Talk:History of Islam/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

History of Islam, not the History of Muslim Societies

This article is not a history of Islam at all; it is a history of Muslim societies. Where is a history of the evolution of religious practice, of philosophical interpretations of the Quran, of cross-cultural influences on Islam? Despite what Orientalists or certain fundamentalists might have you believe, Muslims do not live by religion alone, and Islam is not unchanging. It has a history. The evolution of Islamic law, the rise of Sufism and other topics might seem arcane, but they are of overwhelming importance. There needs to be a single article which summarizes these and other developments. Agh.niyya 22:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What you say here makes sense. So we should have another topic on History of Islam - Red1 D Oon (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Present article is more a history of Muslim rulers, conquests and kingdoms! Shaad's space ^talk 12:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest to revert title to "History of Islam" rather than "Muslim History". A muslim is one person, while Islam is a nation. And since you are talking about history of the nation, it will be much more appropriate to call it "History of Islam". --Nizarsh (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for Changes, 2004

Sections 5-17 (except 12.1) are completely off topic. This article is titled "History of Islam". Islam as a religious belief has changed very little since its inception, and the mention of anything dated after the second Fitna is a dead giveaway that the writers of this article are idiots. -20721 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.80.39.192 (talk • contribs) 7 Sept 2005.

I'm not sure where, but it seems like a history of Islam should mention the Qur'an and Haddith somewhere. Danny

I agree. For example, how does the Qur'an fit into the timeline of Muslim history? It could be right in the table of contents somewhere.

The first sentence is not quite true. The Meccans were settled arabs. Also, the part on the Shiite-Sunnite controversions should be moved out of the article, but I don't know where. Lev 19:57, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Muhammad lists Muhammad's (peace be upon him) date of birth as circa 570, while this one lists it as 571. I know it's not a big difference (especially because of the "circa"), but I think we should choose one or the other. Kagredon 01:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Muhammad was born in the Year of the Elephant which most Muslims equate with the Western year 570 but some Muslims equate with 571. See Islamic calendar#Numbering the years. — Joe Kress 23:29, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Shift in attitude toward learning

I've yet to find information on when and why there was a shift in attitude toward science, culture, learning, etc. that lead to some of the attitudes apparent in the current conservative sects of Islam. Anyone have any information about this? 66.229.182.113 05:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

link to Islamism

How is a disputed article Islamism relevant to History of Islam page? OneGuy

I didn't even know it was disputed. Hadn't looked at it, was going totally by its topic. I don't think that the fact that it is currently disputed has any bearing on whether it's a relevant link: we wouldn't fail to link the word if it came up in a sentence, just because the article is currently a mess. I just went and looked for a more appropriate link for the matter, but Political Islam is just a redirect to Islamism. And looking at Islamism, the dispute is just about POV, not factual matters. It's certainly a closely related topic. Is there any objection to the link other than the current state of that article? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:12, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

How about Islam as a political movement? So there is a dispute going on (or was going on) between Islamism and that article. Both articles are dealing with the same subject and calling the other one POVOneGuy 04:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was unaware of that article. Fine by me. I hope they link to each other... -- Jmabel | Talk 07:22, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

They don't link. Each claims the other is POV OneGuy 07:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opps Islam as a political movement does link OneGuy 07:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The change in attitude was not like a one day affair rather it happened over a period of time. However, it is said to have started after the fall of Baghdad by the Mongols. The trauma of defeat and humiliation made them recoil within themselves and the thought that all this happened because of not following the 'real islam' took root. Then on they gave up all research and inquiry stuck to the fundamentals. S H B KHAMIS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shbkhamisnaqvi (talk • contribs) 2 July 2006.

Dynasties

OneGuy, I notice that in your recent and clearly mainly beneficial reworking of the list of Muslim dynasties the following were removed without comment:

• Banu Salih
• Almoravid

I'm guessing you had a good reason for this, you clearly know this topic better than I, but I'd appreciate knowing why these were removed: if nothing else, it will provide a basis on which people can revert re-addition of inappropriate material later. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:18, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I added the second one. Regarding Kingdom of Nekor, the first paragraph says, " The Kingdom ... was founded by .. Salih I ibn Mansur al-Himyari in 710 AD, by (Abbasid) Caliphal grant."

There was no Abbasid Caliph in 710. Does that make any sense? OneGuy 00:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Certainly makes sense that there was no Abbasid Caliph in 710. Sounds like that article has a serious problem, no? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:30, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I goofed. Most of Kingdom of Nekor I took directly from Ibn Khaldun, though, simply summarizing his material, and you're welcome to fact check it. - Mustafaa 02:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, Mustafaa, should Banu Salih be listed as a Muslim dynasty? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:55, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think so - a very minor one, doubtless, but certainly Muslim. - Mustafaa 03:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

recently anonymously deleted

The following was recently anonymously deleted.

In Lebanon open warfare erupted between, among many other religious factions, Sunni and Shi'a. In Iraq, the secular Sunni Baathist government oppressed the Shi'a majority. However with the fall of Saddam Hussein the Shi'a majority are now calling for more political power in the new Iraqi government. In Iran the religious Shi'a majority has made life difficult for Sufi, Sunni and other Muslims. In Saudi Arabia, the religious Sunni majority has made life difficult for Shi'a Muslims.

It seems entirely accurate to me. One could question whether it is appropriate material, but deletion of this without comment seems completely inappropriate. I leave it to someone else to decide whether to restore, just pointing it out. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:55, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it is entirely accurate. However, I can also see the argument that its placement in the article is anachronistic. - Mustafaa 23:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see the Omayyad Dynasty before the Abbasid. --Lrukieh (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Iran/Persia

In the historical context of this article, is it really appropriate to link "Persia" to Iran? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Start of major revision

I spent time I should NOT have spent <g> redoing some of the earlier sections, which were rife with inaccuracy. I am not satisfied with the result, but it's better than the previous version. I removed a lot of extraneous detail, which is better covered in articles with a narrower focus. I have referenced those articles when I know that they exist. I need to work on the REST of the article, but it's late and I still have some work to do.

