Template talk:Islam/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Islam. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Crescent

The picture at the top perpetuates the widespread but mistaken belief that the crescent is a traditional Islamic symbol, rather than - as it historically is - a Turkish symbol of the Ottoman Empire. I suggest changing it. - Mustafaa 19:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

See Crescent. What do you suggest changing it to? One of the photos from Mecca etc, or a nice piece of intricate calligraphy (eg, a takbeer)? Or should there be no illustration? –Hajor 19:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"The picture at the top perpetuates the widespread but mistaken belief that the crescent is a traditional Islamic symbol, rather than - as it historically is - a Turkish symbol of the Ottoman Empire." <--- the cresent moon IS a "traditional Islamic symbol." The shahada is a sentence, NOT a symbol. Symbols are not strings of words, they are geometric shapes. The only SYMBOL that Islam has ever had is the cresent moon, and it has been a symbol in Islam for hundreds of years, and today the symbol is displayed on the minarets of millions and millions of mosques all around the world. It's true that the cresent moon symbol is a Turkish contribution to Islamic tradition, while most contributions to Islamic tradition came from the Arabs. But why can only Arabs make contributions to Islamic traditions? This is clearly the result of some sort of puritanical Arab racial sumpremacist attitude. --Pename 22:12, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I think the point is that while, for example, few Christians would dispute the cross as a universal symbol of their religion, and few Jews would dispute the star of david, there is a substantial muslim population that does not identify with the crescent as a symbol. The rescent Iraqi flag controversy is the incident that springs most immediately to mind, but I'm sure there have been many others. --April Arcus 11:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Sects" and Things

Also, shouldn't some of the headings be links? Or have links under them to articles explaining them -- for example, there's a good article on Madhhab in Wikipedia.--iFaqeer 00:31, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

68.150.94.85 deleted the following from the above; I wonder why:

Sufism isn't a sect. There might be similar issues with others, like the Druze, too. Why not change this to something like "Groups" or something.

--iFaqeer 20:13, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Also, aren't Mu'tazili and Kharijite the same kind of "thing"--whether movement or sect? And I would classify Sunni and Shia as sects. Wahhabism, if anything, is a movement.--iFaqeer 00:34, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Symbol: Crescent or other alternatives

from Talk:Islam

I suggest that a crescent and star motif is a bad idea; it reinforces the incorrect idea that these constitute a traditional Islamic symbol, when in fact they were introduced by the Turks. A green flag or a calligraphed shahada would be better, although both have been taken by Libya and Saudi respectively... any other replacement ideas? - Mustafaa 12:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, but the crescent is now identified as a symbol of Islam, like Red Crescent. Anyway, if you want to change it, how about some Arabic calligraphy from the Qur'an, such as this picture or some picture of a mosque, like this or this one. OneGuy 08:14, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe the best idea would be to put the shahadah (also known as Kalima) as the icon, as that is how the Muslims originally did it before the Turks used the crescent. It's also a more international symbol for Islam. It should be green and white I believe, but I am not 100% sure which is the foreground and which is the background color. Think of the Saudi flag but without a sword. A quick google image search yeilds this, but I am not familiar with Wiki or BBC copyright enough to post it. mr100percent 07:49, 22 Oct 2004 (EST)

How about Image:Shahadah.PNG, which is cropped from our rendition of the Saudi Arabian flag and is therefore public domain? —No-One Jones ^(m) 12:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I like it! - Mustafaa 13:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't. I don't believe a symbol should have writing in it of any kind. I can't read arabic and most other people on the English Wikipedia can't either. I am not a Muslim but a simple student of religions. However, use whatever symbol you want for your religion and I will continue to use the star and crescent because it is more identifiable to Islam. ---The Sunborn P.S. I know the Hindu symbol is a letter, but it is only one letter.

Om is a syllable, not letter; I think. Made up of two letters: the "ah" and the "ma". See Devanagari; the first of the Vowels and "ma" under consonants. The Muslim equivalent is the glyph for Allah—which is no in Windows scripts, I think. Let me check...no, it takes two symbols: ﺍﷲ.

And if you are looking at things as a symbol, why care that it is writing in another language—for someone that can't read that script, it is just a symbol, no?—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 18:28, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Quite true, however, a symbol is something you can relate to. Arabic script is jibberish to me and 5/6ths of the world. Also, it should be a recognizable to outsiders. The star and crescent does this. I know it might not be "official" but it is all Islam really has for a symbol to the infidels. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 22:40, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Symbol to the infidels? Statements such as these aren't helping anyone, leave your prejudices at the door. Bobaa904 11:47, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well said Bobaa904! There are hundreds of websites for inter-religious polemics without indulging in them here. I would also add that the sly use of "jibberish" (sic) is unhelpful too. In addition to being the alphabet of the Arabic language, the script is used in modified forms for many other languages such as Persian and Urdu. The script may be incomprehensible to many but that does not make it "jibberish" - any more than my ignorance of Chinese or Japanese scripts entitles me to use the epither jibberish to describe them or any other writing system. The reason for them being incomprehensible to me is my ignorance, and not something intrinsic to their nature.Wildbe 09:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal

How about changing the symbol at the top to the Windows Glyph(s) for Allah:ﺍﷲ?—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 18:42, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

While I agree that Arabic is meaningless to the average English reader, I do not think that there exists a better representation of Islam, than the central creed of Islam in the sacred language of Islam. In my opinion, the image of the shahadah is to Islam as the cross is to Christianity: an iconic representation of the religion's paramount article of faith. (I would compare the star and crescent to the Chi-Rho: a later invention, or perhaps an adaptation of a pre-existing icon, which came to be adopted and recognized as a—but not the—symbol of the religion.) Certainly it could be better-explained, but I do not think it should be replaced. An encyclopedia exists to inform, not to cater to pre-conceived (and ill-informed) ideas. (I doubt those who think of the crescent as the main symbol of Islam are aware of its history.) —No-One Jones ^(m) 08:40, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it would be any less or more "meaningless" than the symbol for "Om" that is often used to identify Hinduism.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:21, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Logo Changed Back to Cresent Moon

"the image of the shahadah is to Islam as the cross is to Christianity: an iconic representation of the religion's paramount article of faith. (I would compare the star and crescent to the Chi-Rho: a later invention" <--- I disagree. Muhammad never used the shahadah as a symbol for his religion; he did not use any symbol, except a black flag. The use of the shahadah as a symbol is probably a more recent innovation in Islam than the use of the cresent moon as a symbol. The use of the shahadah as a symbol for Islam was really popularized by Wahabis (puritans) such Saudi Arabia and the Taliban; these are 19th and 20th century governments that rejected the more traditional cresent moon as a symbol because they percieve it as an impure innovation, and instead used the shahadah on their flags (in fact the shahada image in this template has been taken from the flag of Saudi Arabia). Wahabis are the same fringe puritanical groupa that once flattened to the ground Muhammad's tomb in Medina, because Muslims are forbidden from having gravestones or tombs (Muhammad's tomb was later rebuilt). Several Muslm countries, including Turkey, Pakistan, and Malaysia use the cresent moon as their symbol. Millions of mosques around the world also display the cresent moon on their tips of their minarets (just as most churches display the cross), while very few mosques display the shahada (similar to how chi-rho is rarely seen on Churches). Muslims everywhere recognize and identify with the cresent moon symbol. Thus I think that the cresent moon is to Islam as the cross is to Chrisitianity.

I also object to the use of the shadada has a logo because I think that the logo should have no written words on it. The shahada logo is a sentence written in caligraphy, as opposed to being an articistic geometric design like the cross, and the cresent moon, and all other religious symbols. A sentence carries a stated assertion in it; the shahada says "there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger." The symbol of the cross does not say "Jesus is God." Imagine if on the article about Christianity Wikipedia displayed a big artistic logo reading "Jesus is God." Many people, especially Jews and Muslims, would be offended but such an image because it would be seen as Wikipedia endorsing the statement countained in the logo. By some that by prominently placing an image of the shahada written in color and in large caligraphic letters, at the top of every Islam related article, these Wikipedia articles could be percieved of as endorsing the shahada itself.

