=Yes=

The mainstream is by definition that branch of an organization which is most vocal and controls the policies of the organization. Thus we refer to the mainstream media as the most visible outlet of journalism, with the most access to the policy makers. The non-violent branch of Islam may be the numerical majority, but in terms of influence they are of no consequence, because they either fear or choose not to speak out. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 17:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

In addition, there are countless verses in the Qur'an permitting violence against infidels:
-"Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority." (Koran 3:151); this verse enjoins Muslims to violence against Christians specifically, as Mohammed incorrectly alleged that believers join 'Companions' with Allah.
-"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them" (9:5). This verse, for which Osama bin Laden has thanked Allah, exhorts true Muslims to kill the so - called 'infidels' (including Christians and Jews). It also abrogates countless verses from the Meccan era in the Koran that instructed Muslims to tolerate those of other beliefs.

:main·stream /ˈmeɪnˌstrim/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[meyn-streem] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
:Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

By definition, you're completely wrong. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 17:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

You confuse mainstream Islam with mainstream Muslims; although the vast majority of Mohammedans are likely peaceful, the Qur'an permits the violent conquest and subjugation of 'infidels'.

:: (Curses! Rusty beat me to it. But see what I would've written) - WHAT!? "Mainstream" = "the principal or dominant course ([http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mainstream see here]). Dominant means the larger. The majority of Muslims are peaceful and contribute ''directly and greatly'' to American and European culture. By definition, too, the radical elements of a group of people are not the "mainstream."-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

In some countries, the "mainstream" attitude seems to be one of condonement. I am not sure whether that is the case in all Islamic nations (i.e. Turkey or Indonesia). One thing that we can all agree on, I hope, is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Squeaky wheels and grease isn't the debate topic. Please stay on the issue at hand, else intelligent conversation is impossible. Thank you. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 17:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Rusty, quit being ridiculous. You know what I'm saying. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:35, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Mainstream doesn't mean nation-by-nation - it means Islam as a whole over time.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

There's not one Islamic movement, just as there's not one Christian movement. But, as much as it is taboo to mention it--horror of horrors, to suggest that maybe one religion might be better than another--there are Islamic movements which are not at all marginal or, within the context of their societies, "extreme"--i.e., which are mainstream--and are very vocal in endorsing violence. This is just a fact, OK? It's not PC, it's just ''true''. I suppose that, if you insist on finding some PC qualification of this, you could always make sure, whenever you acknowledge it, also to add that Christians at various times and places have been violent. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 20:01, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Just a bit of information, and I could be completely wrong: Does the Islamic calendar begin when Muhammed's followers were exiled from Mecca and became a military force? [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:05, 21 February 2008 (EST)

=No=
No way does mainstream Islam endorse violence. Only the radical few (who we all hear about in the papers) take the sections of the Koran literally about attacking/killing infidels. You don't see Indonesia (the most populous Islamic country) pumping out terrorists and constantly killing Christians/Hindus/Jews/etc. Those who believe that Islam promotes violence are sheltered in their learnings. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, indonesian muslims are constantly killing Christians. [[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/shock.as.three.christian.school.girls.in.indonesia.are.beheaded/4397.htm]][[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::constantly, really? Explain that to my christian aunt, uncle and 2 cousins who lived there for 3 years. I'm sure they'd love to hear how they were constantly threatened. I was there for a time as well and received nothing but excellent treatment from the locals. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 23:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::excellent treatment, really. Explain that to me as i too spent time there and received more than a few threats. Perhaps i misstated using the word "constantly" but muslims in indonesia clearly do persecute and kill Christians, and it is false to say that they dont, no matter what your relatives tell you.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 22:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

No. How many Western Muslim terrorists are there? (I mean those who have lived in Western nations their whole lives). It's environment, not religion, that causes violence. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:All of the London bombers were born and raised in Britain[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4676577.stm]. Look here to see all of the Western born muslim terrorists [http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAC69.htm]. Enjoy.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