The article as it stands seems to be a political history of Islam, and completely ignores the religious, literary, economic, etc. etc. aspects. Those should at least be mentioned, if not put in first place.

I would like to turn the article into an outline, or pointer to more detailed articles. There is no way to treat such an enormous subject properly in one article. Zora 10:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• A generally good set of edits, but one piece of "extraneous detail" that you have removed, which seems to me not to be extraneous detail at all, is the name of Muhammad's first wife, through whose wealth he became a wealthy man. All it takes is one word. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:48, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

But why? What does that one name add, aside from extra detail? It's available to anyone who looks at the Muhammad article, or even the Islam article. If we put in too much detail, the reader is going to get MEGO (my eyes glaze over). But if it's just one word ... I guess I won't fuss <g>. I put in some battle names, about which I had doubts. Zora 23:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

These days, "West" apparently = "good guys"

....as in "the virtuous, familiar home team that beat the Soviet Union and has now advanced to the finals against Islam."

I may be in the minority among Muslims who find this "West vs. East" phrasing to be distracting and misleading, but I know I'm not alone. Ingrid Mattson has spoken eloquently on the point. Geography has nothing to do with this. Sicily is in the "West" and was a Muslim culture for a time, Spain is in the "West" and was Muslim for even longer, Dearborn, Michigan is in the "West" and has had a thriving Muslim community for nearly a century.

If "West" is a marker for "people who think normally, like us," I think it's problematic here.

The phrase seems to me to be an example of systemic bias. Any objections to my editing it out and replacing it with something more specific (like "majority cultures in contemporary North America, Australia, and Europe" or some such)? BrandonYusufToropov 2 July 2005 09:26 (UTC)

Because West is shorthand for exactly what you want to say? Only one syllable instead of twenty-three? I agree that it's not the best phrase. I wrote a clothing article and ended up using International standard business attire which is clunky, but it seems wrong to say Western when Japanese businessmen wear suits like a uniform. Pomo folks use "hegemonic", but that puts my teeth on edge. How about defining "West" at the start of the article to mean "majority cultures ...." and adding "and outposts in capitals and commercial centers all over the world"?

Ages ago, when I did my anthropological fieldwork in Tonga, I woke up one morning to the sound of Vili splitting coconuts with an axe, so that he could dry the nuts in the sun and collect the dried meat as copra. My thoughts followed the chain: he's going to take the copra into Pangai, and sell it for cash, which he will use to buy imported flour, and pay school fees for his son. The son will get a Western-style education, which, if he's smart (he wasn't) could be used as a springboard to fame and affluence in the West. At which point that I realized that the apparently "authentic and unspoiled" village in which I was living, on the island of Kauvai in the Ha'apai archipelago, in the middle of the Pacific, was actually hooked into Wallerstein's "world system" and I would be NUTS to pretend that it was a uncorrupted remnant of a pre-Western past.

Now do you really want to replace "Western" in the previous para with 23 syllables? Zora 2 July 2005 11:05 (UTC)

Well, my proposal is a little cumbersome, I admit. But the point I'm getting at is this: It's an utterly artificial distinction. There are huge Muslim communities in France, UK, etc. When we use this "shorthand" I think we are buying into one side of an increasingly important argument, namely, whether Islam is fundamentally different and foreign to the values of the US and Europe. I firmly believe it is not. Even defining "West" up front as meaning "majority cultures ..." and then using "West" in the article seems to me to support the (prevalent and, in my view, delusional) belief that Islam had, and has, nothing to do with a) pluralism or b) the history of Europe.

The whole "tensions between East and West" thing feels much too close to the Cold War model to me. I'd rather the article pointed out that non-Muslims in areas where people speak European languages are very often uneasy about the intentions of the Muslims with whom they live as neighbors. If it takes a few extra syllables to get that idea across without perpetuating a false dichotomy, my sense is that it would be worth it, but I'm obviously eager to hear other people's thoughts on this as well.

I had a friend in college whose dad worked in the nuclear power industry. One day I said to her, "I suppose you're pro-nuke then, eh?" She gave me the dirtiest look -- and rightly so, becuase I had labeled her according to the dichotomy I had already established in my mind about what her father did for a living, a dichotomy that had nothing to do with her decisions, a dichotomy I had just used to saddle her with a pejorative. "I'm not pro-nuke," she said icily, "but I am an intelligent person who's quite capable of doing a little research and making up my own mind on issues like this." I've never forgotten that exchange, and it's certainly been on my mind a lot in the last few years. When we make a black/white assumption about the nature of a disagreement (West/East, anti-nuke/pro-nuke) and then pick our terminology based on our own assessment of what the disagreement is, we are, whether we realize it or not, making a political statement about the groups of people we label. When I hear how "the West" is having problems with Islam, I feel like I've just been exiled, on false pretenses, from my own history. BrandonYusufToropov 2 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)

I'm open to a change in terminology, but I'm afraid we'd end up either with something like your 23-syllable phrase, or a neologism, and we might not be able to convince other people to use them. Suggestions? Zora 2 July 2005 19:13 (UTC)

Sicily is in the "West" and was a Muslim culture for a time, Spain is in the "West" and was Muslim for even longer, Dearborn, Michigan is in the "West" and has had a thriving Muslim community for nearly a century. Sicily was occasionally raided by some Muslim pirates from North Africa. Spain was conquered and subjugated by the Moors, until they were defeated and expelled by the indegenous population. But your point about Dearborn, Michigan is interesting. Projected population trends in the Netherlands predict that Muslims will soon be the voting majority in that Western nation-state. --Zeno of Elea 19:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

"When I hear how "the West" is having problems with Islam, I feel like I've just been exiled, on false pretenses, from my own history." BrandonYusufToropov, that's because Islam is an Arab religion with its own history and has historically been at war with the West. Just because you happen to be a white convert to Islam and are feeling "exiled" from "your" history is not enough reason to not differentiate between Western civilization and Islamic civilization. --Zeno of Elea 19:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