For these reasons, I am changing the logo back to the cresent moon.

--Pename 09:34, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Please do not make major edits without consensus, and then rudely accuse those who correctly revert them of vandalism. As we've already established, the recognized logo of Hinduism is a word - corresponding to 3 Latin letters - and the crescent as a logo is not acceptable to all Muslims. The "black flag" alluded to might work - as might no logo at all. But the Shahada strikes me as artistically superior. - Mustafaa 02:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Please do not make major edits without consensus" <--- If you actually cared about consensus, then you would agree to use the cresent moon on the basis that it is used more widely by Muslims as a symbol for Islam than the shahada. The following flags used by Muslims display the cresent moon as the universal symbol of Islam:

Only only one Muslim country in the world displays any kind of religious symbol on its flag. That country is:

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia's flag consists of a drawing of a sword and the shahada with in caligraphy, exactly as it displayed on this template's shahada logo (the shahada logo, on wikipedi, was in fact taken from the flag of Saudi Arabia). Notably, the only other nation-state to have ever used the shahada on its flag was Afghanistan during the reign of the puritanical Taliban whose flag consisted of a what background and the shahada written on it in black [1].

There's your world-wide consensus. It seems the only Muslims who want to use the shahada as the symbol of Islam are a small minority of fanatical extremists such as the [[2]] of Saudi Arabia and the Taliban. The rest of the Muslim world uses the universally recognized cresent moon symbol, usually with the star included above the moon.

I could also show you scores of images of mosques, from every corner of the world (except Saudi Arabia), which prominently display the cresent moon symbol on top of the their minars - that is, at the highest points of the mosque structure. Can you prove that the shahada is more widely used and recognized by Muslims, as a symbol for Islam, than the cresent moon?

"As we've already established, the recognized logo of Hinduism is a word - corresponding to 3 Latin letters" <--- The symbol you refer to is the Aum symbol. Aum is the Hindu word for God. There is a difference between a single world and a lengthy sentence such as the shahada. The Islamic equivalent of the Aum symbol would be the word "Allah" written in Arabic. Can you prove that the Arabic word for Allah is more widely used and recognized a symbol of Islam than the symbol of the cresent moon?

So far the only argument you have made in support of your opinion is that that the universal symbol of Hinduism is the Hindi word for God the "recognized logo of Hinduism is a word." I am reverting the image of the cresent moon. It's not me but you who is ignoring both world-wide consensus of Muslims as well as the logical arguments put forth for using the cresent moon over the shahada. After I submit this talk, I will revert the logo for these reasons. If you wish to revert it, then please also refute all of the arguments I have put forth, and also provide a convincing argument of your own for using the shahada (most importantly, you must prove that the shahada is more widely used and recognized by Muslims, as a symbol for Islam, than the cresent moon). If you cannot refute my arguments and evidence, and cannot provide any arguments or evidence of your own, then you have no legitimate right to revert my edit of the logo). --Pename 07:22, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, yourself say that the symbol on the Saudi flag is a religious one. Which, by implication I take to mean that you agree that the crescent-and-moon symbol is cultural and is better used for an article, say, on Muslims as a community, but not on something introducing (as this template does) mostly religious terms and such like.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:20, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I said that the Saudi flag contains religious symbolism. This does not in any way, by any stretch of imagination, imply that I believe that the cresent moon symbol is not religious symbolism as well. I listed the flag of every Muslim country that displays religious symbolism - 11 countries used the cresent moon, 1 used the shahada (see above). The cresent moon is the universal symbol of Islam. Islam is a religion and NOT a culture. "Muslims" a religious group, they are not a culture - Muslims come from thousands of different cultures, and these different cultures have their own cultural symbolism. I don't know where you get off claiming that I implied that the cresent moon is a cultural and not a religious symbol, and I take offense at your claim that "Muslims" are community bound by a common culture - they are absolutely not bound by a common culture, they are only bound by common religious beliefs. -- 80.247.147.24 00:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It may have been your consensus, I never agreed, I just didn't have any evidence. A symbol should be a symbol, not a bunch of words. And just because the star and crescent isn't accepted by all Muslims, it just has to be accepted by most. Not all Christians accept the cross as a symbol, cf Jehovah's Witnesses. I just think that, you, Mustafaa are an eliteist agenda pusher. I am intregued by the black flag symbol though. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 17:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Imagine if on the article about Christianity Wikipedia displayed a big artistic logo reading "Jesus is God."—Imagine if it displayed an artistic rendition of the Nicene Creed. Would that be appropriate? I think it would. On the other hand, using a black flag and removing the logo are both perfectly acceptable to me. —No-One Jones ^(m) 17:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Imagine if it displayed an artistic rendition of the Nicene Creed. Would that be appropriate? I think it would." <--- umm. No. that would not be appropriate to use the Nicean creed as a logo to be displayed at the top of a series of Wikipedia articles about Christiainity. In fact, it would be completely outrageous because the Nicean creed is not technically a logo or symbol, it is technically a page-long sequence of sentences written in Greek. Aside from the enourmous size of a Nicean Creed logo, it would also be entirely inappropriate becauce the Cross is a vastly more universal symbol for Christianity than the Nicean Creed.

"using a black flag and removing the logo are both perfectly acceptable to me" <-- Most Muslims do not even know what Muhammad's flag looked like. You have to embark on a scholarly study of the biographies of Muhammad's life in order to know the bit of trivia that Muhammad used to use a peice of black cloath as his flag, when he used to go out into battle. Nobody would understand what a black rectangle at the top of the page means. No Muslims use the black flag as their flag anymore. The black flag has very little to do with today's Islam and today's Muslims. Furthermore, we are not trying to determine what should be the FLAG of Islam, we are trying to determine what the universally recognized symbol of Islam is. The only reason I mentioned Muhammad's flag is that when political leaders have a symbol they usually display it on their flag, but Muhammad's flag was just black. But it doesn't really matter WHAT Muhammad used as his flag, the only question that really matters is: what symbol is recognized almost universally by both Muslims and non-Muslims as the symbol of Islam? That symbol is obviously and beyond a doubt the cresent moon - not a black recentangle, and not the Saudi Arabian flag. --Pename 07:36, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Your "worldwide consensus" is irrelevant; by a considerably larger "consensus", we should preface every mention of Israel with qualifiers like "illegitimate" or "terrorist". Two symbols, however, that unquestionably are accepted by all Muslims - and that appear in every mosque I've ever been to - are the shahada we have right now and the calligraphed word Allah. Implausible as I find it that you actually object to having the Shahada written there in a language you can't read, I'm happy to go for "Allah". However, using the crescent merely perpetuates widespread misconceptions - and if it's "elitist" to correct these misconceptions, then go elitism! - Mustafaa 14:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"worldwide consensus is irrelevant" <--- no. you're irrelevant.

"we should preface every mention of Israel with qualifiers like illegitimate or terrorist" <--- oh. an anti-semitic Muslim extremist on Wikipedia who claims to be the epitome of "NPOV." how surprising (sic).

"go elitism!" <--- translation: "go Wahabism!" ; "go Islamist puritanism!" --Pename 02:38, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I am okay with any or no symbol—and think the word "Allah" in calligraphy would be best. But.

But I believe what Mustafaa was talking about was what you consider to be worldwide consensus; not dismissing any real consensus that might be out there.

Being against the policies of, or even being against the establishment of, a certain country, does not make one anti- an ethnic group or a religion or religious community. Just because an Indian believes that Pakistan should not have been established does not make them anti-Muslim. In fact, some such people have been individuals even Pakistani Muslims consider very respectable scholars of Islam. In the same way, being anti-Zionism or anti-Israel does not always make one anti-Jewish or anti-Jews.

I am definitely not a Wahabi—in fact, quite the opposite. See my user page; I but my background and POV clearly out there for all to see. I would like to challenge others in this discussion to do the same and then try to help produce content that transcends those POVs—both Pename and the folks he keeps butting up against. What say, Pename?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:09, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

File:Ift32.gif

Lo and behold, it seems we have a rather nice Allah image already, though I think it would look better in green than purple. - Mustafaa 17:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey folks. How come I don't see no logo here? :-p Tomer ^TALK 09:31, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Adding Jihad to List of Articles?

