Talk:Islam

Why should it be Quran

rather than the more common English language word of Koran (or, if we wish to use a transliteration from Arabic, Qur'an)?

No big deal and, whatever word we use, we should use it consistently, but I wondered how this squared with our choice to use common English names such as Prague (rather than Praha) and Vienna (rather than Wien) in Wikivoyage?

(American Journalism Review article, quran-or-koran, wordorigins.org for further reading) --Ttcf (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I would use Qur'an, but it doesn't matter to me, either. If you'd like to do a global search and replace and change every instance to Koran based on that spelling being used more often in English, I won't object. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I would actually use Quran , since this is used by Wikipedia w:Quran and w:Koran redirects there. One presumes that they had an informed debate about it (although I can't see one on the talk page) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It's in the archives. wordorigins.org references their "informed debate" and the indexing problem with apostrophes in article titles. --Ttcf (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

We haven't been too reticent to use apostrophes in WV article titles, have we? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Could it be that Wikipedia just doesn't like glottal stops? Note that "Shi'a" redirects to w:Shia Islam. I don't think we should drop the apostrophe on Shi'a. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Possibly that is the reason. It is nevertheless consistently applied for both 'Quran' and 'Shia'. We obviously don't have to follow WP on style, I just wonder if this is something that is easier to take their lead on? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The glottal stops help with pronunciation. I won't fight a jihad about transliteration, though. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The 'jihad' pointed to by User:Ttcf is worth avoiding :) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Putting all of this together, it would seem then that the real choice is not between Koran and Quran, but rather between Koran and Qur'an (since it's not an article title but rather a common word to be used in the prose of our Islam article - and other articles).

While the foreign word Qur'an is obviously more culturally sensitive (and gives a better pronunciation clue), I would suggest continuing to use the long established and "naturalised" common English word of Koran in articles other than this one. --Ttcf (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd use Koran here too, after giving the Arabic and mentioning the alternate transliterations. Pashley (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion faded out some time ago. I still want to make a global change to Koran, the common English rendering. Using the commonest English term is policy for article names & I think it should obviously apply here too.

Does anyone want to comment before I make the edit? Pashley (talk) 07:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I have a liking for Qur'an but get your point and won't oppose, providing that you put the Arabic name Qur'an, plus alternate transliterations if you like, in parentheses in italics at the first instance when it is used in the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits done. Pashley (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Five Pillars

We mention that Hajj and Zakat are among the five pillars. I assume Ramadan and the five daily prayers are two more. I suggest we add a complete list, with links where possible.

Is Halal food the fifth? Should we have an article on that, or create it as a redirect to part of the Islam article? Pashley (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

From this dakwa site:

The 'Five Pillars' of Islam are the foundation of Muslim life:

   Faith or belief in the Oneness of God and the finality of the prophethood of Muhammad;
   Establishment of the daily prayers;
   Concern for and almsgiving to the needy;
   Self-purification through fasting; and
   The pilgrimage to Makkah for those who are able.

In Arabic, using the same site's transliterations: Iman, Salah, Zakah, Sawm, Hajj.

Understand section

This section focusing too much on groups/dominations but what else should be covered in "Understand" section of this and other religions' travel topics? I mean what should be the scoop of a religion travel topc and what range of information belongs in such guides? Currently, Christianity and Hinduism understand sections, though very brief, but focus on architecture. Buddhism focus on history and symbols, while Judaism revolve around locations, I guess. --Saqib (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism is the best model. Its "Understand" section contains a summary of basic Buddhist principles and history in a way that informs the traveller to countries with ancient Buddhist relics and currently vibrant Buddhist communities. The others are all greatly lacking in information about what the religions in question are.

It seems to me, where the "Understand" section of this article should begin is by saying that Islam is a monotheistic religion whose adherents are called Muslims, and then mention that according to Islamic belief, the Prophet Adam founded Islam, but that everyone agrees that it was Muhammad who first preached Islam using the word "Islam" per se (at least I think everyone agrees on this?). It should further mention that according to Muslims, the Qur'an was recited to the Prophet Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel, and therefore is literally the word of God.

I'd follow up by mentioning that Muhammad was a great and inspirational leader, under whose rule most of Arabia was united during his lifetime. The natural followup to this is to discuss the quick spread of the Islamic Caliphates, and the Sunni-Shi'a split is part of that, but the point that Islam very quickly spread from Arabia as far west as Morocco and Spain, as far east as India and as far north as Central Asia is salient, and the fact that the Islamic Empire was, with the arguable exception only of China, the foremost center of scholarship, scientific and technological advances during the Golden Age (approximately 800-1100 CE?). We could mention the invention of algebra and Arabic numerals, for example. See w:Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī. Famous figures in Arabic medicine, including the famous Muslim Bukharan doctor and philosopher, w:Avicenna and the famous Jewish doctor and philosopher, w:Maimonedes, could also be mentioned. The fact that Maimonedes was Jewish doesn't make him irrelevant, as the point being made is that non-Muslims were a part of the greatness of Islamic civilization during the Golden Age.