"Western" in this sense is fundamentally ambiguous and the exact meaning depends on context. In an article primarily about, say, Buddhism, Islamic culture is as western as northern european culture. Because "western" can be contrasted with Islamic culture in some cases, and can include Islamic culture in other cases, we ought to avoid using the word in this article whenever we can possibly phrase things accurately and succinctly without it. --Eric Forste (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Islam is not the same as Western civilization from a Budhist perspective. Perhaps you have misunderstood the widely known specific usage of the phrase - it is explained in the article Western civilization. It does not literally mean "everything that's west of our present location." By your literally circular argument, Eastern civilization is Western civilization from a Western perspective. --Zeno of Elea 20:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

No one is saying that Islam is the same as Western civilization. It is however the case that Islam is historically understood as part of Western civilization, insofar as it is meaningful (and it is) to refer to the Western civilization that existed before 600 CE. Works that deal only with recent history will contrast Islam with the West, but this article is not titled Recent history of Islam or Modern history of Islam, it is History of Islam. --Eric Forste (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that The West is being used here in the way that, 300 years ago, someone might have used "Christendom", thus excluding, for example, Spain during its period of Muslim rule from the concept. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Actually even in the mid-19th century they'd probably have used "Christendom" instead of "the West" in the specific context we're talking about. It's just not used any more because de facto your 300 years are more or less correct and about then (let's say after the second siege of Vienna) "Western" actions in/towards the Islamic world ceased to be predominantly motivated by faith and became motivated by nationalist/imperialist, economic (I think all of those need no examples) or other secular reasons (e.g. the conquest of the Barbary Coast to stop the pirates and slave traders). 82.135.72.151 22:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

On a separate but related issue, I'm not sure about the line about Islamic empire falling under the "tutelage" of Western European powers. I think "influence" is a much better word, as it avoids the patronizing implication that the West brought Muslim empires under their wing for their own good. "Influence" is a good, neutral word that references the social, religious and economic motivations of those powers. The Cap'n (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Golden Age of Islamic Philosophy

Shouldn't their be something in this article about the medieval Aristoteleans, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd? --Christofurio 13:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

ethics of expansion

There's a lot here (correctly) about the Islamic expansion in the early centuries. But (especially perhaps given the current debates about jihad &c) should there not be something about the political/ethical ideas behind the expansion at the time? Mark O'Sullivan 19:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Value of ON content and quality of reference

The content added from the ON reference remains in this article, but the reference has been removed. This action is disputed and a conversation is ongoing here. Uriah923 06:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I do not believe the content remains. I added the link (Will Waddell, A Concise History of Islam) because someone plagiarized the article. I found it by a Google search looking for the source of what I correctly suspected to be plagiarized material. It looked to be a decent article, so I added it to the external links (not the references) and removed the plagiarized material from the article. What is the problem someone has with the article? I'm not interested in being dragged into a general conversation about ON, only about this particular link, which is what should matter here. Or is the issue simply that ON is so problem-riddled that even an apparently decent article should not be trusted? Is this like dealing with a Larouchie site? Or what? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, that's basically the problem. If you do follow Uriah's contributions, it becomes extraordinarily clear that he cares more about getting as many links to ON from Wikipedia as possible than improving Wikipedia quality. Despite being asked many many times to stop, he has continued trying to get links to ON. Even to the point of spreading the conversation like this to many talk pages to avoid the consensus against him. So yes, unfortunately the user has created a problem that means the links should be avoided (including removing the above link and pointing to the page history to avoid aiding their SEO). Ill gotten gains should not be allowed or we are just encouraging the exploitation of Wikipedia by SEO practitioners. The general opinion is that the link isn't of high enough quality to override that consensus and that the article would be better off with a five minute search for higher quality references. External links don't help much unless they are to the most prominent sites on a topic or as a weak form of reference. As I and others have said the latter could be done better with other sources. - Taxman ^Talk 17:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• I hesitate to say anything because Taxman has threatened to block me for making the post on Jmabel's talk page, but the situation is so obviously biased that I can't refrain. It is hopefully inconsistent for Taxman to question the quality or usefulness of the article in question. It is of higher quality than most (if not all) of the external links currently in the article as evident by its content, references and presentation. Uriah923 19:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well the consensus is that it is not of high enough quality to serve as a reference and due to the SEO and linkspam implications we should avoid it as an external link. Those two things are not contradictory. The reasons for your block are clear on your talk page and where the consensus was established. And yes you are flirting with violating Wikipedia policy again by continuing the discussion. Anyone can weigh in on the issue in the relavent place, and that is not here. - Taxman ^Talk 19:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Mongol Invasion

A section about Mongol Invasion ( most importantly Hulagu Khan ) should be added here, as it proved to be a turning point for islamic culture , the start of its downfall .Farhansher 20:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Definetly. The section should exist. -- Svest 21:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

pov

I dont know whos pov, but this is pov:

"Nonetheless the new religion penetrated deeply, to the point where conversions were discouraged since they might have been motivated by avoiding taxes, rather than true belief, and choosing a religion should override such economic concerns."

Ask a Shia and he will say that it was since Umayyads didnt care about Islam, rather money, and therefore did not want converts, since that meant less taxes. --Striver 20:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Zora! --Striver 01:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

nepotism

anon wrote in the article:

Whichever person wrote that Uthman (RA) favored his family over others, is not worth talking to. Uthman was a SAHABA. you can never degrade a sahaba. And by the way, Uthman did NOT favor his family, over others.

A good example of sunnis beliving in the uprightness of all Sahaba.--Striver 15:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

further elaboration

i would like further elaboration on scientific and technological developments of various muslim empires, perhaps this is in a seperate article, in which case ignore this request. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.18.146 (talk • contribs) 12 Dec 2005.

Can anyone show me this "separate article"? I can't seem to find it. Flex Flint (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Centers of learning

This edit changed "Great centers of learning, conquered by Islamic armies, became Islamic centers of culture and science and produced notable scientists…" to "Arabs made many Islamic centers of culture and science and produced notable scientists…". My own guess (without expertise) is that it is a mix of the two. Certainly, North Africa had a long history of scholarship before it was Arab; in the late years of the Western Roman empire, the more intellectual side of the development of Christianity was largely (though by no means exclusively) on the south side of the Mediterranean. I'm not sure how much of that was intact when the Arabs got there.

