Talk:Mosque

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mosque is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Mosque appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 27, 2006.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Mosque has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mosque article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Talk:Mosque/Archive 1 | 6 April 2005 - 23 May 2006

1 Adding the Islam template 2 Small mosques' influence 3 Vandalism 4 Shoes? 5 Recent Major Changes 6 Men and women in the mosque 7 Proposal to move 7.1 Vote 7.2 Discussion 8 Featured 9 pics 10 Minarets 11 Major Improvements 12 Jame' 13 About.com - Dubious Source? 14 Islam Template at Top 15 NPOV and activity in mosques 16 Tahara link 17 Image caption 18 Some comments 19 Ownership 20 Minor issues with the article 21 Social conflict 22 Charity section title 23 Zeq's Additions 24 Problems with the "Styles" section 25 balance problem? 26 Feature on the main page?

Contents 1 Cleanup Tag 2 What the sources say on women in the mosques 3 Non-Muslims in Mosques 4 Non-Muslims in Mosques (Part II) 5 Sister projects 6 Off Main Page Queue 7 Styles section 8 What About Now? 9 Balance problem, part 2 10 Balance 11 Removal of {{pov-section}} 12 Sources 13 Removal of {{cleanup}} Template 14 Conversion of houses of worship of other religions into mosques 15 Mosque 16 Ahmadiyya Source 17 Reading Between the Lines 18 Restoration 19 Great Mosque of Djenné 20 gap 21 Mosque in Muslim holy texts 22 Is this page hacked? 23 Image quality 24 Weapons - Firearms 25 Finsbury Park Mosque and Islamist hatred 26 Muslim view of the Kaaba and al-Aqsa Mosque 26.1 POV and Ethnocentrism 27 Truth a Casualty Again 28 Mosques in the US 29 This Addition 30 Is the term Mosque disrespectful?

[edit] Cleanup Tag

I have removed the cleanup tag from the Styles section because it appears the majority of Pecher's complaints about the section have been addressed. Improvement is, of course, still possible but minor things are hardly enough to state that the entire section needs to be cleaned up. Note that pioneer means one who opens up new areas of thought, research, or development and so if someone first established something, it is okay to say they pioneered it. There has been some copyediting to remove the awkward wording and a source has been modified to be one of more notability. Of course, the article can still improve because the perfect article cannot exist. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The key points, especially regarding hypostyle mosques, were not addressed; therefore, I'm adding a disputed tag. Pecher ^Talk 19:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be fine now. If you still feel it's wrong, feel free to add the tag back. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice any substantive changes; this is why the tag is back. Pecher ^Talk 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you read [1]? BhaiSaab ^talk 19:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the sources say on women in the mosques

This is what Joturner wrote regarding the gender separation in mosques: "Islamic law has no rule asserting that men and women must be separated by a partition in the prayer hall. Ideally, the ruling is that men are to occupy the lines in front of the children, who are to occupy the lines in front of the women."[2] sourced to islamfortoday.com. Then Joturner replaced the reference[3] with a link to USC-MSA without changing anything in the original paragraph. However, here is what the article on USC-MSA actually says: "They must not be allowed to mingle with the men, and their rows must be kept separate from those of the men, preferably behind them, because this is what was approved by the Prophet (peace be upon him)." In other words, just the opposite to what was inserted into the article: the Islamic law does require women to be separated from men in the mosque. Pecher ^Talk 20:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the writer appears pleading for others to adopt a more tolerant attitude in allowing women to attend mosques at all.Timothy Usher 22:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Pecher's quote doesn't appear to contradict the sentence in the article. (S)he quoted They must not be allowed to mingle with the men, and their rows must be kept separate from those of the men, preferably behind them. I may be interpreting it differently, but separate does not necessarily mean in a different room or behind a wall. Mingling does not include being in the same room. In fact, the part about the women being behind the men seems to confirm the fact that women are not required to be behind walls or in different rooms, but just in rows behind the men (as the article says). So yes, I agree that women, according to Islamic law and principles, are supposed to be kept separate. And that's what that article says; they should be in separate rows and they don't necessarily have to be separated by walls or partitions. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've fixed the article, so now it it is agreement with the source. The point, however, is that when you, joturner, added the material and the source, the article said that Islamic law does not require men and women to be separated in a mosque, while the source explicitly says that sharia does require men and women to be separated. Pecher ^Talk 09:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If all agree that splitting hairs is fun, why shouldn't I join? I don't concur with Pecher's harsh verdict: joturner didn't wrote the opposite of what the sources indicate. However, in his version "has no rule" and "ideally" constitute a choice of words that may well mislead the uninformed reader, and we should be unequivocal.

This would have been slightly better:

"Islamic law does not assert that men and women must be separated by a partition in the prayer hall. However, the ruling is..."

Even clearer, but being an undesirable involved period:

"Though Islamic law does not assert that men and women must be separated by a partition in the prayer hall, the ruling is..."

That said, one of Islamic law's essential demands is public gender segregation, which even in the version above is only alluded too: spapienti sat - not necessarily the laymen. Pecher's corrections indeed bring semantics in line with unambiguous representation of facts. Timothy's assertion about the writer's intent is correct, but I phrase it more directly: the choice of words was apologetical i.e. biased. --tickle me 11:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Muslims in Mosques

I had to revert many of the changes made to that section as it was just plain wrong. As far as I'm aware, only the Hanbali madhab does not allow non-Muslims in any mosque. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

contended edit: [4]

About [5], it states "In Turkey any mosque is open to visitors, non-Muslims can visit them as well." BhaiSaab ^talk 05:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC) copied from my talk page --tickle me 06:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I apologise. I checked the "Rules for Mosques" section thoroughly, but was less attentive with the rest. However, it's a private site mantained by a Turkish tour guide. It's well done and written for a change, thus worth a read, but definitively not a reliable source for theological or juridical issues. Besides, Mr. Sansal lacks the religious and factual authority to accurately speak for any mosque in Turkey: he can't possibly have checked thousends personally (ca. 75,000), so, till proven wrong, it's conventional wisdom he's referring. Religion is regulated by the Turkish Directorate of Religious Affairs, and religious freedom is guaranteed. Mandatory unrestricted access to mosques seems likely to me. However, e.g. the U.S. "International Religious Freedom Report 2005" [6] tells that minorities are often not granted their institutional rights. I know of Turkey's liberal ways, however, this information has to be sourced authoritatively, so far, it's only an assertion. --tickle me 06:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab, it's unacceptable to use your original research, like "as far as I am aware" or "obviously incorrect" to suppress material from scholarly sources. Pecher ^Talk 07:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it original research? You obviously didn't see the sources I used. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You have only rcently added The Daily Telegraph as a source, but I can't see anything there regarding the Hanbali school. Even so, how does The Daily Telegraph trump Encyclopaedia of Islam in matters of Islamic law? Newspapers are good sources for news items, but not for Islamic law. Pecher ^Talk 20:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Do I have to spell everything out? What do you make of cites 80-83 in this revision? BhaiSaab ^talk 20:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think these sources can be called reliable on this specific issue and why do they supercede my source? Pecher ^Talk 20:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I can't even access your source, 2. I've seen non-Muslims entering mosques all the time, and 3. there is no reason to doubt those sources. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

1. It's your problem. 2. LOL! 3. You personally may have no reason to doubt these sources, but they are no authorities in issues of Islamic law. Pecher ^Talk 21:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why are Shaykhs and Muftis not authorities in issues of Islamic Law? BhaiSaab ^talk 21:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is not about "Shaykhs and Muftis" or whatever; it's about the sources cited. Murky websites are not reliable sources, even if the poster claims to be a "Shaykh" or "Mufti". Pecher ^Talk 21:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You're making this so difficult. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Would [7] be appropriate? He's an author of a travel book for Turkey. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)copied from my talk page--tickle me 07:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC) --tickle me 06:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

He's a journalist without academic qualification mentioned, much less expertise in architecture, theology or oriental science. Arguably, he might be used for articles on tourist issues, as far as the edits based on his site are not disputed. BhaiSaab, unless you take some time reading e.g. WP:RS and WP:V, your edits will be prone to contention. --tickle me 07:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-Muslims in Mosques (Part II)

The article states:

Islamic law bans non-Muslims from entering mosques; this prohibition is based on a verse from the Qur'an, in which pagans are banished from the Sacred Mosque, the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca:

O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. (9:28)

How is the bolded statement supported by the Qur'anic quote. Clearly, the verse states that non-Muslims shouldn't be allowed into the Sacred Mosque (i.e. the Masjid al-Haram) but I don't see how that verse can be used to substantiate the statement that Islamic law bans non-Muslims from entering mosques. Can someone attempt to enlighten me? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You may want to ask those Muslim scholars who did the interpretation. We don't make our own opinions whether the interpretation of Quranic verse was correct or not; we just record it. Pecher ^Talk 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've shown several sources that say otherwise, but according to Pecher, they're inferior sources. See sources 79-83 here. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sister projects

I can't see anything in Wikisource or Wikiquote specifically about the mosques; the links to these projects must therefore be removed. Pecher ^Talk 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The only sister project with a relavant entry was wiktionary, which falls far flat of what we have here. As such, I have removed it. Raul654 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off Main Page Queue

I received a message on my talk page today from Raul654, the editor in charge of deciding which featured articles make it to the Main Page. It went as follows:

Someone let me know yesterday that the mosque article is the subject of two disputes. As you're aware, I had scheduled this as tomorrow's main page featured article, but it can't go up while the disputes are going on, so I've taken it off the queue. Please let me know when the disputes are over and I'll fast-track it back onto the queue. Raul654 10:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So, how about we try to get them resolved? What's the issue with the Style section?