It is ridiculous to claim that all/most of the followers of the second-largest religion in the world endorses violence.
The Arabic word ‘Islam’ has two meanings: to submit and PEACE
As It is wrong to make generalisations about for, example homosexuals or people of different backgrounds, it is also wrong to make such a wrong and strong accusation and generalisation that mainstream Muslims endorse violence.
There might be a very small outspoken minority but it does not mean that mainstream Muslims have the same beliefs

:I believe it was an Irish philosopher who said that "Evil only triumphs when good men do nothing." If mainstream Islam is doing nothing to stop the extremists when they supposedly don't believe in what those extremists are doing, it is nearly as bad as actively supporting them. But not quite. [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 14:48, 23 February 2008 (EST)

==Comment==
Islam is a pretty big thing. It has about a billion and a half adherents, about five times the population of the United States.

The United States includes Republicans and Democrats, Timothy McVeigh and Martin Luther King, Unitarians and Seventh-Day Adventists, members of the Crips and members of Habitat for Humanity, vegetarians and gun lobbyists, the ACLU and Focus on the Family. America includes violence and America includes apple pie. I like to think apple pie is more mainstream.

Would you care to sum up "mainstream America" in a short, facile generalization? I wouldn't. And I know a lot more about America than I do about Islam.

Hey, I didn't know what Shi'ites and Sunnis were until five years ago. And I barely know them now. (Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, but was he a "mainstream" Sunni? Quick, without looking it up: is Al-Qaeda Sunni or Shi'ite?)

I'm not sure how many of the pundits writing newspaper columns in English the topic can speak Arabic.

'''I''' for one sure don't know whether "mainstream Islam endorses violence." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Mainstream Islam... how many people are Muslims? And how many of these people are radical? The radical/total people ratio is so small that it is unbelievably prejudiced to think that the entire religion endorses violence. That's like seeing a couple people in American with 9 fingers and thinking everyone in the country does.

Mainstream American Muslims have condemned violence, but this is conveniently overlooked. Here is one example:

"Scholars condemn attacks on civilians as a violation of Islamic teaching
Thurs., July. 28, 2005
American Muslim scholars who interpret religious law for their community issued an edict Thursday condemning terrorism against civilians in response to the wave of deadly attacks in Britain and other countries.

In the statement, called a fatwa, the 18-member Fiqh Council of North America wrote that people who commit terrorism in the name of Islam were “criminals, not ‘martyrs.”’

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8740980/

Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?

2008-03-05T18:26:01Z

VoteGOP21: /* Yes */

Terrorism

2008-03-05T18:22:46Z

VoteGOP21: /* Famous Radical Groups */

[[Image:Terrormunich.jpg|thumb|right|300px|A member of [[Black September]], a terrorist group, during the [[1972 Munich Olympics]]]]'''[[Terrorism]]''' is defined by the US [[Department of Defense]] as "''the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.''"

==Terrorist==
One who uses [[terroristic tactics]] to coerce behavior in another person or group is generally considered to fall under the definition of the term "terrorist". One who uses such terroristic tactics ([[suicide bombing]], [[sniper]], [[assassination]], [[random bombing]], etc.) can often be described as such. Aeroflight in the UK [http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm], defines it as: ''"One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and/or intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals."''