Both sides here are making their claims without citation. I'd really like to see some citation on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right Jmabel. But I think the sentence is talking about official centers of learning such as Qarawiyin and Al Azhar in North Africa. I believe that the second claim is more accurate. Cheers -- Svest 19:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Effect of Islam

A religion such as Islam has had a huge effect on world culture, but I have yet to find an article on Wikipedia that deals with that topic. I'm a new user and am not familiar with this sort of thing, but it would be very helpful if someone would write an article about the effect of Islam on other cultures outside the Middle East. - Eric W 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC) talk

Mameluk dynasty

When mentioning the Mameluk dynasty, does the article refer to the muslim dynasty in India or Baghdad? --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 12:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Fitna

The Fitna immediately refers to Umar without saying who/what Umar is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.252.222.199 (talk • contribs) 18 April 2006.

hyperlink Umar & emirates?

I second that - wanted to know who Umar was, was wondering why it's not hyperlinked or defined.

Likewise, lower down, in "The decline of political unity" -- I wonder if the first appearance of the word "emirates" should be hyperlinked? Or is it considered to be too well known to be hyperlinked? (Is there a wikipedia policy for what is to be hyperlinked?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgrrr (talk • contribs) 23 April 2006.

24.172.129.107 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)== Fantastic Four == This page mentions: the regim of Caliphate of Muhammad's Companions (Abubakar, Umar, Usman and Ali).

The "Umayyad Dynasty" page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Dynasty mentions: four rightly guided Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Omar, Usman, Ali)

I almost missed the similarity. Is one of these "translations" (who the four are, and their names) more often used?

(Also -- was "regim" intended to be "regime" or "reign"?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dgrrr (talk • contribs) 23 April 2006.

The "Umayyad Dynasty" page has two problems here: First, the four rightly guided Caliphs are not part of the Umayyad Dynasty (This dynasty started with the fifth Caliph). Second, the more accurate transliteration of their names is: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali.

The creation of the state of Israel section

Guys! I notice that you are engaged in an edit warring re this section. What i can say is that both accounts are valid historically. What we lack are sources from both sides. Both editions of User:Bless sins as well as that of User:Pecher are clear POV for me. Try to source your editions guys so you can stop this edit warring. Cheers -- Szvest 19:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

This is the version Pecher wants (my comments in bold):

Many Muslim countries were left looking for answers as their new Westernized governments continued to conflict with their Islamic societies. In most cases this search led to the reassertion of the values of their religious heritage.

In a century when many new Arab states were created by the Imperial powers be more specific, the United Nations created the State of Israel in 1948, by taking away an important and religiously significant portion of Palestine and declaring it the Jews' new country. until here no major problems

Arabs residing in the area were offered a State of Palestine which their leadership refused.it necessary to mention that Arabs (making 67% of the pop.) were offered 45% of the land

In the first half of the century (both before and after the establishment of the Jewish state), Jews came to Israel as refugees from Europe and from Arab countries. It should be noted that Jewish immigration into the Palestinian mandate under the British was strictly limited, whilst Arabs from neighboring countries entered the area much more freely.<-what does this have anything to with the "History of Islam". During the war declared against i prefer between Israel by the surrounding Arab countries in 1948, many Arabs left the area all NPOV version say: "Arabs fled or were driven out of..." (often at the behest of the attacking Arab countries)<-simply not true. Approximately 850,000 Jews were forced to leave Arab countries once again a false statement. the jews left during a period of 1948-1967. no such Jewish exodus happened during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and 750,000 Arabs were also forced once again, they "fled or were driven out". however, this statement is redundant(as already mentioned) to leave their homes in the now-called state of Israel. Clearly this section needs a re-write. Bless sins 20:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good job guys. The template is on. It's time to settle this issue. Cheers -- Szvest 21:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

I can't agree more with the last statement that the section badly needs a re-write, but not with the other conclusions. I don't "defend" any version here; I've just tried to prevent an insertion of more bias and propaganda into an already biased and propagandistic section. Let's look into what we have in detail. The first paragraph of this section has nothing to do with the establishment of the State of Israel; so, let's strike it out. "In a century when many new Arab states were created by the Imperial powers, the United Nations created the State of Israel in 1948, by taking away an important and religiously significant portion of Palestine and declaring it the Jews' new country." is an obvious example of anti-Israeli bias. Arab countries objected against the partitioning of the British Mandate of Palestine, but they were the members of the United Nations, and by virtue of their membership they agreed to comply with the binding decisions of the United Nations, whether they like those decisions or not. One can come with an objection to virtually every word in this section, but let's not forget that this is an article on the "History of Islam". The establishment of the State of Israel does not itself deserve a place in this article, but a history of the Arab-Israeli conflict may well deserve it. Therefore, the article must be re-written to give a summary of the Arab-Israeli conflict and be titled appropriately. We have an article Arab-Israeli conflict; summarizing its content or even copying parts of the intro may do the trick. Pecher ^Talk 21:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is a stub!

This article is seriously a stub. There is soooo much more to Islamic histroy than what is in this article. I urge everyone to be bold and edit and add sourced information. Bless sins 01:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I was expecting to see a discussion of the various 'schools' of Islam - within both the Sunni and Shiia branches thee are a number of schools. Looks like I'll have to dig out my reference material now ..... William Halverson Vallejo CA

Origins of Islam

I know it's difficult to deal with this topic in a secular/historical fashion, since of course if you ask any committed Muslim where Islam came from, he will say divine revelation by the angel Gabriel to Muhammad. But I am curious about the relationship between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Christians obviously have no problem with the idea that their faith emerged out of Judaism. But did Islam? Or did it emerge out of Christianity? Or both? Serendipodous 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of being slammed on all sides, and with no claim to expertise: both Christianity and Judaism were widespread in the region where Islam arose. Islam accepts both Moses and Jesus as prophets, and teaches that both taught the true religion but that it was not accurately recorded, and that people fell away.