Anyway, I don't want this article to become encyclopedic, so we shouldn't go overboard, but I definitely think more information and context would be helpful to readers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Weren't Arabic numbers first invented in India? And than later rejected in Europe because the very concept of "0" (unknown until this system came around) challenged the teachings of the church. And what if anything should be said about the things modern critical textual analysis has found out? For example if we talk about Christianity I think it is in order to note, that Jesus was probably born in Nazareth and the whole Bethlehem story is probably just that: a story. (that was inserted to make him come from "the city of David") And that Islam almost certainly didn't come from nowhere, as there were already Christians and Jews in the general area of Mecca and Medina during Muhammad's time. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

While we shouldn't adopt a preaching tone on behalf of any religion, we shouldn't go out of our way to debunk any aspect of any religion, either. It's fine to make remarks in passing, such as "According to the Gospels, Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, so Christians consider Bethlehem a holy city; however, most historians believe Jesus was actually born in Nazareth." I don't think we should go further than that. Similarly, we can mention Muhammad's discussions with Meccan and visiting Jews and Christians and say that while Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the word of God via the Angel Gabriel, many of the Jews and Christians in Muhammad's time thought it was a new religion created from sometimes distorted memories of Bible stories he was told by them, and that neither he nor current-day Muslims appreciate(d) that view, so anyone who maintains it today should keep quiet about that while visiting Muslim countries, not only out of respect but because of possible threats to their safety. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

[unindent] See what you think of my work. I hope no-one thinks I've made this article overly long or encyclopedic. Rather, in keeping with the fact that this is a travel guide, I've barely scratched the surface, but I thought it was important to outline basic Islamic beliefs, give a brief sketch of the extremely momentous life of the Prophet Muhammad, and briefly discuss the Golden Age, making sure to include internal links in all the new text. Please correct anything that's wrong or misleading. I think the only other obvious thing that could be added is a brief listing of the 5 Pillars of Islam, but I could go either way on whether that's important to include. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Good work IK. I've added 5 pillars of Islam. --Saqib (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The "Rightly-Guided" Caliphs

I'm glad we have a section about the Caliphs of the Golden Age, but something's been nagging at me: It's actually the "Rightly-Guided" caliphs and not the later, more objectively(?) successful caliphs who are commonly cited by Sunni Muslims as exemplary. This is topical because we now have the leader of IS claiming that he is a caliph who is following the examples of the w:Rashidun Caliphs, not the later caliphs who are so celebrated by historians for their wisdom, toleration and advancement of civilization and undoubtedly condemned by IS for their heterodoxy, leniency, tolerance and openness to knowledge of all kinds including pagan myths from ancient Greece. I feel like we really should cover these folks a bit, of course with internal links where possible and relevant. I'm definitely not the best person to cover them, though. User:Pashley and User:Saqib, do you guys know much about the reigns of the Caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan and Ali ibn Abi Talib, so that their actions and claimed exemplariness (is that a word?) can be briefly explained and put into context? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Muslim groups

I don't think really current state of subsection "Muslim groups" is really useful from a travellers point of view. Aren't we going too deep? On the other hand, if we're going to keep these group, lets remove Salafi-Takfiris because they are not a group. Its more like an ideology. --Saqib (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I would trust your judgement on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I found it a clear explanation, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this is just me, but it seems to me that we are dwelling too much on subsets of Salafism... It's akin a bit to us explaining the difference between e.g. Southern Baptist 1910 creed and Southern Baptist 1934 creed (I don't know if such a schism exists, but there is a joke where a similar minor difference leads to the two killing each other as "heretics"). Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

But there is a very important difference between Salafists who obey the government of the country where they live by doctrine and seek to change the world peacefully and those who by doctrine seek to impose their interpretation of Islam through violence. These are very different interpretations of Salafism that make a huge difference. I don't think there's any equivalently large chasm in Christianity at present. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk

Just a few thoughts with regard to the talk section. While other languages are briefly mentioned, the section now reads as if Arabic and Muslim are almost completely intertwined. From a traveller's perspective, we need to make the importance and use of Arabic in the Islamic world clear, but also outline how there are hundreds of millions of Islamic people around the world who do not speak Arabic. The wish to read Quran in its original form has made Classical Arabic a popular language to study, but that doesn't mean you can walk around anywhere in Indonesia and get by with it. As for the dialects; yes there are some large differences. In general however, most Arabs will say that all except the Western-North African dialects (Moroccan, Algerian) are mutually intelligible without too much difficulty. Also, in any nominally Arabic speaking country (including Morocco etc), you will be able to get by (especially for travel purposes) with Modern Standard Arabic, which is closely related to Quranic Arabic. The problem is rather the other way around; even a native speaker of Arabic with a degree in Classical Arabic may have serious difficulty understanding the local dialect of Morocco on the street. Since the written language is the same, however, classical Arabic is thought in schools and standard Arabic and Egyptian Arabic dominate the pan-Arabic media, we should not suggest that MSA will not help you in North-West Africa. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please edit accordingly... I was already of the impression of getting onto increasingly thin ice fact-wise when editing this section... Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Well to be honest, I would rather not get involved. I've never been in favour of this type of article, which is too encyclopaedic for my taste and too detailed for me to feel comfortable contributing to. I don't want to discourage anyone else who wants to write them, as long as the information is correct. If the adequate knowledge is lacking, it's probably best to just leave sections out or empty for now. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Which parts of the article do you think are too encyclopedic and should be removed, or is it not that simple an issue? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to be negative. It's just that I would say any Wikivoyage article should be focused on travel - with overviews of history and general information as relevant context, preferably with some proper sources or suggested reading for those who want to know more. An article like this is pretty much the other way around, to me. It reads like some sort of Wikipedia summary, with a few travel references. Hopefully this will change as the article develops, and things will be more in proportion. To me, it's relevant to understand that the Islamic world is strongly subdivided, and that this has all kinds of consequences which are relevant to travel (in terms of e.g. politics, behaviour and art). As a traveller, I'm not sure what to do with the list of Salafist groups. Without information on what the differences are for me, the articles gives me more questions than answers :-) Again though, I'm happy to just wait and see. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You make really good points. This article definitely should have a greater proportion of focus on specific places to visit, specific things to see and specific things to do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right Julia. This is exactly what I was thinking yesterday. We're getting too deeper in understand section and lacking practical information which is serves the purpose of our travellers. But anyways, will try to write required information as I get time. --Saqib (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Backgammon set