==Terrorism==
Terrorism is the use of terror (fear), violence, and intimidation to achieve an end. Terrorism also refers to any fear and subjugation produced by this. The term is also used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals. Terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use, of force, ''intimidation'', and/or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

===Leftist (Radical) Terrorism===

Leftist Terrorism, often referred to as radical terrorism, is terrorism that embraces the fringe left side of the political spectrum (Countries that are hostile to dissident terrorist movements often also see violence from the far left as well). Radical terrorists are future orientated. That is, radicals believe that they are currently being oppressed by some current government, ideology or regime, and therefore they should overthrow that oppressor and install a better government. Radical terrorists often operate with the belief that it is possible to create a utopia for the people. Radicals generally follow the beliefs of Karl Marx and Lenin, with emphasis on the idea of Lenin's vanguard party. Leftist terrorists often choose symbolic targets that emphasize what they see as a an oppressor to the working class. Leftist terrorist tend to target buildings and governmental structures that represent capitalism, or assassinate government leaders and capitalists. Leftist terrorists are self characterized as the young, self-educated elites of society, who are destined to both weaken the oppressive government and at the same time expose the weakness of the government to the exploited workforce. Radicals also tend be more exclusive with what issues they champion. Often, very narrow radicals will focus on one issue, resulting in animal rights, feminist, and eco-terrorists. Radical groups often operated in highly organized and clandestine groups, easily recognizable and orderly. However, leftist groups often had internal divisions in the larger groups that often broke off to create new group.<ref>Gus Martin. Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues.</ref>

====Famous Radical Groups====

*[[Al-Qaeda]]
*[[Animal Liberation Front]]
*[[Black Liberation Army]]
*[[Black Panther Party]]
*[[Earth Liberation Front]]
*[[Irish Republican Army]]
*[[International Front Against Jews and Crusaders]]
*[[John Brown Anti-Klan Committee]]
*[[May 19th Communist Organization]]
*[[Muslim Brotherhood]]
*[[Prairie Fire Organizing Committee]]
*[[Red Army Faction]]
*[[Revolutionary Organization 17 November]]
*[[Symbionese Liberation Army]]
*[[Weather Underground Organization]]
*[[Youth International Party]]

===Right (Reactionary) Terrorism===

Historically, reactionary terrorism has been less organized and less symbolic than leftist terrorists. Reactionary terrorists, like radical terrorists, see the current government as corrupt, but unlike radical leftists, reactionaries do not see the current government as needing revolutionary change. Rather, reactionaries view the government as a perversion of some older, better, government or social order. Reactionary terrorist violence is an attempt to regain the lost government and return to "order" and status quo. Reactionary violence is often justified by a use of mysticism about the old order. Scapegoating is a common tactic among reactionary terrorists to create an enemy for which to blame for the current order. Historical scapegoats among reactionary terrorists have included Jews, foreigners, homosexuals, atheists, leftists, blacks, illegal immigrants, and other racial minorities. Reactionary groups often defined by racial supremacy and a sense of order. Goals of reactionary terrorist include the delegation of minorities back to secondary status with respect to the national majority and a creation of a strong government to sustain order and prevent chaos through a police state. It should be noted however that due to conspiracy theories prevalence in the American fringe right, American reactionaries do not seek the creation of a strong government. Reactionaries often act as individuals or small groups and are not as discriminate with their targets as are leftist groups. This is partially due to the lack of unity between reactionaries and the scope of reactionary targets, often encompassing entire races.<ref>Gus Martin. Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues.</ref>

====Famous Reactionary Groups====

*[[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[Skinheads]]
*[[New Order]]

== Domestic terrorists ==

*[[Animal Liberation Front]]
*[[Black Panther Party]]
*[[Black Liberation Army]]
*[[Earth Liberation Front]]
*[[Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional]] (FALN)
*[[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[Symbionese Liberation Army]]

== International ==

*[[Al-Qaeda]]

*[[PIRA]]

*[[Hamas]]

==Terrorism and the Media==

The prime goal of any terrorist is mass media exposure. Terrorism cannot recruit new initiates like regular armies, rather when they run out of discontented radicals within their state, they must rely on the media to spread their message. Therefore, media outlets and the press must be careful when choosing a story, as often running a story about a terrorist attack just creates more support for a terrorist cause.

