Talk:Pan-Islamism

Disjointed article giving wrong information about Pan-Islamism. I wonder who wrote it .Some one in Wikipedia ought to wake up and clear this crap please.

Writer does not seem to have the faintest idea about Pan Islamism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.218.219 (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

That is not Pan-Islamism! I have no idea where you got that idea.

Innacurate map.

Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are 15% shia and 85% sunni. However, Afghanistan and Pakistan are accurately portrayed with a brownish green tint, and Saudi is a dark bold green. Can somone edit the map and make Saudi the same color as Afghanistan and Pakistan? and also, make Iran ever so slightly more greenish(it is 15% sunni).

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.69.39 (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Fact or Fiction? The West Claim of inevitability of Revived 21st Century Caliphate, claims

A must see Caliphate claim, true or false? http://thetruereligion.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/global-caliphate-revived-a-message-from-the-21st-century-caliphate/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.54.67.128 (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Extremely misguided and Wrong article

Muhammad (PBUH) made all Muslims brothers of each other and hence this movement has not started in 20th century. Every Muslim believe that we are all for one and one for all. We all (Muslim) believe that creation of different Islamic states is wrong (islamically) and there should be one Caliph. I will change this article. --- Faisal 19:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A Pan-Islamist does not necessarily calls for the unity of all Muslims under one Caliph. Another thing, you can not date back the starting history of Pan-Islamism to the start of Islam itself; Islam is a religion and Pan-Islamism a political movement that started with Sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Afghani in the mid-nineteenth century. The author is confused between the ideology of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which calls for restoring the Islamic Caliphate, and the ideology of Pan-Islamism, which calls for the unity of all Muslims that helps them to confront internal threats. Unity in Pan-Islamism does not mean a unity under one single ruler, but actually it means a coalition contains of the Muslim leaders around the globe.Osama been bombing killed millions of dillions of american jew bags on september 19 elventh

Complete Revisal

I redid this article because it was utterly false in its description of Pan-Islam. What little I have now came mostly from my class on Non-Western studies at George Mason University, but it is not very thorough, so anyone with more specific knowledge on the matter is more than willing to add to it. I just couldn't let the article stay the way it was knowing how far from accurate it was. May 19, 2006 from [69.174.48.186]

Irrelevant

• 1.Iranian revolution was not pan-islamist. If it was need citation.

• 2. The reference to Youtube on Amin Hussain makes no claim about a caliphate, or pan-Islamism

• 3 This article needs to distinguish between Islamism, pan-Islamism, and the behaviour of any random Muslim.

Aaliyah Stevens 12:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Aaliyah, you need to stop using sockpuppets. When you make absurd edits anonymously, it is considered sockpuppetry. The Iranian Revolution content can be removed. The youtube reference is proof of what is stated. The reference does not need to specifically refer to Pan-Islamism, it just has to be a source for the content presented. Amin Hussain is not a random Muslim. He was a major Muslim leader for years. KazakhPol 20:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have not used sockpuppets, stop accusing. I have told you again and again, if you make claims about me, take me to the cleaners.

• The paragraph claims Amin Hussaini

1. wanted to establish a pan-Islamic calipahte

2. Wanted to install himself as Caliph

3. Believed in pan-Islamism, rather than arab nationalism

Neither of these is proven or even mentioned in the reference. The least you could do, if not remove it, is to leave a disputed tag, and citation needed tag Aaliyah Stevens 20:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

KazakhPol I see you have revised the whole article again, and provided a new ref link which again does not say anything about Amin Hussaini and a Caliphate. Read your references before you insert them! Also it is another obscure and biased Isreali think tank article Aaliyah Stevens 11:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally Disputed