Regarding the non-Muslims in mosques section, the issue I have with it is that it basically states that non-Muslims aren't allowed to enter mosques anywhere. I didn't add the {{disputed}} template, but if I were to add a template of my own, I'd add {{pov}}. The section completely ignores the fact that a large number of mosques today allow non-Muslims to enter, especially outside the Islamic world. Case in point: the first sentence blatantly, and without qualification, states that Islamic law bans non-Muslims from entering mosques, citing a Qur'anic quote that doesn't substantiate the statement. Obviously a good amount of the section should be devoted to talking about how non-Muslims are banned from some mosques in some regions depending on different interpretations, local laws, an overall Islamo-centric attitude, etc. However, one reading the section should not get the impression that non-Muslims would get killed upon entering mosques. That's essentially what the section says right now. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree joturn. The section as written doesn't accurately describe the current or historical situation. First off, what 'Islamic law bans...' There are numerous versions/interpretations/implementation of islamic law, so this sentence is quite misleading. Second many mosques worldwide allow non-muslims to enter such as the Blue Mosque. Third it makes specific mention of a number of individual murders that happened over 100 years ago, which may or may not be typical. Ashmoo 06:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pecher wrote it, so we need his input here. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's an incorrect approach to start with proposing what impression the reader should get from the section and proceed with weaving the section around this postulated original research. All we do is report what the sources say, period. At this point, I don't see any legitimate reason to dispute the content of the section on non-Muslims. Pecher ^Talk 18:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree Pecher that we shouldn't be writing with the intention of giving the reader 'an impression' one way or the other. However in the interests of a good article we should be trying to ensure the text isn't misleading.

The 2 main issues with the section as I see it now are:

1. The universality of the 'Islamic law bans...' sentence. See my comment above.
2. Introducing some info mentioning of how widespread bans/access by non-Muslims is.

Ashmoo 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're aware of sources that discuss different interpretations of admission of non-Muslims to mosques, feel free to cite them, if there are different interpretations, of course. Practice, especially contemporary practice, must not be confuses with the requirements of sharia. I must say, however, that with this kind of original research done without even bothering to look at the cited source, we are unlikely to move anywhere. Pecher ^Talk 15:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You said before though that I can't cite those sources that I used. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Since most editors don't have access to the cited source, would you be able to quote here the sentence(s) that you used as reference? So we can work out the problem I have mentioned previously. Ashmoo 23:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

And the page number and edition? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The page number of an online edition? Interesting suggestion. Pecher ^Talk 06:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is the online version. Perhaps the article instead then? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; that's in the source. I'll presume all fifteen statements referencing the Encyclopedia of Islam come from its Masdjid article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right; that's in the reference, and I've also shown parts of the article, like "In the central Islamic lands". I've re-checked the reference, and as it turns out, I've attributed the ban on non-Muslims in mosques to a wrong caliph. Actually, it's Umayyad caliph Umar II, not the second caliph Umar. I've made the error because the article refers to him simply as "Umar"; it only becomes clear from a careful reading of the context which Umar they have in mind. Usually, "Umar" refers to Umar ibn al-Khattab, of course. Pecher ^Talk 20:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes to the article. Comment at will. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the initial wording from the Encyclopaedia of Islam for the simple reason that it's sourced. Regarding mosques in the West today, "often" is original research, I could not find it in sources. In addition, the reason behind allowing non-Muslims into mosques seems to be to encourage conversions based on this passage by Abdulkarim Kubica in section "10:00: A new day": "I can't speak for mosques elsewhere abroad - but there would be no problem with someone coming in to our mosque; people can come in and sit behind and watch and listen during prayers - this is how some people come to Islam."[8] Pecher ^Talk 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Joturner has inqured on my talk page: "What's the exact phrasing in the Encyclopedia of Islam that leads to the conclusion that Islamic law bans non-Muslims from entering mosques. And perhaps a bit of context before and after would be nice. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)"

Here is the paragraph in question without phonetic transcription and inline references:

In the early Umayyad period, Christians were still allowed to enter the mosque without molestation. Mu'awiya used to sit with his Christian physician, Ibn Uthal, in the mosque of Damascus. According to Ahmad b. Hanbal, the Ahl al-Kitab (or Ahl al-'Ahd ) and their servants, but not polytheists, were allowed to enter the mosque of Medina. At a later date, entrance was forbidden to Christians and this regulation is credited to Umar. A strict teacher of morality like Ibn al-Hadjdj thought it unseemly that the monks who wove the mats for the mosques should be allowed to lay them in the mosque. Conditions were not always the same. In Hebron, Jews and Christians were admitted on payment to the sanctuary of Abraham until in 664/1265 Baybars forbade it.

The paragraph is not particularly well-written, but the most straightforward interpretation seems to be that Christians had been allowed to enter mosques, until Umar II forbade the entrance to them. However, in the case of the Cave of the Patriarchs, the entrance was allowed until 1265. The passage explicitly talks about Christians only, but it's clear that the prohibition applied to Jews and Christians alike, as can be inferred from the Cave of the Patriarchs case; anyway, Islamic law never distinguishes between the People of the Book. The ambiguous issue is whether Umar's prohibition applied to all mosques or to the Medina mosque only. The latter option, however, does not make sense, again in the light of the Cave of the Patriarchs example: had non-Muslims been allowed to mosques other than Masjid al-Nabawi, the access to the Cave of the Patriarchs for Jews and Christians would not be an issue. Hope this closes the matter. Pecher ^Talk 22:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the Cave of the Patriarchs example, but the former idea doesn't seem to make sense either. There are many mosques that allow non-Muslims... so are they violating Islamic law? I find that very hard to believe. The paragraph you mentioned does not clearly support the idea that Islamic law bans non-Muslims for entering mosques. The statement should say that Bans on the allowance of non-Muslims in mosques are usually derived from a verse from the Qur'an, in which pagans are banished from the Sacred Mosque, the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca: -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Do the mosques that admit non-Muslims do so contrary to sharia? I'd answer "yes", and those people who sanction this violation hardly act contrary to the tradition. The actual implementation of sharia in practice frequently conflicted with the books of law, as political, economic, and other matters of expediency trumped other considerations. That was the case with a number of issues relating to non-Muslims and Islamic law, so I don't see how that cannot be the case here too. Pecher ^Talk 23:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't going anywhere. Can't we just remove the first part of the first sentence? You're rephrasing an unclear statement as a absolute and unqualified statement. So we either need to find a clearer source or remove the statement. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The sentence that states something similar to "Islamic law prohibits non-Muslims from entering mosques...", I assume, is derived from "At a later date, entrance was forbidden to Christians and this regulation is credited to Umar." Is that correct, Pecher? I don't think that's a correct conclusion to make. I propose we use sources used in this revision to rewrite the section. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What doesn't seem to be disputed is that the entrance was forbidden to non-Muslims in practice ever after Umar II, correct me if I'm wrong. However, I agree: let's look for clearer sources regarding the Islamic law. Pecher ^Talk 09:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The first part of the first sentence - Islamic law bans non-Muslims from entering mosques - and a related segment from the subsequent paragraph - and his ruling remained codified in the Islamic law - are the only two parts I have a problem with. I am satisfied with the rest of the section.

Now that source... there are many sources that discuss the issue of whether Muslims should be allowed to enter mosques, but we really can't cite them. However, I am trying to use these not-so-credible sources to help me find some more credible sources to use in this article. I have stumbled upon a different verse from the Qur'an that seems to support the idea that non-Muslims. From the M. H. Shakir translation:

The idolaters have no right to visit the mosques of Allah while bearing witness to unbelief against themselves, these it is whose doings are null, and in the fire shall they abide. (9:17)

And from the Abdullah Yusuf Ali translation:

It is not for such as join gods with Allah, to visit or maintain the mosques of Allah while they witness against their own souls to infidelity. The works of such bear no fruit: In Fire shall they dwell. (9:17)

However, the Pickthal translation, omits the part about visiting:

It is not for the idolaters to tend Allah's sanctuaries, bearing witness against themselves of disbelief. As for such, their works are vain and in the Fire they will abide.