Why is Mirv deleting the link to the Wikipedia article on Jihad? --Pename 09:23, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

You changed the logo even though it was discussed and agreed here before OneGuy

I deleted the link because in your haste to see it linked here you jammed it into entirely inappropriate places; first alongside fiqh, shariah, and fatwa (oops, it bears no apparent relation to any of those), then alongside Sufism, Wahhabism, and Salafism (oops, no conceivable relation to those either). Currently this is not a general list of concepts in Islam, and fitting jihad into this template would require expanding its scope significantly. —No-One Jones ^(m) 17:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only appropriate place to add Jihad would be in the Five Pillars section of the template, since Jihad is invoked on occasion as the so-called Sixth pillar of Islam. It would need to be differentiated somehow from the actual five pillars, because obviously jihad is not canonically one of Islam's pillars. It might be possible to enter it in at the bottom saying "see also: jihad" or "related: jihad". To avoid confusion, we might include text reading "the 'sixth pillar': jihad", linking to both the sicth pillar page, and the jihad page. —thames 21:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the current placement of Jihad under the "Five pillars" section. It is certainly not one of the "five pillars", and one needs to follow the "sixth pillars" link to find out that only a very small minority of Muslims consider it a "sixth pillar." This is akin to placing "reincarnation" in a template on the tenets of Christian faith, on the grounds that a very small minority of Christians consider it to be so. If it has no better place in the template, we shouldn't just squish it into the five pillars section just because we can't think of anywhere else to place it. If it has no place, it ought to be dropped and just left in the List of Islamic terms in Arabic article. — Asbestos | Talk 13:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Asbestos. This has been bugging me for a while and I had made a mental note to bring it up. It's totally inappropriate. BrandonYusufToropov 13:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Jihad is only inappropriate if you view in the minority sense of violence/war. Only a very small minority of Muslims view it as such, whereas most Muslims view Jihad as an internal struggle to uphold an Islamic way of life. Given the great prominence of this divide and debate within the Muslim world right now, I think it is right to leave Jihad where it is. It is already differentiated from the actual five pillars in template. What ought to be made quite clear on the Sixth pillar article and Jihad article is the divergent opinions on Jihad and its place within Islam. Jihad certainly is a relevant, salient, and prominent topic in contemporary discussions of Islam, and it would do readers a disservice not to include it. We must, however, make sure that the Jihad article itself is comprehensive and NPOV. —thames 14:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must respectfully disagree. As it stands, the template implies to those unfamiliar with the subject that (the most common understanding of) jihad (among non-Muslims) is or could be one of the "pillars" of Islam. There are important distinctions to be made here, and Jihad is one place to make them, but the meaning the average user takes away from the template matters, too. BrandonYusufToropov 19:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in here and say that I agree wholeheartedly with BrandonYusufToropov. Jihad is not one of the Five Pillars of Islam, and I could show you fatwa upon fatwa proving it. Of course it's a relevant topic, but it's not a Pillar, so put it at the bottom of the template if you deem it so vital. People will search for Jihad anyway, and it's not hidden, it's referred to in many of the Islam articles. If you leave Jihad where it is, you will only be furthering the misconception that it's a Pillar. It doesn't belong there. The sixth pillar article makes it clear that most Muslims say there are only 5 pillars, and that the idea of Jihad being one is heretical. Even if some say that Jihad is mandatory, it doesn't elevate it to a pillar. Heck, taking a bath or shower on Fridays is mandatory, but that's not a pillar. Non-Mainstream ideas shouldn't be excluded from wikipedia itself, but they should be properly identified as such or we risk confusing the non-expert reader. I'm removing Jihad from the Fundamental Principles, and if you wish to put it in a different area (how about "Texts and Law"? That seems much more suitable), you are free to mr100percent 04:33, 27 July 2005 (EST)

Color Scheme for logo

Personally, I preferred the old color scheme. Why do you prefer the new one?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:49, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

"People" section needed in the template

I looked at the template and was just floored when I couldn't find a link to Mohammed. There should really be a section for people in the template, at least there should be a link to the founder of Islam. The section sould be something like "Important people in Islam". It should include Mohammed, A link to the list of Caliphs, a link to a list of people Islam considers prophets (Prophets of Islam) and probably the list of Imams, Abu Bakr, and Ali. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 15:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interesting idea, actually. Depending on how much we expand it, I could envision something like (if no doubt shorter than):

Prophets of Islam: Muhammad, Isa, Musa...

Companions of Muhammad and Wives of Muhammad

Caliphs: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali...

Shia Imams: Ali, Hasan, Husayn...

I'm tempted to add the Ibadi imams as well (see eg Rustamids), but with only Oman and the Mzab following the sect, they really aren't notable enough. - Mustafaa 17:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Possibly the list of Imams and Caliphs is overkill, but we could at least link to the top-level articles. - Mustafaa 17:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea. A lot. But I would propose something like (of course, with the float/right I removed for the purposes of this page):

People

Muhammad

Prophets of Islam

Caliphs Shia Imams

Companions of Muhammad

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 11:41, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

A reasonable amount of time having passed without an objection or suggestion for change, I have added the section.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:57, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

New Proposal for Logo

How about this - the shahada (la ilaha il Allah, Muhammdun rasool Allah), written in Arabic calligraphy - in the form of a crescent star. :)

File:Shahada crescent.png

Bobaa904 22:56, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have to admit this is kinda cute. A bit hollow though - might be better with the words filled in. - Mustafaa 12:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Link idea

I was thinking; shouldn't we include in the template a link to a list of all the pages that link to this template? It would be easy to do:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template%3AIslam

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:50, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

People: Caliph/Caliphs and Imam/Imams

Someone has changed the entries under "People" to "Caliph" and "Shia Imam", respectively, from "Caliphs" and "Shia Imams". I know the articles are titled in the singular and are fundamentally about the title/office. But the link from here is an effort to provide a place for people to look to find out about the people who were Caliphs and Shia Imams. What say?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:49, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

When a template is added to an article, each name in the template box links to the relevant article, except that the name of the current article is in bold and not a link. Caliphs is a different word from Caliph (even though one redirects to the other); therefore the name Caliphs did not have this differentiation within the Caliph article's template-box. Similarly for Shia Imam. That's the reason I changed these titles. By all means use the plural if this is appropriate, but as [[Caliph|Caliphs]] and [[Shia Imam|Shia Imams]] to preserve this formatting. Joestynes 00:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Non-Mainstream Sects / Movements" section

If the Nation of Islam gets a spot here, shouldn't the Five Percenters be listed too? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:18, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Since there's been no reply, I've added this group to the "Non-Mainstream Sects / Movements" section. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:35, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Muslim music

Can we add a link to Muslim music and or its Category:Muslim music and perhaps more about Islamic culture? Hyacinth 18:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Background

Was there any discussion of the background before it was changed? I agree that the brown/cream one was cooler and softer--but Green is almost universally seen as the color of Islam. I am changing it back pending a discussion.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:12, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Alawi and Druze

Do the Alawis and the consider themselves a separate faith? If not, then they may belong under "Non-Mainstream Sects". I interpret that to be sects that see themselves as true Muslims or "The True Muslims", but whom the majority of other Muslims, like the Shia, the Sunni, etc., do not consider Muslims at all--The Ahmadiyya, for example.

Ditto the Druze--do they consider themselves as beyond the community of Mohammad--like the Babis and Bahais do; or the Muslims do vis-a-vis Christianity or Christians vis-a-vis Judaism? If they do, then they belong under "Related Faiths".