Thanks to the latest edits by Aaliyah Stevens and SlimVirgin we now have an empty references section. Notice the random capitalization of "Pan-Islamism" in the second sentence, the pov claim that Jamal al-Din al-Afghan's social policies were "highly progressive," the pov claim that pre-1970 Islamism was "doomed to failure," the incredibly pov referral to the Iranian Revolutionaries as "Mujahideen," and it pretty much goes down from there. There's also the use of "5" instead of 'five' and "&" instead of 'and'. KazakhPol 01:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Capitalisation of pan-Islamism in the second sentence,
2. pre-70's Islamism being doomed to failure, and
3. use of 5 instead of five,
4. "&" instead of "and" - Do not warrant the totally disputed tag, they are simple things that can be corrected.
5. The saying that pre-70's Islamism was doomed to failure technically is correct, it's not an issue of POV. It's a fact, just that you don't seem to understand the English. I will reword it to explain what it means in simpler english.
6. RE the poor comprehension of the language in this article, nowhere are Iranian revolutionaries referred to as mujahideen, read it again. It's talking about the afghan mujahideen.

Please don't hide behind these simple points to disguise your attempts to undermine the whole article, just because you can't (without false references) demonise Islamism by linking it to Nazis. I have corrected the above points. Aaliyah Stevens 17:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats a pretty incivil statement. In the future I would ask that you not use the '&' sign and spell out numbers. I do not see the issues I raised above adequately addressed, and I do not see sources for any of this, so I am re-adding the TotallyDisputed template with the unsourced template. KazakhPol 18:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please List the things which you think are not facts, then seperately list the things which you think are POVs, and then we can talk about adding the totallydisputed tag, because that requires that facts are disputed, not just POVs. Also list what sentences you think should be sourced, and in the mean time add a for a citation needed. Aaliyah Stevens 20:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the accuracy and pov of your entire definition of Pan-Islamism. According to dictionary.com, Pan-Islamism is "the idea or advocacy of a political union of all Muslim nations." I see nothing saying caliphate there. I would like to see everything that is not a well-known historical fact sourced. KazakhPol 20:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Islamism is the cause of creating Islamic government, and pan-Islamism is the same but with the additional cause of uniting all Muslim nations under Islamic government, is the very definition of a calipahte. If unity of Muslim nations alone was enough to make a pan Islamist, that would mean that somebody who wants to create a socialist union of Muslims would be considered a pan-Islamist, which is clearly absurd. Aaliyah Stevens 12:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Now could you please list the facts you believe are ahistorical? Aaliyah Stevens 12:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You rectified about 10% of the article's problems. The article needs to be sourced. The claim that Hizb ut-Tahrir is a strong force is debatable. I would not dispute that it is a significant force in Uzbekistan but it has no presence in Turkmenistan, and an insignificant presence in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan. KazakhPol 19:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Pan-Islamism & Caliphate

Please list what facts you dispute. If the only thing is the linking of pan-Islamism & the caliphate; my reference uses them in parallel all the time, and in fact says that pan-Islamism was started by the "young ottomans" group to defend and expand the ottoman caliphate. My reference does not contradict what I say, it affirms it. Unless you have read something I have not, please provide quotes that say that Pan-Islamism is NOT linked to the Caliphate.Aaliyah Stevens 11:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your reference repeatedly separates Pan-Islamism and the Caliphate as "Pan-Islamism and Caliphate." This does not support your position, this indicates that they are separate concepts. Dictionary.com makes no mention of the caliphate in its definition of Pan-Islamism. KazakhPol 18:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

They are always used together, interchangeable, one is the concept, one is the manifestation of the concept, for the founders of Pan-Islamism; the young ottomans, afghani etc. The article does not start by claiming that "Pan-Islamism means the same as the caliphate" it says "Pan-Islamism is a political movement advocating the unity of Muslims under one Islamic state or a Caliphate". The founders of Pan-Islamism and it's advocates wanted Muslim unity under a caliphate. That's what the reference says; they wanted to unify Muslims, be it the young ottomans, or the indian khilafat movement, or the Muslim Brotherhood under the caliphate. I am really at my wits end trying to explain this to you. Aaliyah Stevens 22:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you actually provided a reference showing this then there would be no problem. KazakhPol 22:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

errrrr....what I just said about the young ottomans etc is from the reference!

