Talk:Islam Way of Life

This could potentially be a very interesting be a very interesting book, but I must warn the author of some potentially devestating facts:

1. Wikibooks policy expects all books to maintain a Neutral point of view (NPOV). You can teach about islam, for example, but you can't say that islam is the best, or anything similar
2. Wikibooks policy forbids using wikibooks as a soapbox for religious propaganda. Again, you can teach about islam, but you can't "sell" it to the readers here.
3. Wikibooks is not allowed to be used as a personal webhost, or as a central hub for an external group of people.

With all these things in mind, if you stick to the facts, and you make this book educational, but don't make it propaganda, then things will be fine. If you violate these policies, this book could potentially be deleted. For more information, check out this page: WB:WIW. Let me know if you have any questions about this, and good luck with your new book. --Whiteknight _TC^E 04:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The author do closely read and follow the policies and guidelines, but if you have any suspicions, please check out the previous history of this module (the one with "impending doom"), and warn the author for more devastating facts. 212.123.21.178 09:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This page looks ok to me so far, i'm just warning the author(s) here. Several other books on religious topics have been deleted recently, so i think it's a good idea to warn new books on the topic. --Whiteknight _TC^E 12:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The English standard used in this book is terrible! Note to author, please improve English standard!

Great! The author(s) can learn beter English and Arabic at the same time. I expect a complete grammar check, as soon as all chapters are in place. 80.201.38.28 20:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Should that not be "better" and Islam with a capital I? I am not a believer in any specific religion, but from a 'neutral point of view' they exist, and were probably vital to human survival. I agree this is not the place for proselytizing but explaining. For this reason I have included some historical context. I am not sure about the 'bad English' comment since there is no central authority such as the Académie Français or the Academia Real to dictate 'proper' rules of English (or American?) grammar. If it is reasonably comprehensible, then why worry? IMHO English grammar is merely DESCRIPTIVE never PRESCRIPTIVE. Anyway minor errors of interpretation lead us to new understandings (which is why I reject the 'final absolute truth' of scriptural authority). For spelling I use Firefox, because I am a bit dyslexic, and it includes a multi-lingual spell checker as well as editor support. Timpo (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Questions

I am taking a look at this Wikibook, and it seems a little bit too extensive so far. Let me just say that the tone of the book and the kind of material that has been presented here reminds me of copyright violations I have seen in the past.

Please, when you add material to Wikibooks, make sure you read the disclaimer at the bottom of the edit window that clearly requests that you make sure all contributions are compatable with the GNU Free Document License, including copyright permission to republish under the GFDL if you are doing more than a fair-use quotation of copyrighted material. If you need help to determine exactly what is Fair-use, please make a request on Wikibooks:Staff Lounge.

I'm not making a specific acusation, but just a friendly reminder. If you make original contribution, those are especially welcome here. Also try to keep a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) as well, which I know with philosophy books is especially difficult to maintain. It can be done, but you have to work extra hard to accomplish the task. --Rob Horning 01:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Bloated Book

This book is too big. Why should we jump back and forth between six different part of this book just to know the 15 points of this book? The 15 points is the in the 3x5 diagram.

I see two problem:
1) Too much narative and debates
2) The Author(s) does not know what he is talking about.

These cause the third problem 3) No body read it, despite of its potential value.

Solutions:
1) Finish the satelites books first, such as: Koranic Law of Nature, Islam Way of Life/Practising Islam and Islam/Legislation to have a better grip on the subject at hand.

Note: Islam/Scholarship and Islam/Civilization is not very important to finish for the moment.

2) Rewrite and split the book into two:

1. Islam Way of Life contains <43KB texts that covers all 15 points from the original book, no debates, no excessive naratives.
2. Islam/Way of Life:Terms covers list of terms, its usages in Quran and debates around them. This is NOT a chapter from the first book, but rather a launch pad for each terms used in the book.

It will be the 3rd time re-write. The 1st version was voted for speedy deletion and the 2nd version was too bloated. 212.123.21.178 14:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Labeling

Quran and probably all ideological books have inherent tendency to labels people. Therefore Quran and probably all ideological books could be threats to world peace.

It is the fact of life that there is crimes. But does crimes makes a man criminal? Or more specifically is there really a creature we can call criminal?