In several places, Jewish influence on Islam seems pretty clear, for example in the dietary laws. The radical monotheism of Islam owes a lot to Judaism. The Muslim concept of angels and the mainly Shi'ite concept of saints would seem to me to have Jewish and Christian roots, respectively. I could go on, but I'd be moving into territory where I'm even shakier, so I'll stop here.

I have no citation for any of the foregoing. Does anyone have something more solid to which to direct this person? - Jmabel | Talk 02:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

See Abrahamic religions.--Tigeroo 12:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The History of Islam before Muhammad

Is there any information on this? Where does Islam show up in historical records in the 6th century? 5th century? 4th century? 3rd century? 2nd century? 1st century? 1st century BC? 2nd century BC? 3rd century BC? 4th century BC? 5th century BC? 6th century BC? 7th century BC? 8th century BC? 9th century BC? 10th century BC? 11th century BC? 12th century BC? 13th century BC? 14th century BC? 15th century BC? 16th century BC? 17th century BC? 18th century BC? 19th century BC? JBogdan 15:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply that there was Islam before Muhammad? Yes.

Off course there was Islam before Muhammad(S). Jesus, Moses, Joseph, David, Abraham all prophets was Muslim, Islam is from Adam, Mohammad is Last prophet and he have rectified and purified the Islam for all and finally established up to Qiamah.

No, there was no Islam before Muhammad, just like there was no Christianity before Jesus - that would be impossible by definition. But I seem to recall reading that many passages in the Qur'an can be found in Arabic writings that predate Muhammad. In fact, the Qur'an wasn't compiled until one of the four Rashidun (I forget which one, but I think it was 'Uthman) took the project in hand. This suggests that the origins of Islam are a bit more complex than saying, "Muhammad came up with all this stuff and got people to agree with him." Yes, that's the version most Muslims believe, but shouldn't an encyclopedia entry look a bit further? Hmoulding 20:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that there should be a discussion of Arabic practices prior to Muhammad, which were incorporated into Islam, that is something else again. For example, the Kaaba predates Islam, even in Muslim tradition, by several millenia. However, worship at the Kaaba prior to Muhammad was not Islam. In fact, most Moslems would describe what happened then as idol worship.

Maybe you want to suggest a section Pre-Mohammedan Influences on Islam? --Eliyahu S 12:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

template

This article is very Middle-east centric, almost ignoring the history of Islam in South Asia and Indonesia, wheich is where most Muslims live. It ignores the spread of Islam via the Mongols, and it ignores the reason why there is a nation in the OIC in the Americas. Thats why I've added the tag. ==Rename Article==--Tigeroo 20:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I beleive this article reads more like the History of the Islamic World' or Muslim History as in the history of Muslim people, as an example Jewish history.

In my opinion a new article is required for the history of Islam for example the History of Christianity which implies more of a theological history. As is this article contains nothing about Sunna, Hadith, Mutazalites, Sufism, the Madhabs, Ahmadis etc. Basically it has nothing to do with theological progression of Islam as a religion but everything to do with Islam as history of the Ummah or community.--Tigeroo 07:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This is very true. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. In Islam, there is no distinction between religion and politics, as it is the case in Christianity; for example, a caliph is both a religious and political ruler in one and the same person. Thus, Islam is an equivalent of both "Christianity" and "Christendom", and its "religious" history is inseparably linked to its "political" history. Pecher ^Talk 14:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So, what about Muslims living in areas not ruled by a caliph, such as all muslims everywhere since the end of world War I? Should this article deal only with the Caliphates? What about the Mughal empire, what about the Timurids, what about the Mali empire, these were not caliphates, these were ruled by a monarchy, (in much the same way that most of Europe was) should they now be removed and excluded from the "history of Islam", or should we ackowledge that this should be about the history of Muslims, and rename it as such. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said that events in the history of Islam that occurred outside the caliphate must be excluded from this article. Pecher ^Talk 15:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

But, thats the point. Though Akbar and Timur claimed Islam as a religion, they had no affect on the religion of Islam. They were Muslims, and this article should reflect that in its title. The History of Christianity deals with specific religious issues, as per its title. The History of Islam does not, it deals overwhelmingly with the history of the Muslim people, and so its title should be changed or it should be utterly re-written soas to befit its title. --Irishpunktom\^talk 15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem here may be a purely linguistic, rather than semantic, issue. The term "Islam" refers to both the religion and the society of its believers. Pecher mentioned "Christianity" and "Christendom". Unfortunately, I think that the analogous terms for these two concepts are both "Islam", and therein the lye is rubbed. ;) It might be better to consider a History of Islam (Religion) and History of Islam (Ummah) or some similar split. I personally agree that the article as it now stands is much more of the latter than of the former. But it is certainly History of the World of Islam. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 02:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the problem is semantic. Both terms are not synonymous with Islam, The comparitive terms you are looking for are "Dar al-Islam" (Christendom) vs. "Islam" (Christianity). After the Rashidun the Caliph religious role was dubious, they weren't even deemed fit to issue a Fatwa. He was more of a bannerman for the "ummah" driving the political sphere and interfering or being interfered with by the religious sphere. His greatest influence was acheived by leaning towards or agaisnt a particular school of theology, European history had a similar experiences but I agree the term History of the World of Islam is along the lines of delineation used both conceptually by non-muslims and by muslims alike.

I wish you had signed your comment! I agree with you about the difference between Dar al-Islam and Islam in Arabic, but this is an English article, and "History of Dar al-Islam " is not an appropriate name for an English Wikipedia article. I cite as an example the Merriam-Webster OnLine dictionary entry for "Islam" [1] where there are two definitions, one referring to the religion, and the other referring to the ummah, the people and/or nations having that religion.

All that being said, I am unsure how I feel about the new name "Muslim History". More comments below, when I have pondered it a bit. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 14:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Islam is as much a moral/social code as Christianity was until the Modern Era when the ties to state and religion were seperated. That is society and laws were "loosely" based around religion with exceptions regulary applied as politically expedient, and that religious thought influenced social behaviour and expectations from its rulers, who in turn cultivated or persecuted opposition and supporters.