Nevertheless, even ignoring the last translation (and I am willing to do that), the verse does not specifically state non-Muslims but rather idolaters. So polytheists and pagans clearly are prohibited from mosques. Jews and other monotheists, however, are a different story as they are not clearly mentioned. So, perhaps we could say that Islamic law bans pagans and idolators from entering and that some places extend to all non-Muslims. And then we could mention that Omar II pioneered the idea of not letting all non-Muslims, including Jews and Christians, from entering some mosques, although his idea wasn't codified in law.

I tried looking through a few tafsir books for some help on deciphering 9:17 and got something along the lines of "non-Muslims can't take administrative roles but they can perform services for the mosque (i.e. an electrician repairing a mosque)" The sentences in particular: The outcome is that it is not permissible to appoint a kafir the trustee or administrator of any Islamic endowment. As for the construction of the different units of the structure such as walls and doors, it does not matter even if some non-Muslim is assigned to do the job. ^[1]

I hope this helps. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we cite understanding-islam.com? BhaiSaab ^talk 19:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Styles section

Joturner, please do not remove the disputed tag unless you no longer insist on your description of hypostyle mosques. Pecher ^Talk 18:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Read [9]. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the description of hypostyle mosques could possibly be disputed. Hypostyle is an English word - not an Islamic term - with a dictionary definition: having the roof resting on rows of columns[10]. So, what's the problem? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[11][12] These say the same. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section to my liking, killing the stuff on T-shaped mosques in the process. As I've explained earlier, such mosques represent a minor divergence, and it's inappropriate to list them alongside the three major styles. Pecher ^Talk 22:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the rewrite. Unless BhaiSaab has something to say, I think it's safe to remove the {{dispute}} tag. I'll post a message on his talk page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's good with me. Thanks for asking. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What About Now?

I made some changes to the article, using only the Qur'an to present the idea that polytheists are prohibited from mosques but letting the information about Omar II speak for itself. Essentially, I wanted to not make a conclusion on whether Islamic law prohibits monotheist non-Muslims from entering mosques (as we can't seem to make that conclusion clearly ourselves) and instead let the facts speak for themselves. What does everything think of this version? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good compromise for now. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

After some research, I've found in al-Mawardi a description of the arguments of different schools of jurisprudence as to whether non-Muslims may be allowed into mosques. As it turns out, only Malikis prohibit non-Muslims under any circumstances, while other schools say that non-Muslims may be allowed. I've added that material into the article and also restored some earlier deleted material on Mecca and the Masjid al-Nabawi. Pecher ^Talk 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I like how it is now, but it contradicts what is in practice. The official school of Saudi Arabia is the Hanbali school, and they don't allow non-Muslims into their mosques. How do we explain that? BhaiSaab ^talk 19:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it the position of the Hanbali school or just the standard practice? Pecher ^Talk 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's just standard practice. According to this source, "Imam Ahmad is reported to have said that they can only enter these mosques with the permission of Muslims." This is a minor issue though, so I think we can remove the "disputed" template. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As someone who admittedly knows little about the subject, I find the section to be very balanced and informative. Raul654 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur with Raul; the section looks excellent. I'm suprised, but nevertheless delighted, that the section was corrected without the heated discussions that often occur on the talk pages of Islam-related articles. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If there are no other issues, I'd be happy to reschedule this article for the main page. Raul654 00:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There are none from me. I'll ask Pecher and BhaiSaab (unless you get them first). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No issues from me. I just hope no one starts doing major rewrites before this gets on the main page. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for removing the disputed tag. Pecher ^Talk 06:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have recheduled this article to be the featured article on June 27. Raul654 06:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Morocco is as far as I know rather unusual in the Arab world, if not in the wider Islamic world, in not permitting non-Muslims to enter most mosques. In Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt non-Muslims are generally allowed to enter mosques. The same applies in Iran, for what it's worth. I think the article as currently phrased gives the opposite impression. Palmiro

Well, lets a get a count here. The countries that I know don't allow non-Muslims into mosques are Saudi Arabia, Oman, United Arab Emirates, and Morocco. Three of those are on the Arabian Peninsula. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Yemen too. I think it would be better if we said the Arabian peninsula + Morocco instead of "Islamic world." BhaiSaab ^talk 17:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Bahrain has one mosque that allows non-Muslims inside, the Grand Mosque (Al-Fatih). [13] [14]. The Jumeirah Mosque in the United Arab Emirates is the only mosque there to allow non-Muslims. [15]. I think it's safe to say that this restriction applies primarily in the Arabian Peninsula. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe Palmiro's complaints regarding this section should be resolved. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance problem, part 2

The article has a long section about mosques being converted from places of worship of other faiths, but doesn't even mention that mosques have in turn often been converted into places of worship of other faiths, or destroyed or desecrated. This looks rather like the work of the "Muslims are nasty" brigade, and should be fixed.

I have taken the liberty of putting a POV tag on the article until this is fixed. Palmiro

"construction of mosques on the freed places." Perhaps it is not as anti as you think... Rich Farmbrough 14:50 21 June 2006 (GMT).

At the bottom of # 3.3 Conversion of houses of worship of other religions into mosques, it does say "Conversley mosques have been converted for use by other religions, notably in southern Spain" but it's only one sentence. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh; indeed, the section is horrible. I'd like to think we could solve this before Monday, but I have my doubts. I have a feeling this will once again have to be removed from the Main Page queue. But let's try to fix it everyone! -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay. Let me remove the hyperbole. On second thought, it's not too bad. Remember the section is on conversion of houses of worship of other religions into mosques. The section could (and should) be said in a different tenor to help lighten the anti-Islam attitude it seems to give, but a negative presentation of Islam does not equal an incorrect, biased image of Islam. I'm skeptical about there being too many mosques converted to places of worship of other faiths, not because I'm suggesting that "Muslims are nasty" (of course not), but rather Islam is relatively young and fast-growing. So, all in all, I believe the section is in need of a tone-down, with a slightly greater mention of mosques converted to other places of worship. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's way too long. I thin that section should be cut down. Saudi foreign influence should be cut down. Contemporary features should be expanded. I think that would make the article more balanced and not all focussed on modern events. I also think there needs to be something about "ordinary" mosques. From my brief skimming of the article I didn't see anything about that. Most Muslims are not attending the huge and oppulent mosques... they are in local mosques.

While cutting down the article where should the excess information go? I don't think it should be removed if it's good information... but, it clearly throws off the balance of the article... mosque conversion is not a big issue in the history of mosques. Saudi influence may be a little bigger but it still doesn't deserve a section as big as social conflict (when, it probably could be classified as social conflict) or a section bigger than prayer. Would sub-articles like Saudi Arabian foreign influence on mosques or Mosque conversion be worthwhile articles? I am not sure they are very good as stand-alone articles but it may be the only way to not lose worthwhile information and keep this article balanced. gren グレン 02:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed some stuff from the section including To make the buildings fit for the mosques, the Turks destroyed the icons, plundering their precious plating in the process, and defaced the frescoes, which sounded unnecessarily negative. I kept the obvious "conversion after conquest" at a minimum, because it was redundant and overstated. For example, it would be silly to repeatedly state that citizens of captured British territories were taught English, as it would have been natural for the British to have done that and quite absurd had they not. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'd like to use this opportunity to request caution when referring to some of Bat Ye'or's books. Her use of (and coining of) he word dhimmitude, which is often considered a pejorative term, indicates a possible anti-Islam bias. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should be going for "XXX qtd. in Bat Ye'or"... or in the text mention that XXX stated Christians and Jews were forced to do YYY. It is important to know her sources for this and while we must cite her since her book led us to those sources... her footnotes should be checked as well. (Unless it is originally her idea... but, in this article it's using her book to cite historical realities). gren グレン 03:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree; I didn't mean to sound as though her books shouldn't be used at all. However, I'm saying that what she says needs to be double-checked with a more reliable source, unless she herself mentions a more reliable source. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Needs to be double-checked" is actually an attempt to reject the works of one of the leading scholars in the field on an entirely flimsy pretext that she is not sufficiently apologetic about Islam. Pecher ^Talk 09:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not an attempt to reject her works on flimsy pretext. What I am saying is that bold, unqualified statements like Islamic law provides for confiscation of non-Muslim houses of worship in places taken by conquest would be better coming straight from the Islamic source, rather than from someone who has been the subject of controversy and the source of an anti-Islam pejorative term. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, I'm requesting that you state the specific quote that leads to the conclusion that Islamic law provides for confiscation of non-Muslim houses of worship in places taken by conquest. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You're always welcome to check the sources by yourself. Pecher ^Talk 09:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not good courtesy Pecher. I don't own the book and it's not the easiest to find (it's not like I'm asking for a quote from a New York Times best seller). You clearly own the book or at least have easy access to it as you're the one who cited it. So, it would be great if you could just quote what the text says and help everyone solve this dispute. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance

This is a continuation of the above... but, I want to make my section the first one so I can get comments. I want to make a few assertions and have people comment on them which could help us better this article. Here they are:

1. Mosque conversion is not nearly as important in the greater context of mosques as the size of its section represents
2. Saudi influence is a modern phenomenon that is not nearly as important as its section of this article represents.
3. "Ordinary" mosques: how they look, how many people go to them (percentage), how they function comparatively to the grand mosques is severely under-discussed and important.