"Initially, it was a group of Ottoman intellectuals known as Young Ottomans who, from their exile in Europe in the middle of 19th century, began formulating ideas and programs of Pan-Islamic nature for the survival of the Ottoman (Caliphate) Empire.......Of all the Ottoman Sultans it was Sultan Abdulhamid (1876-1908) who came to be regarded as the main ideologue and promoter of Ottoman Pan-Islamism and the Caliphate." from ref 1 in article

Aaliyah Stevens 12:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty Bad article

"But in 1979 the ... Muslim mujahideen successfully forced the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan."

My friends, the Soviets did not leave Afghanistan until 1989.

Have a nice day :-) --Leroy65X 19:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Islamist" isn't a word... You might as well have titled it "Muslimism"

I can't really expect much from this website but I thought you'd ought to know. Your probably looking for Islamic "Islam" or "Muslim". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.145.173 (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Christianist, Judist ... words of wisdom, try it on other religions to see if it sounds right. wiki = fail.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.81.124 (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Complaint

A Pan-Islamist does not necessarily calls for the unity of all Muslims under one Caliph. Another thing, you can not date back the starting history of Pan-Islamism to the start of Islam itself; Islam is a religion and Pan-Islamism a political movement that started with Sayyid Jamal al-Din al-Afghani in the mid-nineteenth century. The author is confused between the ideology of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which calls for restoring the Islamic Caliphate, and the ideology of Pan-Islamism, which calls for the unity of all Muslims that helps them to confront internal threats. Unity in Pan-Islamism does not mean a unity under one single ruler, but actually it means a coalition contains of the Muslim leaders around the globe. (orignally posted by abdumuqa above. moved here by boogalouie)

Please post comments at the bottom of the page. That's where editors look for new posts.

To reply to your comment: Doesn't the article agree with you (i.e. some of your complaint)?

It says " ... a political movement advocating the unity of Muslims under one Islamic state often a Caliphate." and "The model of pan-Islamism aims to follow what can be described as the early years of Islam ..." (italics added)

If as you say "the ideology of Hizb ut-Tahrir, ... calls for restoring the Islamic Caliphate, and the ideology of Pan-Islamism, ... calls for the unity of all Muslims that helps them to confront internal threats,"

Then isn't HT calling for a kind of Pan-Islamism? One that other Pan-Islamists may or may not want, but still Pan-Islamism? Surely HT would not disagree that the "unity of all Muslims ... helps them to confront internal threats ..."

"Unity in Pan-Islamism does not mean a unity under one single ruler." Says who? Might some PanIslamists want a coalition and some want a single ruler and some want something else?

--BoogaLouie (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I made some slight changes in the wording quoted above in hopes of making it clearer. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What a mess

Good heavens, this article is a mess. And the people writing it are merely adding their own definitions, impressions and opinions. Some of them do not even pretend to be objective. This article could benefit greatly from an expert on Islamic politics. 24.27.25.87 (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Eric

Oh great...

Looks to me like the only people bothered about editing this page are dribbling Muslim fanatics. Can somebody with half a brain please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.147.159 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Be bold and do it yourself.VR _talk 14:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

DEH E,DHJTC,'B — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.26.65 (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

File:The possible Khilafat.png

This file seems to contain nothing but original research. I'm removing it from the article.VR _talk 14:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pan-Islamism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923180140/http://www.aucegypt.edu/GAPP/mesc/Documents/Barqiyya%20feb.04.pdf to http://www.aucegypt.edu/GAPP/mesc/Documents/Barqiyya%20feb.04.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140802045255/http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/publications/free/the-balance-of-islam-in-challenging-extremism.pdf to http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/publications/free/the-balance-of-islam-in-challenging-extremism.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Pan-Islamism and nationalism

I've removed "As a form of internationalism and anti-nationalism" from the lead, as it does not seem to be supported by reliable sources. RS instead state that [1][2] it's not necessarily opposed to nationalism. You could say that it's a form of nationalism where all Muslims are part of the nation (t · c) buidhe 17:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

The article promotes Pan-Islamism as “unifying” in sharp contrast with articles other forms of pan-nationalism, including White Nationalism and draws an unclear distinction between pan-Nationalism and Pan-Islamism. 129.137.96.13 (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

What part of the article is violating NPOV and what should be done to address it? M.Bitton (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)