Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Islam/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

Islam

(Self-nomination). Countless hours have been spent by many editors getting this article to GA status, and now (hopefully) to FA quality. All suggestions for improvement will be promptly and seriously considered. (Old nom.). - Merzbow 02:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Thank you Merzbow for your hard work. A university professor from outside has reviewed this article [1]. He described the writing as "clinical and straightforward, but not boring."--Aminz 02:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And likewise for your hard word. And the article has improved vastly even since the version the professor reviewed. - Merzbow 02:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think we have ironed out all the POV and citation problems, and now this seems to be a very good and encyclopediac article on wikipedia.--Sefringle 04:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I will have to to through this, but at first glance I notice two problems.
- For the second paragraph of criticism of Islam you have "law and practice.[142][143][144][145]" which uses 4 different references in 4 different footnotes. With "Montgomery Watt and Norman Daniel dismiss [...] while Carl Ernst writes that Islamophobia has played a part.[146]" you have two references in one footnotes. I much prefer the second method; although, I know users have disagreed before. Whichever your preference this should be standardized throughout the article.
- "Responses to the critics have come from many corners." comes off as weasley to me. I think there is a better way to integrate that into the sentence.
- This is off of the top of my head but... "shahādatān" and then "Zakat. How we deal with long vowels should be uniform. I prefer marking them, but I don't see why we whould not do zakāt when we do it on the other. gren グレン 07:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll try to clean up the weasely sentence. And good catch in regards to "shahādatān"; I think it's better just to change it to Shahadah, which seems to be the common English rendering. In regards to the footnotes... right now I've stuck to the practice of combining simple references like "Esposito (2002b), p.1" together in one footnote with semicolons, but have avoid smushing together larger references (like cite templates) because they are harder to distinguish with just semicolons to delineate them. I admit this seems kind of arbitrary. Would you prefer we always combine adjacent footnotes? - Merzbow 08:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would argue shahadah, salah, zakat, are not English and therefore should use diacritics. Islam, jihad, etc. have made their way into English and therefore shouldn't use diacritics. But, even though I have my preference I think we should at least be consistent.

As for the footnotes, that seems arbitrary and I doubt that any referencing style manual (that uses footnotes) would accept that. Then again, I don't know of any manual that allows multiple footnotes next to each other, but I still think consistency is the biggest issue. So, I would prefer we always combine because [141][142][143][144] makes the text less readable. Footnotes are not meant to be read like prose so they do not need to be as flowing. But with the body it at least looks a lot nicer to have one note rather than three or four. gren グレン 20:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the five pillars words, all but sawm and shahadah are in M-W's unabridged, so I think that qualifies them for anglicization. As for those two, I think the desire to keep them in parallel form with the others comes down on the side of keeping out the diacritics. As for the refs, I'll see what I can do. - Merzbow 20:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an experiment I tried separating multiple refs in one footnote with bullet characters, this seems to work far better than a semicolon. See references 108 and 137 as an example. I also put them on separate lines with line breaks. I think they are easy to read now. - Merzbow 22:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refs are merged now using a scheme we devised on Talk. I think it looks pretty good. - Merzbow 07:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per POV. Before getting to that: it moves at nice pace with a rational TOC to help the reader; prose is good—short, declarative sentences; I'll leave the micro-formatting issues to greater minds, but it all seems OK; LEAD is fine, but Sunni and Shi'a need a mention there; length is fine and might even use a slight expansion. So, on to 1d:

"'The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm[!] that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews. The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham.'" This can mean two things: a) in broad anthropological terms the God of Islam shares the same root as the Judeo-Christian God—OK; b) Abraham was a Muslim. Insofar as the second is intended, it must at least be observed that Jews would vigorously deny it. (Thus "historians affirm" really threw me—which historians and from which angle?)
"He is viewed not as the founder of a new religion, but as the last and the greatest in a series of prophets — the restorer of the original, uncorrupted monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham and others." For the purposes of this encyclopedia, I'd suggest he is the founder of a new religion and should be described as such. Even if only in a clause, secular terms should come first (e.g. Brittanica: "founder of the religion of Islam, accepted by Muslims throughout the world as the last of the prophets of God").
In the Jihad section, theory and practice need to be more sharply defined. "The primary aim of jihad is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state." Well, OK. Were Janissaries converted by force or in the name of the "expansion and defense of the Islamic state"? Oh, wait a minute—what exactly is the difference between "by force" and "expansion and defense"? I'm sorry, but you read this and you have no inkling that Islam is a (sometimes violently) proselytizing faith. ~~While on that subject, and while I know it's fraught, some reader or other is going to come along and expect information on contemporary terrorism in the name of jihad.~~
The criticisms section is a strawman. It's good the one sentence mentioned above was removed, but it still reads to me as a "yes, but" that gives no real time to textual criticism. "...questions the authenticity and morality of the Qu'ran..." First, I wouldn't wrap those two nouns together as they denote distinct issues. More importantly, this is the only hint of secular (rather than intra-Muslim) dispute anywhere in the piece. The article mentions disagreement over X or Y idea here and there, but never challenges to doctrines per se—polygamy and purported antisemetism come to mind. And no, we don't need polemics from answeringjihad.org; a much better section can be constructed with good sources. Marskell 12:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re point #1. Peters says:"The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews (29:46). The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham".