However, terrorist must be careful, as if an attack goes too far, it is possible to cause political backlash against the group, as what happened in the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

== Groups Considered by the United States to be Terrorist Organizations ==

*[[Abu Sayyaf]]
*[[Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade]]
*[[Al-Qaeda]]
*[[Ansar Al-Islam]]
*[[ETA]]
*[[Hamas]]
*[[Hizbollah]]
*[[Jemaa Islamiya]]
*[[Palestinian Islamic Jihad]]
*[[PKK]]
*[[Real ETA]]
*[[Tamil Tigers]]

==Groups directly or indirectly supporting terrorists==
The following organizations within the United States have either directly supported terrorist organizations world-wide through the use of money contributions or media influence, or have prevented enforcement of the laws on the books via court petitions and lawsuits:
*[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]
*[[Counsul on American-Islamic Relations]] (CAIR)
*[[American Civil Liberties Union]]

== Groups receiving CIA support ==
The American CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) has the stated objective of ''"Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve US policy objectives."''[https://www.cia.gov/cia/information/mission.html]. Over the course of it's well-documented history, this has involved the establishment, funding and organization of various organizations some have regarded as terrorist, including:

* [[Mujahadeen el-Khalq]]<ref>Michael Ware,[http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html ''U.S. protects Iranian opposition group in Iraq''], CNN, April 6, 2007.</ref>
* [[Kosovo Liberation Army]] (KLA)<ref>Jerry Seper, [http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/KLA-drugs.html ''KLA rebels train in terrorist camps''], The Washington Times, May 4, 1999.</ref><ref>Gary Wilson, [http://www.pogledi.co.yu/english/68b.php ''Who's the KLA? German document Reveals Secret CIA Role''].</ref><ref>Peter Beaumont, Ed Vulliamy and Paul Beaver,[http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,449923,00.html ''CIA's bastard army ran riot in Balkans' backed extremists''], The Observer, March 11, 2001</ref><ref> Andy Wilcoxson, [http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/kerry101804.htm ''Kerry Campaign Financed by Terrorists''], October 18, 2004.</ref>
*[[Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti]] (FRAPH)<ref>Reed Lindsay,[http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1163909,00.html ''Cold War returns to US backyard''], The Observer, March 7, 2004</ref>.

== War on terror ==

===Fighting terrorism===
[http://lightonthings.blogspot.com#fight The Reality Show - The Watch the Fight] links to many sites that deal with the 'war on terror'.

==See also==
*[[FBI Most Wanted Terrorist List]]
*[[September 11, 2001 attacks]]
*[[June 2007 UK terror attacks]]
*[[Osama Bin Laden]]
*[[Homicide Bombers]]
*[[Pyroterrorism]]

==References==

<references/>
[[category:politics]]
[[Category: Terrorism]]

Talk:Islam

2008-03-05T14:52:24Z

VoteGOP21:

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

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

The first section of this article is factual.

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

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

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

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

== There is still misleading information in here ==

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

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

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

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

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

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

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

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

==Spelling==

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

== Islam and Judaism ==

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

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

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

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

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

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

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

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

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

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

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

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

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

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

== revelation and transcription ==

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

== Recategorization ==

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

== Removal ==
This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: "Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal <ref>Ibid.</ref> as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>"
#The ban on pork is ''pagan''? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).
#Pig god "Jamal" - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means "handsome". I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.
#Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.
#I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

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

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

What about the Satanic verses?

Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?

2008-03-04T19:10:03Z

VoteGOP21: /* Yes */

=Yes=

The mainstream is by definition that branch of an organization which is most vocal and controls the policies of the organization. Thus we refer to the mainstream media as the most visible outlet of journalism, with the most access to the policy makers. The non-violent branch of Islam may be the numerical majority, but in terms of influence they are of no consequence, because they either fear or choose not to speak out. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 17:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

In addition, there are countless verses in the Qur'an permitting violence against infidels:
-"Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority." (Koran 3:151); this verse enjoins Muslims to violence against Christians specifically, as Mohammed incorrectly alleged that believers join 'Companions' with Allah.
-"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them" (9:5). This verse, for which Osama bin Laden has thanked Allah, exhorts true Muslims to kill the so - called 'infidels' (including Christians and Jews). It also abrogates countless verses from the Meccan era in the Koran that instructed Muslims to tolerate those of other beliefs.

