Talk:Muslim professions

Nation of Islam

Should members of the Nation of Islam be included on the list as well? Just wondering.

Prophets

Muslims consider Abraham as a prophet, same goes with Christians and Jews, however the only prophet belonging to the muslims was Mohammad himself. There are thousands of prophets who have been reffered to in Islam and that does not necessarily make them Muslim prophets. The last prophet, said to be Mohammad is the one considered to belong to the Muslims. Ismael (Abraham's first son) is considered as the founder of Arabs.

Correct - Islam recognizes all prophets sent to all peoples in all times, as prophets, but this does not make them Muslims. Muslims are those who recognize the faith in its final form as revealed to Muhammad, and accept him as the last prophet. The previous prophets never had this opportunity, obviously.

Just to clarify the logic behind it - I'm not driving for Abraham to be included or otherwise - Muslims consider the religious thread of Judaism-Christian-Islam to be one religion, gradually revealed to mankind by God, which culminates in Islam. When Muslims refer to Yahudi or Nasrani (a Jew or a Christian) as People of the Book, we're recognizing that we have the same basic source for the religion and the Jews and Christians were led astray for whatever reason. This is why Muslims refer to the prophets before the Prophet Muhammad as Muslim prophets because, for all intents and purposes, we consider them to have been bringing the parts of Islam that God has chosen to reveal to them. - chibikit

Pardon my ignorance, but where does the Aga Khan fit in all this?

---

Ibrahim

I think you have to include Ibrahim, as well as do Christians and jews...otherwise there is a flaming issue, where Jews can "claim" Abe as like... the first Jew or something... its "all in the family" any way...

No, I think Muslims are intelligent enough to recognize why he should be kept off, and laugh at Christians or Jews who make a big issue of including him "as" a Jew. Which, technically, he wasn't, since he came from Ur. Now Jesus was a Jew. LOL. This argument usually gets a big laugh in the mosque, I understand. Don't take it seriously. Muslims don't.

Christians don't claim Abraham was a Christian. DJ Clayworth 21:15, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

List title

I might suggest a better title: Famous Muslims List of Famous Muslims Prominent figures in Islam] ... you get the idea.... I was sure this wasnt a list of all muslims from the beginnng of time to the present.. but the title did get my hopes up.

See Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions ...

Souldn't this be 'list of famous muslims'? Ilyanep 02:57, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality

Someone added to the article 'it won't be neutral until it is more complete'. Anyone got any idea why that might be? It seems to me an article, especially a list, can be incomplete and still neutral. In fact unless it includes only good or only bad people, it's for a list not to be neutral.

Terrorists

I find a recent edit saying (+More list of muslims, specifically terrorists) really worrying. This isn't a collection point for anyone the media has reckoned is a member of Al-Qaida. I don't see how this list can be point of view. People will add those they have heard of - which in the western media is going to be terrorists. Secretlondon 23:49, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

• I'm trying to find other Muslims, such as politicians to balance this out. For instance, how come Saladin wasn't on this list? WhisperToMe 01:19, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(1) Whoever added the list of terrorists on here was obviously trying to produce a correlation between Islam and terrorism - a correlation that is artificial and only a result of media coverage, bias, and a deep cultural and religious hatred. This distortion is made worse by the fact that terrorism/terrorist is an arbitrary label applied to serve the purpose of whoever is making the label. In other words, in applying the label, the background of the individual, ie Muslim, is a much greater factor then the nature of the action that this individual engaged in. As a result, in general ONLY muslims are labelled terrorists.

(2) This has nothing to do with the completeness or non-completeness of the list, as the article currently claims. If you wanted to, you could increase the sample size (+10, +100, +1000, etc)for "bad guys" in any group arbitrarily until it seems like there is a unquestionable correlation (and implied causation) between that group and the "bad guy"-relatedness in question.

(3) Finally, if we are to classify Islam in the category of religions, then the mere existence of a list of terrorists appended to the list of muslims implies that there is something about Islam that produces terrorists - unless a list of terrorists is appended to the lists of followers of other religions. EVEN IF that was accomplished, those lists are unlikely to be arbitrarily inflated (as I mentioned in (2) above) as this list is, and it would still not be an honest reflection of reality as the label terrorist is, as I mentioned, a function of the background of the person commiting the action and not the nature of the action itself.