Peters states that the Qur'an portrays Allah as both more powerful and more remote than Yahweh, and as a universal deity, unlike Yahweh who closely follows Israelites." --Aminz 18:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I've addressed the first concern and second concern, and will work on the third. However, I'm not clear on your objections to the contents of the Criticism section. There isn't enough space in such a small section to go into much detail about specific criticisms, it's there to give a very broad overview of the debate. Are you saying we should disband it and intersperse the criticism throughout the article? - Merzbow 19:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the first two points have been addressed i believe. concerning the Jihad section, the passage you cite makes clear (IMO) that it refers to Jihad in principle. the difference between 'conversion by force' and 'expansion of the state' is that with the latter, you are instituting a new legal system and administration, and not forcing the population to accept Islam - as they still have the choice to abide by their religion in return for the jizya (as elaborated in the 'other religions' section). this is the precise point Rudolph Peters makes ("The primary aim of the jihad is not, as it was often supposed in the older European literature, the conversion by force of unbelievers, but the expansion - and also defence - of the Islamic state. Unbelievers who were brought under Islamic rule in this manner were given a choice. Either they were allowed, in return for the payment of a special tax, to abide by their own religion, or they could become converts to Islam, in which case they acquired full civil rights."). as for the criticism section, much of the modern criticism today is in the form of criticising Islamic law, the life of Muhammad, as well as the primary texts (cf. Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq). are polygyny and purported antisemitism comparitively prominent? i'm not so sure (if you have any sources i could consult then that would be v. helpful). thanks. ITAQALLAH 19:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, in the first century of Islam conversion was discouraged for several reasons. I just saw the Rudolph Peters's quote. I have already rewritten it using Esposito.--Aminz 22:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made further changes to the Jihad section that hopefully address the points raised here. It now explains how expansion of the Islamic state does not necessary entail aggressive warfare (as Itaq points out), and mentions how jihad has been used to justify modern terrorism. - Merzbow 01:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have scratched one and two, and part of three (though I'm still not entirely convinced—the "although" risks another strawman). This leaves the last. Do I really need to source that purported antisemitism is a prominent criticism? Google "Jews pigs" and see what comes up first. Unfortunately, where I am sources will be censored on this (e.g. most anything from Israel) and there's no good library around. For some bizarre reason Robert Spencer isn't censored, but I suppose we don't want him in the article. I could probably dig up something in back issues of Foreign Affairs or whatnot; there was a good article on Islamic feminism a year-and-a-half ago that could be used on criticism of plural marriage. Two other notes:

Again, Sunni and Shi'a, their numbers, and a brief mention of doctrinal difference, belong in the LEAD; in fact, I don't think their numbers are mentioned anywhere at present. It's just the sort of info a reader will turn to the article for.
~~No mention of Wahhabism in Modern Times?~~ Marskell 08:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell, we have one small overview section on criticism of islam. Once we mention more specific points, we need to balance it out with specific answers and the section becomes bloated.