Shouldn't some explanation be given of how that's an Islamic object? There are many non-Muslims in Lebanon who might have made that set. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd have thought the style was obviously Islamic. The caption now mentions that. Pashley (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It looked Islamic-style to me, too, but I do think it's best to spell these things out. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Call to prayer

One of the most noticeable things for a traveller in at least some (all?) Muslim countries is the muzzein doing the call to prayer. The traveller might find this surprising, charming or irritating, but I think it is worth mentioning here.

Are there famous or particularly good muzzeins anywhere? Pashley (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, one of the places that to my knowledge was known for great muezzins was Aleppo. I can only hope that whoever was working in Aleppo has gotten out safely. Perhaps someone else knows more about this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Travel focus

So I think User:JuliasTravels is right: To date, this article does not have enough travel focus.

Is there a difference between a traveller's experience of Sunni and Shi'ah Islam? Are there more highlights we should direct travellers to? We have a section on the Caliphates: Their greatness comes down to us partly in the continuation of their scientific and scholarly inquiry, but it is also viewable in great buildings, such as the Alhambra. And there are also the historic Islamic universities.

Let's work more on integrating more specific travel content into this article. We should do the same with other articles about religions - maybe the one about Buddhism is best in that respect right now, as a larger number of places to visit are recommended. However, that article could inform people more about what they're looking at. But I digress... Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Pashley (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Too much detail?

Following on from the "travel focus" discussion above, I think the article is becoming cluttered with too much doctrinal detail. For example, we currently have:

The key doctrinal difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam rejects the claim that Jesus was divine and with it the whole idea of God as a Trinity. In Islamic belief there is only one God, indivisible, and Jesus, who Muslims also believe to be born by Mary while she was still a virgin, was one of his prophets and the Messiah, but no person can be God. Jesus deserves a great deal of respect, as does any prophet, but no man deserves worship. For Muslims, the virgin birth of Jesus was simply evidence of God's ability to produce miracles, but otherwise was not an indication of whether or not Jesus was divine. Muslims also reject the notion that Jesus was crucified, and instead believe that his captors were deceived by God, and that Jesus was raised to heaven by God in his earthly body, where he currently awaits the end of the world and his second coming.

I would cut that to:

The key doctrinal difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam rejects the claim that Jesus was divine and with it the whole idea of God as a Trinity. In Islamic belief there is only one God, indivisible, and Jesus was one of his prophets, but no person can be God. Jesus deserves a great deal of respect, as does any prophet, but no man deserves worship.

Yes, there are differences around His birth & resurrection and in other doctrine, but I do not think a travel guide is the place to discuss them. Pashley (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree. This article has gone into completely the wrong territory, and probably not very good at explaining the subject anymore. I'd support cutting back to the simplest and universal interpretations. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. You guys are right. There are many other places where a person can go to find out more details on Islamic beliefs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Edited. Pashley (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleted this just now:

Some Muslims also reject the notion that Jesus was crucified and resurrected, and instead believe that he was saved by God and raised to Heaven, where he awaits his return during the apocalypse to defeat the forces of evil and restore peace and justice to the world.

Pashley (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

"Cities" section

This is one place where we can put more travel focus into the article. Shouldn't every city with a famous and beautiful mosque, Muslim saint's tomb or university/madrassa go in this list? If so, for starters:

Samarkand, Bukhara, Isfahan, Mashhad, Cairo, Delhi, Lahore, Mysore, Córdoba (city, Spain), Agra (and Fatehpur), Fez, Marrakech. I think this list can be much longer, and of course the places of Islamic interest in each city should be briefly described with a link to the articles in question.

I also think it would be helpful for the article to point the reader to places where s/he is most likely to be able to see dervishes whirl. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Is the Sufi dancing described at Lahore#Do whirling dervishes or something else? Pashley (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought of that, but I haven't been there, so I couldn't say, myself. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Already listed in the "Cities" section, but Konya, where the founder of the Order of the Whirling Dervishes, Rumi (wp), lived his later years, helds weekly ceremonies in a building specifically built for these ceremonies, in addition to the big event of Şeb-i Arus, commemorating Rumi's death, or his reunion with the God according to the Sufis, on December 17 annually. The ancient dervish lodge in Galata, Istanbul might be a fine place to catch up with frequent whirling ceremonies as well, for the travellers that do not make it out to Konya.

To the above list, I would also add Turkestan, the site of the mausoleum of Khodja Ahmed Yasavi (wp), a highly revered figure among Turkic Muslims. Vidimian (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Vidimian. I had no idea there was a city (as opposed to a huge region) called Turkestan! I started listings for Cairo and Delhi last night. There's a lot of work to do, but it's important if we want to make this a useful travel-related guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a claim that a Soviet (or maybe Czarist, I'm not really sure) policy involved in renaming the ancient town of Yesi to Turkestan, to downplay the role of Ahmed Yasavi (also known as Hazret-i Türkistan, "the blessed one of Turkestan") among the Central Asians from a regionally recognized saint to that of a local town. Regardless, the fact remains that a town named Turkestan exists, along with the much larger region of the same name surrounding that town.