Am I making any sense?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:20, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Judging by the articles, the answer is "yes" for Alawis, and ambiguous for Druze: "The Druze faith keeps its tenets secret" and "some Druze say that their religion is an Islamic one". - Mustafaa 03:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One must take into consideration that in some Muslim countries apostacy is a capital crime. It is highly probable that the Druze only call themselves an "Islamic faith" to avoid persecution. It is true that the Druze are like the Ahmadiyya in which they accept another prophet after Mohammad. However, the Druze live in their own separate communities, are allowed to pray with Christians and Muslims alike, and the religion is occulted. Only the priests know anything about the religion. So the Druze could fit into either category. --metta, The Sunborn ☥ 21:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Size of the Template

This article forms part of the series Islam
Vocabulary of Islam
Five Pillars
Profession of faith Prayer · Alms · Fasting Pilgrimage to Mecca Jihad (See Sixth pillar of Islam)
People
Muhammad Prophets of Islam Caliph · Shia Imam Companions of Muhammad
Holy Cities	Events
Mecca · Medina Jerusalem Najaf · Karbala Kufa · Kazimain Mashhad · Samarra	Hijra Islamic calendar Eid ul-Fitr Eid ul-Adha Aashura Arba'in
Buildings	Religious Roles
Mosque · Minaret Mihrab · Kaaba Islamic architecture	Muezzin · Imam Mullah · Mufti Ayatollah
Texts & Law
Qur'an · Hadith · Sunnah Fiqh · Fatwa · Sharia
Sharia Schools	Kalam Schools
Hanafi Hanbali Jafari Maliki Shafi'i	Ash'ari Jabriyya Maturidi Murjite Mu'tazili Qadariyya
Shi'a sects	Kharijite Sects
Ithna Asharia Ismailiyah Zaiddiyah	Sufri Azraqi Ibadi
Movements
Sufism · Wahhabism · Salafism
Other Sects	Related Faiths
Ahmadiyyah Nation of Islam Five Percenters Zikri · Druze	Alawi Babism Bahá'í Faith Yazidi

It seems to me that the template has grown to a quite ungainly size. I propose one of two things:

Cutting and consolidating template items to remove anything extraneous. The template does not need to encompass every possible aspect of Islam. The Islam page can do a much better job of that anyhow.
~~Someone with some time and proper HTML skills use some table magic to save space, perhaps shifting items into a two column format where width permits. Like so:~~ I've gone ahead and redone the whole template in a much more compact and less obtrusive format. I think with a bit of tweaking here and there it would be a strong replacement. Thoughts?

I definitely like that better gren 04:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We'll need to incorporate the changes that have been made to the main Template since the proposed design was "forked" off before we use this new design.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:55, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's okay. I can just convert the existing template, rather than have to try and determine what has changed and merge the two. It'll probably be simpler that way. I just didn't want to make a large change like this without at least some approval from others here. —thames 15:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd request that you take the current template, convert it and paste it here so we can see how it looks--just as a last minute check; I am not too comfy about some of the depth and detail that have recently been added (and which I think is very useful) being clearly visible after a conversion.

Good design you've come up with, though! I like it.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:45, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

If the perspective of one who knows very little about Islam is worth something: I find this template contains far too many links of too many levels of detail. One anomaly is that Sunni Islam is not even on the template, presumably because it's too high-level; if there were 5 subtypes within Sunni they would each be listed. My recommendation would be to remove all the subarticles listed under Sharia Schools, Kalam Schools, Shi'a sects, Kharijite Sects, Other Sects, and Related Faiths, leaving just the headword article for each. The relevant headword article itself enumerates each of the subtypes; there's no need to include them in the template. As gren states, the job of providing an overview of Islam is not one for the template, it's for the Islam article. On the other hand, attempting to capture every article on Islam is not the job of the template either, it's for Category:Islam (and subcategories) Joestynes 07:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not meant to capture every article nor does it. I would also argue that it's jnot too confusing on the basis that you have a linke to Islam and the five pillars at the top and those will give you a basis for Sunni or Shia. If we remove anything it should be the litany of cities that in themselves have no worth. gren 13:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have gotten pretty attached to the template. It's really handy.

If we do make it smaller, I would request moving the current form to a Islam Quick Reference article--maybe that would also solve the other question I was asking about putting this into an article. And that article could be linked from the template...thinking as I go here.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think a quick reference article would be much more user-friendly. See also policy on series boxes for some pertinent considerations. Joestynes 09:59, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Qadariyya

Isn't that a Sufi Tariqa rather than a school of theology? Or am I confused?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's both: [3], [4]. I don't know if the two are linked. - Mustafaa 03:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Scholastic Theology?

Isn't that a little too complicated a title? I know it might be technically the most accurate term, but by not just "theology"? Or just "Schools of Thought". Most everyday Muslims would call them madhhabs anyway. And recognize them as very practical schools of religious practice that they follow, not just purely scholastic phenomena...—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 08:08, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Marja

I've added Marja to Functional Religious Roles. It is a concept very fundamental to Shia Islam and increasingly something readers of the news need to know about, —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:13, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Would people be averse to my adding a link to List of Marjas under "People", as and when that article gets fleshed out?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 18:51, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Separate Wikipedia article for template

I recently had reason to refer folks on a mailing list to the Template as a quick guide on Islamic topics and terminology. What would folks think about creating a page in the main namespage (as opposed to the Template: one) with just this template on it--or just text introducing it?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:27, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Islam article cover this need?

I guess so. But in the situation above, I wanted to provide a Quick Reference list. The whole article would be distracting in that situation...maybe it is something we could do as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam or Wikipedia:WikiPortal/Muslim World —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:50, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sharia Schools

I believe that the title Sharia School should be changed to Madhab which is far less cumbersome. Using this does not make the article any more convoluted because it is no more ratiocinative than "Kalam schools". Also, I am not sure that having the four Sunni schools mixed with the twelvers. There is often times in literature I have found an emphasis that one should choose one of those four schools (granted it is modern day conservative literature I think... but this is besides the point) and they are bundled into a group. Also, considering under that section it links to the Twelver's page and not a page directly on the jurisprudence I think it almost makes itself irrelevant now with redundant links gren 17:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it is less cumbersome. On the other hand, very few people know what "Madhab" is, but most people know what "sharia" is. If our goal is to make an easy-to-understand guide for people who are new to the subject of Islam, I think we should keep names that are more common.

As far as the shia school of jurisprudence, I've made a change to visibly distinguish the schools by sunni/shia. As far as Jafari being a redirect... well it should have its own page regardless of whether or not it's redirecting now. Perhaps we should kill the redirect and make it a stub instead. —thames 19:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

* = status disputed

What is the criterion for "* = status disputed"? Is it just within a group, or more generally in Islam? If the answer is the latter then I would think at least Jihad as the "Sixth pillar of Islam" and the Nation of Islam and The Nation of Gods and Earths would also be considered "disputed".--Pharos 04:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would groups that call themselves Muslims, but who most other Muslims consider outside the pale under "Other Sects". The original title of that section was "Non-Mainstream Sects/Movements", which I preferred but which would make the current design look bad.

The "disputed" thing I only felt appropriate for groups that we, as the editors, weren't sure about as to whether they considered themselves Muslims or a whole new faith (like the Bahais and Yazidis). Or we couldn't come to agreement on that topic--temporary, really, till we got enough info.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:10, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

That's a fair approach. I changed "status disputed" to "self-identification unclear" to try to clarify things more on the template. Does this fit the methodology better?--Pharos 00:44, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Added Liberals

Added a link to Liberal movements within Islam under "Movements".—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:05, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Heading lines

Heading lines are "cut" by this infobox. How do we resolve this issue? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sufism

Shouldnt sufism have its own heading , like mysticism , rather then under movement heading ? Farhansher 9 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)

Yes, but... there is limited room in the the scheme of things the parts of Sufism aren't that important. gren 9 July 2005 06:19 (UTC)

Fundamental principles

... is more accurate/relevant than "Five Pillars," inasmuch as Shia do not consider them "pillars" at all. BrandonYusufToropov 19:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but the Jihad link has to go. It's not one of the Five Pillars of Islam, nor is it a "fundamental principle." I'd say to maybe put Five Pillars in parenthesis, just because it's most commonly known that way, and referred to as such by the majority of Muslims. mr100percent 04:51, 26 July 2005 (EST)