Wahabism is already covered as part of the fundamentalist movements. --Aminz 08:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a mention of Wahhabism to the "Modern times" section, and put Sunni/Shia in the lead (with the 85/15 split there and also in the Demo section). We'll think further about how to better clarify that portion of the Jihad section and about how to address your concerns about the underrepresentation of certain criticisms. - Merzbow 08:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of a balancing current reader expectation while avoiding "recentism". I'm not asking for three paragraphs on polygyny and the status of women—three sentences will do. It's something a reader would expect to find here because it's much discussed. Part of the problem with the section is that the "Other criticism..." sentence is generic, while the reply to it is specified and mentions authors—it's a rebuttal of criticism where the criticism is never properly stated. Marskell 08:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when I'm home I could probably add my own sentences. Thinking about it, the status of women arguably deserves its own section, though we don't want to wander from summary style. Marskell 08:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am afraid a section on status of women would become too detailed. It should cover change in the status of women by the advent of Islam. Then the works of later jurists and addition of cultural elements to the regulations.. then we come to the modern time and its movements. it is too detailed and i am not sure if such section is relevant to this article. --Aminz 08:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl is suggesting below a section in Community about "family life". This seem reasonable; we can also add the mentions that Marskell is requesting to that section. - Merzbow 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've addressed all your remaining points now... I pulled in Bernard Lewis to help clarify the Jihad section some more; added a mention of the antisemitism criticism to the Criticism section (along with other tweaks), and added sentences about the rights of women to the new "Family life" section. - Merzbow 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my oppose for now. I'll need to read it again. Marskell 10:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think that the additions to the history section make the article sufficiently comprehensive and balanced to achieve FA status. Do not refrain from adding more crucial non-political elements in the section (if more exist). They are at least as important as the political elements. My sincere compliments to the editors.Sijo Ripa 11:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC) *Oppose. The history section is tremendously biased in favour of wars, conquests and empires. I would expect that an article about a religion would deal in the history section with the history of the religion, not solely with politics. I do not say that the politics cannot be relevant (for instance they are necessary to explain the spread of Islam), but the section should be about the history of Islam, not about the history of Muslim empires. What religion-related important events happened? For instance: the founding of the different branches, theological and philosophical discussions, new interpretations, notable influental imams on the religion, did the relationship with science and art change? when?, etc. PS: Some references can and should be merged.Sijo Ripa 12:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - i think that most texts available on the history of Islam go into discussion primarily about the history of the spread of Islam (cf. "Cambridge History of Islam", CU Press; "A Brief History of Islam", Blackwell publishing). that might be because there wasn't much in terms of significant theological codification of the religion post-Muhammad, and the fact that there isn't/wasn't an official, centralised clergy. the fundamental beliefs and practices had already been defined. other historical aspects of Islam are covered in their respective sections: the development of legal practice is covered in the Law section for example, while the history of sectarian formation could perhaps afford more mention in the denominations section if it's not already sufficient. ITAQALLAH 14:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find it hard to believe that there aren't significant religious (local or global) changes during about 1500 years of history that can be mentioned in the history section. I doubt that there aren't reliable books or articles about this. The history section could for instance tell when and how Sufism came into existence. Sijo Ripa 17:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There might be some books but these are not hard facts. If we just wish to write how sufism start etc while keeping WP:NPOV then we need to give many different opinions. One can write a new article about all of those opinions and even then that article will have a tag similar to one exist on Sufism always. We just wish to touch major facts like defining Shia, Sunni and other major sects and leaving other details on those individual articles. Please ask something which is possible at least.--- A. L. M. 17:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know little of Islam. Can you explain why there isn't any reliable information about the history of Islam? There must at least be some reliable estimates (a century and a region?) when and where a certain denomination started, or am I wrong? There must be at least some information about new interpretations and relationships made. I mean, there were many scholars in the Muslim world, there are many academics studying the subject now, we're speaking of about 1500 years... I really doubt that only POV material is published. Sijo Ripa 17:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        History books usually contains similar information as described in a very excellent way in History section of article. That is about Rightly Guided Caliphs, Umayyad, Abbasid, Ottomans, Mughal etc. Friend you must understand that unlike other religions, Muslim generally do not follow some Imams/pope strictly but follow Quran/Sunnah. Hence history that you are asking for is not important in Islam. We usually look at the arguments given by a person (using Quran and Sunnah) and if the arguments are good then they follow it otherwise not. Hence, we have mentioned different school of thoughts names and some other information briefly (see Denominations). I suggest we leave details in those articles because neither they are important nor very well defined. --- A. L. M. 18:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        any relevant information pertaining to Sufism would likely be mentioned in its own section in the article. i will try to introduce more information concerning possible dates the main sects emerged. i interpret from what you have written that the main issue of concern is that the History section says nothing about the development of sects. but as i'm seeing it, any appropriate information concerning sects and their history would be more pertinent in their relevant sub-section in the Denominations section. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 18:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The concern here is about duplicating too much material discussed elsewhere in the article. However, we can certainly intersperse small mentions of important non-political developments in the History section, with the expectation that the reader who wants to know more will look to the dedicated sections in the rest of the article. Does that sound OK? (I'm also looking for guidance on the clearest way to combine references - any suggestions here - I'm feeling uneasy about just smushing together large cite templates with semicolons because it makes them hard to distinguish). - Merzbow 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        When first looking over this I saw no reference to Fazlur Rahman's Islam (and of less importance Islam and Modernity). These are relevant to this complaint because they do give a much clearer intellectual history. I need to reread the article, but if anyone is curious where to look to maybe address the intellectual rather than political history of Islam that is a good starting place. gren グレン 20:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't know whether you have access to the books mentioned by Grenavitar, but it sounds like what I meant. I think that there is plenty of crucial information regarding the intellectual history that isn't present in the article yet. Furthermore, the history section can deal with the circumstances (when, why, where, the reaction of other Muslims, etc.) a certain denomination was founded, while the "Denominations" section can explain what the characteristics of the denomination are and how this denomination is different from other denominations.Sijo Ripa 14:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        ok, i have incorporated a few things such as the origin of the sunni/shi'a split, the Abbasid mihna, and the presence of theological dispute in the area of philosophical discourse. also, the information about modern movements in Islam has been incorporated into the history section. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 15:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        We still should add a bit about the origins/development of Sufism (the three stages, one in each of the first three sections), and about development of Islamic law. - Merzbow 16:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        OK a lot has been added to the history section on a variety of topics aside from the political/military... we've consulted a number of sources to determine the most notable events in areas such as theology and Islamic law. Please take a look. - Merzbow 06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support. an excellent example of how controversy can be the driving force to arrive at brilliant articles. I consider the two "oppose" votes above somewhat disingenious, since they basically translate to "forget it, this article will never be granted FA status". dab (𒁳) 15:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, Dab. I will support the FA status once my concerns are addressed. Sijo Ripa 17:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, AGF. The above opposes are cogent and specific; of course this can become an FA. Marskell 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Oppose~~. The article lack information regarding several important issues. One obvious example is that the "Other religions" sections doesn't mention anything about Islams relations with non-monotheist religions, and only discuss the status of Christians and Jews within the Islamic state. -- Karl Meier 10:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? While I do not contribute to the article, I can imagine that it would be helpful to give a list of the important issues and what specifically lacks.Sijo Ripa 14:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a list would be helpful. Regarding this specific objection, it should be easy enough to add information about Islam's relationship with religions other than Christianity/Judaism. I'm not sure what else we can say on Christianity/Judaism and Islam, that seems comprehensively covered. - Merzbow 16:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mentioned was that the section with the title "other religions" need to include information regarding Islams relations with other religions other than just the Christian and the Jewish religion. Islams view on polytheists should as a minimum also be discussed. As for the Jewish and the Christian religion, I haven't suggested that we should include more information regarding Islam's relations with these religions, as I agree that these issues are sufficiently covered. Other things, however, that are also missing is something about Islam's relations with not just other religions but also atheists and agnostics. A section that is discussing Islam's view on family, marriage and gender roles is also missing, and would properly be very suitable as a subsection to the "community" section. -- Karl Meier 16:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. - Merzbow 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Islam have had most of its contact with Christians, Zoroastrian (and Jews). When Muslims conquered India, they extended the Dhimmi laws to Hinduis, Buddists and others... --Aminz 18:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that Islam also came in contact with a lot of polytheists right from its most early days. -- Karl Meier 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true of course. --Aminz 23:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section on "other religions" now includes information regarding Islam's relations with other religions other than Christianity and Judiasm. --Aminz 07:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a bit about relations with atheists/agnostics; I think that section is complete now. The family life section will be added by us over the next few days. - Merzbow 08:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Family life" section is done, take a look when you can. - Merzbow 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed with the latest additions to the article, and they include everything that I thought was missing regarding these issues. I have been reading the whole article again though, and I still believe there is one remaining issue that will have to be discussed in the article, if it is to be complete: Islams relations with the state. If a section that adequately discuss these issues is added to the article, I will change my vote to support. -- Karl Meier 12:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll make that a small sub-section of "Law", since Islamic law defines the nature of such relations (i.e. the essential lack of church/state separation). - Merzbow 16:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been added now. - Merzbow 21:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have supported the nomination as your original version of that section sufficiently discussed the topic and was clear, neutral and straight to the point. Unfortunately though, Aminz latest editing which distort the history and facts regarding especially Islam's early relations with the state has turned the section into that is not suitable for a featured article. -- Karl Meier 23:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl please mind WP:CIVIL. --Aminz 23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wasting my time with your "Please mind WP:Whatever", and remain WP:Civil yourself. Thank you. I have made valid comments about your editing of that specific section, and mentioned that your version of the article is not suitable for a featured article. You might wish that policy said something else, but fact is that criticizing your editing is not against against WP:Civility or any other policy. -- Karl Meier 23:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop refering to my edits as distorting facts and history. --Aminz 23:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are allowed to discuss your specific edits and to criticizing them. What makes you believe otherwise? -- Karl Meier 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to do that using a civil language. --Aminz 23:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to stop your attempts to derail the discussions here with your false and pointless accusations. -- Karl Meier 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the section to include some of the information in a footnote. The way it's worded now is plausible I believe. - Merzbow 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I highly disagree with that edit. EoQ is quite clear that according to some "the qurʾānic message is not political but moral". This section further fails to mention Shia Islam that traditionally separated politics from religion holding that only Muhammad and his descendents can be the head of government. We are not supposed to write what people *like* to hear.--Aminz 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue the discussion about the specifics of this section on the article talk page. - Merzbow 00:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I believe that all my concerns has now been addressed, I have changed my vote to support. -- Karl Meier 07:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article seem to be very comprehensive and detailed. However, i think it may be a bit too big...Bless sins 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of material to cover it's unlikely to ever be below 80k. I hope to keep it under 85k though; just a month ago it used to be almost 115k, but we trimmed as much as seemed feasible. - Merzbow 06:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could reduce it right now by removing the "Arts and Sciences" and "Criticism" sections. As discussed on talk, the first is mostly irrelevant and misleading - domes, for example, are no more Islamic than are arches, courtyards, etc. - while the Criticism section is almost jarring in the awkwardness of its appendage to an article which is otherwise (with a few unfortunate exceptions) blessedly free of argument; it reads like a concession and I imagine that it probably was, from a time when the article was far less disinterested in tone than it is today (thanks also to Karl Meier's insistence on the presentation of several potentially controversial topics.)Proabivouac 22:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No vote It seems I was wrong. It seems there are a couple of POV issues that need to be sorted out first.--Sefringle 00:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else aside from the one sentence you edited? - Merzbow 00:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one has yet replied to my suggestion above, and my talk page comments have not been credibly addressed. Rather than try to hold the status of this article hostage to these complaints - to be fair, most Wikipedia articles fall short of my standards in these respects, and it is indeed a very good article as they go - but these comments about domes and gunpowder are entirely irrelevant to the subject of Islam, and should be removed even if and though they don't bother any POV camp.