:main·stream /ˈmeɪnˌstrim/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[meyn-streem] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the principal or dominant course, tendency, or trend
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
:Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

By definition, you're completely wrong. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 17:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: (Curses! Rusty beat me to it. But see what I would've written) - WHAT!? "Mainstream" = "the principal or dominant course ([http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mainstream see here]). Dominant means the larger. The majority of Muslims are peaceful and contribute ''directly and greatly'' to American and European culture. By definition, too, the radical elements of a group of people are not the "mainstream."-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

In some countries, the "mainstream" attitude seems to be one of condonement. I am not sure whether that is the case in all Islamic nations (i.e. Turkey or Indonesia). One thing that we can all agree on, I hope, is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Squeaky wheels and grease isn't the debate topic. Please stay on the issue at hand, else intelligent conversation is impossible. Thank you. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 17:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Rusty, quit being ridiculous. You know what I'm saying. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:35, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Mainstream doesn't mean nation-by-nation - it means Islam as a whole over time.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

There's not one Islamic movement, just as there's not one Christian movement. But, as much as it is taboo to mention it--horror of horrors, to suggest that maybe one religion might be better than another--there are Islamic movements which are not at all marginal or, within the context of their societies, "extreme"--i.e., which are mainstream--and are very vocal in endorsing violence. This is just a fact, OK? It's not PC, it's just ''true''. I suppose that, if you insist on finding some PC qualification of this, you could always make sure, whenever you acknowledge it, also to add that Christians at various times and places have been violent. --[[User:Andy|Andy]] 20:01, 17 November 2007 (EST)

Just a bit of information, and I could be completely wrong: Does the Islamic calendar begin when Muhammed's followers were exiled from Mecca and became a military force? [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:05, 21 February 2008 (EST)

=No=
No way does mainstream Islam endorse violence. Only the radical few (who we all hear about in the papers) take the sections of the Koran literally about attacking/killing infidels. You don't see Indonesia (the most populous Islamic country) pumping out terrorists and constantly killing Christians/Hindus/Jews/etc. Those who believe that Islam promotes violence are sheltered in their learnings. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, indonesian muslims are constantly killing Christians. [[http://www.christiantoday.com/article/shock.as.three.christian.school.girls.in.indonesia.are.beheaded/4397.htm]][[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::constantly, really? Explain that to my christian aunt, uncle and 2 cousins who lived there for 3 years. I'm sure they'd love to hear how they were constantly threatened. I was there for a time as well and received nothing but excellent treatment from the locals. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 23:28, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::excellent treatment, really. Explain that to me as i too spent time there and received more than a few threats. Perhaps i misstated using the word "constantly" but muslims in indonesia clearly do persecute and kill Christians, and it is false to say that they dont, no matter what your relatives tell you.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 22:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

No. How many Western Muslim terrorists are there? (I mean those who have lived in Western nations their whole lives). It's environment, not religion, that causes violence. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 10:31, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:All of the London bombers were born and raised in Britain[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4676577.stm]. Look here to see all of the Western born muslim terrorists [http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAC69.htm]. Enjoy.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

It is ridiculous to claim that all/most of the followers of the second-largest religion in the world endorses violence.
The Arabic word ‘Islam’ has two meanings: to submit and PEACE
As It is wrong to make generalisations about for, example homosexuals or people of different backgrounds, it is also wrong to make such a wrong and strong accusation and generalisation that mainstream Muslims endorse violence.
There might be a very small outspoken minority but it does not mean that mainstream Muslims have the same beliefs

:I believe it was an Irish philosopher who said that "Evil only triumphs when good men do nothing." If mainstream Islam is doing nothing to stop the extremists when they supposedly don't believe in what those extremists are doing, it is nearly as bad as actively supporting them. But not quite. [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 14:48, 23 February 2008 (EST)

==Comment==
Islam is a pretty big thing. It has about a billion and a half adherents, about five times the population of the United States.