Pecher says there is "no distinction between religion and politics" in Islam based on his concept of a Caliph. Please just look through the article itself and you will see the Caliph disappear very soon after the Rashidun and his religious authority even sooner. The theme is constant, there is an opposition from the religious circles to the Caliph with those who are perceived as religious "standing out" and being specially acclaimed. Pecher's argument is the line that the fundamentalists use but they add that by that by that definition there has no truly Islamic state since the Rashidun. Islamic thought and theology definitely affected the political history of the "Ummah", but as much as Christian thought did Europe or any other religion its people for that matter.The seperation of religion and state in the west is a feature of the Modern Era and a reflection of the change in the outlook and political experience after the renaissance. Even today religious beleifs can and do influence morality and politics in the west just not as strongly as they did. After the first few Abbassids, within 300 years the Caliphate was merely acknowledging one ruler over the other much as the pope was doing in Europe, the difference, the Caliph did not have the authority invested in a Pope, so his acknowledgement was not even based on divine sanction but entirely political recognition by a ceremonial power. Even the radical Crone and Hinds accept that very shortly into the History of Islam the caliphs religious role was usurped by the ulema, the title however remained as a political claim. The only exception to this could possibly be applied to the Ismailis.

To sum up the period and themes covered in this article deal with political history.

1. The argument that the Caliph was a religious figure so his history is part of Islam the religion is false, the time period of the religious authority of the caliph was very very short in terms of the timescale of this article.
2. Social pressures existed upon the rulers due to act or react depending upon beleifs of the muslim communities (the Ummah), but
3. this article only deals with them in their visible political ramifications, and does not deal with their development (the deen) and does no justice to the "religious" history. --Tigeroo 07:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Naturally the Caliphs and rulers with an impact on the development will figure, but in a new article and only as far as they and their politics and actions actually impacted the development of the religion. Even the history of Christianity is tied to the actions of the Holy Roman Emperors and the Papacy, but there is too much that both they and Caliphates engaged in that went beyond this. Halfway through the Abbassids the rulers had already gone secular, and nationalistic and their religious role had become symbolic and political before eventually getting scrapped, a lot like Christendom. Anyway this article covers everything political and MORE IMPORTANTLY skips all discussion of the theological developments that occurred through the history.--Tigeroo 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So, I was bold and renamed it. There is nothing at all wrong with this title. Muslim history allows a much broader scope.--Irishpunktom\^talk 09:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but (and hello again, friend Tom) it sounds now like the title refers to the history of the individual worshippers (those who submit) --- and not to the empire that bore the name of the faith (submission/peace). Nobody at the time called it the Muslim empire, did they? It's like calling the Roman empire the Italian empire or something. This page move really doesn't work for me. Other voices? BYT 14:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree Muslim history doesn't cut it but then again this is not the history of any one empire, nor is it limited to extents of that empire. Muslims themselves called it Dar al-Islam, or the realm of Islam because it referred to a collective situation and I think the best name for the events pre-1700 would infact be History of the Islamic World. I beleive Irishpunktom has strong views on Islamic over Muslim, however I do beleive when it comes to the modern era and if we start having sections about Muslims under colonial powers, Muslims in the USA or Muslims in Europe etc, where they are not living under Islam, then using the term Muslim as Irishppunktom prefers is a better approach because this article can then be broad enough to become a better narrative of the history of the people and the name could fit.--Tigeroo 20:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But, this article deals with Non-Islamic Muslim empires, empires like Timurs, Akbars and should really include info about demak and others. While These were Muslim in faith, they were non-islamic in nature. Demak and Mughal were both empires which were Muslim but ruled over a non-muslim populace. I really do think that the broader base that "Muslim" over "Islamic" gives us will allow this to expand to cover a better representative scope. I mean, in the modern era, look at Uganda. Idi Amin converted to Islam but ruled over a population over 85% christian, and then forced a large Muslim asian population to leave the country. This is not Islamic history, but is is Muslim hostory. --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it may be worth, I was VERY surprised when I linked into this article from the Islam template and, instead of finding a history of Islam, found a history of the Muslim people. I understand the discussion above, but I feel that Wikipedia would be much better served by an article on the history of this extremely important faith and another on those who practice that faith. {Kevin/Last1in without cookies} 63.148.206.250 17:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dar al-Islam

I agree that we don't routinely use Dar al-Islam in English, but what about "Islamic world"? And we can easily explain at first use that we are using this interchangeably with the Arabic expression Dar al-Islam. - Jmabel | Talk 02:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Is "Sultunate" a correct spelling? Badagnani 02:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No. "Sultanate". - Jmabel | Talk 02:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is "Sacrad" a mis-spelling of "Sacred"? 200.120.169.43 22:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

POV in Pakistan sub-section?

It seems to me that

Today, Pakistan ... is one of the most competitive and highly developed nations among the muslim countries. (Emphasis added)

is pretty much POV. I don't want to remove it, though, without confirmation from some of the other people on this list. Anyone? --Eliyahu S ^Talk 9:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I say remove. No citation, and certainly not obvious. - Jmabel | Talk 02:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I "toned it down" to read ... one of the more developed .... --Eliyahu S ^Talk 2:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk link broken

When the page title was changed from Muslim History to Muslim history that brought up a different Talk page for the main page than this one. So when I click on article I see the correct main page, but when I click on discussion I don't come back to this page, but end up on that other one, instead. I don't know what to do to fix it, so I'm hoping a more senior person will do the Moves or whatever is necessary, and also enlighten me about the correct procedure. Thanks. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 2:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Its all fixed now. Had to be an admin to fix this right in this case. - Jmabel | Talk 05:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Establishment of the State of Israel

I've changed the section title )and subject) to the much more relevant Arab-Israeli conflict. At the moment, the section's content is simply an abbreviated intro from the respective article, so perhaps more work is needed to make it better fit into this article. Pecher ^Talk 07:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