Since this is not a vote, my comments can be interpreted for what they are; neither a protest that this article might achieve featured status in its current state, nor an acceptance of the presence of these unnecessary components. Ideally both Arts and Sciences and Criticism sections will be removed, bringing us to exactly the recommended size. Barring this, at least we should remove the most obviously off-topic sentences.Proabivouac 07:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I thank you for not lodging an oppose based on this, I'll have to strongly disagree with your reasoning. We have a section called "History" of which 70% discusses political and military events in the Islamic World. This content has nothing to do with religion directly, yet you aren't arguing against it. Historical accomplishments by Muslims in areas of art and science are in no way qualitatively different than their military and political exploits. I would suggest that for consistency, if you want art, science, and philosophy to go, you also need to argue that all of this history be excised as well. My position is that all sufficiently notable events in the Muslim world are within the scope of Islam (and the content of every single introductory book on Islam I've ever read, from Esposito to Lewis to Britannica, validates this observation). As for the criticism section, if you want to make concrete proposals to address specific criticisms elsewhere in the article that you think are being marginalized here, then go ahead... as above we've already done a bit of this. - Merzbow 07:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The history just attained the minimum level of religious history to let me drop my oppose, but I still think that the section should more be about religious history, not politics. I think that most people add political history, arts and science, etc. in their books, is because there is no difference for the name for the civilization (Islamic civilization) and the religion (Islam), as opposed to Western civilization (politics, military, arts, science, ...) and (Western) Christianity. This confusion should however be no argument to confuse the two in an encyclopedic article. Arts and science should perhaps be limited to religion-related art, science and literature only. I mean: gunpowder, paper, medicine, etc should be removed, art and literature dedicated or related to the worshipping of Allah should stay. Sijo Ripa 12:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can take cues from Encyclopedia Britannica Online; the article on Islam deals exclusively with the religious history, philosophy and theology, whereas the political history is dealt with in the article "Islamic world". --Bluerain ^talk 14:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we should limit it to religious history (since, political expansion is important to who = adherents and what ideas they bring to the development of religious thought) but I think we should tightly integrate the two... They aren't integrated and the history of religious thoughts often seems like mere asides with dislike ideas paired in the same sentences (see second paragraph of Golden Age). Also about that paragraph al-Shafi'i is important for codifying Usul al-fiqh... its affect on usage of hadith is important but it's not "he made it second", but he attempted to standardize usage. Also, we mention neopolatonism in Arab philosophy but not Aristotelian thought? I am not well read on Islamic philosophy but I'd like to be assured that the choice is not merely arbitrary? You also have disjuncts like §Modern times (1878–present) // In the aftermath of World War I losses. If the section starts at 1878 then so should the text. I think the modern time section is misleading because it talks about "Liberal Islam" as a means to "reconcile religious tradition with modern norms of secular governance and human rights"? Using that language would make it seems that progressive-ish Muslims are more important than the reformist movements like the Ikhwan and Jamaat-e-Islami but instead we lump these in with "fundamentalist" groups. It's especially misleading since MB and JI were very modern groups that while religious were not traditional at all (and often opposed the ulema). So, we should downplay the liberal groups but focus on the modern ones and not use Islamism as a pejorative (which we are when we call it fundamentalist). And Islamism isn't a movment. It's a label given by Western scholars. The Muslims Brotherhood is a movement. This has gotten away from my original purpose but I think a lot of it is sloppy and anecdotal. Oh, and the ending sentence "There are Muslim and non-Muslim scholars who have spoken out against it stating that the basic texts of Islam texts do not sanction these activities." just doesn't fit and looks like it was tacked on to make it look better. gren グレン 15:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these are good points, and the article will be improved accordingly. - Merzbow 21:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While I appreciate all the hard work that Merzbow has invested into this article, it's not of a featured quality yet. Some points:
What is the Persian spelling of the word doing in this article?