If you look back through the history of the template, you'll see that before they were labeled "Fundamental Principles" the template actually just said "Five Pillars of Islam", and below the links to the five pillars there was something to the effect of "Sixth pillar of Islam: Jihad". I think it does the template a huge disservice to not have a link to the topic of Jihad, due to its relevance to most current discussions of the role of Islam in the world. As it is considered a "sixth pillar of Islam" by some, and insofar as it does not fit in anywhere else in the template, the link to Jihad ought to be put back in. This was all covered in old discussions on the talk page, and I'm frustrated that we have to go over this again. —thames 13:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that apologists are attempting to remove Jihad from "fundamental principals." This has already been discussed and agreed upon, and it is rationally clear that Jihad should be listed. --Zeno of Elea 14:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Whatever your feelings are on the topic, it is not right to claim consensus when there is definitely a controversy. We should look for a better way to incorporate the link.Heraclius 14:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I believe that the discussion above at #Adding Jihad to List of Articles? still stands: Jihad wasn't appropriate under "Five Pillars" and it's not appropriate under "Fundamental Principles." I have no opinion on whether it could be linked from another section, since it is clear that it is an important topic in Islam, but not under "Fundamental Principles" for the reasons noted in the earlier discussion. — Asbestos | Talk 17:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Asbestos, the rationale that you gave for not including Jihad was that it was listed under "Five Pillars of Islam" with a link to Sixth Pillar of Islam. Yes, we all know that only a minority formally views Jihad as the sixth pillar, because there is a cannonical hadith that lists the "five pillars." But that does not displace the central importance of Jihad in Islam. Jihad is a fundamental principal, and exalted by the Qu'ran as being above all other deeds except for faith itself. Jihad is much more that just warfar, as the Jihad article explains. There is no formal defintion of "Fundamental Principals of Islam," and it is not only a small minority within Islam that gives great importance to Jihad. You have no suggested as to why Jihad is so unimportant that it doesn't belong in the Islam series of articles, you have just unilaterally declared that it is not a "fundamental principals." On what basis are you making such a claim? The Jihad article gives a great deal of evidence explaining the high position of Jihad within Islamic theology. I don't see what is so objectionable about including Jihad as a "fundamental principal." Perhaps you should try to refomulate your argument, now that the "Five Pillars" heading has been changed to "Fundamental Principals." --Zeno of Elea 17:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is saying Jihad is unimportant, but it's not as important as fasting or prayer. Don't get me wrong, it's very important to Islam, but if you don't participate in Jihad, it's not as big of a sin as not praying. Furthermore, you're confusing the readers who browse the template and don't click on all the links, giving them the idea that Jihad is one of these Five Pillars, even though it's not stated as such. (Why don't we call it Five Pillars? It's much more familiar and accurate that way.) If you're going to start listing lesser principles like Jihad, then why not other fundamentals like Marriage? Marriage is "half the faith" as the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) once said. How about other requirements, like bathing on Fridays or attending the mosque for Jummah? Jihad doesn't belong in this heading, make a new one and put it there with other principles. Jihad isn't a Pillar and everyone can see here we're argueing whether it's a fundamental principle or not. (The Muslims here say no, the non-Muslims are pushing for yes. I find that annoying that the non-Muslims are trying to tell the Muslims what their faith tells them). --mr100percent 17:48, 30 July 2005 (EST)

Nobody is saying Jihad is unimportant, but it's not as important as fasting or prayer. Some people, both Muslim and non-Muslim, do not agree with this premise, as evidenced by the conviction in a Sixth pillar of Islam. You are just trying to downplay the importance of Jihad by making unfounded claims,
if you don't participate in Jihad, it's not as big of a sin as not praying. That is certainly arguable, and you seem to have forgotten to provide a source for such a claim. Not all Muslims agree that Jihad is not as pressing an obligation as prayer, some believe that it is the "first obligation after faith" as evidenced by the fatwa from Adbullah Azzam: When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, Shaikh Azzam issued a fatwa, Defense of the Muslim Lands, the First Obligation after Faith [2] (http://www.religioscope.com/info/doc/jihad/azzam_defence_1_table.htm) declaring that both the Afghan and Palestinian struggles were jihads in which killing kuffar (unbelievers) was fard ayn (a personal obligation) for all Muslims. The edict was supported by Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti (highest religious scholar), Abd al-Aziz Bin Bazz. It also been noted that even if not participating in Jihad is not the gravest of sins, the deed of Jihad is exalted by the Qur'an and has traditionally been recognized as the greatest deed in reward.
Why don't we call it Five Pillars? A better question is, why should we call it the "Five Pillars?" Pillars are found in buildings, they are not really something to do with religion. The "five pillars" idea is based on a Sunni hadith, and Shiah Muslims reject the "Five Pillars of Islam" concept. The idea that there are only 5 fundamental principals of Islam, based on a Sunni hadith about five "pillars" of Islam is no motivated by reason, it is motivated by blind faith in Sunni hadiths. Bathing on Friday is clearly not as important as Jihad, in Islamic theology and in contemporary social reality. Such attempts to downplay the significance of Jihad are completely unreasonable.
I find that annoying that the non-Muslims are trying to tell the Muslims what their faith tells them There should not be a systematic bias against the educated opinions of non-Muslim Wikipedians. --Zeno of Elea 20:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Cresent

When did this happen....how....why . Farhansher 17:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

There are Cresent moon symbols all over the holy mosque in Mecca. The minarets have cresent moons. There is even a cresent moon located right next to the kabba, on top of the maqam Ibrahim [5]. The cresent moon is the internationally recognized symbol of Islam. Only fundamentalist Salafis are opposed to the cresent moon. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a Salafi website. That is how and why this happened. --Zeno of Elea 14:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The majority of the time this template has existed there has been no crescent symbol due to the objections of some editors. Are you honestly claiming that there is consensus on this issue?Heraclius 14:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

There is consensus on the Jihad link issue. The cresent symbol issue is different. The same fundamentalist Muslim wikipedia editors that have historically objected the cresent moon symbol are objecting to it now. Wikipedia will not bend to the extremist puritanical beliefs of Wahabis and other puritans. --Zeno of Elea 14:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Dismissing someone as fundamentalist muslim does not make them not part of Wikipedia.--Tznkai 14:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You constantly contradict yourself. First you were saying that Wikipedia's Muslim editors are in fact part of the liberal minority that wish to whitewash Islam. Now you're saying they are Wahabis, the most extremist form. I recommend that you pick one conspiracy theory and stick with it.Heraclius 14:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

'"Dismissing someone as fundamentalist muslim does not make them not part of Wikipedia." Tznkai, what is the rational reason for not including the cresent moon symbol? --Zeno of Elea 15:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

See Heraclius's comments bellow, and a note that it is NOT a consensus of Muslims, Religious scholars, or Wikipedians.--Tznkai 15:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, please explain why you have removed the cresent moon symbol from the Template. --Zeno of Elea 15:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I really have no feelings over the inclusion of the crescent symbol. But reading through this talk page there have been significant objections by editors that I respect (such as Mustafaa) about the inclusion of it. One of their arguments is that there are a large population of Muslims who feel that the crescent is not in fact a symbol of Islam, but a symbol introduced by the Turks. How can we put a symbol for a religion if there is much controversy surrounding its use by members of that same religion? So basically, I reverted you because you began to claim consensus. Your edits would have gotten reverted sooner or later.Heraclius 15:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