On another note, the "Cities" list currently looks too unwieldy. What is the best way of reorganizing it; listing alphabetically, dividing by country/region, listing in some kind of geographical order like west-to-east or ? Vidimian (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Shouldn't they be nine only? First strange thing to notice. I would make the order historical: Mecca first, then Medina, then Cairo, Jerusalem and so forth. I would also put Lahore or Agra in place of Delhi; their heritage and importance to Islamic history seem to me stronger than Delhi's. On the same note, I would put Córdoba in Spain in place of Istanbul (whose roots are Graeco-Roman rather than Islamic). These are my two cents on the subject. Ibaman (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

They absolutely should not be nine only! The whole point of this article is that it's a travel topic, and therefore, listing all cities with really interesting or beautiful Islamic buildings, institutions and performances almost has to be the heart of the article's travel-relevance. Compare Roman Empire. I would subdivide the listings by country, but put Saudi Arabia first, and make sure that Mecca and Medina are always listed first, even if other Saudi cities ever get listed for some reason. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ikan on allowing lists of more than nine bullets for travel topics approach. I also thought about a list of chronogical order before posting the above comment of mine, but it can be kind of hard on decide what to base the historical order on for cities — when they were taken by an "Islamic" army, when the first Muslims appeared in that city, when the event that is important enough to list the city here happened or what? Vidimian (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, such a division would only encourage time-consuming discussions and is hard to get right. A subdivision per region might also be more useful for travellers who are planning trips, so I'd stick with that. As Ikan said, the 7 +/- 2 rule is simply not relevant here, as it's a travel topic. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer a division based on regions as well, if only because some countries have several cities listed, while others have only one. Best to collect them into longer regional lists, rather than creating a new subheader for every and each country. Vidimian (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

What regions would you propose? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Our top-level regions below the continents. For the current list, Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia will be sufficient although Middle East will be heavy relative to others. Maybe we can further divide it into the Levant, Arabian Peninsula, etc. Vidimian (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Iran and Iraq have Shi'a holy cities, so it would seem to make sense to put those under a different subheading than Arabia, don't you think? I'm tempted to propose to subdivide "Middle East" into Arabia, Levant, Iran, Iraq, with an "Iran and Iraq" subheading as another option to consider. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This sounds good. It's probably better to keep Iran and Iraq seperate. Vidimian (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to put Turkey, so I made it a separate subheading under "Middle East", but of course it's really a bridge between Europe and Asia. Please do whatever you think would be most logical in regard to Turkey. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Question: Should we use the entire continent of Europe as a region, or should we use Iberia for Spain, or merely Spain itself? And should there be listed cities in the Balkans? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It's okay to list Turkey under the Middle East in this article, I guess. I'd rather keep Europe without any subdivisions; I presume there won't be too many European cities listed. As for the Balkans, I feel the towns there are more "Ottoman" than "Islamic" (i.e., Muslim and Christian communities living side by side, with Muslims taking a much "lighter" stance towards religion than many of their co-religionists elsewhere in the world and Muslim-majority neighbourhoods/villages being marked by Ottoman mosques that were highly influenced by the Byzantine architecture), but I'm open to comments to the contrary. Vidimian (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking more that if there are great mosques and such in a city like Mostar or somewhere in Bulgaria, Albania or wherever, it could be worth mentioning that along with the fact that Ottoman attractions such as bridges, fortifications and so forth are also there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The Šarena Džamija/Painted Mosque of Tetovo, Macedonia comes to my mind, which I think is one of the most beautiful mosques I have ever visited. Despite dating back to the Ottoman era (as almost all mosques in the Balkans are), the paintings all over its brightly coloured interior, which I guess I could best describe as "vernacular art", are fairly atypical for both the Ottoman and Islamic art. But the mosque is rather small and Tetovo doesn't have many other attractions (for the most part a dull, untidy modern town).

Timbuktu also had plenty of unique Islamic heritage before much of it was purposefully destroyed by a hardcore Islamist group (extreme silliness aside, doesn't this come across as kind of ironic?). How about mentioning this town in the list? Vidimian (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there much reason to go now? I'm not sure about mentioning it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Modern Islamic architecture

I figure the previous section was getting long, so I started this subsection. It seems to me, in addition to listing cities with great Islamic architectural heritage, we should list cities with interesting contemporary Islamic architecture. I'm thinking of places like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Muscat and Kuala Lumpur. But it's not always self-evident which buildings to feature as being clearly Islamic and not just Modernist in character. I can think of a couple of obvious ones in Kuala Lumpur, since I know the city some. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Salafi-Takfiri sect

There is no islamic sect named such, And terrorist organizations like ISIS and Al-Qaeda are considered far-right Wahhabists/Deobandis. NetBSDuser (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I wrote the paragraph on Salafi-Takfiri which User:NetBSDuser has just deleted, and I think it was at least approximately accurate. It may well need revision, but I do not think deletion.

Other opinions? User:Saqib, as a Muslim living on the Gulf, may be the closest thing we have to an expert on such matters. Pashley (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wahhabism while a common term us not usually applied by its followers to themselves Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Despite being a Muslim, I don't know much about this particular topic, but I can agree there is no sect named Salafi-Takfiri. It is most like slur which is referred to a minority. --Saqib (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

w:Takfiri has "a growing number of splinter Wahhabist/Salafist groups, classified by some scholars as Salafi-Takfiris,[6] have split from the orthodox method of establishing takfir through the processes of the Sharia. They have reserved to themselves the right to declare any Muslim an apostate, as well as any non-Muslim."