Taken out, only the Arabic is necessary. - Merzbow 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of 1.4 billion Muslims is the probably the highest estimate I've ever seen; it is particularly suspicious because it comes from a source of dubious quality. Just some more figures: Islam by country gives the total of 1.3 billion, so does [adherents.com http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html]. Because the number of Muslims cannot be determined precisely, there should be at least several reliable sources giving their estimates.

Took out numbers from the lead, changed the upper estimate in the Demo section to 1.3 billion. - Merzbow 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences "The word is given a number of meanings in the Qur'an. In some verses (ayat), the quality of Islam as an internal conviction is stressed:..." are unreferenced and sound like original research.

All material in this paragraph is supported by EoI Islam, which is the trailing footnote. - Merzbow 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Judaism and Christianity are seen as kindred faiths because of a shared prophetic tradition..." Exceptionally POV. Who of the Muslim scholars sees Judaism and Christianity as "kindred faiths"?

Reworded this paragraph. - Merzbow 22:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the Qur'an is mostly devoted to textual issues, and important points are not even touched. For example, in Islam, the Qur'an is not merely the literal word of God, but also eternal and uncreated.

These attributes of the Qur'an are now mentioned (I only think a brief mention is warranted here). - Merzbow 03:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "The Qur'an contains over a hundred chapters of verse on topics such as theology, morality, and matters of law." is completely unsatisfactory. First, the fact that the Qur'an is divided into suras and these into ayats is strangely missing. Secodnly, the Qur'an is in no way divided topically, though the sentence leaves the reader with precisely such an impression.

Addressed with more precise and accurate language. - Merzbow 03:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It occupies a status of primacy in Islamic jurisprudence, and Muslims consider it a definitive source of guidance." Nope. The Qur'an requires commentary and commentators may differ. On the other hand, when there is a clear tradition from Muhammad, it prevails over commentary in the matters of jurisprudence.

Addressed. - Merzbow 03:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"To interpret the Qu'ran, Muslims use a form of exegesis known as tafsir." The sentence makes no sense: tafsir is the Islamic exegesis!