"there are a large population of Muslims who feel that the crescent is not in fact a symbol of Islam, but a symbol introduced by the Turks." The cresent is IN FACT a symbol of Islam. This is an emperical fact, just as true as saying that the earth is round. The cresent moon was POSSIBLY invented by "the Turks" (although this claim has not been sourced), but so what if the Turks invented it? Countries that were never controlled by the Ottoman Empire use the cresent moon in their flags today, countries such as Pakistan and Malaysia. How do you explain that? The House of Saud was fiercly opposed to the Ottomans, and fought wars against them, yet they use the cresent moon symbol in the holy mosque of the Kabba [6] The cresent moon is the universally recognized symbol of Islam. Even those fundamentalists who oppose the symbol for puritanical reasons still look at the cresent symbol and their brains recgonize it as the symbol of Islam because that is everyone's experience in reality (most mosques have the cresent on their minarets). It is delusional to pretend that it's not the symbol of Islam, whether or not that violates shar'iah is another matter. But neither emperical reality nor wikipedia are subject to shariah law - we are free to include Islamic bidah ("innovation") in our articles. Islam's symbol is the cresent moon, and nothing is going to change the fact that it is the symbol even if some puritanical fundamentalists wish that Islam didn't have a symbol.
"How can we put a symbol for a religion if there is much controversy surrounding its use by members of that same religion?" Please refer to Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer, specifically the clase: "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy." --Zeno of Elea 15:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
So basically, I reverted you because you began to claim consensus. I claimed and clarified, in no unclear terms, that consensus exists regarding the Jihad link, not the symbol. --Zeno of Elea 23:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic, this is the most ridiculous edit I've seen you make [7] recently. If you want to demonstrate that you're editing in good faith please don't continue to make edits like this.Heraclius 15:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll try not to do any more hoaxes. --Zeno of Elea 15:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

As I recall, there have been previous go-rounds on the question of what symbol, if any, to use in the Islam template. For a while they had an Arabic version of the Shahada, but then that was replaced by the word Islam. In my research on symbols, flags, and banners, I found a number of flag pages that asserted unequivocally that the star and crescent were Ottoman symbols, and not used before then. Dunno why Pakistan and Malaysia have adopted them. Myself, I think a nice calligraphy version of Allahu would probably be acceptable to everyone. I'll bet that there are versions arranged as roundels that would look nice. That would probably be acceptable to everyone. Zora 23:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Oooh pretty! [8]. Now all we need to do is find public domain versions ... Zora 23:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Zora beat me to it... my official vote is no symbol because the template is already bloated... but if given the choice I'd say Allah in Arabic script because of universal acceptance. A crescent is not important to Islamic theology... but God and the importance of Arabic both are. gren グレン 23:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to go with an caligraphy version of the word Allah as well.--Tznkai 18:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

While these [9] look very nice, they're not symbols at all. The caligraphy is unrecognizable to everyone except some Muslims and some Arabic speaking readers. --Zeno of Elea 19:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Your point being?--Tznkai 19:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Colors

The new darker colors ar reall ugly.... gren グレン 22:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Then change them ;)...Heraclius 22:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I only changed the um strange yellowish color to grey. Maybe a lighter shade of grey would be better? I couldnt stand the strange yellowish color anymore. --Zeno of Elea 22:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Gray and green reminds me of harry potter colors. I preferred the yellow but I think gray is just clashing. This Christianity one has nice color meshing I think... because I stole the colors from the Jesus template when I made it.. It should be a much lighter color and probably an earth tone which gray is not. gren グレン 23:02, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

How about Saudi Green, and a light tan sand color? Klonimus 05:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I liked how it was... and it seems to be reverted back to that way... but Zeno wanted it differently... and I just think that gray was really bad. gren グレン 06:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

JIHAD

I've added back Jihad to the list of fundmental principles with the explanitory note, that some muslims feel that it is fundamental principle.

This is I think a good compromise. Klonimus 06:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's actually no compromise... but I think that it should be how it used to be with "Jihad (Sixth pillar of Islam)" -- and this template needs major cleanup in the way of space usage. (Unsigned comment by User:Grenavitar)

I'd rather put Jihad in a section like "Islamic Theology" to paralell with the Christianity template. What other things could we fill that section out with?--Tznkai 18:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should make sure you know what "theology" means before doing that. Theology is not done with swords. --Zeno of Elea 19:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Theology is the structure of religous belief that justifies or condemns use of the sword. And my God that was highly offensive--Tznkai 20:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, above you say "Jihad is much more that just warfar." So which is it, swords or not? But regardless, this footnote within the template looks silly (what other inforboxes use footnotes?), takes up too much space, and just looks like an editing war that has spilled out into the main article space, which it is. I can't imagine that anyone thinks that it works as a long-term solution. Personally I don't know if it fits under "theology" either — it might be the result of theology, but doesn't seem to me to be related to the study or discourse of the religion. I'm sorry that I don't have any positive solutions for where it should go instead of just negative criticisms, I just don't know if the current structure of the template is such that jihad has any place in it. — Asbestos | Talk 09:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

There is definitely theological debate about the nature of Jihad so I can see it fitting there... though I am not opposed to it in the section it is now (in fact I put my opinion above). Zeno... you are not pithy. gren グレン 12:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, above you implied that you agreed with me that Jihad should not be listed as one of the five pillars ("...the rationale that you gave for not including Jihad was that it was listed under "Five Pillars of Islam" with a link to Sixth Pillar of Islam. Yes, we all know that only a minority formally views Jihad as the sixth pillar, because there is a cannonical hadith that lists the "five pillars."), but argued that it should be under "Fundamental Principles". From that, I took that to mean that "Fundamental Principles" were different than "Five Pillars". However, the link goes straight to Five Pillars of Islam. Therefore, it's pointless to say that we now have a different situation than the one that existed when the section was entitled "Five Pillars." Later, you say that "...Shiah muslims consider "jihad" to be part of the "pillars"," and suggest that people read the article. The article doesn't back you up, however. The article mentions the 7th century Khawarij sect believed jihad to be a pillar, and the Shiah's believe it to be one of ten practices, along with paying the tax on profit and hating the enemies of the Ahl-ul-Bayt, to mention a couple other of their practices which did not make it to the template. "Jihad" doesn't belong in a section who's link goes to "Five Pillars", and doesn't belong as a "Fundamantal Principle" as the only other "principle" to be included other than the big five. — Asbestos | Talk 15:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that Jihad is of such importance in current discussions of Islam that it would be a grave error to exclude it. —thames 17:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Jihad should be included in the template. But why the fundamental principles? There are no Islamic sources that put Jihad in the 5 pillars of Islam.Heraclius 18:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the inclusion of Jihad in that area has two reasons: 1) There is no other section of the template where it fits in appropriately; and 2) It has been claimed by some Islamic scholars to be a Sixth pillar of Islam, hence its inclusion alongside the other Five pillars of Islam. —thames 21:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The only Islamic sect that has had Jihad as a sixth pillar is the Kharijite sect, and in modern times the sect has officially renounced that belief.Heraclius 01:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted Jihad from the five pillars. To add Jihad on the template, I was going to make the last section titled "see also" and list Jihad there, along with anything else that has no place. Other templates follow that model. Cunado19 01:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Crescent Moon Symbol

I think everyone should visit http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa060401a.htm This webpage discusses the origins of the symbol, and also has a poll addressing this very same issue. After nearly 5000 votes, the majority position is that the cresent moon should be used as a symbol of Islam.

It is true that the symbol was first used by the Ottoman Islamic Empire, and not the Arab Islamic Empire. But Islam is a lot more than the early Arab empire. The following nations use the cresent moon on their flags:

Most of the above countries were either never under Ottoman control or were, before their independance, trying to become independant of the Ottomans Empire. Most people from these countries are proud of their flags, and they believe that their flags symbolize their unity with the Muslim ummah. When hundreds of millions of Muslims proudly wave the cresent symbol, in the belief that it symbolizes their faith, it is extremely POV to tell them that this symbol is "un-Islamic" and will therefore not be used on Wikipedia.

The cresent moon symbol is used in Islam's holiest mosque, in Mecca [10]. The same symbol is used in mosques all over the world. If there is a mosque near you, I recommend that you go look at it. Chances are that you will find the cresent symbol somewhere on the mosque.

Not long ago, I was visiting a Middle Eastern country, and was walking inside a modern shopping mall. Every once in a while, I would see some signs hanging from the ceiling of the mall, with symbols such as a payphone symbol, men's and women's washroom symbols, etc., and arrows pointing to where these facilities can be found (of course, these sorts of signs are found in modern malls all over the world). But these signs also had one more symbol: a cresent moon symbol, indicating where a mosque/prayer area can be found in the mall. The cresent moon symbol is ubiquitous to the Muslim world.

The cresent moon symbol is also the symbol of the International Red Cresent Society, the Muslim counter-part of the International Red Cross Society.