It is unacceptable for a project like this to promote such a distortion of reality. For these reasons, I am removing the list of terrorists from this article. 18 Feb 2004 1:19 AM Eastern Time

• (1) No, the list points out that there are terrorists who happen to be muslim. And that only muslims are labelled terrorists is also untrue: remember that wikipedia is not american and where I come from you're more likely to get labelled as a terrorist if you're irish.

• (2) The size of the list of terrorists says more about the fact that there are less articles about muslim philosophers and scientists and writers than there should be. Rather than complain about the terrorists rectify the amount of other muslims.

• (3) The appendation of terrorists to the list of muslims implies nothing, other than the fact that there are muslim terrorists just as there are Catholic terrorists and Vegetarian terrorists.

• If you don't like the way the list is presented then change the name of the section to political activitists or something, but they are terrorists, and they are muslim, therefore they stay on the list. You may not like the fact that there are muslim terrorists, but there are, and while there are they have a place on a list like this. IMHO the list would actually be less neutral if the terrorists weren't there. -- Graham  :) 12:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong and I stand by my previous comments. The only reason I am not going to remove it again at this point is because I don't want get into this kind of back-and-forth game.

As it stands the article is not neutral. And, as I said before, this has nothing to do with its "completeness" or lack thereof.

Why shouldn't muslim terrorists be on the list? Because that might send a wrong image? Because that might imply a correlation between being a muslim and being a terrorist? With all due respect, but I think that is a load of bovine excrement. There are a lot of muslim athletes on this list, but that doesn't imply a link between being a muslim and being an athlete, does it? If there are notable muslim terrorists, why shouldn't they be on this list? Aecis 12:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aecis... you asked this question below and I answered you... I don't see what posting it multiple times will do. See my answers to you below. gren 18:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you are the poster of the untagged comments ;) Aecis 19:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, no, it's tagged... it's at the bottom of section Terrorist list right now O_O gren 20:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Although he was born into an "Islamic society", Tariq Ali is a self-admitted athiest, he goes into depth about this in his book "The Clash of Fundamentalisms", thus I wonder if he should be included on the list of Muslims.

DigiBullet 19:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Terrorist list

I think we should remove the terrorist list. You can't be both, or a muslim or a terrorist. And most of them are recognized as freedom fighter or resistance fighters. Someone really should change this, if I do it wil be re-edited again, fo sho. A. 12:46, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You can't be a true muslim if you are not a terrorist. The most famous muslims today are all terrorists.Stop being apologetic. 70.105.188.134 20:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been waiting for someone to rename it, as was suggested above some time ago. -- Graham  :) | Talk 23:46, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've somewhat reversed this POV-edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=List_of_Muslims&diff=3959764&oldid=3952719

I want to see what is the best title for the "terrorists" column, and one that is NPOV. WhisperToMe 07:44, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The following statement is biased (consistent with the current phsyche of most left-wingers): Muslims are not terrorists. I propose the following ammendment: Most terrorists are muslims.

No, that's a lie. Most terrorists are not Muslims. Tamil Tigers has at least 10,000 members, that's more than Al Queda. Besides, if Yaser Arafat was a "terrorist" why isn't Sharon and Bush? It's disputed whether all the names mentioned in the list are "terrorists." Israel is a terrorist state according to Iran, that doesn't mean wikipedia should label Israel as a "terrorist state," just because many consider it to be a terrorist state. The claim is disputed OneGuy 19:39, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I concur. You've basically summed it up perfectly with your statement (@ 19:39 UTC the 14. Dec '04). My personal opinion is that the terrorist list should be removed, unless a similar list is created and maintained for all notable terrorists of other religions.