To be specific, it's the science/practice of Qur'anic exegesis. Addressed. - Merzbow 03:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite his exalted status in Muslim thought, Muslims believe that Muhammad was merely human." Yes, but he was also the perfect man.

Reshuffled words and made this clear. - Merzbow 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Muslim believe that he was perfect man. -- A. L. M. 01:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica says Muslims believe this unconditionally, or at least it's held widely enough that the minority viewpoint isn't notable. I'm awaiting other sources on the talk page. - Merzbow 02:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"By 629 Muhammad was victorious in the nearly bloodless Conquest of Mecca..." In the meantime, there was the execution of prisoners of war after the Battle of Badr, the bloody butchery of the Banu Qurayza, another slaughter during the Battle of Khaybar, and lots of other battles, assassinations and smaller raids. The realty of Muhammad's career was the opposite of the peaceful rise painted in the article, so much so that the earliest biogrpahies of Muhammad known as maghazi were devoted solely to his campaigns.

I've added two sentences that go into the specifics of Muhammad's military exploits. This will be undoubtedly be controversial to some, so keep an eye on it and see how it evolves. - Merzbow 06:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The authentic hadith are considered to be an authoritative source of revelation..." No, the hadith are not revelations, only reports by humans of what they saw and heard.

That sentence was redundant in context; I removed it. - Merzbow 22:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could go on, but my comments could take the whole page. Beit Or 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are appreciated, but please note all issues underlying your oppose so that they can be acted upon. If you intend to provide more after we address these, then that's fine. - Merzbow 20:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also because of the number of comments I'll be putting responses in-line. - Merzbow 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all of your existing issues above. When you get a chance, please also comment on the rest of the article (but there's no rush, I'm out travelling until next week). - Merzbow 06:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will support, conditional on continuing response to Beit Or's review for as long as this FAC remains open. Beit Or has several FA's under his belt, and speaks with authority in this field; Merzbow is perhaps the fairest and most neutral writer I've seen in this space; their product I trust without reservation. I also encourage Itaqallah to remain engaged.Proabivouac 10:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose until fix the "Beliefs" section and the "Duties and practices" are Sunni centric, they iterate the Sunni doctrines under the general term "islam". This is not accurate, since Shi'a have other views. --Striver - talk 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly that's a fair point in principle. If you share specifics, we can address them.Proabivouac 02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you consult any basic primer or introductory texts on Islam, such as the work of Caeser Farah (in Islam: Beliefs and Observances (2003) Chapter: The fundamentals of Islam: Beliefs p. 109) who says: "The principal elements of worship in Islam entail belief in God, His angels, scriptures revealed to the believers in Him, the messengers, destiny (qadar), and the Day of Judgement", Esposito etc., then that is what you will find. ITAQALLAH 02:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make this part more complete and NPOV by adding bliefs of Mutazilis and Shias. I also put a comment about divine decree in the talk page of the artcile.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added more info about how the Shi'a concept of "divine justice" (Adalah) differs from the Sunni conception of pre-ordainment (Qadr). The doctrine of Imamah is the other major difference in Shi'a belief according to the best source I have, but it only needs a quick mention in the Beliefs section, because it's explored in detail in the Denominations section. I think this covers it. - Merzbow 06:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striver might be interested in this link to moniter changes made accoring to his suggestion [2]. --- A. L. M. 12:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated diff is here: [3]. - Merzbow 17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To tell the truth, i have only limited intrest in wikipedia now compared to previous. I made my point, and im sure people understood me, i leave the implementation or the lack of it in the hands of those more intrested - To be clear: this and this are the shi'a positions, while this and this are the Sunni positions. The most NPOV way is to either just present what both agree on are noteworth enough to mention, mention all of them in just one text named "Theology" and "Practices" were differences in denominations can be explained and some minor details be... whatever, you know the drill.--Striver - talk 18:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically each sub-section in Beliefs is now common to the two sects (renamed if necessary). Within each section, any differences between the Sunni/Shi'a views are made explicit. (I should note that there seem to be major inaccuracies in some of your linked articles, especially "Practices", which is unsourced - the Yale University Press book on Shi'a practices lists only eight.) From my point the only remaining thing to do here is make explicit the remaining Shi'a differences in regards to the Five Pillars (some are already noted). - Merzbow 00:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think now it has represented Shia better.[4]--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review:

