learn together 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe in the Resurrection

Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?

If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. Learn together 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaviii (talk)

Islam and Paganism

I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaviii (talk)

I agree. Startoman24

The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. Styxz 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)

No one seems to have been able to attach any meaningful support to the claims in this section. Jack Chick tracts are not proof. The section has been removed until someone can find halfway trustworthy sources for the claims made in it --HarabecW 00:41, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Changing "Allah" to "God"

I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title "Allah" goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.

I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. Learn together 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

It seems that the Islamic usage of "Allah" is as wedded with Islamic culture as the usage of ancient Hebrew names for God in Judaism. Though Islam essentially worships the old testament "God" it seems beneficial to leave in the Allah reference.Archibald 14:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Human Sacrifice

I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.

revelation and transcription

Where it says revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it , it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second Immaculada 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Recategorization

Please remove the category religion. This is already a supercategory of Category:Islam. TheEvilSpartan 14:57, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Removal

This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: "Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene cult of the pig-god Jamal ^[1] as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. ^[2]"

1. The ban on pork is pagan? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).
2. Pig god "Jamal" - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means "handsome". I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.
3. Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.
4. I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

I agree with your choice to remove, and for the reasons you have stated above. Learn together 14:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)

See Also

Can we add Jesus in Islam to the See Also list? SSchultz 22:41, 4 February 2008 (EST)

What about the Satanic verses? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VoteGOP21 (talk)

Islamic Violence

Why aren't the scores of verses in the Koran and Hadith exhorting Mohammedans to violence against the 'infidels' included? -VoteGOP21

Historical Background

I'm a bit worried that this addition appears to be a word-for-copy from Islam: A Primer. Not sure, but are we treading on copyright infringement / fair use here? Welshman 11:05, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I assume you mean Karajou's recent edit? Well, it's not public domain, he didn't write it, and he doesn't have permission. According to the Guidelines for CP[1], it is unacceptable copying. He added some of his own, it looks like, but "Someone else's work changed around a bit is still copying their work; it does not constitute your own work. If it is still recognisable as another work altered, it constitutes copying."

Someone who can unlock articles should revert Karajou's edit, or at least remove his plagiarized portions.--TomMoore 21:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

The article says, "Some of the text for this article was taken from "Islam: A Primer", Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (2003), a work in the public domain". My understanding is that all U.S. Federal government works are in the public domain, so that sounds correct. Is there a reason to think that's not correct? Philip J. Rayment 21:46, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

All U.S. government works are in the public domain, and TomMoore should have a better case than that. Karajou 22:22, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Head covering for women

While only two countries officially require a head covering, we should make some of mention of the reality in Islamic culture. Iraq had a free government on paper too under Saddam Hussein, but the reality was very different. Learn together 20:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Star and moon symbol

Hi. Someone put a picture of a star and moon and claimed that it is a symbol of Islam. This is seriously incorrect. The star and moon were symbols of the Ottoman Empire (made up of many senseless self-proclaiming Muslims who killed a lot of people, which is contrary to Islamic teaching). Islam has no symbol. It needs no symbol. The only object that could be relatively considered a symbol is the sanctuary in Mecca. Let the Star & Cresent be a pagan symbol for the Ottomans, The Shriners, and add a couple stars for the Tridelts, but I assure you that it is not a symbol for Islam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarahn (talk)

I agree we should be respectful of religions. But I don't think it is wrong to include the star and moon symbol. When I search google for "islam" and "islam symbol" the top results show this symbol. It appears to be an accepted image related to Islam. It is even present on some of the architecture in the Islamic world. I would be happy to reconsider my view if you could show that this symbol should not be connected with Islam. Taj 15:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

• http://shadmia.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/islam-symbol.thumbnail.jpg

Jihad is a very MINOR part of Islam

Saying it's a major part would be like saying the KKK is a major part of christianity. There is a very small group of radicals that practice that, but it's not mainstream.Truthmonger 13:05, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

Saying it's a major part would be truth at this time. We're not going to alter that to be politically correct. Learn together 00:32, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Except that it wouldn't be a truth. I'd say a major portion would be at least 0.5%, the number of jihadist muslims is much less.--Redsox70707 22:55, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Jihad is an important part of Islam. These people believe in a religion that supports "holy war", if killing infidels isn't a major part of Islam I fail to see why much else is.RightPatriot

Is Obama a Prominent Muslim?

Is Obama prominent? Yes, I would say so. Is Obama a Muslim? Some argue yes. Even if Obama were, without a doubt a Muslim, is Obama a prominent Muslim? Most decidedly not. You are comparing Obama to Muhammad himself. Do you think a prominent Muslim would go to a Christian church? Would a prominent Muslim consistantly deny that he is a Muslim? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. But if you have any evidence to his prominence, I would be certainly willing and ready to give it its due attention. HelpJazz 01:25, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Read up on Taqiyya. He could end up the most prominent Muslim in history if he gets elected. QWest 01:34, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Read up on the Commandments, particularly numbers 1 and 2. HelpJazz 01:38, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Clearly, ASchlafly has already vetted this edit so the Commandments are satisfied. I'll pursue this further with him. QWest 01:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

In other words, you can't actually back up the claim yourself? As for the "vetting", it looked to me like Andy was reverting all of the edits of a vandal, and if he wants to leave it up there in violation of the Commandments that's his decision, not yours. You don't even have enough edits to fill up one screen, so please stop acting as if you own the place. HelpJazz 01:46, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I would like to see this section removed as it does not appear to add to the article, but could cause unneeded and unwanted controversy. Learn together 03:53, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Not to get into the Obama "controversy", but why not list some more prominent Muslims? Kareem Abdul Jabbar and that congressman (Ellison?) come to mind. And I suppose a few of the current Imams/leaders too? Human 16:44, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

What about actual famous Muslims, not just people put in to make points? HenryS 17:01, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Realistically, most Muslims are not as prominent as their Christian counterparts as far as having a far reaching worldwide impact apart from their local area. Most are, unfortunately, controversial. Ali and Tyson for boxing, Khomeni (sp?) in Iran, Rushdie as a Muslim who defied his religious tradition. Any list would be peppered with extremists as prominent men, and I don't think that's a direction we want to go. Learn together 17:06, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

I feel we should definitely include Obama in the list of prominent Muslims. The article on him lists numerous proofs of his Islamic faith and, as a conservative encyclopedia, we should be pushing to criticise him and his beliefs in any TRUTHFUL way we can. So why not? What are we afraid of? GloriaL 11:04, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Gloria, I think you will find the Obama article speculates that he follows the Islamic faith. There is no conclusive proof (as yet) and as such he should not be included here. I am sue your concern is well-meaning, but speculation does not equate to fact. If he is ever found out be one, then by all means he can be added to the list. Until then...no. --KotomiT^{ohayougozaimasu} 11:10, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you for the prompt & courteous response. I would argue that if we can say in the main article that he might be a Muslim, then we should be allowed to say that elsewhere on CP too. (After all, if we can't say it here, where can we say it?) However, I will be bound by your command. GloriaL 11:17, 11 December 2008 (EST)

In a way,I honestly do not mind (he is not my President, in any event), but your reply answers your own question. There is a difference between saying he 'might' be a Muslim and listing it as 'fact' under "Prominent Muslims". Maybe "Prominent Suspected Muslims" but let us rather not go down that road. --KotomiT^{ohayougozaimasu} 11:31, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I object!

I submit that the "related" link to the Arab-American entry be removed, because it is suggesting that all arabs are muslim, when you can consider anyone from the Arab Penisula and Arab. This includes Israel.

Removed Obama

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

The first section in this debate section-[ http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F] is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

Removed Obama

Unless I did something wrong, I removed Obama from the list of Muslims. Unless there is hard evidence he is Muslim, he can go back.

TThe section Debate, is obama a muslim covers that myth, and is unbiased and factual (to my knowladge.)

I also like a quote I found in the Obama talk section "Who's to say he's not secretly Jewish? His Synagogue and Mosque attendance records over these past few years are the same, after all."-JArneal

Otherwise, a very fair, unbiased article that exemplifies the true spirit of Conservapedia, well done.

Prominent Muslim

Right now it lists "Barack Hussein Obama" as a prominent Muslim but says he is "President-elect" of the United States. Even though it's inaccurate, is the title really necessary? Everyone should know who Obama is NotALiberal 08:23, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Relevance?

The last line of the introduction to this article states that "the overwhelming majority of modern terrorists are Muslims." While this may be true - at least the majority of terrorists who are aimed at the United States may be Muslim, I'm not sure the majority of the world's modern terrorists are muslims - it is definately not cited. There is no evidence to this fact. And frankly, even if there does turn out to be evidence, I do not see the relevance that this has to the Islamic faith as a whole. You would not see on the "African American" page that the majority of domestic violence cases occur within this ethnicity. It is just IRRELEVANT. 89vanguard 9:53 11, March 2009 (EST)

Consistency of Koran/Quran

I noticed that the article is not consistent in its use of Koran and Quran. Could we make a decision as to which one to use, then use it throughout? I don't know enough about it to say which one to use, I am just pointing the inconsistency.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by PatrickA (talk)

Good point. The correct spelling appears to be "Qur’an", although I am under the impression that "Koran" is probably the acceptable Western spelling. Would you care to go ahead and standarise the article accordingly? --KotomiT^nandeyanen? 11:25, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Sorry for not getting there sooner, I had to get off. Thank you for standardizing the article. PatrickA 16:57, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

Just as Chanukah has multiple spellings in english, Koran has no definite spelling using english characters.--Redsox70707 22:34, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

Yusef Islam (Cat Stevens)

Can someone link the name in the prominent Muslim section, there is an article for him now.

I reverted a comment on this page by User:The Troll because it was nothing more than rude remarks and did nothing to add to the article. I know we usually do not revert talk page comments. If any Sysop feels I was wrong, please feel free to revert my deletion of the comment, thanks Taj 16:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

Obvious trolling, as in this case where the user self-identified as a Troll, isn't protected. We are not a free bulletin board for those who disagree with conservative and Christian values are welcomed to disagree with us with impunity, or argue we are wrong without end. Respectful disagreement or questions are welcome. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 21:04, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

could you remove something

I think the "despite his illiteracy" in the introduction is a little biased sounding. It's true he was illiterate, but the way it's put in there makes it seem like it didn't happen that way. While muslims believe that was a miracle in itself, you could always just put another sentence saying "So-so people doubt this because so-so". Just to make it less biased. I would do it, but I wasn't sure exactly if i should because it's a change in tone, although I feel a more neutral one.--Panda 16:32, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

• We are not unbiased. We are a conservative and Christian friendly encyclopedia by definition. We have no interest in diluting the facts here, or making them "politically correct" so no one could possibly be offended. You should fight carrying over things you were indoctrinated with from Wikipedia and MSM. Someone saying God doesn't exist is a lie, and we don't mind saying so quite clearly. Too bad they don't agree; there are thousands of atheist/agnostic/secular wikis, boards and forums for them to participate in. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:21, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

Dilution of Conservative POV

Please do not water this article down! By the tacit and explicit agreement of the so-called moderate elements of Islam, their failure to consistently and loudly speak out against violence, it is a violent religion. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:46, 15 January 2010 (EST)

But there are several instances of Muslims and Muslim organizations speaking out against violence and terrorism. A notable example is here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter16.htm YNathanielsz 20:23, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Yes, let's all be very careful not to water down the bias in this article! Neutrality is for liberals! Anyone who isn't willing to be held accountable for the actions of everyone even tangentially associated with them is just as guilty as a terrorist! Kamiwashinda 18:03, 19 April 2011 (EDT)

Dialectical Logic of Islamists

Dialectical logic [2] is found in the core of Eastern and Western thought. It is a common flaw to the human species. Although the various human cultures have devloped their own methods of using this flaw, it is not simply a cultural defect. However, since each culture uses this flaw to defend and to define itself, every attempt to correct the flaw is perceived to be an attack on the culture itself. Islamists are particularly sensitive to this perceived attack; because the dialectical Absolute of the Koran is found in the attempt to synthesize the Old and New Testaments.[3]--FrankHatch 13:32, 13 May 2011 (EDT) --FrankHatch 13:36, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

Christianity never attacked the Islamic world."

1. ↑ Ibid.
2. ↑ Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [4]