One could argue that there is no such thing can be called as criminal. Everybody, with no exceptions, can do better than what he/she did yesterday. So, there will be no cruel punishment, such as death penalty, torture, or concept of hell is allowed. This way, humanity is one and moving towards one direction, the good for all. Therefore, all religion and idiological book that depends on dividing and labeling humanity are by itself invalidated.

If you agree with me, this book or later re-write can be geared towards this understanding as well. I mean, as long as people shows respite and good intentions, we should never labels them. I think Quran supports the understanding that God forgiveness is accessible to everybody without exceptions. Also fairness (read: justice) and freedom is possible to have balance.

It will be a shame of me, if I did not praise this book approach that believing in another faith (Christian, Jews) does not automatically mean a terminal destiny (hell). I wish there are more moslems have this way of thinking.

82.210.108.152 01:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, we use different approach to write books:

1. Inclusive-Fundamentalist point-of-view for Islam Way of Life book
   1. This is as close as possible to Koranic point-of-view, including simplistic labeling of people
   2. Inclusive = all abrahamic religions are just branches of Islam
   3. Fundamentalist = good-versus-evil, black-white view of the world in "Straight-Path" and "Legal-Limit" chapters.
   4. Fundamentalist = 2-dimensional (text-book) view of Islam
2. Exclusive-Charismatic point-of-view for Islam Way of Life/Practising Islam book
   1. This is as close as possible to the modern organized Official Islamic Institutions from Saudi Arabia
   2. Exclusive = that the only people who will go to heaven will be Moslems, and all other religion are corrupted
   3. Charismatic = we can rationalize every actions and saying of prophets and saints.
   4. Charismatic = multi-dimentional-view of Islam, where right-or-wrong is based on who do it
3. For the book Islam/Legislation we just report the facts

80.201.47.242 07:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Koran or Quran?

When to use "Koran" term and when "Quran"?

Background

The term Koran is used in "Koran for Dummies" book of Sohaib Sultan. That book share many principles and intentions with this book as well as similar examples. The term Koran and Moslem are registered in some english spelling checker, such as Microsoft word.

Usage

So, Koran is English word while Quran is not. We can use it in two ways:

1. To smooth the reading flow: use only English words.
2. To explain interpretations: Similar to the use of "Muslim" for an original not-yet-interpreted word, "Moslem" for the popular modern interpretation of "Muslim" and "Peaceful" for the interpretation chosen by this book.

In any doubt, follow the standard Wikipedia style 158.169.131.14 07:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Converts

I was actually offended when I read the section about converted Muslims. I am a revert to Islam. I cover and wear the hijab, my hair does not show. I am studying Arabic and learning to recite Qur'an. I attend Jummah and volunteer at my masjid. I have had the opportunity to teach BORN MUSLIMS about their own religion, due to there lack of knowledge and education. I must agree the other does not know what they are talking about on this aspect. Do you think one would change his/her whole life and be rejected by family, friends and most of American society without basing it on what they feel is concrete knowledge? Reverts are not ill-educated about Islam or the Prophet Muhammad (saaw). 70.89.107.251 (discuss) 22:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC) ‎

Agreed, The reference to Moslem Converts in Islam Way of Life/Spirituality is not appropriate, we will replace it in the future. I would suggest to replace it with Monotheist. I would go even further to split the book into two: Monotheist Manual (the first shahada) and Moslem Manual (the second shahada). I will base the first book from the first Quran chapter, and the second book from the last (no.114) Quran chapter. We could then greatly simplified the book using the terms and icons similar to Electronic Device manuals, such as Danger icon, Warning icon, etc... 194.7.217.7 (discuss) 08:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. "Converts" has been replaced with "apprentice". This is to follow Sufi/Tareeqa apprentice, Journeyman and Master. We need to find way to show that assenter are not stable and very much influenced by her peers, while believers are strong and stable. We need to show as well that The Assent is about basic monotheism, common ground of several major religions, while Believe is a specialize, stronger-relationship-bond and faithful. 91.176.70.22 (discuss) 02:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Islam version of 7 deadly sins

These book amazingly explains Islam version of Jewish/Christian 10 commandments. Any chances to included Islam version of Christian 7 deadly sins? These could actually the labels, such as "mushrik" is bigots as reference to deadly sin of bigotry. Much like "Islam", it is not a proper noun. It is possible that is not a discriminatory or politically motivated label (although Chapter 4 explain tha Koran explicitly mentions that it is open to such abuse). As a plus, you can also include the antonym of original sin, the "lively kindness".