The "Day of Resurrection" (yawm al-Qiyāmah), the "Day of Judgment" (yawm ad-dīn), and "the Last Hour" (as-sā`a) are not the same thing, but a sequence of events. First, all or most living beings are destroyed, then comes the resurrection, upon which the whole mankind will be gathered in one place, then the Day of Judgment.
Why mention some Islamic scholars who wrote about the qiyamah? Many more than just those three covered that subject.

fixed. ITAQALLAH 20:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...(although some interpret this symbolically)." Who are these some? If these are Avicenna and some other philosophers influenced by the Greeks, then these were demolished and denounced as infidels by Ghazali in the twelfth century, and the philosophy in Islam quickly disappeared. Anyway, here we enter the sphere of complicated and antiquated arguments that are hardly relevant to what Muslims believe nowadays.

removed. ITAQALLAH 20:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to split the second paragraph of the section on resurrection and judgment into another section on afterlife.
"The Qur'an list several sins that can condemn a person to hell, such as dishonesty and the exploitation of others." First and foremost, non-Muslims are condemned to hell. Then, why choose just two sins out of many?

have attempted to address this. naming a few sins as examples seems appropriate. ITAQALLAH 20:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Muslims view paradise as a place of joy and bliss, but despite the Qur'an's descriptions of the physical pleasures to come, there are clear references to a greater joy—acceptance by God (ridwān). There is also a strong mystical tradition in Islam that places these heavenly delights in the context of an ecstatic awareness of God, stressing an allegorical interpretation of the Qur'anic verses describing heaven." These two sentences are clearly designed to play down the naturalism of Muslim paradise. This is unfair. The Qur'an abounds in graphic descriptions of the joys of paradise, including wine, beautiful women, and handsome boys. In addition, please specify what this "mystical tradition" is, why it's "strong", and how it interprets the Qur'an "allegorically".

have attempted to address this. the Encyclopedia of Islam expresses the superiority of ridwan, and more specifically the vision of God. ITAQALLAH 20:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Muslim belief in the divine predestination is not called qadr (which means "power"), but al-qada wa'l-qadar). Beit Or 19:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

corrected. the other issues i intend to address soon. ITAQALLAH 20:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All good points. The damnation of non-Muslims is key, and the apologetics regarding sex in heaven need to go. Arrow740 20:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good points. Thanks for tackling these Itaqallah, I assume you're working on the two remaining issues above (making explicit that sequence of events, new section on afterlife - also, for Afterlife to be large enough for its own section it should be expanded a bit). - Merzbow 00:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Itaqallah said on Talk:Islam: "...as with a number of Beit Or's concerns, i find the one concerning this section to be unreasonable."[5] With this kind of attitude, it is naturally a waste of my effort to continue reviewing this article. For the record, I must state that most my "unreasonable" concerns remain unaddressed; obviously, I retain my "oppose" vote and invite others to vote "oppose" as well. Beit Or 20:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That concern most certainly has been addressed by us - two sentences have been added that discuss exactly what you asked for. I disagreed with Itaqallah and made the change, and he seems OK with it now. Two sentences on Muhammad's warfare in a half-dozen-odd sentence paragraph on his entire life is more than reasonable. I would politely ask you to retract your statement here; if not, I would exhort the FAC coordinator, Raul654, to strike this oppose vote as being in bad-faith and unactionable. - Merzbow 20:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"this oppose vote as being in bad-faith and unactionable." I'm afraid you've crossed the line. Beit Or 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will allow the attitude expressed by Beit Or above towards the editors who have put in countless hours addressing his objections (including Itaqallah) stand for itself. - Merzbow 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this turn of conversation most depressing. All three of you are hard-working and good-faith editors, it makes no sense to come to blows. It is perfectly alright that there are differences in opinion about the weight that should accorded to different events.

Beit Or, I deeply appreciate your review of this article; you'd identified many unexamined shortcomings, and most have been addressed to at least some degree.

I strongly disagree that Beit Or's !vote should be struck; there can be no question that it honestly reflects his informed opinion. At the same time, I choose to support, and have done so below.Proabivouac 07:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think the article has become better after the editions during last week. Now it's more correct, clear, complete and NPOV. Thanks for all of wikipedians who have worked on it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article, which was once such an embarrassment, is now one of the best to be found in Islam-related space. I thank and congratulate all who who worked so hard to make it so, and all those who have taken the time to review it.Proabivouac 07:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.