• If you agree that sections should be cut down would you support new articles being created for them? (such as tentative titles given above)

Okay, please comment so I can see if there is any consensus for change. gren グレン 03:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

On number one: I agree. On number two: I agree, but the section was put in the first place because people felt the article was too pro-Islam and didn't discuss current relevant topics. Now, the section seems like a cheap shot at the Saudis. Perhaps the section could, instead of being removed altogether, be renamed or removed (or merged with Social Conflict) to reflect a broader relevance. On number three, I don't think this section is necessary as the idea of ordinary is quite subjective. Likewise, I feel going into much more detail about "ordinary" mosques would mean there would be more over-emphasis on a somewhat unimportant subject. Suffice it to say, a mosque can be in any building; they do not have to have domes and minarets. There's little else to say. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was talking about lessening the amount of content to reflect relative importance. The idea that this article is too pro-Islam is a little... silly. It's a building where people pray, it isn't a social issue for the most part (although social problems have centered around mosques). It's like church... you can criticize the ideology preached... but, that has little to do with the church as a building... it has to do with the religion. Islam could be Nazism but the mosque article still shouldn't sound "bad". NPOV is not balancing praise and insult. So, I think it's a stupid comrpomise and there are very few pro- or con- issues of great importance to the subject of mosques. Non-Muslims in mosques is an important one that needs to be addressed here... The reason the Saudi section is not so relevant is because because we don't even talk about funding for most other mosques so much... if we talked about the connection of funding mosques and how the taught ideology was related then the Saudi issue would be an important part of that... however, we don't really address funding for any of the mosques and how Al-Azhar, being funded by the Egyptian government does have certain controls placed on it now... or Abbasid funding of mosques... did it have an effect on popularization of Mutazili tendencies when it was the state ideology? How have non-state funded mosques (maybe Khomeini and mosque autonomy in Iran from the Qajars or Pahlavis helped to keep the clergy powerful while other political movements were crushed). Yet, this article decides that the Saudis are the important issue when it comes to mosque funding... which, is a completely arbitrary choice just because it has been published about some recently. rant, eh? gren グレン 03:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Rant, indeed. Was that directed at me? Especially because I wrote it in the first place? I shall refer you to the featured article candidacy for this article where you can see quite a bit of demand for a section similar to the one in the article (as well as the other politics-related sections). But like I said, I agree: the section seems like a cheap shot at the Saudis; however, it has been edited very little in the two months since the article was promoted to featured status. Either no one noticed it or no one was annoyed by it. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea you wrote it... and I only said rant because I got caught up in my own writing. I haven't fully read the section, so I wasn't criticizing it at all. I was criticizing that it is the only time funding gets mentioned. So, we have 1300 years of mosques existing but somehow 1950s+ funding by the Saudis is the only important funding to mention? It just seemed really off to me since I am sure funding the development of mosques in order to gain religious/political control is not a new issue. But, recentism is everywhere and it's not the fault of those who write the stuff--because recent events have much more easily accessible information.

In another note I didn't really like the deltion of so much text about mosque conversion... but, I know it had to be removed to balance this article. In the interrim I created Conversion of houses of worship of other religions into mosques... which... is bad and will need work... but, it was my only recourse to save work that someone obviously took time writing, whther it is neutral, accurate or not. I wrote my rationale on the article's talk page. gren グレン 04:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The best solution to fix the perceived imabalance in the article is to expand the smallish "History" section, not to dismember existing ones; however, gren's idea to split another article is also workable. The complains and personal attacks above are, however, especially annoying since they come from the editor who never made a single positive contribution to this article. Pecher ^Talk 08:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the balance problem has been largely addressed here; the issue was really the excessive focus on this issue and failure to mention the other side of the coin, i.e. conversion of mosques to other places of worship and their destruction or desecration, both of which have frequently occurred. Also there was a statement of dubious accuracy about the Joseph's Tomb in Nablus cited to a notoriously unreliable source (Bat Ye'or; it's hard to find anything other than propaganda sites referring to this issue on the internet, and I couldn;t find anythig up-to-date, but this article http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/shryus.htm suggests a more complex picture), but I see that that is now gone. I have no objections to the section-POV tag going.

I would also like to express my general agreement with Gren's comments in most respects. I think the section about Saudi funding should probably go or at least be broadened out. Palmiro

The source is notoriously reliable, except to highly partizan critics. At least, I've never seen a single factual error ever been found in her works. The article to which you linked fully confirms Bat Ye'or's account of the events. The "more complex picture" apparently refers to Palestinian justifications of their actions, but no amount of apologetics can change the facts on the ground. Pecher ^Talk 11:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, a pseudonymous writer who claims that the EU is engaged in a massive conspiracy to render itself subject to extremist Islamic rule [16], and is charged by an authority in the field with "extreme anti-Islamic prejudice and consequent distortion of the facts of history, both Christian and Islamic". [17]. Just what most people would regard as adding up to a reliable source. Palmiro | Talk 11:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro has a point if he is factually correct . But i could not find anything to support his claim(including the link he provided) Zeq 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is no longer germane here, I suppose but first of all, it appears that the site may have been commonly used by Muslims and Samaritans (and Christians?) as well as Jews until 1967 and the Israeli occupation, so to point to it as a non-Muslim site forcibly turned into a mosque in the intifada would be misleading. And secondly, in any case we need a reliable source for the statement. That's all from me now, as I happened to be visiting but now I'm definitely off again. Palmiro | Talk 12:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You didn't provide anything factual disproving Bat Ye'or, just several pieces of mudslinging, which can be dug up for any social scientist. The severity of accusations will only be bound by the viciousness of opponents. Pecher ^Talk 12:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So, how are we to judge the value of a social scientist? Harun Yahya is not Muhammad Iqbal. Maya Shatzmiller calls her study "tendentious" and it seems to me she is more rarely quoted in academic papers. Sohail H. Hashmi (Yale Press) quotes her as a non-Muslim source to look at. Aron Rodrigue says "though polemical provides many important documents". Basically, that's why I said above we should use her documents... they're fine... but her conclusions are polemical. Abdulaziz Sachedina (OUP) attacks her methodology... Just do a google book search and see where she is cited... also note that many of hte times she's cited the sources are not exactly credible but are more mass consumption non-academic works. gren グレン 13:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, how? Bernard Lewis in note 1 to chapter of Jews of Islam makes an overview of the literature about the history of non-Muslims under Muslim rule and cites The Dhimmi by Bat Ye'or among the works of such authors as Arthur Stanley Tritton, Antoine Fattal, S.D. Goitein, Norman Stillman, and other famous scholars. Admittedly, Lewis says that The Dhimmi "emphasizes negative aspects", but he doesn't say that the work is not credible. Martin Gilbert called Bat Ye'or an "acknowledged expert on the plight of Jews and Christians in Muslim lands". Steven Bowman of the University of Cincinatti wrote about The Dhimmi: "This extremely useful volume supersedes A.S. Tritton’s The Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects (1930) and Norman Stillman’s more specialized compilation, The Jews of Arab Lands (1979). It is an excellent companion to the studies edited by B. Braude and Bernard Lewis, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire (1982)". We could continue in this vein for long, but the point is that there is no reason to cast everything Bat Ye'or has ever written into doubt just because many people disagree with her (a normal situation in social sciences) and because some editors here dislike to bring to the light the issues that she has covered. Pecher ^Talk 13:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, expanding the article doesn't fix the imbalance in the short-term. Secondly, the article is 74kB already and while byte size is just a rought guide continued expansion will not help this article. If is meant to be an overview of the mosques and instead of having one incredibly long-unreadable article it needs to be broken into sub-articles or the info needs to be scrapped. I am obviously in favor of the former since that is what has been done on must other subjects. gren グレン 13:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of {{pov-section}}

Should the {{pov-section}} template be removed?