Did Muhammad invent the Red Cresent symbol? No? Does that mean that fundamentalists oppose the symbol because Muhammad didnt use it? Yes. Does that mean that most Muslims oppose the symbol? No, most Muslims gladly use this symbol.

Was the crescent moon symbol first used by the Ottomans? Yes, the founder of the Ottomans used this symbol after capturing Constantinople, which used to use the symbol before the Ottomans. Does that make the crescent moon symbol exclusively the symbol of the Ottoman Empire? Of course not, not anymore than it makes the crescent moon symbol exclusively the symbol of Christian Constantinople. Symbols are very similar to words. All words have etymological origins. But it is an important principal in linguistics that etymology is different from semantics. A simple example is the word barbarian; this word has Greek origins. The ancient Greeks used to call non-Greeks "barbarians" because when they heard non-Greeks languages it sounded like "bar bar bar ..." - back then, the sound "bar bar bar ..." was thought of like how we today think of the sound "blah blah blah ..." So non-Greeks came to be called "barbarians," in ancient Greek society. Does this mean that, today, the word "barbarian" means "non-Greek?" Obviously not. The etymological origins of a word need not have anything to do with its contemporary semantic meaning, and the same holds true for symbols (indeed, the study of symbols is a part of linguistics).

The overwhelming Muslim majority opinion is that the cresent moon symbol is the symbol of Islam. There are small groups of Muslims who don't like this, and wish to go back to the days when Islam didn't have a symbol. While their opinion should be noted in an article about the Cresent Moon Symbol, it should not lead to suppression of the symbol just to satisfy the deviant opinions of a small minority.

I think most of the opposition against the cresent moon, on this template, is comming from the recent hoax at Allah and the mention of Hubal. Please note that I do not think that Allah is a moon-god - such suggestions are absolutely ridiculous. Nor does the Cresent Moon symbol have anything to do with Hubal. I was just having a laugh, no academic believes that Isla's cresent moon symbol has anything to do with moon worship. --Zeno of Elea 20:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I skimmed through this, and found some of it actually useful. That having been said, I think we've found a better symbol that we can agree on. Reminds me of the War of the Roses. Red and White fight, pink wins.--Tznkai 20:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Which symbol are you proposing? --Zeno of Elea 20:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

any romantanized/caligraphy otherwise pretty and unword like arabic script for Allah seems appropriate.--Tznkai 20:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

THat's completely unappropriate. The purpose of including a symbol is not to beutify or romantacize the template, the purpsoe is to include a universally recgonized symbol of Islam for encylopediac purposes. You are opposing the cresent moon symbol because it was popularized a thousand years ago by the Ottoman Muslims. Yet here you are trying to popularize a completely new symbol. Caligraphy is not even a symbol to begin with. Arabic text should not be included as headings in English Wikipedia. Writing the word "Allah" in Arabic does not make it a symbol of Islam. Why don't we just make a graphic of "Allah" written in a fancy English font and put it up there? Would that make any sense? The word "Allah" is a WORD, not a symbol, even if it is written in calligraphy. The Template is not an art gallery, and it is not a place for religiously devotional art. Caligraphic representations of the word "Allah" belong in the article on Allah. I have demonstrated that the cresent moon symbol is the universally recgonized symbol of Islam (something that hardly needs to be demonstrated, as we all know that this is the truth). Now please show is exactly what graphic you are proposing to use, and please demonstrate that it is a universally recogonized symbol of Islam. You will be unable to do so, since there is only one symbol of Islam. --Zeno of Elea 20:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the argument began and the accusastions ended but I've never recognized the crecent moon as a symbol of Islam. We can discuss the semantics of symbol all day, night, into next week and earn degrees in english in the process, but this seems to be something that the community can agree on, and is useful and indictive of Islam. The Arabic language, especially a well known caligraphy of the word, all remind people of Islam. Seems more useful. We can discuss our POVs till we turn blue, or we can focus on agreement, compromise, and barnraising.--Tznkai 20:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"I've never recognized the crecent moon as a symbol of Islam" It doesn't matter what you recogonize in your POV, Tznkai. The emperical fact is that the cresent moon symbol is the only existing symbol of Islam that is widely recognized in the Muslim and non-Muslim world. Trying to replace the symbol with Arabic text, such as the shahada, has already been discussed here. It was decided long ago, in this template, that caligraphic Arabic text is not a substitute for a symbol and is inappropriate for inclusion into the template. The shahada used to be in the template, until it was removed. The only question here is whether the symbol of Islam will be included or not. Either the symbol will be included, or there will be no graphic in the template. Trying to confuse the issue by introducing artistic caligraphy of a devotional nature into the template has already been tried and it failed. --Zeno of Elea 20:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well actually religious /religion symbol is something that worshiped/adored/followed by the followers . In hinduism , OM is wordhiped , in Buddhism , eight fold path is to be followed ( more or less equivalent to Sharia in Islam ) , in sikhism , the 5 Khas are to be practiced , in christianity , the cross is associated with Jesus/God/Salvation , in Judaism , David star/solomon's seal is supposed to be associated with David/Solomon , so its an honourable thing .

Unlike all these , cresent is not honoured , not adored , not followed , not invoked , not worshiped , not associated with Muhammad or Sahaba . Its no where to be found in Islam .

Most of the above countries have somehow been affected by turks , if not ruled by them .

So the best thing to do will be to Use Allah . The one to be adored , followed , worshiped , invoked , honoured ......more exactly the alpha & omega of Islam . Farhansher 20:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan and Malaysia have never been ruled by the Ottomans. Regarding sticking the word "Allah" or the shahada onto the top of the article, in Arabic writing - I strongly object. That is in no way a symbol, let alone a universally recognized symbol. Such proposals seems to be motivated by artistic or religious devotional interests, and not by concerns about encylopediac informational content. As for your claim that the cresent symbol is "no where to be found in Islam," the above evidence disproves such a contention. Arabic caligraphy was invented much later after Muhammad's death, so the same can be said in that case - it is an innovation, just like the cresent moon. The only difference is that Arabic caligraphy is an Arab innovation, while the cresent moon is a non-Arabic innovation - and there seems to be a lot of bias here towards Arab imperialism over Islamic culture. --Zeno of Elea 20:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Why does the image at the top of the template have to be a symbol?Heraclius 20:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The symbols of the various world religions are part of encylopediac information. Practically every religion has a symbol. A symbol does not require you to know Arabic in order to make sense of it. Islam did not originally have a symbol, but eventually the accepted symbol became the cresent moon (probably because Islam uses a lunar calander, and because there is a story in the Qur'an about Muhammad splitting the moon). It is an important fact about Islam that the cresent moon is its widely accepted symbol. Every wikipedia template on a major world religion includes a symbol (see Christianity, Judaism, and Budhism). --Zeno of Elea 21:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Both Pakistan & Malaysia have been heavily influenced by Turks, see their history for more information ( not the wikipedia history ). Allah is the core of Islam , like OM in Hinduism . Anything/everything comes after it . And its not an innovation . Encyclopedia should depict the religion , not influences . Farhansher 21:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Both Pakistan & Malaysia have been heavily influenced by Turks, see their history for more information ( not the wikipedia history ). Ridiculous. --Zeno of Elea 21:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous read some books before discussions . Farhansher 21:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

If you have some actual evidence, that's fine. But just saying "there is evidence somewhere out there, go read some books" is laughably ridiculous. How would you know how many books about the history of Pakistan or Malaysia I have or have not read? Get a hold of yourself, Farhansher, statements like "read some books before discussions" are essentially personal attacks. You don't have any proof, if you had proof you would have posted it by now. --Zeno of Elea 21:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Who were Mughals ?