I am not certain what text we need here & am reasonably certain my now-deleted text was not it, but I do feel we need something. The ideology behind Da'esh is not just Salafi, but something much nastier. Pashley (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If my limited understanding is correct, one of the main points of Daesh ideology is that they decide who is and who isn't a "proper Muslim" and they deal with what they deem heresy the same way the unica sancta did in the bad old days. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I inserted some new text. Pashley (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nation of Islam

I have noticed that one particular sect that has not been mentioned on this page is the Nation of Islam, of which perhaps the most famous adherent was Muhammad Ali, and this sect certainly played a prominent role in the Civil Rights Movement in the US. So what does everyone think? The dog2 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I think they should be mentioned, but with the note that they have some beliefs that orthodox Muslims find very strange, even heretical, and therefore, many Muslims do not recognize the Nation of Islam as Islamic, but consider it a different religion. On the other hand, many Muslims do recognize adherents of NOI to be Muslims.

One other important point is that in the U.S., the term "Black Muslims" is often loosely used to describe the NOI, but many African-American Muslims in the U.S. are not NOI at all but, rather, Sunnis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How far down the rabbit hole of the struggles within the leadership and Malcom X's evolving opinion on his faith do we have to go to do the topic justice? Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's remember that this is a travel guide. We shouldn't be expected to do the topic justice. Just enough information should be provided to put Islam within the African-American community into a basic context. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Muslim prophets

I just inserted a note mentioning that since Islam means "submission to the will of Allah", all prophets recognized by Islam were by definition Muslims. Should that also be mentioned in "Respect"? It's a big stumbling block for many non-Muslims who see it as illogical for pre-Muhammad prophets to be considered Muslims, and that's because they don't really understand that the word Islam is not just the name of a religion that was founded by the Prophet Muhammad but has a literal meaning that would have to apply to any prophet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Get ideas here?

Another guide has The 7 most beautiful mosques from around the world. Should we show some of those, or others, in this article? More generally, could we expand Islam#Islamic_architecture? There is certainly plenty of that, more than enough to make an independent article if someone wanted to write. Pashley (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with their list, but yes, of course any enlargement on or separate treatment of mosque architecture would be very welcome and helpful to travelers and pilgrims alike. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Almost every town in the Muslim world has an interesting mosque?

Almost every town in the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa, West Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Brunei or Indonesia, plus most cities along the Silk Road, has at least an interesting mosque and a bazaar full of items with Islamic elements in their design.

I would beg to differ! There are loads of uninteresting mosques, just as there are loads of uninteresting churches, synagogues, what have you. Not all religious architecture can inspire by appearance. And I think this also goes to the definition of "town". I don't know, for example, whether every city in Malaysia has an interesting mosque, but surely, not every village has one. So what is a "town"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Say it, brother. Mosques can be as dull as the dullest churches, or as glorious as the most beautiful churches. I've made some edits. Ground Zero (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair point I'd say. There are loads of uninteresting buildings of worship from every religion, and lots of architecturally impressive ones too.

Speaking of which, do you think we should expand the section to include mosques in Southeast Asia? Sure, nobody goes to them for pilgrimages, but many of these have played prominent roles in the histories of their respective area. For instance, Singapore has Sultan Mosque and Hajjah Fatimah Mosque that are historically significant for the Malay community, and there are also some historically significant Indian Muslim mosques. And in Penang, the Kapitan Keling Mosque is an Indian Muslim mosque that is part of the UNESCO World Heritage Site. The dog2 (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure. There are also notable mosques in Kelantan, at least one interesting modern one in Kuala Terengganu, and an old wooden one in Ipoh. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added the ones that I know of. Please add the ones that you know. The dog2 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Great job! I'll get to this later. I know in KT, there's the Masjid Kristal. I actually haven't seen it in person - it was built after my last visit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering other branches of Islam heretical

Re: This edit: Wahhabis and Salafis are not the only Muslims who hold this belief. For example, many of the Malays I knew in the 1970s considered Shiism heretical and not actually Islam, and they were otherwise religious but not extremists. So do we want to specifically state this about Wahhabism in particular? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Not just Muslims. I once encountered an adherent of some evangelical fundamentalist creed who claimed Catholics were not Christian. Pashley (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's ridiculous, but true what Pashley says. I've heard the same thing myself. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to revert the edit as unnecessary detail, but if User:The dog2 cares to comment, I'd like to hear from him or her before acting. Pashley (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

We say something rather similar about Da'esh a paragraph or two later. I would not want to remove that. Pashley (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Some non-Christians consider Mormonism to not be a form of Christianity. And virtually all mainstream Jews do not consider "messianic Jews" anything other than Christians... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Certainly I'm aware that many Evangelicals consider other interpretations of Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism, to be heretical, so this thing is not unique to Islam. And likewise, Ben Shapiro has said the same thing about Jews who do not follow his interpretation of Judaism. My purpose of putting this in is to give some sort of an explanation on why Wahhabi Muslims reject that label. It's because they regard their interpretation as the only true form of Islam, and all other interpretations to have been corrupted and are hence, heretical. In fact, Saudi Arabia has executed people for promoting more liberal interpretations of Islam. Sure, I'd bet that many of those Evangelicals will also execute people for promoting more liberal interpretations of Christianity if they had their own theocratic state, but no such state exists as of yet. The dog2 (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