• Grenavitar -
• Joturner - yes, but keep the {{Request quote}} template until Pecher (or anyone else) can provide the statement that leads to the conclusion in the first sentence. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Palmiro - "I have no objections to the section-POV tag going"
• Pecher -
• Zeq -

Remember that if only a couple sentences are disputed, the {{pov-section}} template could be replaced with {{DisputedAssertion}} or {{POV-statement}} templates. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

After all, isn't it ridiculous that people here are questioning the reliability of Bat Ye'or, one of the leading (even if controversial, but who isn't?) scholar in the field whose books are meticulously researched and referenced with hundreds of sources, but no one is questioning the reliability of all those anonymous works on miscellaneous websites to which much of the article is referenced. Why is everybody here O.K. with the "cleanliness" section being sourced to the website of the Ahmadiyya movement whom most Muslims do not consider to be their co-religionists? Let's apply WP:RS consistently and do major clean-up of the article and use only reliable scholarly sources. Teach Yourself Islam will not qualify either, by the way, because it is not a scholarly work, but a book for mass readership, which can be used, at best, as a college textbook. Pecher ^Talk 14:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If you question some of the facts mentioned in other sources, you are welcome to bring them up (unless you're just trying to prove a point) and ask for some sort of verification here. However, when a statement is disputed, it only makes sense to take a look at the source. I personally never said we couldn't use any of Bat Ye'or's book; I simply said we should use caution. We should note (not in the article) her clear biases, look at what she is saying, and not mimic her style of presenting facts in a negative light. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

If I were to prove a point, I would have placed disputed tags all over the article; something I didn't do. Noting "clear biases" is an interesting exercise. Everybody is somehow biased; for example, all Muslim writers are biased much more than Bat Ye'or is. Shall we note their clear biases as well? Pecher ^Talk 15:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You just did. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No offense Pecher, but considering you misinterpreted the source for the "Islamic law bans non-muslims from mosques" statement, you might have done the same thing (mistakenly) for other statements. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a personal attack, BhaiSaab, despite your "no offense" qualification. Pecher ^Talk 08:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think that's a personal attack. He didn't say you can't read!; he said you may have misinterpreted the source because the statement doesn't seem correct. Regardless, why don't you just provide us with the sentence(s) for the source that led to the conclusion regarding Islamic law? Your unwillingness to cooperate is not in good spirit. It's not in any of my local bookstores or any of the libraries in my county and I'm certainly not going to buy the book online to read one page. If you're so confident in your interpretation of the text, you should have no problem telling us what the text was. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the statement "you might have done the same thing (mistakenly) for other statements" is a baseless insinuation and thus a personal attack. You' re essentially doing the same: accusing me of unwillingness to cooperate without any good reason. What statement are you talking about and what is not your bookstore or library? Pecher ^Talk 14:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Careful, Pecher; I'm not accusing you of unwillingness to cooperate without any good reason. There is only one statement in the disputed section that says "Islamic law" (as I mentioned in the prior to yours) and it's marked with the {{request quote}} template. I also a request on this talk page, which you replied to:

Pecher, I'm requesting that you state the specific quote that leads to the conclusion that Islamic law provides for confiscation of non-Muslim houses of worship in places taken by conquest. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You're always welcome to check the sources by yourself. Pecher ^Talk 09:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not good courtesy Pecher. I don't own the book and it's not the easiest to find (it's not like I'm asking for a quote from a New York Times best seller). You clearly own the book or at least have easy access to it as you're the one who cited it. So, it would be great if you could just quote what the text says and help everyone solve this dispute. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead of simply providing the quote, you essentially told me to go look at the book myself. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The quote: "In any town founded after the conquest, the construction of churches and synagogues was prohibited. In regions conquered by armed force, this prohibtion was observed and the ancient buildings confiscated... The unanimous opinion was expressed by an-Nawawi in the thirteenth century: '...As for places taken by attack, the infidels must refrain not only from building new churches and synagogues there, but also from using for their purposes such buildings as exist there.'" (Bat Ye'or. Islam and Dhimmitude..., p. 84) Pecher ^Talk 10:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; I made some changes to the article accordingly. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The changes were completely unwarranted and they have reduced the quality of the article. Pecher ^Talk 06:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, that statement is a misrepresentation of what the source says. BhaiSaab ^talk 07:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Will you kindly specify how? Pecher ^Talk 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Who defines Islamic Law in Islam? We don't have a Pope. BhaiSaab ^talk 07:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There is such funny thing as ijma, a consensus of the leading jurists. Pecher ^Talk 07:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So find a source for the current ijma. That's outdated. BhaiSaab ^talk 07:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Really? Please find sources confirming your view. Pecher ^Talk 07:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that dhimmis were allowed to continue their religious practices contradicts it. BhaiSaab ^talk 08:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not all places were conquered; some submitted by surrender. In addition, there is a difference between theory and practice, and the section addresses this difference. Pecher ^Talk 09:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Bat Ye'or is well-known as Anti Islam. You can search in Google about her. Also some critisum against her from wikipedia is following. This article no-more called neutral and should not be a feature article (or good article).

Esther Benbassa[24], Director of Religious Studies in Modern Judaism at the Sorbonne, said in an interview for the French weekly Le Point that Bat Ye'or is not a professional historian and that, though restrictions on Jews in Arab countries existed, they were more symbolic than practical, with non-Muslim minorities enjoying protection, autonomy and freedom. [25] Bat Ye'or sued Le Point and won the right to respond to Benbassa on the pages of Le Point and EUR 2,000 in damages. [26][27]

Sidney H. Griffith in the International Journal of Middle East Studies writes of The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: "The problems one has with the book are basically twofold: the theoretical inadequacy of the interpretive concepts jihad and dhimmitude, as they are employed here; and the want of historical method in the deployment of the documents which serve as evidence for the conclusions reached in the study. There is also an unfortunate polemical tone in the work." [28] --- Faisal 09:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a big deal to quote a couple of criticisms about a scholar from a Wikipedia article. I can find at least the same number of positive opinions, see a section above. Pecher ^Talk 10:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of {{cleanup}} Template

I removed the {{cleanup}} template after taking care of the issues User:Grenavitar expressed on my talk page:

Hey... in the end I really don't care. I've lost enough hope in the wiki system at present that I'm not willing to fight for what I think would be a better article because I would have to get into a constant battle to keep it that way... and, it's not worth the time... So, the Saudi section should be cut in half (at least) and the rest should be pushed into another article if it's good information. You may also want to place it under social conflict because nothing makes it more important than other influences of social conflict in history. I'm not really going to invest any work into it, so don't let my opinions keep you back. gren グレン 06:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't combine the sections as gren suggested because it didn't seem like Saudi foreign influence really went along with the Social Conflict section which discusses terrorism and the destruction of other places of worship. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conversion of houses of worship of other religions into mosques

Bhai Saab, I re-added this link because... "article is very unrefined, should not be linked, yet" isn't a suitable justification... we still link to bad articles if they are articles that are going to be kept. I mentioned I didn't know how to deal with the text... so, if you want to delete it put it up for AfD... but... if it remains on Wikipedia it should be linked... refined or unrefined. (note I have insisted on keeping the NPOV tag on the article... so, that should be warning enough). gren グレン 01:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, it's bad news that the material has found its way into Wikipedia, but it's good news that the article that contains it is disrupted. I'm speechless at this sight of an admin rejoicing at the sight of the disruption that he made. Pecher ^Talk 06:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What? It's value-neutral news that the material made it onto Wikipedia. It's bad news that it was all placed into mosque making it seem like a central issue to the concept of a mosque. I saved it because I didn't feel it was right to delete it, and here I thought I'd get a pat on the back from you for doing that. The article has an NPOV partially because you insist on using the Bat Ye'or source (not that any source could properly do it) to support that "Islamic law" as a whole provides for the confiscation of non-Muslim houses. It is not really an issue that most jurists have developed because of its limited scope and its applicability only to the ruling dynasty. If your speech returns to you we can discuss this on my talk page... and not here, perhaps, since we have digressed ot the level of personal bickering rather than discussion of the article. gren グレン 10:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You want a pat on the back for creating an article by dumping a couple of paragraphs into the editing window and then adorning the product with a couple of tags telling the readers what a crap they are reading? If you do a split, do it properly so that the resulting article is well-written and structured; otherwise, you may want to refrain from doing so. Pecher ^Talk 12:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Mosques aren't just concepts, but actual buildings in actual places. The Sacred Mosque in Makka, towards which all Muslims face in prayer, is famously built around a converted house of worship. Al Aqsa is at the center of one of the world's highest-profile conflicts, and the conversion of the holy site is the precise reason the problem is not solvable by compromise (had pre-Islamic Arabian paganism not been wiped out, the Kaaba might itself pose the same problem). Social conflict aside, one can hardly maintain that site-conversion is not central to the history of mosques, certainly more central than the details of architecture which take up so much of this article. I fail to see why this should be controversial. It's just a fact of history, and from an Islamic perspective, I should think it quite defensable, as falsehood is being replaced by truth. Why should the destruction of Christian icons be seen as any worse than the destruction of the idols in the Kaaba? They are both considered shirk.Timothy Usher 20:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Site conversion is the one time decision to take the symbol of another religion's power and turn it into a symbol of your power. I don't agree that it is as important because conversion of was one time political decision which had its greatest effect when part of the population was still Christian or Hindu, whichever the case may be. Function is a more important issue because it is everyday. I also don't think you can divorce the discussion of conversion from political power--which we do which makes it feel more hollow. And obviously, religion is political power. That's why I moved the full content to a sub-article. Conversion is not an everyday consideration by any means... most general works don't harp on it... usually only one solely about Muslim-Minority relations do. It is the largest section on the article... which, doesn't really fit.