Who were the first people who invented Urdu

Who was the first poet of Urdu

What is the meaning of Urdu

From where were the sufis send to Malaysia

When you know the answers you will understand what I am saying . As before read some books before discussions . Sites arnt very good source . I know because you dont even know the basics . If you even read the books tought in Elementary schools , they will tell you about turks Farhansher 05:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Poll removed

[11] Comentary and poll can be found here if intrested.--Tznkai 03:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Colors (again)

Why is the template green? Can anyone explain? I think the template colors should be like Template:Christianity - it should use the WIkipedia Table of Contents color scheme. --Zeno of Elea 21:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think instead of using yellow+green , we should try something like Green+white , or Green+some light shade of blue/purple ( like Judaism ) . Green I think should stay . Farhansher 21:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Why should green stay? I think the template should conform to the rest of WIkipedia's color scheme. Why GREEN? --Zeno of Elea 21:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking keep with the standard Wikipedia color scheme.--Tznkai 21:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Im thinking Template:Christianity is really ugly. Personally I like the color scheme of Template:Islam, and as for "why green?", check out the flags of predominantly Muslim countries: you'll find green on the majority of them. Not tan tho... What to intersperse the green with? Maybe red! Although that might look kinda "christmassy" to a lot of readers... :-p Tomer ^TALK 22:10, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ugly, but readable and functional.--Tznkai 22:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm a fan of the Japanese aesthetic view called Wabi-sabi, which finds aesthetic value in simplicity; so I personally think that Template:Christianity looks great. You're right that the color green is found on many Muslim country flags, but even more common on Muslim country flags is the cresent moon symbol, which is (somewhat strangely) being continually removed from this template. I don't think the color green is any more "Islamic" than the crescent moon symbol, as far as historical origins go. --Zeno of Elea 22:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

There are many Muslim sources that claim that Muhammad wore a green cloak. The template will be reverted soon, I am sorry to say.Heraclius 22:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure Muhammad wore many different colored cloathes. I don't see why the color of Muhammad's cloak should have anything to do with the color of this template. Also, Muhammad used a black colored flag. The Ummayads used a white colored flag, and the Fatimids used a green flag. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the "color of Islam," this has to do with the color of this template. It should match the color of Wikipedia tables of content. I also find that the giant green colored template is distracting and difficult to read. --Zeno of Elea 22:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Now all 3 templates look the same and there is no originality.Heraclius 23:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's good that all three templates look the same, Wikipedia should look uniform. The logical way to make the three templates look different is to use the respective symbols of the three religions. --Zeno of Elea 23:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, you have just broken the 3RR yet again. As a gesture of good faith, I won't report you for it. But please stop reverting this template.Heraclius 23:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR. I would like to see you try to report something that has not occured. --Zeno of Elea 23:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually you have. I have been blocked for complicated reverts myself and believe me I am familiar enough with the rule by now. I am curious as to why you are offended by Arabic script in the template?Heraclius 23:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius, this is clearly not a 3RR violation. Anyway, I've explained over and over why words or sentences written in Arabic are not symbols and therefore do not belong where a symbol should go. This is English Wikipedia, not Arabic Wikipedia. Most readers do not understand Arabic. People who are unfamaliar with Islam almost always recognize the cresent symbol. However, the Allah caligraphy is not globally recognizable, and words are not symbols to begin with. Putting the "Allah" caligraphy in the template seems like a devotional act. You haven't even explained WHY the "Allah" caligraphy should go there in the first place, it's just a knee-jerk reaction to the moon symbol. --Zeno of Elea 23:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It's more of a knee-jerk reaction to your claiming of consensus and violations of policy.Heraclius 23:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Once AGAIN, Heraclius, I did not claim any consensus regarding the inclusion of any images. --Zeno of Elea 23:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Uhhh, you know purple is a very Christian (besides being noble) color. Catholics on Easter use purple... and I believe that is why the Christianity/Jesus templates use it... it is not because of any standard... so I fail to see why the Islam one is using it... it's not like the wiki album project where orange means studio recorded and darkgreen means compiliation.... there is no standard for this as I can tell... and using purple for this template is just using what the Christian colors are.... gren グレン 17:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Zeno

Zeno's behaviour on this and related talk pages is becoming increasingly unacceptable. This is saddening, since orignially I perceived him as an intelligent and knowledgeable critic of Islam. Now he is basically just trolling. Of course a calligraphy of the name of God will be appropriate on this template (hello? the topic of this template is Islam, how is it not going to be Islam-centric??), likewise for the green colour: One may argue against it on grounds of graphical taste, but to denounce it from anti-Islamic motives is ridiculous. Zeno, if your behaviour continues to deteriorate like this, you may find yourself wound up in the formal aspects of Wikipedia:dispute resolution soon. dab (ᛏ) 13:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Dab, I gave Zeno a stern warning last night, and he seemed to erm... get worse in response. Including a claim to be the editor in cheif of wikipedia. I hope that was a joke. At any rate, I promised various admins to give it a week, and ask you do the same. If it doesn't improve, I will assist you with the needed procedures.--Tznkai 15:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Dab: When and where did anyone complain, that the template was too "Islam-centric" and where did anyone "denounce" the green color "from anti-Islamic motives"? Anyway, the purpose of this talkpage is not to discuss individual users, and any personal remarks should be avoided. We all got personal talk pages for any kind of personal discussions. -- Karl Meier 13:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I think Zeno should take his particular taste for templates to the other religious templates and see what people think.Heraclius 15:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

right, I apologize; this was frustration built up over some time on various talkpages. carry on, I do not want to chime into this particular dispute. although I do think it is ridiculous to denounce the placing of the Allah calligraphy, and not the cross image or the aum, as an act of devotion. I do think Image:Shahada crescent.png (maybe with png transparency?) is nice too, but there may be copyright issues. dab (ᛏ) 11:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

A couple template issues:

I am taking a week long leave from this article at the suggestion of various admins, especially user:kmccoy. Before I do so, I will leave my opinions, observations, as my standing "vote" while I'm off.

Template colors: Keep it uniform with the rest of Wikipedia. Who cares if its "ugly?" Its functional, and readable, and ignorable if people don't want to read the rest of the series.

Template Size: Too big. Taking up more space than other Templates, doesn't need too. Cut it down to the essentials and shrink.

Inclusion of Jihad: Its probably roughly as important as the doctrine of grace in Christianity. Or possibly its just a new word for a common religious concept. At any rate, a Jihad is a theological concept, justifying and extoling certain actions under certain conditions. This is parallel to the theological doctrines of Works, Grace, Salvation, etc.

Symbol: So far, the strongest consensus seems to exist with going with no symbol. To paraphrase user:geogre: "WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE PLACE FOR ULTIMATE TRUTH" it is a place for the summarization, collation, and reporting of observed facts about other person's observations, analysis in published works. In otherwords, Notability is important, as is Consensus and Compromise. So play nice please kids.

Other issues: anyone considering an RFC to get the opinions of the wider wikipedian community? By its nature, religious articles attract those who have strong POVs for or against.

See you in 7 days unless something extraordinarly stupid happens here.--Tznkai 15:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree heartily about the template size. Compare the old Christianity template with the new one: [12][13]; as well as the old Communism template with the new one: [14][15]. —thames 17:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I just committed the sin of editing a page without glancing at the talk page. I was about to change the list of sects, movements, and related faiths. Most people honestly don't care about every division. I'm not too familiar with the Islam pages, is there a page for Islamic divisions? If not, we should make a page that lists all the sects, divisions, schools, and related faiths with links. We could replace all of them on the template with one single link. Cunado19 01:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a strong vote of support for your new version. It's cleaner, tighter, more relevent, and, of course, I far prefer "Jihad" in a "See Also" section than "Fundamental Principles". — Asbestos | Talk 10:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a much better looking template, for sure.Heraclius 21:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Poll

I tried reading the talk page to see about a picture, but it's brain deadening. It seems obvious to me that the star and crescent should be used, but since there seems to be people set on not using it, can we take a poll? The options would be: use the crescent, use the calligraphy of Allah, don't use any picture. I'll leave it up to someone who knows what they're doing to set up the voting. Cunado19 02:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed a poll was just taken with no apparent consensus. Never mind. Can we just start a revert war then? I'll join the side of the crescent moon. Cunado19 02:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Shahada crescent.png has been mentioned as a possible compromise, but there might be a copyright issue with that, that'll properly need to get solved. -- Karl Meier 06:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)