The United States includes Republicans and Democrats, Timothy McVeigh and Martin Luther King, Unitarians and Seventh-Day Adventists, members of the Crips and members of Habitat for Humanity, vegetarians and gun lobbyists, the ACLU and Focus on the Family. America includes violence and America includes apple pie. I like to think apple pie is more mainstream.

Would you care to sum up "mainstream America" in a short, facile generalization? I wouldn't. And I know a lot more about America than I do about Islam.

Hey, I didn't know what Shi'ites and Sunnis were until five years ago. And I barely know them now. (Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, but was he a "mainstream" Sunni? Quick, without looking it up: is Al-Qaeda Sunni or Shi'ite?)

I'm not sure how many of the pundits writing newspaper columns in English the topic can speak Arabic.

'''I''' for one sure don't know whether "mainstream Islam endorses violence." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:39, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Mainstream Islam... how many people are Muslims? And how many of these people are radical? The radical/total people ratio is so small that it is unbelievably prejudiced to think that the entire religion endorses violence. That's like seeing a couple people in American with 9 fingers and thinking everyone in the country does.

Mainstream American Muslims have condemned violence, but this is conveniently overlooked. Here is one example:

"Scholars condemn attacks on civilians as a violation of Islamic teaching
Thurs., July. 28, 2005
American Muslim scholars who interpret religious law for their community issued an edict Thursday condemning terrorism against civilians in response to the wave of deadly attacks in Britain and other countries.

In the statement, called a fatwa, the 18-member Fiqh Council of North America wrote that people who commit terrorism in the name of Islam were “criminals, not ‘martyrs.”’

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8740980/

Talk:Islam

2008-03-04T19:03:26Z

VoteGOP21: /* We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! */

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

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

The first section of this article is factual.

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

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

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

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

== There is still misleading information in here ==

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

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

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

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

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

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

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

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

==Spelling==

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

== Islam and Judaism ==

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

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

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

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

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

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

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

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

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

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

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

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

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

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

== revelation and transcription ==

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

== Recategorization ==

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

== Removal ==
This section was brought to my attention by a user for review: "Others believe there are pagan roots of various Muslim prohibitions, such as the ban on pork originating in the 3rd-century AD Damascene [[cult]] of the pig-god Jamal <ref>Ibid.</ref> as well as various recently-recovered scrolls that hint at early Muslim human sacrifice. Such claims remain unverified. <ref>Esposito, "The Oxford History of Islam", p. 523. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1999. [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-History-Islam-John-Esposito/dp/0195107993/sr=8-1/qid=1172042853/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-1837174-2630046?ie=UTF8&s=books]</ref>"
#The ban on pork is ''pagan''? That would mean that the Old Testament ban on pork is pagan too? (In fact earlier versions of this passage were quite happy to point out that the Jews were all pagans as well).
#Pig god "Jamal" - no evidence that such a thing existed. Jamal is quite a popular boys name, particularly among black and Muslim US families; it means "handsome". I fear somebody is yanking the chain here.
#Human sacrifice... hinted at... unverified... I haven't read Esposito's book, but I just checked the online db and its in my local library so I'll grab it asap. However, the claim sounds spurious, and also sounds well out of place in a book that has received no criticism from Islamic groups, and seems to be more concerned with the artistic bent of Islam.
#I appreciate that we do not edit articles to make everybody happy, particularly if it may go against the grain of the common values that we all share and goals we aspire to at CP. But this section of the article is simply inaccurate. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:13, 18 January 2008 (EST)

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

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