Also, I am outright frightened, and ashamed on behalf of him, due to the racism presented when user 195.144.131.10 changes the title of the list to Dirty arab terrorists (ps all arabs are terrorists). --TVPR 09:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Its embarrasing that there is even a debate about whether there should be a list of terrorists linked from this page. People ( or the media? ) have such short memories. In the original "war on terror" inaugurated by the late Ronnie Raygun it was the south/central americans that were the terrorists, oh and I seem to recall a rather dangerous terrorist group from northern Ireland, what were they called again? Maybe its easier to forget since they share the same skin colour as most of the people doling out the label of "terrorist" on any American state enemy. Americans! you are safe! Stop worrying! --Edzillion 16:29, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ive just had a look around. On the list of List of Roman Catholics there is a dictators section, but no terrorist section. Perhaps Bobby Sands should be in here listed as a catholic terrorist? He is a roman catholic, a famous one, and considered by everyone excepting Irish republicans to be a terrorist. I am not trying to say that there are no muslim terrorists, but that including a list ( and a long one at that ) of terrorists ( or even calling them freedom fighters ) in a page that is basically about the history of famous muslims is unfairly weighted and definitely not NPOV. The muslim faith is nearly 1500 years old, and here we have a list of dubiously important people whose reason for distinction is based around political issues relating to the last 20 years. Considering that most practicing muslims regard terrorism to be against the teachings of Islam, I think this is racist ( maybe unintentionally i will allow ) and should be removed ASAP. I notice that there is a page Islamic fundamentalism maybe it could be linked from there? --Edzillion 16:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it was stupid of me but I created a List of Christian militants page (which I did a horrible basis for) to see what would happen (as it parallels this) and then also because I think at some point it could be an interesting page. It is now up for a VfD. I think it might be interesting to see what happens with that. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_Christian_militants gren 01:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

List of Christian militants was deleted after a VfD so it only stands to reason this the Muslim Militants section should not be allowed on this list either. This is an obvious precedent set and to make Wikipedia have overall NPOV we cannot allow for militants list of one religion and not another. gren 03:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with some of the things said here. Why shouldn't for instance Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri be on the list of muslims? They're muslims and they're notable, so why not include them? Because that might send the wrong image (that islam and terrorism are related)? Wouldn't that be the fault of people like bin Laden and al-Zawahiri? Aecis 21:53, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Precedent on this issue was set with the deletion of List of Christian militants... when that was deleted it showed that we could not have the same list for Islam if it was not allowed for Christianity... terrorist is incredibly subjective... militant is not as bad... but, we cannot have such disparity throughout the religions... but, in that case whom do you choose as militants? Muhammad was militant insofar as he was head of state in the time of war, would we add him? And if so, then we'd have to put both Bush's as militants? Or is militant someone who is directly involved in combat? So, would Bin Laden even fit on that list? Not sure how this is going to work out but it must work out for all of the religions... but, Bin Laden is a Muslim... so, he does deserve to be here in some form. gren 00:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requestfull feedback

Can i request that you have a list of people in "show-biz" or any other type of "lime-light"? Can i also suggest to include weather the person converted or was born into the religion... and a date of conversion?

The show business idea is good. As for conversion it's rather irrelevant for this page and should just be put on the user's page. If you want List of converts to Islam or something similar then by all means. gren

Sorting

I think we need to make conventions for this. I'm inclined to go with "Family name, Given name" since List of People does that. As of now there is a mix even between whether to sort by first or last name (at least in entertainers). Which brings up the point... where are sources for Dave Chappelle, Richard Thompson, John Coltrane, and probably more being Muslim. It could very well be right but I never knew (which means nothing), and it is not listed in their articles. [1][2] Talk of Richard Thompsopn and Islam in case anyone has a great urge to write some about it on his meager page. gren

I think that a sort by date would potentially be more useful. Also, if names had blurbs about who the people were, this list would be more useful. But frankly, having a list that is this broad is somewhat silly. I won't protest because there seem to be many such lists. But a list's usefulness goes down as the number of names in it goes up, especially with no descriptions. That is, why don't we have List of Americans, or List of Chinese Speakers, or List of (insert similarly broad category here)? Couldn't this all be better accomplished with categorizing of people's names into category:muslims and subcategories? --jacobolus (t) 11:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Wasn't the dispute mainly over including a list of terrorists which is no longer in the article. Shouldn't the NPOV tag be removed?--AI 09:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The removal of terrorists list makes it highly POV, especially because only terrorists are true muslims. Also, many people in this list are not muslims at all. They are non-muslim Persians, Syrians etc, who happen to have a name in Arabic.