Pecher, an NPOV tag is not saying the article is crap. My problems are the ones I addressed in the article and things like Sita Ram Goel without citing a source (his only footnote is the Qur'an) stating "Muslim rulers and war commanders took special pride in destroying Hindu temples and building mosques in their stead". There is no particular way he could have known... gren グレン 00:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"Function is a more important issue because it is everyday." - the site-conversion section is rightly a subsection of "history", to which your objection might be broadly applied. Do you think the article concentrates too much on the history of mosques generally?

"There is no particular way he could have known" - While I don't know the source in question, I do know that Timurlane and other conquerors of India wrote in detail (and with pride) about their exploits, so it's quite possible that this can be known.Timothy Usher 00:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mosque

After inclusion of Bat Ye'or the article cannot be neutral any more. As her biasness is well-known. I suggest that this article is removed from feature-article/good article status. What are your thoughts? --- Faisal 07:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing Bat Ye'or does not prohibit an article from being neutral. It is noted by many that she has done worthwhile research. Maya Shatzmiller in Nationalism and Minority Identities in Islamic Societies states "Bat Ye'or's Islam and Dhimmitude, is based on a considerable amount of textual and historical data; the work provides useful information on the topic if read cautiously and in light of the author's blatantly Islamophobic views". We just need to be careful how we use her works--she's not completely invald, by any means. Also, I don't imagine we will be able to carefully use her works since we have Pecher who unequivocally calls her a great academic, just like any other, and you who think an article should be FARCed because it cites her... so, more argument, I suppose. gren グレン 10:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation of my arguments. All I said was that perhaps every scholar has some biases and strong opinions, but that doesn't make all of them uncitable. What I object to most strongly is that a scholar critical of Islam must be somehow singled out for ostracism; Bat Ye'or's criticism of Islam and its treatement of non-Muslims is no worse than Bernard Lewis' praise of Turkey and attempts to sweep the Armenian genocide under the carpet or Montgomery Watt's use of anti-Semitic stereotypes. The only way to deal with this sort of biases on Wikipedia is to avoid polemics and stick to facts; I have tried my best to do that. Pecher ^Talk 12:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

She is biased indeed Faisal, but that does not mean the article should have its featured article status revoked. We should simply be cautious when referring to her works. For example, we should not be using her books as a source of Islamic law but rather a source of more reliable sources on Islamic law (I hope that made sense). Regardless, Pecher: what does Armenian genocide have to do with this article? And anti-Semetic stereotypes? So is your suggestion because some articles are biased against Jews, we should, instead of fixing those articles, make other articles biased against Muslims? It's okay to be critical of Islam, but it's another thing to biased against it.

Regardless, I am greatly dismayed that Pecher and Timothy Usher felt the need to revert (you have to scroll down a bit) nearly every change to the section. This article is not pro-Islam and yet there is some insatiable desire to portray it that way and then attempt to offset it by adding overarching and flat-out incorrect statements that negatively portray Islam. Right now, aside from the basic architectural statements about mosques, we have i) Muslims being ordained by God (via Islamic law) to essentially bulldoze every church and synogague that gets in their way, ii) advocacy of violence within mosques, iii) Muslims killing 15,000 people for the destruction of an Indian mosque, iv) Wahhabism, and v) a good portion of non-Muslims not being allowed in to mosques. For the most part, this is okay (with the exception of (i)) as long as this isn't portrayed extensively to the point where it takes up a disproportionate part of the article. For the most part, named with (ii) through (v), we have kept those subjects in check. But (i) is, aside from being questionably factual, taking up too much space in the article. We have tried to discuss this on this page and to some degree all parties have been cooperative. But Timothy has not contributed to the discussion regarding this section at all on this talk page. This kind of unilateral action is not going to get us anywhere. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I just did, above. "Controversial" isn't a good reason to move something to a daughter article, as you'd done[18]. I agree that some of the material you mention seems extraneous - I question the narrowness and recentism of the "Saudi influence" section. However, conversion of other religious sites into Mosques is utterly central to their history and to the Islamic narrative (destruction of idols at the Kaaba), as discussed above.Timothy Usher 20:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That diff doesn't show anything. I removed the {{pov-section}}; gren moved the section to another article. And I don't think gren moved the section to a daughter article because it was controversial, but rather because it's taking up a disproportionate amount of space in this article (like I said in the comment you replied to). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is that you can level a charge of bias against nearly every scholar, but this is no basis to discount that scholar's works. Even if Bat Ye'or is critical of Islam, we can still use her as a source on Islam, as long as we remain factual without quoting polemic statements. Pecher ^Talk 13:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay... so what is your reasoning behind (assisting in) reverting the entire section? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm particularly fascinated by the reversion of the first sentence. Islamic law is very complex. There are different schools of thought and many interpretations and therefore you cannot take one jurist's opinion as Islamic law but rather one jurist's interpretation of Islamic law. There are few things - particularly outside the Five Pillars of Islam - that can be categorized under unanimous. So instead of conjecturing like Bat Ye'or did in her use of unanimous, we should just let the facts speak for themselves and not make a conclusion about Islamic law as a whole. Instead, we should simply state that one particular jurist holds a certain opinion. If the reader wants to conclude that that jurist's opinion is in fact Islamic law, that is his or her decision. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

These are all general words. Even if Islamic law is complex, there are things on which all Muslim scholars. At this point, I can see no reasonable argument as to why they do not agree on what should be done with churches and synagogues in conquered places. The reader has no basis to conclude whether a scholar's opinion is indicative of a universal consensus among Muslim scholars, whether this is just an opinion of one school, or maybe a scholar is writing against a consensus. The reader needs a researcher to tell him about it. In addition, Islamic law is not history, so we cannot "let facts speak for themselves". Pecher ^Talk 15:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The treatment of Dhimmi was never so bad as presented by Bat Ye'or. Her writing is biased due to her personal life experiences and she was not consider a historian by many. It is better not to use her at all, instead of trying to use her carefully. Because chances are great that even a careful selection of her writing might not be correct. In case you still decide to use her then my faith from this article goodness is gone. The article which was beautifully written has now started it journey towards non-neutrality. --- Faisal 15:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You can't discount her. Many people have commented that she is biased or polemmical but still cite her valuable research. The thing is... we will never be able to agree what is valuable from her work, most likely. I think the best bet is to remove judgment from language which is just how she tends to write (i.e. NPOV) and make sure the scope of her citations meet the scope of her argument. She seems to make universal declarations based on non-universal sources. Just like with the Ahmadiyya site being used to say that all Muslims address the issue of odour we can't use her to address all Muslims if her sources are not relating to all Muslims. A careful selection of any writing can be incorrect... but, I do agree with whomever said we should preface things cited by her as being her research... just like we should do that with any author. gren グレン 16:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmadiyya Source

Yes, the Ahmadiyyas disagree with Muslims on some issues, but the decorum inside the mosque is not one of them. And thus, the removal of a citation referring to them was unnecessary. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, a page on an Ahmadiyya community website without an author is not a reliable soource for anything, let alone common Muslim practices. Pecher ^Talk 15:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree and disagree... As with many sources it was cited beyond its scope. We often tend to use the ruling of one jurist or group to make generalizations about Islamic practice in totality... I would tend to say that most things I have read agree with (not scholarly sites, but Sunni Path type sites) that strong odour is a negative. The problem is it's an issue that the scholarly literature doesn't tend to address as much. Therefore, I think it's legitimate to cite a few sectarian sources on this. I don't think an Ahmadiyya website is typically ever a good source to cite when generalizing to all of Islam... even if it happens to be true.

