Talk:Islam in Rwanda

Official sources

The United States State Department and the united states CIA are not official sources of Rwanda. They are sources of information for the United States. Catholic priests and nuns have been convicted. This is a fact. There are allegations against clergy from all denominations. This is a fact. Burying your head in the sand will not change this fact. Instead of saying it didn’t happen like a deranged holocaust denier. Try and make sure it doesn’t happen again. It isn’t the Washington posts and the New York Times that result in Christians converting to Islam. It is you, Lao Wai, you are why Christians convert to Islam. How do you think a Christian who saw her family slaughtered in a church, will feel if she reads what you wrote? How would you think she feels when you deny her suffering and what she saw with her own eyes? Christians of all denominations did some very bad things in Rwanda, it is time to admit it and apologise. Not cover it up like what you are doing. Covering it up, just makes Christians look worth. The message it sends isn’t, “we did it, we are sorry and it will try not to do it again”, what you are saying to Rwandans by covering it up is, “it will happen again, because we denied it this time, we can deny it again”. Lao Wai if there were more people like you, sooner or later there will be no more Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revedgington (talk • contribs) 16:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The State Department and the CIA in many situations can be reliable, trusted sources for all countries around the world. But it is best to support the information from them with info from secondary sources like the New York Times, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Muslim Converts and Catholic Priests

There is no point asking for a fact about the 16 percent Muslim claim because lower down there is already a link to the US State Department that points out Muslims make up less than 5 percent of the Rwandan population. The claim is therefore not true and proven such on this page. The claim that the Muslims and the media make is, I think, Wikipedia-worthy in and of itself, but it has to be made clear that it is not true. If anyone can think of a better way to do that I'm all for it. As with the alleged involvement of the Catholic priests. This is clearly hate-mongering but should still be mentioned with the proviso there is no evidence of it at all. Lao Wai 10:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the priests, I quote the source provided "Many converts say they chose Islam because of the role that some Catholic and Protestant leaders played in the genocide. Human rights groups have documented several incidents in which Christian clerics allowed Tutsis to seek refuge in churches, then surrendered them to Hutu death squads, as well as instances of Hutu priests and ministers encouraging their congregations to kill Tutsis. Today some churches serve as memorials to the many people slaughtered among their pews.

Four clergymen are facing genocide charges at the U.N.-created International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and last year in Belgium, the former colonial power, two Rwandan nuns were convicted of murder for their roles in the massacre of 7,000 Tutsis who sought protection at a Benedictine convent."

Clearly it has truth to it, or is at least verifiable. I am reverting. Also, this is an encyclopedia and you can't just state that something happened then say it isn't true. You need a source. Do you have a source saying its untrue?--Thomas.macmillan 14:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you do not mind I have shifted your comments to the right a little. The problem is the text. Given it is wrong about the number of converts, it must also be wrong about the reasons for the conversions. The claim is "lots of converts because the priests took part in massacres". However there have not been lots of converts, and hence it is unlikely that the first claim is true. Four priests have been charged? Hundreds of thousands of people took part in these massacres. The source merely proves that no significant number of Catholic priests took part. I do not know what level of truth there is in this story, but given it is wrong, if not lying, about the central claim, all subsequent claims have to be treated with caution.

I have not said something happened. I have said that there is an urban legend that claims that something happened. But it did not. As the US State Department, as I cited, makes clear. I will try another rephrasing if you like. Lao Wai 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

With what verifiable source do you claim the State department is in correct? Along with every other source that claims what is said in the article? Find a source or stop reverting the edits. I am sorry if you do not like the facts as have been presented, but until you find verifiable sources to counteract the claims, then you shouldn't change them. --Thomas.macmillan 14:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The State Department is as credible source as you can get. All the claims that 14 percent of the Rwandan population is Muslim all seem to come down to one newspaper article. The State Department is obviously more credible than a newspaper. Actually if I make a positive claim I need to defend it. Not if I merely object to your positive claims. And notice that all long I have a perfectly good and credible source - the US State Department. I have done what you have asked. Lao Wai 14:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right, the state department is reliable for wikipedia. However, a source you cite (adherents) makes a variety of claims stating that the Muslim population is between 1% and 10%, which does not seem very helpful for this article. Also, 3 different sources claim that widescale conversion is happening, which is fairly convincing evidence that something is definitely happening. Also stating the relatively small number of Christian leaders that have been tried is not entirely helpful, since anyone who understands Rwanda knows that the vast majority of those people that killed during the war have not and will never stand a trial, only the most severe will. We could say "Muslim leaders and several international news publications claim that Islam is becoming much more widespread across Rwanda, with one figure being estimated is 15% of the total population. However, the United States State Department did not agree with these findings, claiming that only 4.6% of Rwandans are indeed Muslim". I am sure that needs a touch-up, but what do you think?--Thomas.macmillan 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Adherent.com produces all the evidence that is available and what is clear is that no one really knows. But even the highest figure - which was a Muslim source if I remember correctly - is much lower than the Islamist claim. Three closely related sources that all seem to derive from the same urban legend. An echo chamber does not make for good evidence. It is not entirely helpful, but then who knows how many Muslims took part in he genocide? If only four priests out of several tens of thousand are on trial, given the tiny size of the Muslim community, you would expect no Muslims would be even if they took part in much larger numbers. You really want to start extrapolating from poor data sets? I like that sentence actually. Lao Wai 10:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

On adherents, the Muslim organization known as the "Nazarene World Mission Society" estimated that 10% of Rwanda was Muslim in 1999. Clearly, that is not a Muslim organization. Also, we are talking about today, so, if the number of Muslims is rapidly increasing (as the reliable sources the New York Times and BBC suggest) then it would be significantly more today. Also, your logic about the priests and muslim involvement is poor. The muslim surge came after the genocide, meaning that they represented much smaller numbers. But it comes down to one basic point. You call it an urban legend. What proof do you have that it is such? No source I have seen calls it that. The State department just offered contrary statistics, nothing else. If you have a source that claims this, it might be able to be put in the article. However, beyond that, it is original research and highly POV.--Thomas.macmillan 15:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. OK. Not very Muslim then. Actually you still have an echo chamber with MSM outlets repeating each other. The State Department shows otherwise. My logic is fine. If there was some percentage of Muslims in Rwanda in 2000 and an appropriate percentage of them took part in the genocide, the numbers would be so small that you would not expect to find any of them charged. If you see fit to "guestimate" how many Catholics took part, why can't I guestimate how many Muslims did and thus prove no such surge exists? Either we deal in verifiable facts or we do not. I certainly say it looks like an urban legend to me and the evidence is the State Department's figures. They are more than contrary figures given the credibility of the State Department. I'll stop calling it an urban legend if you like, but that is what it looks like and presumably is. Lao Wai 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

possible merge discussion

There is currently a discussion at Talk:The Church and the Rwandan Genocide on the possibility of moving content from there, and maybe here, to finally create a Religion in Rwanda article. Thoughts welcome. - BanyanTree 04:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely no merger... This article is part of series from Islam by country OneGuy 13:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Outdated stats

All statistical info presently is just outdated estimates. By now there are results of census available asking for religion. See http://microdata.statistics.gov.rw/index.php/catalog/65. Plus a very good overview on the excellent site http://muslimdemography.com/CountryReport/Index?code=161. Kipala (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islam in Rwanda. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910032044/http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2005/tiemessen.pdf to http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2005/tiemessen.pdf

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) 08:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)