SAV

What is with "(SAV)" after Muhammad's name? - Jmabel | Talk 00:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. It is the transliteration of PBUH. -- Szvest 10:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Suspected it was something like that. Never seen "SAV" before, though. - Jmabel | Talk 06:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In keeping with that, I just removed the (SAV) that cropped back up in the image description under the Muhammad section. -- Eliyahu S ^Talk 15:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As salaam alaikum , i believe wat is written in Islamic history Regarding Muhammad (peace be upon him) its should be written with respect and should write (peace be upon him)beside His (pbuh) name and (swt)beside ALLAH(swt) name i believe this should be edited and this should be written beside names of the Prophet(pbuh) and ALLAH(swt)

please take it as a request and edit it as soon as possible

take care Allah hafiz(swt)± — … Nadimheyat 05:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nadimheyat. Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Islamic honorifics. You can discuss that there instead. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Two Iranian revolutions

The White Revolution was a reform which has done by the government. It don't think it can be recognized as a revolution. Yu can llok at Revolution#Political and socioeconomic revolutions and List of revolutions and rebellions .I think it should be replaced by Iranian Constitutional Revolution.--Sa.vakilian 06:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Completion

We can complete the information by adding some part of the leads of the main articles. I add something from the lead of Safavids and Fatemids.--Sa.vakilian 18:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

WHERE IS AFRICA??????????

One thing i find funny is how Muslims today complain about racism and this and that, and what the west is trying to do to them. But this is an entire section, how many pages? and WHERE IS AFRICA? there more Muslims in Africa than in Arabia. 1/2 of Africa is Muslim, how many great empires came out of there?, And which country was the only country to protect Islam when it was just a whisper? Writing Black people out of history we use to believe was what white people did, now we understand Islam, Christianity not much difference at all. actually let me correct myself,. MUSLIMS, Christians, not much difference at all.--Halaqah 08:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

POV fork

I haven't had time to deal with this but ... this article is basically a POV fork, giving what is basically a pious Sunni Muslim view of history. It should not exist. There are many other articles re the history of Islam, or Muslim-majority countries, that are much more neutral and informative. When I get a round tuit, I'm going to put this article up for deletion. Zora 08:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are quite impatient Zora. Is it because of the new year? Why put the article up for deletion before trying to fix it? Also, what do you mean that there are other articles re the history of Islam? Where? -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 09:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this is the History of Islam article, transformed. I remembered it as being better. Urgh. It is simply not up to academic historical standards.

Just in the first para, there's an assertion that there is a Muslim people, the ummah. Pure ideology. The community has never been united. It barely held together under Muhammad (the Qur'an is full of thunderings at the "hypocrites"), fell into turmoil after Muhammad's death, and completely fell to pieces with the assassination of Uthman. Under the Umayyads and Abbasids, bits of empire were constantly breaking off, becoming completely or effectively independent. Muslims went to war with each other. They takfir'd each other. They're still killing each other and takfiring each other. You may wish that it were a community, but it isn't. All you can say about the history is that many people, over the course of history, have called themselves Muslims and claimed to know what Islam is, but have passionately differed over who is a Muslim and what is Islam, to the point of killing each other. (That's basically the history of every religion, innit?)

References to the Four Rashidun, as if all Muslims accepted them, are just not OK.

I could go on, but it's 2 AM here and I should try to sleep. I wish I could work this article over but I just don't have TIME. Zora 12:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummah → Not pure ideology but an encyclopaedic term. Don't read the word but read the context instead. True that it has never been united but the concept exists. If i try to understand your point i'd find that maybe you are trying to say that a muslim history never existed. Indeed, the article doesn't say that the history of Islam is nothing else but the history of Ummah. You can even remove the mention of the Ummah when/if necessary.

Rashidun → Do you mean they don't have to appear in the article because not everybody (i.e. Shi'a) agrees about their existence? You can just add a mention to the Shi'a view and that would be sufficient. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We need to distinguish between the history of Islam as a belief system, changing over time, varying from place to place, and the histories of people who claimed to be Muslims. I think the article as it stands gives short shrift to the first and concentrates on the second. Emphasis should be reversed -- what happened on the ground is important insofar as it influenced what people believed. Some interesting things there, if you think about it. Shi'a Fatimids ruled Egypt for hundreds of years, but Egypt remained obstinately Sunni. One Safavid ruler decided to turn Shi'a and Iranians are now militant Shi'a. Why the difference?

Look at the History of Christianity article, which has a great deal more theology and sectarian schisms than it does armies marching hither and yon. Zora 00:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point clearly now and agree. You can start with some suggestions or actions. I'll try to help. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at the Spanish wiki article. The content and layout are a bit similar to what you've just proposed somehow though it is incomplete. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of Islam?

After reading through most of the article, it strikes me that the article deals mostly with the spread of Islam, not with the different evolutions within Islam. I think the confusing arises because of the fact that the article is called Muslim history instead of History of Islam. I suggest that the current content should be moved to an article that deals with the spread of Islam (e.g., Historic expansion of Islam, Muslim world,...?) and that the (new) article History of Islam deals with the different theological evolutions and interpretations within Islam. For instance: when was the Q'uran written, are there different/later versions/adaptions, what and when did religious differences in Islam appear, are certain differences extinct (such as Arianism in Christianity), what has causes the evolution, what is the impact of different cultures, etc. As a non-muslim wikipedian I hardly can contribute (except for the current European Islam branch, which is a current research topic within sociological communities). Sijo Ripa 01:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro: Beginning of Islam

A concern: There was a modification to the first sentence to add the word "purported" to describe Muhammad's visions. Specifically

Muslim history began in Arabia with Muhammad's first purported visions in the 7th century.

In a literal sense this is correct and is appropriate for an encyclopedia so as not to treat the beliefs of a particular religion as fact. Nevertheless, IMHO, the phrasing could come across as derogatory toward the faith.

I'd like to propose the following (or something like it) instead.

Muslim history began in Arabia in the 7th century with the evangelism of Muhammad, a man from the city of Mecca who founded Islam and became a major political leader.