We're also running into the problem that the Ahmadiyya site was used as a source for that information it seems. Therefore removing the reference is making it plagiarized... even if it is an invalid reference to generalize to all of Islam. This happens a lot when we change our sources for stronger sources but then ignore the fact that we actually used a weak source to originally find the information. I guess that's just an issue Wikipedia will ignore, unless we plan on giving articles an expanded bibliography. gren グレン 00:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reading Between the Lines

Several days ago I requested that Pecher provide a quote from Bat Ye'or's Islam and Dhimmitude. I had tried to find it on Google Books to no avail and had no copy of my own or at my local library. And so he provided the requested quote:

In any town founded after the conquest, the construction of churches and synagogues was prohibited. In regions conquered by armed force, this prohibtion was observed and the ancient buildings confiscated... The unanimous opinion was expressed by an-Nawawi in the thirteenth century: '...As for places taken by attack, the infidels must refrain not only from building new churches and synagogues there, but also from using for their purposes such buildings as exist there.

That was all good until I tried to rewrite the first sentence of the Conversion section...

Islamic law provides for confiscation of non-Muslim houses of worship in places taken by conquest.

...to include part of the quote Pecher provided. But I found that the last part of the quote (above in bold) sounded gramatically incorrect and thought that perhaps Pecher had made a mistake transcribing the quote. For some reason, I decided to go look at Google Books again and search for the book. I found it, realizing that the first time I had "full view books" checked. I took a look at page 84 and found out the last part of the quote Pecher provided was in fact transcribed correctly. However, I also found out that Pecher omitted a significant amount of detail. Compare Pecher's quotation above (and bolded below) to the full quotation:

Whether churches and synogogues survived depended on the circumstances in which the land had been conquered. In any town founded after the conquest, the construction of churches and synogogues was prohibited; in regions conquered by armed force, this prohibition was observed and the ancient buildings confiscated. In cases of submission by surrender, and only if a clause specified the preservation of these buildings, the indigenous dhimmis could retain them, while any modification was prohibited. The unanimous opinion was expressed by an-Nawawi in the thirteenth century:

Infidels who are subjects of our Sovereign by virtue of surrender, must be forbidden to build churches or synogogues in a town we have founded, or whose inhabitants have embraced Islam of their own accord. As for places taken by attack, the infidels must refrain not only from building new churches and synagogues there, but also from using for their purposes such buildings as exist there. When, however, the country submitted by capitulation, the following cases must be distinguished:

1. If the capitulation treaty states that the land will be ours, but that the infidels will remain there by virtue of hereditary possession, and that they retain their churches or synagogues there, they will then be able to continue to use them; but if nothing has been decided on the subject of these buildings, they are forbidden to use them for their purpose.
2. If the capitulation treaty states that the infidels will remain owners of the land, they can not only continue to use their churches and synagogues, but also build new ones.

Pecher's quote was taken out of context, leaving out a caveat that allows for the protection of churches and synogogues (and perhaps to some portray the conquering Muslims in a less barbaric manner). Given the section of the book as a whole, the statement that Islamic law provides for confiscation of non-Muslim houses of worship in places taken by conquest is certainly, at best, an exaggeration. I hope there is some other explanation (although I can't think of one right now), but I sure hope this out-of-context quotation was not an attempt to engineer a slanted statement. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Pecher has been accused of misrepresenting sources in several places by several people. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere with any justification. Contrast it with Joturner's having been caught to have misrepresented a source beyond any reasonable doubt. As far as this case is concerned, the quote was correct because the issue in question was whether sharia indeed provides for confiscation of churches and synagogues in places taken by conquest. This has been clearly established, and Joturner does not even pretend to dispute it. The quote is in no way slanted, as it's factually correct. The case of places that submitted by capitulation is irrelevant here because the section is about those churches and synagogues that were converted into mosques rather than about those that were not converted. If anything Nawawi gives a yet another case where non-Muslim places of worship may be seized: I did not include in the article the case of seizure due to a failure to include the relevant clause in the submission treaty due to its complexity so as to not overburden the reader. Joturner's statement I hope there is some other explanation (although I can't think of one right now), but I sure hope this out-of-context quotation was not an attempt to engineer a slanted statement. is an entirely specious accusation for which I'm expecting an apology. Pecher ^Talk 21:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresented a source beyond any reasonable doubt? Since you insist, I will revisit that instance you brought up. The sentence originally stated that Islamic law has no rule asserting that men and women must be separated by a partition in the prayer hall. That is true. You said the Islamic law does require women to be separated from men in the mosque. That is also true. A partition is, by one defintion, a wall. That is what I meant. I understand if you thought it was unclear and could have been understood as an intangible division, but I thought that was cleared up by the following sentence which clearly refers to the idea of an intangible division: Ideally, the ruling is that men are to occupy the lines in front of the children, who are to occupy the lines in front of the women.. Again, I understand the word partition may have been ambiguous and able to be misinterpreted easily (as you did). So perhaps it should have been made clearer (and to some to degree it has been). I responded to this issue when it first came up weeks ago:

Pecher's quote doesn't appear to contradict the sentence in the article. (S)he quoted They must not be allowed to mingle with the men, and their rows must be kept separate from those of the men, preferably behind them. I may be interpreting it differently, but separate does not necessarily mean in a different room or behind a wall. Mingling does not include being in the same room. In fact, the part about the women being behind the men seems to confirm the fact that women are not required to be behind walls or in different rooms, but just in rows behind the men (as the article says). So yes, I agree that women, according to Islamic law and principles, are supposed to be kept separate. And that's what that article says; they should be in separate rows and they don't necessarily have to be separated by walls or partitions. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So I don't see why you're bringing this up again; it was not a misrepresentation beyond a reasonable doubt or a misrepresentation at all.

But back to this issue. You may have a point that the section is not about the churches and synogogues that weren't converted, but by omitting the idea of churches and synagogues not being "confiscated", the sentence was, as I said in my statement, an exaggeration. Regarding your request for an apology, I don't see a reason for one as I said I hope there is some other explanation; your above explanation of intentions is decent. Did you want me to apologize for allowing you to explain your intentions before I made that conclusion? However, although the intentions may have been in the right place, the results should not be excused but instead fixed. At quick glance, you have fixed the sentence. So thanks. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, you complained about the sentence being negatively slanted; now that it has become even more negative, you're quite alright about it. Anyway, I'm still expecting you to retract your accusation of misrepresentation and apologize for it. Please don't tell me you didn't jump to a conclusion: my English is good enough to read what you wrote. Pecher ^Talk 08:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the first part, I don't feel it's more negative because it implies (and the following sentence confirms) that there are instances in which a treaty of surrender allows non-Muslims to keep mosques. Now regarding the second part: I jumped to the conclusion regarding an intentional misrepresentation because it was the only one I could think of. I was very worried that that was the intention of omitting much of the text (I chose to say that explicitly instead of just heavily implying that as I thought the latter would be worse), but I still gave you the opportunity to explain yourself instead of just saying that that was what you were doing. A worry and an accusation are not the same. Nevertheless, I apologize if you still feel greatly insulted by the comment. Now let's get back to fixing the article; this talk page should not be a battleground. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 09:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I feel that the "willingness" to let Pecher explain his "intentions" was an assumption of bad faith. --tickle me 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration

I restored (with some changes) the shorter version of the disputed section that existed in the article prior to the 26 June reversions. Contrary to the belief of some, the whole section was moved to another article because it was given undue weight in the Mosque article. Relatively speaking, the conversion of other places of worship to mosques is not that important. This is comprable to how the full text of Criticism of Christianity does not exist in the Christianity article. That is because the criticism is not pivotal in understanding Christianity and so putting the information, albeit potentially true, into the Christianity article would present an anti-Christian bias. The content, both there and here, was moved because of the undue weight, not a controversy over its factuality. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the reason for the change, the history of the most sacred sites in Islam is not remotely trivial. We are talking the Kaaba and Al Aqsa here. And how does it constitute "criticism"? I thought the destruction of the idols of the Kaaba, for starters, was supposed to be a good thing. And if there's a collective sense of shame at the appropriation of the Temple Mount, this is the first I've ever heard of it. Perhaps a more principled way to deal with it is to ensure that the Islamic basis for these site conversions is presented fairly?Timothy Usher 19:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and add back some of the sentences if you like (I may add some too because it sounds like some important ones were removed). However, the original section was just too large and too repetitive. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like anything you referred was removed from the article. Yes, those may be important subjects, but they weren't in the original. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I like this version better. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Timothy: conversion of non-Muslim places worship is central to the subject of mosques. Two of the three most holy sites in Islam used to belong to other religions, as did many of the best-known mosques: Mezquita, the Umayyad Mosque, Hagia Sophia, you name it. Not everything that can be construed as reflecting negatively on Islam is criticism; most of the time, it's just history. Most of all, though, I'm unhappy about the behavior of certain editors here, who seem to have adopted the tactics of waiting until the other side loses interest or is out of Wikipedia before pushing their edits. This approach is not an acceptable way of working with other people, nor does it earn much respect. Pecher ^Talk 20:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Mosque of Djenné

Just added a bit on the aforementioned mosque in Mali. Just giving a heads up for anybody who wants to look it over before it goes on the main page in a bit. — Mobius 07:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] gap

There's a huge gap between section 4.3 and section 5. BhaiSaab ^talk 18:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It was caused by a clear apparently to keep the Samarkand mosque image from running over into the next section. I've moved the image down a couple sections as it didn't seem to be at its old location for any particular reason, and got rid of the clear. Should look OK now. - BT 00:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mosque in Muslim holy texts

What's the deal with the current Mosque in Muslim holy texts section? It seems too short to justify overlapping territory with "Etymology" and "The first mosques". I also wonder how accurate it can be. For example:

• The word "mosque" is found throughout the Qur'an...