If you want to explain it that way, with a "therefore" or the equivalent, go ahead, but the way it's phrased now could apply to many Sunni and Shi'ah Muslims who consider adherents of the other sect to be heretical and not practicing real Islam. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll think of how to change it, but I will say that what makes the Wahhabis particularly extremist is that they don't only consider Shias heretics. Even moderate Sunnis are considered to be heretical under Wahhabi Islam. This is analogous to many Evangelical Christian sects, who consider moderate Protestants to be heretics. The dog2 (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the things that makes them extremists. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Islamic Golden Age

Started the article Islamic Golden Age for the history of Islamic territories from the 8th to the 14th century. We could consider to move much historical material from Islam to Islamic Golden Age. /Yvwv (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Iconoclasm

@Ikan Kekek: Have a look at w:Aniconism in Islam. The dog2 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

And also, even today, fundamentalist Shias tend to be less extremist than fundamentalist Sunnis. Despite all the mainstream Western media claiming that Iran is the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism, if you look at the facts, although neither country can be considered progressive, Iran is generally more tolerant of non-Muslim practices than Saudi Arabia; unlike in Saudi Arabia, the Iranian Christians and Jews are still allowed to practise their religion, and in fact, just a few years ago, the Iranian soccer team was captained by Andranik Teymourian, a Christian. And Arab Christian friends have told me that for them, it's much better to live under Hezbollah than under Al-Qaeda or ISIS. If you're a Christian, you can drink beer in front of the Hezbollah militants and they will not bother you. The dog2 (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to convince me on the degree of extremism of Saudi Arabia and Sunni terrorist organizations vs. Iran, but in a historical perspective, the Mughals weren't Shiahs, right? Yet Mughal paintings of landscapes with animals and people in them, often in erotic situations, are legendary and related to historical Persian paintings, so that's what I'm not so sure about the historical perspective on this. Saudi Arabia is also highly atypical of Sunnis. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

But at least to my knowledge, the prohibition on drawing Muhammad is taken very seriously by Sunnis, but not as seriously by Shias. See w:Depictions of Muhammad. The dog2 (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

From the article you linked: "Aniconism is common among fundamentalist Sunni sects such as Salafis and Wahhabis (which are also often iconoclastic), and less prevalent among liberal movements within Islam. Shia and mystical orders also have less stringent views on aniconism." Note that Sufism has a lot of influence among some Sunnis. So this is hardly a definitive statement that Shias are less iconoclastic, overall and for all time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, there are moderate Sunnis who will of course be more progressive than the fundamentalist Shias, so that complicates things. But as of now, there is no question that the fundamentalist Sunnis are more extremist than the fundamentalist Shias. But away, more importantly, how would you propose handling this point then? The dog2 (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

We should probably mention the great traditions of Persian and Mughal landscape and figure paintings, because those are things many of our readers will want to see, although a lot of them are in museums in Europe, the U.S., etc. I think the point in regard to iconoclasm in Islam is similar to the situation in Judaism - there's been a different degree of it at different times in different places. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Sure, go ahead and add those in. And just because those great examples of Muslim art are in Christian countries doesn't mean they aren't worth a mention. They're still Muslim art. Just as we also mention Christian art in Muslim countries. And yes, I get your point about different degrees of iconoclasm and other practices at different times. At least from what I've gathered, before the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia, which gave the Saudi government huge amounts to cash to spread Wahhabi Islam around the world, most of the the other Muslim countries around the world like Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, etc. were way more secular. The dog2 (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I'll get to this eventually. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I had forgotten, we already cover this in "See". Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Section on the Caliphates

It's in certain respects more detailed than Golden Age of Islam, but not so much in clearly travel-related ways. Should we move things like details about some of the Rashidun caliphs and foremost scholars of the period there or leave them here? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Turkey as secular

I don't think so, not any more. One small example of how they're not is that Hagia Sofia was turned back into a mosque by order of the government. Should we remove Turkey from the list of "Prominent examples of secular Muslim-majority countries"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This is similarly problematic: "AKP in Turkey, which is (arguably) moderate and illiberally democratic". How is it arguably moderate anymore? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Turkey's constitution still defines it a secular country, but I get your point that the ruling AKP is an Islamist party. How would you make the change? The dog2 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd simply delete the second passage and remove Turkey from the first. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

But should we mention that secular Muslim-majority countries exist? The dog2 (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

So why don't you make a draft of what you proposed, so we can have a look? The dog2 (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It's very simple: I'd delete Turkey from the list of secular countries and remove the passage about the AKP that I quoted above. What's ambiguous? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ OK, I didn't know what you mean by "delete the second passage". That works. The dog2 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This: ""AKP in Turkey, which is (arguably) moderate and illiberally democratic"". Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have no problem with removing that. The dog2 (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The AKP deserved a mention in context. Edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Armenia and the Kurds

Re: this edit, does Armenia consider Kurdish nationalism a threat and repeatedly act against it? I doubt it, and if they don't, the text of that paragraph needs to be edited accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about the politics of Armenia, but I know that the traditional Kurdish homeland does include a part of Armenia. I will adjust the article. The dog2 (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The Ashura

The article says, in The Sunni-Shi'a split

"The day is called Ashura (meaning ten); for more detail, see the Iran article."

The link is to "The Islamic revolution", a section that is no longer there. The revolution of 1979 is mentioned in Iran#The last dynasty, while the Day of Ashura is described in Iran#Religion. Does either of these describe the intended details? –LPfi (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The 2nd link offers basic information about Ashura, but there are also traditional foods associated with it, and not only in Shi'a lands. When I was in Malaysia, there was a food that was made for the Ashura season that itself was called "sura" (I'm not sure about the spelling, but it's short for Ashura). It was fantastically delicious and had everything you could imagine and more in it and was made in big vats for a lengthy period of time and shared with many neighbors. I believe sura is specifically an East Coast food in Malaysia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

In Turkey (where the Shia are decidedly in a minority), there is a widespread tradition of aşure cooking (and sharing with neighbours, relatives, friends, and colleagues), too. Aşure, a sweet porridge with an extremely variated ingredient list, is believed to emulate the dish Noah supposedly cooked on his ark with whatever of the exhausted supply he could lay his hands on, to celebrate their long-awaited landing. Vidimian (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The Malay dish is also a porridge with an extremely varied recipe, but it's not at all the same as the Turkish recipe and includes chicken, cardamom, palm sugar, coconut milk and all kinds of nuts. I don't know where I can find a recipe online. It's one of the tastiest things I've ever had. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Druze

I wonder if it's appropriate to include any information about the Druze here. Their religion branched off from Islam, though it seem that they don't identify as Muslim. The dog2 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Islam#Isma'ili_(Sevener) currently has:

... plus a few smaller Ismaili groups, such as the Druze in the Levant and ...

Looking at w:Druze & other sites, it appears that is not accurate. Delete it. But then what? Pashley (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

There are things like The Druzes, from Ismaili Esotericism to ... & Oxford Reference has "The Druze broke away from the Ismaili Muslims in the 11th century", so there is an Ismaili connection, but discussion of that does not belong in a travel guide. Pashley (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The Christianity article mentions far-from-orthodox spin-offs like Mormons, Taiping and Rastafarians. I'd say this article should briefly mention the Druze & Baha'i Faith. Perhaps #Ahmadiyya too? Pashley (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one

Discussion moved from User talk:Ground Zero

This difference. I think in the case of a religion that has been proclaimed for almost 1,500 years, "recently" could mean "within the last 75 years" and still be worth the adjective. What would be better is if the year that some Islamic authority first cast doubt on kashrut as being except in the case of alcohol halal, but I am pretty uncertain that a simple "is" captures the relevant meaning. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I struggled with that one. It's not the "recently" is incorrect, it is that it is not informative. Was this written in 2015 because questions arose in 2013, or in the early 20th century, which is recent in Islamic history.

I am not knowledgeable in this field, but the Halal Monitoring authority Canada says:

"Many modern-day Jewish organizations that sanction kosher products do not adhere to sharia standards or conflict with it, as many Jewish organizations do not concern themselves with the mention of the name of Allah before the slaughter. Thus, many of them cannot be trusted for halal consumption nor the issuing of halal certification by Halal Monitoring authority Canada (HMA)."

I think that justifies using the present tense rather than the vague "recently". Further, it identifies this as an open question, rather than saying that the question was raised and not saying whether it has been resolved or not. Ground Zero (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

That remark by HMA is nonsense, by the way. There is no possible way a prayer mentioning God is not said. Meat cannot be kosher without a prayer before the slaughter. Anyway, I definitely understand your thinking on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This really is beyond my ken. After reading a few sites, I was starting to think that we should just remove that line. But then there is this, which I think is clearer than the HMA explanation:

"There are some debates among Muslims as to whether Jewish blessings during the slaughter of an animal is sufficient to qualify as tasmiyah (تسمية) (blessing God in an Islamic context during slaughter). The majority opinion is that since Jews bless the same God as the Muslims for the same purpose, the Jewish blessings count as tasmiyah. There is a minority opinion that the failure by Jewish butchers to say specifically “Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Rahim” (بسماللهالرحمنالرحيم) when slaughtering an animal and/or to not bless every single animal, as opposed to entire queues of animals, is sufficient to bar the consumption of kosher meat. This arises primarily as an issue in the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam. No other school has an issue here. There is no other issue for a Muslim eating kosher meat."

On this basis, maybe we should qualify the statement to refer to the Hanafi school of Sunni Islam. Ground Zero (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not only the Hanafi School, though. I remember some Malaysian Muslims talking about this in the 90s on USENET, and they follow the Shafi'i School. I think we can say it's primarily an issue for people following the Hanafi School. Also, that explanation you quote does make more sense than the other one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll make this change, and I've moved the discussion from my talk page in case anyone else has something to contribute to it. Ground Zero (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek, Ground Zero: Would it help if we brought this issue up on w:WT:ISLAM? That way, we can get someone who's more knowledgeable to answer this for us. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Go ahead. We might get a better informed perspective. Ground Zero (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Deletion

After moving Nation of Islam to another section, I deleted the Miscellaneous section since I cannot see that it is relevant to travel. I'm preserving it here:

Alevism-Bektashism

Alevism-Bektashism is an unorthodox, syncretic tradition of Islam considered to be distinct from both Sunnism and Shiism, based on the teachings of Hacı Bektaş Veli, a 13th century Turkish Sufi saint. The movement has a significant following in Turkey (up to 20% of the population), and among Bulgarian-Turks and Albanian Muslims. Some of the Turkish adherents view the tradition as essentially a modern form of Turkic shamanism independent of Islam or even accept it as a cultural identity devoid of any religious associations.

The Alevi houses of worship are called cem evi ("gathering place"), as opposed to cami ("mosque"), where they partake in the semah ritual, inscribed in the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage.

Despite the similar-sounding name (due to a common particular reverence for Ali), the Alevis are almost entirely unrelated to the Syrian Alawites (see above).

Ahmadiyya

The Ahmadiyya movement is an Islamic revival movement that has its roots in 19th century India. It was founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835–1908), who claimed to have been divinely appointed as both the Promised Mahdi and Messiah expected by Muslims to appear towards the end times and bring about, by peaceful means, the final triumph of Islam.

The Ahmadis are active translators of the Quran and are active proselytisers for Islam. Despite this, many mainstream Muslims consider them to be "non-Muslims" and they have faced persecution all over the world. The constitution of Pakistan considers Ahmadis non-Muslims and deprives them of religious rights. The Saudi government also considers them non-Muslims, so it does not allow them to visit Mecca for the Hajj pilgrimage.

Pakistan has the largest Ahmadi population in the world.

Quranism

Quranism is a branch of Islam that promotes the belief that Islamic guidance should be based only on the Quran. Quranists believe that hadith literature is fabricated and full of falsehoods. Like Ahmadis, Quranists have faced active persecution all over the world because their views contradict those of mainstream Muslims.

Pashley (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I re-inserted them under Islam#Unorthodox_groups. Pashley (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Muslim version of the Apocalypse

I think the Muslim belief in the Second Coming of Jesus should be mentioned somewhere. At the very least, it is needed to understand the concepts of the Mahdi in Shia Islam. Both Sunnis and Shias believe in the Second Coming of Jesus, but Shias believe that Jesus will be accompanied by the Mahdi during his Second Coming, while Sunnis don't believe in the Mahdi. The dog2 (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

What's the travel-related point in detailing that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of us can visit Jesus in person. But we do mention the Mahdi when we describe Shia Islam, as well as how Iran's constitution says that the government is supposed to be a temporary caretaker until the Mahdi returns. The Mahdi is not the Messiah. Jesus is the Messiah, and the Mahdi is meant to assist Jesus as he fulfills his duties during the Second Coming. And for that matter, many Christians have the misconception that Muslims believe in the Second Coming of Muhammad, but in reality, Muslims believe that Jesus, not Muhammad, will come back at the end of the world. The dog2 (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Ikan's question is a good one & the dog's comment does not answer it. Pashley (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I rewrote parts of Islam#Understand, getting rid of things I thought unnecessary & adding a mention of the Second Coming. Pashley (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, that works for me. I just made some edits for accuracy. The Second Coming of Jesus is also one of the core beliefs of Islam, which is why I think it should be at least briefly mentioned. Many Christians have the mistaken belief that Muslims belief in the Second Coming of Muhammad, which is not true. The dog2 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletions

Most of the recent deletions are good, but I don't agree with deleting this sentence, because it's so basic for understanding Islam:

Because the word Islam means "submission" (to the will of Allah), Muslims consider all the prophets starting with Adam to have been Muslims.

Most non-Muslims don't know that or understand why a Muslim would consider a pre-Muhammad prophet to be a Muslim, and that makes inter-religious discussion very challenging. If they read this single sentence, they will know what the word "Islam" really means and why anyone recognized as a prophet in Islam would have to be considered a Muslim by definition. And, again, it's a single sentence, so it explains without taking up much space. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say restore this. Which is why Muslims also consider Jesus to be a Muslim, which might be counter-intuitive to Christians. The dog2 (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Noah, Adam, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Learn local rules?

We say, in Islam#Respect:

"[…] It is a very good idea to learn a bit about the local rules before visiting a mosque, especially if you're a non-Muslim."

This sounds like you shouldn't visit a mosque without learning local rules. Are there important rules that aren't common to large parts of the Muslim world? If so, we need to have sections about that in all country/region/city articles for areas where we have mosques as See sights (and don't recommend non-Musĺims to just look from the outside).

I think it would be enough to follow some simple rules, ask somebody in or by the mosque or another local Muslim, or get somebody to take you there and show you the wheres and hows. Which of the three, how they vary by region, or that you should stay away unless you have learnt the local customs, should be told here.

–LPfi (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• as it looks to me, WV:Tone#Don't assume the reader is stupid has not been observed here. Indeed, there are several instances of edits made in this vein, by editors who seem to think that Wikivoyagers must be taught how to use toilet paper or toothbrushes. Ibaman (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There are some countries where non-Muslims aren't welcome to visit mosques at all. I agree with LPfi that it's best to spell these local rules out, but I don't think this is about people being stupid. I'll mention that when I was in Malaysia, local opinion in the township where I was living split 50/50 on whether it would be OK for us as People of the Book to visit the local mosque, so we didn't, but I remember reading that non-Muslims can visit the Masjid Negara in Kuala Lumpur outside of prayer times, so it's OK to visit some mosques that are also considered tourist attractions, but I would tend to think that non-Muslim visitors to Malaysia shouldn't assume all mosques are visitable and should be prepared to see only the outsides unless otherwise informed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I visited Masjid Negara, and I'm not one of the "People of the Book". I just wasn't allowed to enter the main prayer hall, but I was allowed to walk around and look into it from the outside. That was also the case when I visited the historic mosques in Singapore as part of a school trip. The dog2 (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

If you're a Buddhist, some very liberal Muslims might consider the Sutras a book, just like very liberal Muslims in India considered Hindus monotheists (because of the belief in the one Brahman) and People of the Book because of the Ramayana, Mahabharata or what have you, but that was an unusual belief seldom practiced by the Mughals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)