This list is about self-identification as Muslim mostly... we cannot define Muslim as terrorist and then only include terrorists. As for Persians or Syrians on the list, if they identified themselves as Muslims then they should be on this list. Terrorist is too hard to define which makes it difficult to say who is a terrorist and who isn't... the militants section was deleted as POV since it was deleted from the Christian section gren 20:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed

I am removing this tag because it was done by an anon-editor with around 10 edits and no explanation. Also, one of his edits is adding "Pedophile" to the Muhammad article. I think it's safe to say that his edits can be reverted. If anyone else has comments about the tag or wants to keep it feel free to talk about that here. gren 20:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Controversial figures

I understand JuanMuslim's purpose in adding this category but it's inherently POV (and in some cases redundant). Wasil ibn Ata fits into both Controversial figures and Other Theologians and Philosophers. To Shi'a many Sunnis can be controversial... and this of course goes both ways. I understand why this was put... however, it's not a suitable category title. I didn't have a huge problem with militants (though I think it was somewhat POV) but since it was deleted in a VfD when the same was done for list of Christians I don't believe we can do it here either. I think the best solution (until we got a better proposition) is to leave them in the others section. gren 21:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Reading over the various comments makes me realize just how crazy we can be at times. We all come here from various backgrounds, etc. What amazes me is the lack of mainstream Muslims within the list. The Muslims most likely to make the list are those who make it to the evening news. Nevermind, the many other Muslims who are admired by the mainstream Muslims around the world. And, yes, Muslims would include Prophets Abraham and Jesus (peace be upon them) as major religious figures in Islam. --JuanMuslim 03:34, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, one problem is the demographics of the people editting this page. Most are from English speaking countries (which makes sense) and most English speaking countries do not have Muslims on their lists of prominent national personages. The Prophets are a debatable matter which... I'm sure someone would complain about... but I'd see no problem adding them if there was a disclaimer that added "claimed by Muslims and the Qur'an" or something like that to make sure people don't think that wikipedia is calling them Muslim. So, most people know Bin Laden because he altered the landscape of New York... people don't know of Ibn Hazm because he... well, he wrote a few books in Al-Andalus... and, who cares about that now. It's a sad thing but time does erase importance... we have a longer article about the 2005 trial of Michael Jackson than we do about the Battle of Badr... more about Ali Sina than Ibn Hazm... the list goes on... we can't help but being somewhat chronocentric and even locale-centric for the sheer reason of access of information. gren 03:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetical order

The list is a mess. An alphabetical order of the listed people should be respected. Normally, the surname should be the basis of this order and not the first name. For instance, Al-Baitar should come before Ahmed Deedat. There are some exceptions as for Abu and Ibn where Abu comes first as in dictionaries. Cheers -- Svest 11:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Converts/aka

A large number of converts are listed in the list. There's a lack of consistency in terms of that sometimes the name at birth is used while the name after conversion is used in other cases. I believe that both names must be listed because of the fact that most people do not recognize the same person by the 2 names. Some people would not immediately know that Yusuf Islam is just the same as Cat Stevens.

I suggest the creation of a table in which we can have 2 columns for both names. Cheers -- Svest 19:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

That's actually a very good idea. And, some people are known by other names (aka) such as Adnan Oktar. He's best known as just Harun Yahya. Both names have landed on the list at one time or another. So, the second column doesn't necessarily need to be the names of converts. --JuanMuslim 03:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Shabbatei Tzevi

Zora, what makes including it inflammatory? Wasn't he a convert to Islam? If yes, than he should be included in a list that includes every declared Muslim! The guy adopted Islam once and we should note that regardless of his thoughts. Cheers -- Svest 20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

Every declared Muslim? All Muslims past and present? You've got to be kidding. As for including Shabbatai Tzvai, he's known as a Jewish figure. He converted to Islam under pressure (or was it torture?) and contributed nothing of note to Islam save the embarrassment he caused those Jews who had believed in him. He's certainly not a theologian or philosopher, which is where you put him, if I remember correctly. It's an offensive edit and even though I'm not Jewish, I protest.

I agree with your arguments now. Believe that I didn't imply to cause any offence. I just a normal edit w/o any implication from my part. Cheers -- Svest 21:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time to edit the list, but it's a mess. A total mess. Having Edip Yuksel listed as the only reformer! People listed as theologians who definitely were NOT! Dang it but I wish there were 48 hours in a day, and I didn't need to sleep. Zora 20:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a mess. That's right. I'll try to fix it a bit and then recheck it w/ me. What about the names before and after the conversion that I discussed above? Cheers -- Svest 21:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Time - past and present

The list needs to take time/time period into more consideration. There should be some way of organizing the list of muslims into subcategories, such as historical and contemporary, but not necessarily using those two terms. For example, the Muslims could be listed within time periods, such as within centuries. Currently, within the Other Theologians and Philosophers section, we have Ahmed Deedat, Al-Ghazali, Al-Farabi, Hamza Yusuf, Ibn Khaldun, Sherman Jackson, and Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi. And, within historical figures -> politicians, the politicians listed include people who have been dead for hundreds of years and people who won't die for several years. Anyway, the muslims within that particular subcategory aren't all people you'd consider historical.--JuanMuslim 09:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Muslim templates

I noticed that there's a template that lists the wives of Muhammad (saws). Check out Template:WivesMuhammad. I think it would be a good idea to have two distinct templates for Sunni Muslims and another for Shia Muslims. Maybe for at least important historical figures. --JuanMuslim 03:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

List of Muslim...

Yesterday, I created the List of Muslim athletes. The sports figures section was getting too big. I think we should divide the List of Muslims into various sublists - lists within the main list. I like how there are "sublists" found within the List of Jews and List of Christians articles. --JuanMuslim 04:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The "sublists" found within the List of Muslims could be the following although I think perhaps most should be reworded...

• People associated with Islam (List of Muslim...)
• Historical Figures (List of Muslim historical figures)
• The Various Arts (List of Muslim artists?)
• Scientists, Mathematicians, and Philosophers (List of Muslim s, m, and p)
• Business Figures (List of Muslim business people)
• Sports Figures (List of Muslim athletes)
• Other

--JuanMuslim 05:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename the list?

This article oughy to be called List of notable Muslims and not List of Muslims. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree. Can you move it Jossi? Cheers -- Svest 17:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

I think the list should be consistent with the naming of the other two lists - list of christians and list of jews. --JuanMuslim 20:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes Juan, you got a point as well. I think what is important is to include only notable people. I believe we are doing so. I don't see non-notable people on the list. I am changing my mind as the article would be broken out anyway. So there is no problem keeping the original title. Saludos cordiales -- Svest 20:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Yes, and non-notable Muslims can be weeded out from the list. It will also make naming easier, for example. List of Muslim athletes as opposed to List of notable Muslim athletes, which under the other line of reasoning would be the appropriate title. --JuanMuslim 20:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Actually this list is made for notable people. Svest 22:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Sections titles and redundancies

The titles need revision. Some have to be renamed for making it easier to read (i.e. Early....after the Prophet has to be just Early... as that mean the same). Other theologians should be renamed Modern theo in contrast with traditional.

There are so many redundancies. A person should appear in one section. If he/she was involved in more than a field than he/she has to be listed in where he/she was mainly notable (i.e. Avicenna is found in theologians instead of medicine section that doesn't exist yet) (Al ghazali is listed in both traditional theo and other theo). Svest 22:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The changes you made have enhanced the list. Maybe I'm thinking a little too ahead, but many Sunni Muslims today are called traditionalist and others modernist. So maybe, different terms should be used when referring to the types of theologians. Maybe early (you're already used that term though) and contemporary would be better choices. --JuanMuslim 04:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Being bold

Im going to be bold an reorganize a bit. Feel free to comment. --Striver 03:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the proffesions to Muslim professions and made this a list of all Muslims. I aim to organize them by birthday, per century. --Striver 03:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)