I realize that many Muslims may have a concern that, from the religion's perspective, the religion began with the Muhammad's divine revelations, not with the evangelism (of course, if we are being technical, the religion began long before Muhammad but that's a whole other issue). However, I think this phrasing is perhaps a better compromise in terms of stating fact while least offending Muslims and non-Muslims.

--Mcorazao 06:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Tags

There are a number of tags on the article. Please justify thier relevence.Bless sins 22:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of dates

I found the frequent neglect of dates in this article to be frustrating. For example, in the section on the succession of the early caliphs, it doesn't state what year each caliph succeeded another. Aftermath 16:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

First of all, I think the article lacks coverage in some areas

• 21st century, there is nothing about Al-Qaeda, Islamism, Jemaah Islamiyah, Taliban and so forth, but there is a large paragraph about Turkey and secularism - this is undue weight and Islamism is a big thing at the moment
• Some sections are one line and have an expansion request on them
• Many sections are unsourced and seem to include incorrect statements
  • "Pakistan is presently the only nuclear power of the Muslim world and is one of the more developed nations among the Muslim countries." - A lot of Muslim countries - Gulf oil states, Turkey and Malaysia are much richer than Pakistan. Does Iran count as a nuclear power?
  • There are many subjective comments passed along as fact with no inline citations.

Random prose problems from just one paragraph

• "In 1947, after the partition of India, Pakistan became the largest Islamic Country in the world (by population) and the tenth largest post-WWII state in the modern world" - caps in country
• "The partition of India refers to the creation in August 1947 of two sovereign states of India and Pakistan" - should be "the"
• "In 1971, after a bloody war of independence the Bengal part of Pakistan became an independent state called Bangladesh." - should be Bengali
• apparent pov - random example"
  • "The modern age brought radical technological and organizational changes to Europe and Islamic countries found themselves less modern when compared to the many western nations. Europe's state-based government and rampant colonization allowed the West to dominate the globe economically and forced Islamic countries to question change" - why is it then not noted that Islam also spread by force and subjugation of other religions?
  • eg "These policies were, however, reversed by the Qing dynasty, when it came to power." a complaint about Muslims being restricted in China, but looking at the India section, there is no mention of demolition of Buddhist and Hindu sites and only a very flowery "It left a lasting legacy on Indian culture and architecture. Amongst the famous buildings built by the Mughals......"

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity

I don't think it will ever be possible to write an objective piece on the history of Islam. I'm not saying the people who contribute to it the most are in any way biased, but that if another editor gets offended by a certain statement or if controversial info (especially about extremist groups) is white washed from the page, there will always be a dispute over the page’s neutrality. No matter if the info is properly cited and factually sound, that one person (whether it be a Muslim of any school or otherwise) who will try to distort info to meet their own views or to delete something all together just because they think it reflects badly on Islam. However, I hope that this article will someday pass GA.--Ghostexorcist 01:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Spread of Islam?

There is another article - Spread of Islam which is not as developed as this one here. I'm thinking they should be merged. Is there really a need for two articles? In fact, what is the difference in what is covered? --Merbabu 00:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Bug in the text

This sentence is unfinished: "By the end of the 10th century, the ruler Abd al-Rahman III (912-61) took over the title of" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.24.244.10 (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Maps needed

This article badly needs maps showing historical spread of Islam. Around 800 and 1500 would be quite useful, and an animated gif would be perfect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What is meant?

I don't understand this sentence:" With Mongol conquest in the east, the Ayyubid dynasty ruling over Egypt had been replaced by a man who was born prince struggled as a slave named Mamluks also known as Lion of Ain Jaloot in 1250."

It is certainly not correct English. Can someone rewrite this? Wereldburger758 (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Why Prophet Mohammed? Should it not read either just Mohamed, or THE prophet mohammed?

In this section- Prophet Muhammad died in June 632. The Battle of Yamama was fought in December of the same year, between the forces of the Rashidun Caliph Abu Bakr and Musailima.

It seems a bit awkward to start a sentence with 'Prophet mohammed'. I think it would read better if it said, 'The prophet mohammed', or just mohamed. Using prophet in this way sounds like prophet is either his first name or a title.

I mean how many mohammeds were involved with inventing islam? I think people would understand who was meant without the 'prophet' bit. Using prophet in this way also seems a bit too mohammedan and un-NPOV, like using the proscribed 'pbuh'.

Just a thought. Doktordoris (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Style

• "some definite "antiroyal" freedom-loving tribal ethos"
• "risked to lose its honour"
• "seems not to be applicable to the authority of another type, the "celestial" one"
• "study of climatological, seismological, volcanological and epidemiological history of the period"

Parts of this article read like they were written by a 10th grader for his history project. Or at least someone not even remotely versed in the customary (or academic, or any other) style of English. That entire paragraph could benefit from a rewrite. 60.242.48.18 (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

War on Terror / War on Islam

I don't see any mention of terrorism or non-state warfare. As it's been called the War on Terror by the West and the War on Islam by Islamists, shouldn't there be a mention of 9/11 or any of the other related incidents that resemble a World War with/against Islamism throughout the 20th and 21st century? Isn't there a line of incidents from airliner hijackings and Olympics to conflicts in Bosnia and Afghanistan leading to 9/11 and continuing series of arrest and terror attacks attributed to radical Islamists? Redhanker (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Propose merge with Muslim Conquests

There is another article, Muslim conquests that duplicates a lot of information found on this page without adding much if anything new. About 7 months ago, someone suggested there that it be merged, and Muslim conquests be redirected to Muslim history (like is done with Christian history/Christian conquests. No action has been taken in the interim.

I would like to propose a merger of that information into this page, based on:

1) redundant information 2) precedent: "Christian conquests" redirects to Christian History. It seems to follow that "Muslim conquests" should redirect to Muslim History.

Thoughts? I have not put merger proposal tags or anything anywhere, just brought up the topic here and on the other article talk page. There just doesn't seem to be an NPOV reason (unless I'm missing something...) to duplicate the information. The article refers to a specific time period, but I have not known that time period to be referred to specifically with that term. If I am incorrect, please disregard. Jbower47 (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No, this is a bad idea. The Muslim conquests occupy little space in this article. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)