Is there some specific English translation that the section is tacitly referring to? If so, it must be modern, given that the word only dates to the "early 18th century" according to the previous section. Or if the section actually addresses the word "مسجد", shouldn't it say so, or at the very least spell it masjid? Melchoir 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I have changed it to masjid. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this page hacked?

I tried to make a REALLY minor edit, mentioning that Mosques in the Balkans were turned into churches and that Hagia Sophia is now a museum, BUT my changes were tossed back with an insulting line from a Muslim hacker, "There are more than a billion of us!" he said.

How did this happen? What can prevent it?68.5.64.178 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, this edit wasn't recorded in the page history or your contributions. Have you tried it again? Melchoir 01:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

This diff is probably what he's talking about. Likely an edit conflict? --Elliskev 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to save the changes a dozen times, then and later that evening. They were always tossed back with that insult. I'll try it again.68.5.64.178 23:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image quality

I've noticed that every single one of the mosque exterior photos are either of low resolution, or suffer from terrible compression artifacts (including the main photo). I'm certain we have plenty of Wikipedians who live close to a major mosque and also have a DSLR camera. The article itself is excellent, but the images really need some work. One of them even has a watermark with a domain name! ♠ SG →Talk 02:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons - Firearms

The Geneva Conventions specificaly forbid forces from using houses of worship as storage facilites for weapons or from launching attacks from houses of worship. This article, however, makes no mention of any Islamic rules allowing for forbiding individuals or forces carrirying/wearing, displaying, or keeping weapons in a mosque. Does anyone know anything (particually anything sourceable)? --mitrebox 03:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finsbury Park Mosque and Islamist hatred

In London Mosques are also portayed as a breading grounds for Islamist groups and teaching hatred towards Western culture. A primary example of this is the Finsbury Park Mosque: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1777503.stm . I think this should be added to the artcle as a key reference. Dr Wong 12:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Pecher took time from his busy schedule to revert my edit regarding the use of mosques as arsenals. He said that my comments were POV and asked me to cite authorities. Pecher, Pecher, it would be nice if we lived in a world where there were Muslim scholars who devoted their time to praying and reading their book. But we do not live in such a world. A quick search on Google for "mosque" + "arsenal" will provide many articles such as the one on CNN.COM of January 21, 2003. There you will see how the Finsbury Park mosque was a storage facility for weapons of destruction. Pecher, ostriches with their heads in the sand are easy targets.Lestrade 02:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

By a strange coincidence, googling today on "Imam Ali Mosque" + "Youssef Mohamed" will direct you to a German news story about the pious youth who tried to recently bomb a train full of German citizens. It is unfortunately assumed that he was influenced by the pious meetings that he attended at said mosque. Some Germans might be "inflamed" to realize that they are not immune, regardless of their opposition to the military situation in "Irak".Lestrade 17:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

See http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,111334,00.html

The AlQadir Al Kilami house of worship seems to have been used for impious purposes.Lestrade 01:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Muslim view of the Kaaba and al-Aqsa Mosque

An anon added this section, largely unsourced, to the article. The issues of these two mosques are treated in the respective articles; in addition, there is also a section on the first mosques. Thus, a separate section on the Muslim view of two mosques is partially repetitive, partially unnecessary in this article. Pecher ^Talk 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree--Mika 14:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV and Ethnocentrism

I know this talk page is long, but, please bear with me. In the section about the first mosques, there is the following, According to Islamic beliefs, the first mosque in the world was Kaaba, which was built by Abraham upon an order from God. The oldest Islamic-built mosque is the Quba Mosque in Medina. Ok ask anybody from a Judeo-Christian background as to what Abraham was, they will most likely say he was Jewish. Jewish Patriarch, father of the Israelites through Isaac. Ask anybody from an Islamic background the same question, and they will tell you that Abraham was most definitely Islamic and the father of the Arab nation through Ishmael. And that ALL the patriarchs of the so called Old Testament were ALL Islamic. In the west, we tend to see the religion of Islam having begun by Mohammad in the 600s AD. However, to the Islamic world, Mohammad was the Final Prophet who restored the faith and that all those major players, including Adam and Eve, were in fact Muslim. Thus, to that way of thinking, Islam is NOT the youngest religion of the three.

If I am allowed to quote Wiki, here is a passage under Abraham: Abraham (known as Ibrahim in Arabic) is very important in Islam, both in his own right as prophet and as the father of the prophet Ismail (Ishmael), his firstborn son, who is considered the Father of the Arabs. Abraham is considered one of the first and most important prophets of Islam, and is commonly termed Khalil Ullah, Friend of God. (Islam regards most of the Old Testament "patriarchs" as prophets of God, and hence as Muslims.)

So, given the differing view points here, how can we resolve that paragraph? Will it suffice to leave the first sentence alone and alter the second so it reads: According to Islamic beliefs, the first mosque in the world was Kaaba, which was built by Abraham upon an order from God. The next mosque oldest mosque is the Quba Mosque in Medina.

Does anybody else even agree that this is an issue? Btw, while looking through some of the other wiki Islam related articles, there were a lot of instances of this POV issue. If I don't here back in the next 24 hours, I am going to make the proposed changes. Thanks for listening, all!The Pearl 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)thepearl

Fair point. How about referring to the Quba Mosque in Medina as the first mosque built after Mohammed or something along those lines?--Elliskev 15:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truth a Casualty Again

I added a sentence to the introduction asserting that mosques are used by some Islamic soldiers as arsenals because they are conventionally safe places. It was quickly deleted by Black Muslim User:Tariqabjotu. He claimed that it is not an important issue. The question here is: Is it objectively true that Islamic soldiers use mosques as arsenals? If so, then it should be mentioned in the article's introduction, even though it is not a nice, harmless, politically-correct, sensitive, polite statement.Lestrade 18:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I didn't say the sentence in question was not an important issue; I said it wasn't important enough for the intro. It sounds like you're not even sure the statement is correct. However, if it is true, perhaps it belongs in a more appropriate section like Social conflict. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Tariq, the facts that mosques have elaborate domes and are places where you can meet fellow believers are enormously important. But, the facts that they are used as an arsenal for mortars, rockets, and automatic weapons, as well as the bonus benefit of all those fellow-believing human shields, are obviously not important enough for the Intro. The weapons are only used to kill non-important Americans and non-important civilians.69.19.14.18 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Mosques in the US

Sorry User:Csernica I didn't realise that all of those statistics were about mosques in the US. I thought they were about mosques generally. But this raises another problem, do stats on mosques in the US deserve such detail when US Muslims only make up 0.5% of world Muslims? Ashmoo 05:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Addition

I really don't think this addition belongs here. Perhaps it should be put in a more neutral manner, sourced, and then merged into the #Social conflict section. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's inflammatory on Lestrade's part. Mosques shouldn't be singled out more than any other civilian building out there since churches, schools and hospitals have also been repeatedly co-opted by insurgents while fighting occupations throughout history in order to blend in with the civilian population. It's called Guerrilla warfare. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  18:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Being "inflammatory" is not a problem; there is no such word in Wikipedia policies. The true problem here is original research. Pecher ^Talk 19:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

See above section titled "Finsbury Park Mosque and Islamic hatred."Lestrade 02:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Is the term Mosque disrespectful?

While there may be basis for the claim that Mosque is a disrespectful term for Masjid, it should be verified and not a controversial claim. Perhaps I am wrong, I do not have a lot of familiarity with the subject. Stealthound 22:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What isn't disrespectful to a Muslim?Lestrade 22:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade