Jump to content

Talk:Islam in the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments from 2005

[edit]

It would be beneficial for a Scholar of Islam to review this page, particularly from the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marma1 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 22 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is repetition and some conflict between sections 1 and 2 of this article, which need to be tidied up. Also, there is no Telford in Surrey - what is meant by that reference? Mark O'Sullivan 10:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the page is about Islam, any notable personalities should be Muslim and not take into account their origins, e.g Shami Shami Chakrabarti. Ibruman 13:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

history

[edit]

I've started a section on history, which I admit is very thin. Perhaps people will expand it... Gwaka Lumpa 08:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have merged into the introduction. I would suggest it is re separated.

I think in some way we ought to note;

  • the vibrancy of the community
  • the effect on university and intellectual life (books etc)
  • the political effect where, for example in Woking where I live, the community can swing elections

PLEASE also remember to use the preview pane, there are alot of tiny edits clogging up our watchlists

Thanks Cosnahang (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I think we should be careful that information is put in the appropriate article. There is an article about Islam in England and what you are describing would appear more appropriate in that article rather than here. This article should be about 'United Kingdom' aspects such as UK-wide organisations. 86.150.206.234 (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More needed on the Pakistani Muslim community

[edit]

Hi - I'm a Bangladeshi Muslim myself but I think it's rather odd that there's such a large chunk on British Bangladeshi Muslims and such a small amount on British Pakistani Muslims. I'm not trying to start some simplistic numbers game here, but I just think the Pakistanis deserve a bit of a longer writeup. That's all - cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.98.253 (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and in particular, there needs to be more on the Deobandi community, given that they control 44% of the mosques in Britain. (I'm afraid that I can't be of any help here — I know nothing about them beyond what was in a recent Radio 4 documentary.) -Wally Tharg (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC

Personalities

[edit]

Hi, a number of sections on this page need to be tidied up. The Personalities section was getting very heavy with names and all a bit too much. I have now broken it off into smaller sections although if it gets too large, it may need its own page.

Please could anyone stick to the following pattern although suggestions welcome:

  • All personalities should be British Muslims, not just anyone with a Muslim name etc or foreign Muslims. So that's British born or British citizens.
  • Try to include people with wiki profiles or those of which you intend to create a profile
  • Please keep all descriptions non-biased. Please do not describe anyone as 'prolific' or 'extremist', just plain and simple who they are and what position they hold or what they do.
  • I have removed some profiles, such as councillors and mayors from regions within England, Wales etc. because this would result in too many names of unrecognised people.
  • All profiles are there to give an insight into the varying people who represent different branches or views of Islam and an indication of the lifestyle of British Muslims. All individuals featured should have had some kind of impact or have created some kind of debate amongst different British communties with their faith being an identifiable and important aspect of that individual and/or their work.

I think it looks a little neater and is easier to digest and understand now, users should be able to find what they're looking for. What do you think? UK 007

I have removed the long description after Yvonne Ridley's name and kept it consistent with the others, have also put her in alphabetically as the rest - thanks for adding her. UK 007, 29 March 2006


Again, someone moved around the personalities to suggest bias rather than provide easier navigation. All of those individuals under 'activists' are as such. Yes, some are moderate and others are extremists, depending on who you ask but they are all active in their own cause. There's no reason to break the more extremist off into a section entitled 'notorious' so as to give them some kind of ego trip. I hope that's okay but these random acts of occasional editing seem to come from unregistered visitors. I have moved them back to where they were. If you feel they must be changed, please give your reasons. Thanks. UK 007, 9 April 2006


The following individuals under Personalities//Sports are in need of verification of their nationality as all were born abroad and in the UK for work. They are all footballers it would seem: Robin van Persie, Abou Diaby, and Mohamed Sissoko. Most are European Muslims so that needs to be checked. The claim that Persie is Muslim needs citation or it may have to be removed. Thanks. UK 007, 19 December 2006

Yusuf Islam

[edit]

I've put the word "musician" back in. He's a musician amongst other things Gwaka Lumpa 21:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I assumed most people would realise that the word 'Artist' usually encompasses arts generally and Yusuf Islam is more than just a musician creatively. However you may keep 'musician' in if you think it helps. UK 007, 29 March 2006

Coal Mining Areas

[edit]

The old coal-mining areas of Britain have hardly any Muslims. This needs clarifying. It is probably true of coal mining areas in the north east of England, but clearly not true for the Lancashire or Yorkshire coalfields. DWaterson 14:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am a Muslim in such an area (Newcastle, Northeast england)and do not agree with this: there are important Muslim communities in Newcastle, Sunderland, South Shields etc. Also old coal mining areas like Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire etc all have significant Muslim communities. I have deleted this sentence, it has no factual basis? (20:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

No, there are not many in the Yorkshire coalfield. Only Wakefield has a significant Muslim population. Barnsley is around 99% White. The only place in S.Yorks. with a significant Muslim population is Sheffield, and that was not a mining area. Don't know as much about Lancashire, but I thought that Knowsley, St Helens, Wigan, etc. were mostly White. Epa101 16:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle is not an old coal-mining area. Sunderland did have some miners, but only a very small proportion in comparison to its other industries. Notts does not have a significant Muslim population, bearing in mind that Nottingham itself was a bit too south for the coalfield. Anyone else in favour of restoring the reference? Perhaps with a disclaimer for Wakefield? Epa101 17:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Cardiff has a significant Muslim community, and was "built" on coal. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The city of Cardiff is not a coal mining area, how many mines are there in Cardiff? None. Like Newcastle it may have traded a lot of coal, but it has no coal mines itself, they are all in the surounding towns which have pretty much no Muslims.
The section is a little pointless and not really relavent, although it is clear that it is correct and is for a good reason, that is most Muslims are immigrants, and obviously it's not a particularly good idea to immigrate into an area where industry is declining and there is lots on unemployment. I say leave it out unless someone come up with an academic study of Muslim distribution or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OktoberSunset (talk • contribs) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just need to make the quick point that Sheffield is not the only place in South Yorkshire to have a significant Muslim population. According to the 2001 census, the town of Rotherham has a community of about 5,000 Muslims - the majority of which are of Pakistani origin. This number has probably increased since 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.138.98.253 (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this article suggests, plenty of mill and mine towns have large populations of British Muslims. It is interesting to see trends of some affluent members of the community deciding to move to less homogenous areas whereas others choose to live in paces like Dewsbury when the population tends to me more homogeneously Muslim. https://www.ft.com/content/79c6d422-c289-11e4-a59c-00144feab7de — Preceding unsigned comment added by MClawn125 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proportion of Muslims by borough

[edit]

It would be useful to have the top ten boroughs with Muslim population by absolute number, as well as in percentage terms, if anyone has access to that info. MRD 06/07/06

What percentage of Muslims in Britain actually practice their faith actively?. For example: I'm just looking at the figures, and if all of Bradford's 75,000 Muslims went to the main mosque on Friday, it would need to be the size of a large football stadium. I've no point to make here, and no axe to grind. I'm just curious. 160.84.253.241 09:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question, though should it have been posted at the bottom of the page? My impression is that many Muslims are fairly observant, and it can not purely be measured by Mosque attendance - work and domestic commitments would reduce this, for example Gwaka Lumpa 14:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I didn't put it at the bottom because I didn't think it was important enough, it was just a casual question. Just for fun...If all of Greater London's Christians went to church next Sunday, there would be 5,200,000 people trying to crowd into each church :-)

What is the source for the top ten figures? - I'd like to check out local authorities 'lower down' the rankings

VERY Good question (the one about what percentage of Muslims in Britain are practicing). I'm a lapsed Muslim (not for any hardcore ideological reason - just that I think observing Islam is too much like hard work and I really can't be arsed). Anyway, I'm fed up with people thinking I go to the mosque and pray e.t.c. just because of the way I look and because of my name. There's loads of others like me in Britain who can't be bothered with Islam anymore and just want a quiet life. I haven't been inside a mosque for five years!

(Removed my own comment) Fair enough...a welcoming bunch, aren't you? :-)160.84.253.241 (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bs?

[edit]

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1183 132.241.72.20 17:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sort it out

[edit]

why do people assume that Muzzy Izzet and Emre etc are Muslim just because they are Turkish!? I have removed them and dont add people here unless you are actually sure they are muslim

Emre is indeed a devout Muslim, he has attended the mosque just off the West road in Fenham, Newcastle. He is credited as being the first muslim in the club's history to score the winning goal in the NUFC-SAFC derby

ref: http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2590

Add to that Sajid Javid, he may be of Pakistani origin, but in an interview on villageonline.co.uk and referenced in his wikipedia article he has said 'I do not practice any religion... the only religion practiced in my house is Christianity'

HT

[edit]

HT is a registered political party. It is exiled in Europe as it is banned by all tyrant governments. The House of Saud, in particular, is hell-bent on extraditing them using naive allies like Blair and Bush.


Savile Town

[edit]

The reference to the savile town 97% muslim population comes from the cristians people's alliance [1] and reads: "the area has become 97% Muslim according to local observers". That is in no way sourced correctly and needs to be removed. I will do this soon unless anyone has anyone objections. especially important as this is being quoted as true in recent discussions regarding the mosque being built in east london. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Feudonym (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The 97% figure might be wrong, but Savile Town is important to mention in this article
Some 5,000 Asians strong, the Savile Town community has become one of the most orthodox centres of Moslem learning outside the east. It has the largest purpose-built mosque in Europe. etc [2] Misheu 19:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.kirklees-pct.nhs.uk/fileadmin/documents/meetings/march_07/KPCT-07-42%20Report%20estate%20strategy.doc See point 4.3 here for information from a less spurious source. Believe me! The figure is not far wrong. Epa101 13:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was almost offensive

[edit]

The section on religious and ethnic demographics among the Muslim community Britain was borderline offensive, and i'm not even British. It was blatantly and disgustingly biased toward the South Asian community and the South Asian community only, with a number of unsubstantiated numerical claims and obvious bias for and against certain sects. In addition, while the status of the British Asian Muslims was delved into in great (too much) detail, the articl actually claimed little was known about Britain's Arab Muslim community. It even referred to a mosque with an Arab majority as an "Arab run mosque". I don't see how that can be construed as anything other than thinly veiled racism. On top of this, there was no mention of black (African or Caribbean) Muslims. Not that there was too little mention of them; there was no mention of them. At all. Like they don't exist or something. I have to admit that keeping my objectivity was difficult upon reading this as I don't understand how someone could think a section like that would be acceptable for an encyclopedia. I removed the more useless and baseless claims and inserted some material about African and Afro-Caribbean Muslims, but this article still needs a lot of work. MezzoMezzo 21:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be too quick to take offence. It looks to me like a good faith effort from editors writing from their own experience -- the problem is the lack of references for the assertions made rather than conscious prejudice. There isn't a lot of good data on head counts for different strands of Islam, but the 2001 census data on religion and ethnicity might explain why that section was slanted towards South Asian traditions: it shows that British Muslims of South Asian descent comprise at least 2/3 of all British Muslims. I agree that the article does have a South Asian slant and your changes are an improvement but the sentence that you added about a large diaspora of African and Afro-Caribbean Muslims isn't much better than the ones that you complain about; Whilst there is a substantial number of Black African Muslims, the census data shows that the number of Black Caribbean Muslims is very small and what little research there has been on converts to Islam in Britain doesn't support the idea that there are a large number of converts from any ethnic group.[3] --Duncan Keith 07:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't allege that it wasn't a good faith edit - I don't think any slight in there was intentional. Actually most of what you've said here is more or less how I feel, with the exception that I do still take offense to it a bit. As for the lack of references, it does pose a problem. The British census was eye opening as far as the smaller number of Afro-Caribbeans - would you consent to still including a mention of that community with the addition that it is one of the smaller ones? As for the PDF, i'm not exactly sure but isn't Yahya Birt a guy that has a blog? Would that really count as a source? MezzoMezzo 08:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I spoke too soon. I just saw your recent edit, very very good. I like the citation and the nice table you have made up there. This begs the question, with that put in there, is the following section about organizations and ethnic descent necessary for the article? It may be superfluous at this point. MezzoMezzo 09:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words. The prose in that section certainly can be slimmed down, but it needs someone more knowledgeable about the mapping between ethnicity and Islamic movements than me to do it. I also agree that it's important to mention the Afro-Caribbean Muslim community, not least because the prominence of Richard Reid and Germaine Lindsay means that some people will be looking for background information in this article. The Yahya Birt article does have a back-of-the-envelope flavour to it, but he is a serious researcher and I would think it an acceptable reference until something better turns up. --Duncan Keith 11:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. I like what you've done so far, so perhaps what we can do is leave it as is for now while looking for further information on it. MezzoMezzo 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Organization of British People who have left Islam

[edit]

The following should be included under the above heading or similar:

The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain was launched on Thursday the 21st of June, 2007 for the purpose of supporting individuals who have chosen to apostatize themselves from their former religion and provide society with information about the members which more accurately represents their views and numbers.[1] 74.103.60.55 05:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that seems interesting. Do they have a website? Also, is this necesarily warranting of its own section or more appropriate under a subsection? MezzoMezzo 06:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The German affiliate has gotten coverage in Der Spiegel as well: [4]. Arrow740 06:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have not heard of any website of theirs as of yet, but they did get coverage on the BBC, as you can see here: Ignore Islam, 'ex-Muslims' urge, by Dominic Casciani 74.103.60.55 13:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definately looks notable. Are you sure it warrants a section separate from the rest of the article though? We could also make a subsection underneath political organizations and pressure groups or religious currents and organizations. It is an organization, and i'm not sure if just this one group warrants a section apart from others. Just a thought. MezzoMezzo 14:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the article. The reason why it deserves its own section is that, its different from the other organizations. All the other Islamic organizations are from Muslims. This one is from ex-muslims. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 19:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The Guardian - The courage of their convictions: The launch of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain is a torch of hope in a dark quadrant of the world's affairs. Its manifesto should be read by all.

Anglocentrism

[edit]

This article is anglocentric. There should be separate articles on this topic for England, and Wales. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of controversy criticism

[edit]

There is absolutely no criticism/controversy on this page. This seems very odd as I've heard ALLOT of criticism of Islam from the UK especially after the London bombings. There is also nothing at all mentioned about the negative representation of Muslims on TV either. 220.239.35.98 (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree, there is a significant anti-Islamic attitude in Britain, due to 7/7, the rise of the BNP, the mega-mosque etc. This really needs to be reflected. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
several topics need to be addressed in relation to discrimination and criticism.
the strong media bias against Islam.
The legitimization British sharia courts
7/7 bombings.
Discrimination against Muslims
The substantial funding from Saudi Arabia for Islamic interests.
The rise of radical Islam in Brittan.

Uranium-junkie (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There ought to be something about the widespread kiddie fiddling lately, with links to the rest of Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterborough_sex_abuse_case 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_sex_trafficking_gang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derby_sex_gang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_sex_gang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_sex_gang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_sex_gang
...and the Sheffield gang and so on...?
Which section does this belong under?

81.151.37.216 (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While this issue has been raised in an insensitive way, this is an issue that we should consider. There have been widespread reports of organised sexual abuse in several English towns, and several criminal convictions. The reports suggest that a many, possibly most, of the perpetrators are men of Pakistani Muslim heritage and the majority of the victims non-Muslim teenaged girls. This has been a cause of inter-community tension and is a likely contributor to Islamophobia. I suggest a new subsection on this, probably grouped with the Alleged forced conversions section. Both issues relate to allegations against Muslims. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sections missing

[edit]

Some of the sections for example large numbers of information of History has been moved to other articles. It must be reminded that the history refers to the history of Islam in the whole of the United Kingdom, rather than just in one particular region. Islam in England articles are just excess, a sectional can be created over here of England, and much work has been done by a user on this article, and is quite a shame to be moved. Mohsin (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the revert you have just done. I have spent a lot of time trying to cut out material that shouldn't be in this article and to improve sentence structure. If you disagree with some of my edits, why not revert them individually rather then reverting a months worth of work? The version you have returned to is full of glaring problems: for example, figures quoted, such as the Pakistani, Indian etc proportion of Muslims refers to 'England and Wales' and not the UK. The situation of Islam in England is very different from elsewhere in the UK as the vast majority of Muslims live in England and they are a far higher proportion in that country. I am very tempted to revert, but I'll wait to see what others have to say first. 86.150.206.234 (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted - a lot of work has been done on this article (including my contribution) and it would be better if individual changes were reverted rather than a blanket revert to a version from a month ago. About 15 editors have made contributions that are lost in a mass revert. I have tried to improve the focus of this article and reword more succinctly. Please look at my individual changes and revert any you think harms the article. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised that you've reverted - I had been checking out an article and didn't notice until I'd added it. I suppose this means this is a further waste of my time as it may just be reverted again! I don't want to be part of any edit warring! I think I've learned a lesson here to only do a few edits over a long time rather than get too involved in a few articles, as I have done recently. (I think I'll take a break from editing for a while and I'll see what the articles look like when I return.) Bye 86.150.206.234 (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Source

[edit]

Gilliatt-Ray, Muslims in Britain, Cambridge University Press, 2010, may be useful to anyone working on this article. Peter jackson (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadis not considered Muslims

[edit]

Ironically in this article ahmadis are documented / shown as Muslims and the photo is also of their place of worship.
Ahmadis should not be considered as Muslims as they have been declared Non-Muslims in the Constitution of Pakistan and widely persecuted in many Islamic countries such as Pakistan , Saudi Arabia, Iran, ...,etc. Also their following is not more than 2,000,000 globally, i.e. people who identify themselves as Ahmadi, Qadiyani, although their ow organization inflates the figure to 200,000,000.
I recommend the administrators to lock this article and remove the picture of Qadiyani / Ahmadi place of worship and any reference of Ahmadi / Qadyani in this article about Muslims in Britain.Khalid bin waleed 04:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid bin waleed (talk • contribs)

This has already been discussed, see Talk:Ahmadiyya Muslim Community#Please Take this Page out of Islam Heading and Talk:Pakistan#Ahmadis. Thanks. Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If British Ahmadis self-identify as muslims, then they are. This is Britain, and the Pakistani constitution means the square root of uck fall to us. If you insist on bringing third-world sectarian squabbles to our country you're going to make yourself unpopular. British Ahmadis will decide if they're muslims or not - not Pakistan and definitely not you. FergusM1970 (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Peaceworld111 this issue was not resolve. If you want to resolve this issue answer this CHALLENGER even your Khalifa was Silent and avoids this sort of discussion. I would also request you to avoid putting misleading information on Wikipedia THIS IS A FACT FINDING PORTAL NOT A A PLATFORM TO PREACH FAITH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid bin waleed (talk • contribs) 04:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to discuss issues such as the one you have presented. This indeed is a fact finding portal and as far as i'm aware there is nothing wrong with my revert. Thanks. Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus is right... if a group self-identify as Muslims, then they are. It's not up to some "true believers" on Wikipedia to censor them out of existence.Jamesrlforsyth (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

can they be referred to as more factually a 'heterodox sect' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.46.213.77 (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mosque image

[edit]

Is there a reason why a well known mosque image was not used. There is no decision on that only the largest mosque can be used, this can easily be argued with using the "oldest mosque" instead (which is used in Islam in Spain page). I've seen a few "Islam in X" pages and many seem to be focused on placing Ahmediya mosque images for one reason or the other and not the most well known mosque. I suspect there is work going on with missionary zeal. Asifkhanj (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, of course not, there are no hard and fast rules which suggest that the largest mosque should be used (though something to be appreciated for). But when you say a well known mosque image should be used... it becomes quite a subjective issue... However, with reference to the current image being used, in my opinion it doesn't lie outside a well known mosque image range. I googled 'mosques in uk' for reference... 1 ...its popular enough? However, if you see the articles edit history, i reverted the other image because the current image is angled much better than the other and focuses on the mosque. The other image's angle is just not right, with half the mosque hidden behind the trees and half image is of grass. Moreover this image looks much more scenic.opinion.Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice some arugument in your talk page. There were issues with the angle, amount of the image that is the mosque, the side of the mosque, etc... So by this account I can change the mosque of the "Islam in Spain" and put Madrid central mosque image there? I think you are being subjective about the mosque image. When I do web google (image google ranking is different) - Birmingham Central mosque, London Central Mosque, and East London Mosque come up. I did see the history of edits and reverts without much talk in the talk page. So if I were to put up an image of one of the three mosque which (scenic is objective) has mostly mosque showing the dome and tower, will you revert it? Asifkhanj (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you want to replace the Basharat mosque in the Islam in Spain article? I think it fits well with the history subsection.
  • With respect to this article, I provided a reference of images because we were discussing images. Rankings vary depending on what your searching for, where you are searching from etc... and by subjectivity, i mean well known images are not defined by just web search rankings, image rakings it depends on numeroues factors, including factors that lie outside the internet, books, journals, news and what not... What I mean is that a single search such web search ranking does not necessarily define image popularity ranking, it can only tell us whether something is well known enough or not and that was the point of my reference.
  • Lastly the best mosque image out of the other three i think is Birmingham central mosque, though I certainly prefer the Baitul Futuh mosque, it certainly looks much nicer to me and hence more scenic. From a neutral point of view I don't see why anyone would want to replace the current image with either of the three.Peaceworld111 (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*'Mosques in uk' vs "uk mosques" in google images give different results and the order of image is not a good criteria.
*It would be nice to know you are not emotionally attached to a single mosque - Baitul Futuh. Is there absolutely no other mosque image to use - preferably Birmingham Central mosque as you mentioned that the probably the decent out of the three mentioned.
*The order of images diplayed in Google Images does not mean much. If you look at website popularity the three I mentioned are the top most visited website uk mosque websites.
*Given this, I'd like to go ahead and change the image to Birmingham Central mosque unless you have any more concerns. Asifkhanj (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you misunderstood me. When I presented you with a reference I did explain to you later that ranking of any form does not necessarily determine the "popularity of a mosque". Please re-read the second bullet point of my previous post. The point of the reference was just to show you that it met the your criteria that it was well known enough. Hence neither web searches nor image searches are good criteria for rankings, they are good enough to show whether they are popular enough. Hence I agree with what you said order of images diplayed in Google Images does not mean much and the same applies to web searches. Hope you understood this part.
  • Added to that, the reason as I see why Birmingham central mosque and East London mosque come in the first two pages of the web searches is possibly because their web addresses contain mosque which adds to their ranking. Is that a coincidence that these mosques are the most popular with the web search mosques in uk? What about London Central mosque, the web address of which is iccuk.org, are you saying it is not popular enough? (note:you are incorrect to say that london central mosque is in the top three).
  • No i'm not emotionally attached with the current mosque. It's more like the other way round - what have you got so much against the Baitul Futuh? Most common answer is obviously that it belongs to the Ahmadis as my previous experience shows. I agree on keeping the image per reasons said above, my talk page (which you've read) and other user talk pages. From a neutral point of view I don't see why is there so much urge with you wanting to replace the image. Is there something wrong with the image? Why is the image of B'ham central mosque better? or east london mosque? or london central mosque?
  • It has been suggested by other users of the possibility of using two images. What do you think? Personally I think there won't be a good balance between images and text.Peaceworld111 (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are trying to change my argument to seem like I might be attacking Ahmedi mosques which is a very underhand way of dealing with this.
  • I do not get why are you making it an issue of one is better than the other. Once again if you look at the stats of visitor count for the mentioned mosques - you will see that their websites are visited more - and I'm not talking about google order in the above post.
  • You may personally think its a good balance - balance to what?
  • You haven't shown why you have an emotional attachment to one mosque.
  • You should should the most well known mosques - check out bbc - how many articles have been published with each of the mosques? East London and London Central seem to lead.
  • Given the above I do not see why you are resisting changing, reverting past changes by other users, and not being open about using one of the well known rather than as you mentioned - a more personal criteria? Asifkhanj (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, as per my points above, we may be approaching a deadlock, do you agree? Asifkhanj (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its been a while since you've responded.
  • Also looking at the page history, I see you've reverted changes by many users and there was edit warring going on between you and multiple users. Asifkhanj (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • you are trying to change my argument to seem like I might be attacking Ahmedi mosques. No I wasn't. I was just indicating that there is a potential that you migh be since you yourself indicated that this was an Ahmadiyya mosque at the beginning.
  • You may personally think its a good balance - balance to what? please re-read the last bullet point of my last post - I don't want to be repeating my self, its clear cut what I'm saying.
  • You haven't shown why you have an emotional attachment to one mosque. again it seems you have just ignored my last post.
  • Suppose for arguments sake that one mosque happens to be a little bit more notable than the other. But the mosque that is of less notability (though highly notable itself) happens to have a better, more quality, better shot image. Now which one should we use? The one with lesser quality (i.e. London Central Mosque, half of which is hidden behind trees, with nearly half the image of grass) or the one with better imagery (i.e. Baitul Futuh). After all we're talking images here, not Mosques! Moreover, though you suggested the likely reasons for using Baitul Futuh was because it was the largest in the UK, cannot itself be completely ignored, it is something to be appreciated for. After all this is a Islam in UK article.
  • there was edit warring going on between you and multiple users. No, not exactly. There is evidence to suggest that many of the editors were motivated by anti-Ahmadiyya stance, e.g. the last editor removed an Ahmadiyya mosque in another article 1. In many of the cases it was pure vandalism. Peaceworld111 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is much we can agree to. The vandalism you mention - it seems that they were actually changing to landon central mosque and you were changing it back. I've got neutral third opinions from wiki users. I've updated the image to be the image of one of the olders which one of the neutral editors has recommended. If you still disagree - please escalate it as per wiki policies, rather than change the image. Asifkhanj (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Active Disagreements
  1. Mosque Image . Dispute is over the image being used in the in the main article. 21:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion on mosque image

[edit]

I am responding to a request for a third opinion. Qualifiers such as "largest" or "most attended" etc. are subject to interpretation and led to quarreling and edit warring. Per the first line in the article (Islam has been present in the United Kingdom since its formation in 1707), the best possible choice for the image would be the oldest mosque in the United Kingdom. – Athaenara ✉ 03:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the choices in List of the oldest mosques in the world#United Kingdom, for example, the Shah Jahan Mosque (built in 1889, oldest purpose built mosque in England) would be a good choice (File:Shah Jahan Mosque TQ0159 214.jpg). – Athaenara ✉ 03:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, "most attended" can be subject to interpretation, but I don't think that the "largest" can be. As of 2003, Baitul Futuh was reported to be the largest in Western Europe 1 by the Guradian. Hence there would be little doubt that it is not the largest mosque in the UK. Peaceworld111 (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peaceworld111 - As you didnt like east london mosque, birmingham central mosque, london central mosque (all referred a lot more on the BBC website), these editors for a "neutral third opinion" said to go for the oldest mosque which is fair enough, and we did. But do not engage in warring as I believe this is the most neutral opinion (I don't think putting putting up two images is a good option as wiki is for the public and not to satisfy our disputes, and two images don't serve a purpose as list of mosques can be found elsewhere). Asifkhanj (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peaceworld111 - It is a very underhand tactic you are doing - you go to Islam in X page and try to put a specific Ahmediyya mosque and try to keep it there. You earlier today requested page projection probably to ensure that Ahmediyya's mosques remains on the main page. Wikipedia is not a place to preach a certain faith. Do not accuse me of being anti-Ahmediyya. Same argument can be used by any sect. Respect wiki's NPOV. I'm going through you pages and see how you are attacking people that don't use an Ahmediyya mosque. Respect wikipedia is not here to present your specific views, but rather neutral views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asifkhanj (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


General Article improvements

[edit]

I reckon we should list the Islamic organisations as bullet point format to make them more readable. Anyone think otherwise?19:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"which differ dramatically from those held by the rest of the UK population.[7]"

[edit]

There is an issue with The Independent's article quoted in [7], where it says: "However, the poll also found that the vast majority of Muslims have extremely conservative views on moral issues such as homosexuality and the death penalty, which differ dramatically from those held by the rest of the UK population. "

Due to this the wiki page says: "vast majority of them have extremely conservative views on moral issues such as homosexuality (0% found it morally acceptable) and the death penalty (63% found it morally acceptable), which differ dramatically from those held by the rest of the UK population.[7]"

This implies that the 63% differs "dramatically" from the opinion of the rest of the UK population, however it's common knowledge that around 60% of the UK population back the death penalty in some cases:

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2504 "70 per cent think the UK should still have the death penalty as the maximum possible penalty for at least one of the twelve different types of crime surveyed."

So it's clearly false to say that they differ dramatically. I will edit it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusQuinn-Bjornstad (talk • contribs) 17:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Picking

[edit]

The data mentioned under Identity & Preferences is ridiculously biased. I checked all the references; key positive data points seem to have been carefully and systematically ignored, while all the negative points were highlighted admirably.

Also I hate making baseless assumptions, but the picture "Muslim women in Whitechapel" was clearly picked to portrait the community in a negative light, since the great majority of British Muslims do not dress or look anything like that. Honestly, why would anyone pick a picture like this if they're neutral about the subject?

I don't know about you, but I'm not sure I like seeing this kind of tabloid-style journalism used in a Wikipedia article, let alone an article dealing with a sensitive topic like religion and community cohesion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.64.170.188 (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I've updated the picture and corrected some skewed facts.92.16.241.81 (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section does seem to be getting out of hand sometimes and looks extremely biased on others. Especially since it's an "identity section" - any extreme or minute views from polls should be kept out. Numpty9991 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC) - block evading sock of Dalai Lama Ding Dong Beta Jones Mercury (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you are also a sock. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge England/Scotland/Wales/NI into this?

[edit]

I think this article is way too short when compared to the equivalents for USA, Canada, France etc. I don't think there should be separate ones for each constituent country of the UK, the UK is a sovereign state and so there should be one big UK article. Or there could be separate ones for each constituent country but still make this one much larger. Thanks. --Arain321 (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. While in principle I understand why separate articles were created for each constituent country, in practice it's resulted in very stubby articles for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. More seriously, the one for England simply duplicates a great deal already in this article for the United Kingdom, presenting at best a classic case of content forking, and therefore for editors a horrendous job of making sure that each article is equally up-to-date and follows the policy of editorial neutrality. This, I think, makes the case for merging the England article quite urgent, and given the stubbiness of Scotland, Wales and NI it seems sensible to merge these as well while we're at it. Alfietucker (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Just because the articles are short at the moment doesn't mean they could not be expanded. I do not believe this is a case of a content fork, but that the Islam in the United Kingdom needs to be better organsised and offer summaries of the constituent articles, rather than assuming the UK is basically England.--SabreBD (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, to develop your suggestion that "Islam in the United Kingdom needs to be better organized", it should have subsections within that article for England, Wales etc. The problem, at present, is that there is no sign of any of the separate articles ("in England", "in Wales" etc) growing beyond their stubby length to justify their separated state; and at the same time by rehashing a lot of material from the UK article there's a danger of making them substantially redundant or in danger of conflicting with each other (see WP:CONTENTFORKING). Merging will reduce the amount of duplication (very extensive between the Islam in the United Kingdom and Islam in England articles), minimize the amount of edit patrolling necessary (to check against vandalism and POV content), and provide a more convenient way of comparing the situation in each constituent part of the UK rather than have (certainly for now) unnecessarily separated articles which may also give too partial/parochial a picture on their own. Alfietucker (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't need to be a content fork, but a way of avoiding one, as per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Granted that assumes an improvement in the relevant sub-articles. I will take a look at Scotland, which is think is probably the area with the most to say about the topic outside of England, and see how much notable material I think is available if that would help.--SabreBD (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've made a start by removing all the history pre 1707 (i.e. before the formation of UK) from this article, and replacing this with a link to the English article. I checked carefully and word for word, apart from edits substituting "United Kingdom" for "England" or vice versa, the texts were identical.
For post 1707 history, perhaps we should consider condensing info in this article where possible and leaving more detail in what might be called the "satellite" articles (i.e. of England, Wales, NI and Scotland). Alfietucker (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a logical plan and covers a point I have to admit I completely missed: that it is a bit hard to talk about pre-1707 aspects in this article, given that its subject doesn't exist. I have taken a look at the sources for Scotland and I think I can come up with something notable, but it might take a while to complete as I need to order a couple of books. I am less sure there is enough for the Wales and N. Ireland articles, as I have not found the same level of material.--SabreBD (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The article title is consistent with various articles detailing the history of religions and churches in Scotland. Secondly, I had complained above about the anglocentrism of the UK article, and all that will happen, is that we'll basically get a Scottish redirect to an article with almost no material about Scotland.--MacRùsgail (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC) ps There are many potential areas of expansion - Muslims and Scottish parliament, independence, on Scottish cricket team, and the Glasgow airport attack.[reply]
I was the one who suggested the merge in the first place, and I admit I've come round to the idea that we should keep the articles separate, though trying as far as possible not to merely duplicate material: rather, the UK article should summarize what's in the articles for Scotland, England, N Ireland and Wales, as well as covering matters which affect the entire UK rather than one constituent or another. As mentioned, I have some time ago now deleted all the England material from the UK article which predates the formation of the UK. There's more work to be done, though my "day job" is demanding a lot of my time right now so I hope other editors will be able to deal with some of the "slack". Alfietucker (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to art work on expanding and sourcing the Scotland article over the coming weekend.--SabreBD (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The UK is a multinational state, and many Wikipedia articles are separate for each UK nation. The Muslim ethnic groups in each nation are different: for example, there are significant Yemeni and Somali communities in Wales but no significant Nigerian Muslim community there (as far as I know). However, there is a lot of common text between Islam in England and Islam in the UK. I would remove most of the material from Demography, Denominations and Ethnic Groups from Islam in the UK and put it separately in the national articles, adjusted appropriately. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

>> Muslim gender segregation stirs UK debate(Lihaas (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

The Satanic Verses

[edit]

Terrorism Social disturbance began in the Muslim community in England in 1988 with the publication of the satirical novel The Satanic Verses in London. Iranian Muslim leader Ayatollah Khomeini condemned the book with a fatwa the following year.

I question the positioning of this paragraph in the Terrorism section. The controversy surrounding this book merits a place in this article, but did it lead directly to terrorism in Britain? Terrorism has many causes, and it is misleading to mention only one possible cause at the beginning of this section. Also Social disturbance began... is clearly untrue: for example, there were attacks on Pakistani immigrants in the 1960s and 70s. Where should this paragraph be placed? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this paragraph to the History section and rewritten it with citations and wikilinks to relevant articles. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claim re East London Mosque is not in the reference cited

[edit]

AHLM13 has cited Kratke's Transnationalism and Urbanism (p 145) for a claim that had been disputed before both here and on other talk pages. The same editor has recently used that citation in several articles: London, Islam in England, Islam in the United Kingdom, Religion in England, Religion in the United Kingdom and East London Mosque. The reference does not support the claim, that the East London Mosque was "the first mosque in the European Union to be permitted to broadcast the adhan" - it just briefly recounts disputes over allowing the adhan in 1986. On being reverted, the editor has re-inserted the claim, a claim which does not even appear on the mosque's comprehensive website yet seems to be being used to give the mosque (and a particular image of the mosque) priority on Wikipedia over all other UK mosques. I will remove the claim again and I ask AHLM13 not to repeat it without a source which clearly and directly states it. NebY (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baitul Futuh

[edit]

User Peaceworld is claiming that Baitul Futuh is the largest in Western Europe, which is absolutely a peacock term. This has never been the largest. The largest has been the Mosque of Rome. However, Baitul Futuh was the largest in the UK, but The East London Mosque now is larger, as it has built the Maryam Centre and bought the great synagogue.--Tealabeadsanio9 (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tealabeadsanio9: Your issue is with the claim that Baitul Futuh is the largest Mosque. Is there a particular reason to remove the entire image and its caption, as opposed to removing the term "largest".--Peaceworld 17:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Islam in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Islam in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Islam in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims uncounted for..

[edit]

Collected information does not state children from mixed marriages. Saeeda abbas (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citable source? It probably would not skew the figures greatly. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Islam in the United Kingdom. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Islam in the United Kingdom. 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:

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) 23:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islam in the United Kingdom. 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:

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) 09:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Cypriots

[edit]

In unregistered used with the IP address 2601:246:4E01:2DD3:418D:A8AC:1D12:BC6D added a comment to the Turks section of the main text. I reverted this because comments should not be in the main text. I have moved the comment here.

The comment referred to this sentence:

  • Turks first began to emigrate in large numbers from the island of Cyprus for work and then again when Turkish Cypriots were forced to leave their homes during the Cyprus conflict.

The comment was:

  • how is this possible when 40.000 strong military forces from mainland Turkey invaded the sovereign nation of Cyprus and until today occupy almost 40% of its land. The so called "Turkish Cypriots" live in areas then and currently controlled by the Turkish army. They have no reason to leave, they were not forced to leave, on the contrary they occupy houses and use resources that traditionally belonged (and still does) to the Cypriot government. The claim they were forced to leave is ridiculous, they left seeking a better live, like most migrants all over the world. You need to correct this misleading entry.

Verbcatcher (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the question, it seems probable that the Cyprus conflict would have increased the pressures on ethnic Turks in areas dominated by ethnic Greeks. As far as I know they were not forced to leave by legal actions of the (southern) Cypriot government, but the circumstances probably forced many of them to leave. The Cypriot refugees article says:
  • It is estimated that 40% of the Greek population of Cyprus, as well as over half of the Turkish Cypriot population, were displaced by the Turkish invasion. The figures for internally displaced Cypriots varies, the United Peacekeeping force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) estimates 165,000 Greek Cypriots and 45,000 Turkish Cypriots. The UNHCR registers slightly higher figures of 200,000 and 65,000 respectively, being partly based on official Cypriot statistics which register children of displaced families as refugees.

The sentence appears reasonable, although "during and after the Cyprus conflict" might be better, and we need a wikilink. The sentence is already tagged with {{Citation needed}}. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islam in the United Kingdom. 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:

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) 03:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islam in the United Kingdom. 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:

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) 08:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Jackson Society?

[edit]

It is not appropriate to have a section dedicated to the Henry Jackson Society here. This is a political neoconservative organisation and has its own agenda, not an impartial source. Ishbiliyya (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Extremist ideology"

[edit]

This section, as it stands is heavily bias, so I have tagged it. In a general context, the term "extremism" when used in relation to Islam, is presumed to mean terrorism. The subjective quotes from Jeremy Corbyn and a member of the Lib Dems regarding Saudi Arabia and "extremism" in British Islam need to be placed in context. Corbyn has a clear dog in the fight because his nose is lodged firmly up the backsides of the Tehran Shia regime (as his numerous appearences on Press TV show), the main geopolitical enemies of Saudi Arabia, so his comments on this country need to be taken with a pinch of salt. There is no evidence that British clerics, British mosques or British Muslim schools sponsored by Saudi Arabia endorse terrorism against Britain or in general (the actual Islamists in Britain, ie - Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb ut-Tahrir support the overthrow of all Gulf monarchies). What they do is forward an orthodox view of Islam, which rejects for example, homosexuality, gender-bending, the equality of religions and sometimes criticises Israel for their ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people. None of this is "extremism" and its too ambigious to use this term, with its assocations to violence. This is like calling British Catholics "extremist" for opposing abortion and homosexuality, or for believing that their church is the "One True Church", or whatever. There is no context to this, just anti-religious liberal supremacist bigotry. Ishbiliyya (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be more with Corbyn and the others mentioned, rather than this article. At any rate, a tag is only useful if there is an actionable proposal to improve the article. Tags are not available to express personal dissatisfaction, so what is the proposed change? Johnuniq (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers don’t add up

[edit]

This article states that there’s circa 2500000 Muslims in the UK, out of this number 400,000 are Shia Muslims, that means they make up 15-20% of a Islamic community yet from the article we either don’t learn that or we learn, without any sources, that their population is 5%. There’s a huge difference between 5 and 15%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.149.86.224 (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Asia : Contradictions.

[edit]

The statement "Bangladeshi descent, one of the ethnic groups in the UK with the largest proportion of people following a single religion, being 92% Muslim.[63]" does not tally with other wiki pages, namely, , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pakistanis has "Percentage of British Pakistani population in England and Wales[8] 91.46%" and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Bangladeshis has "Religions of British Bangladeshis in England and Wales, 2011 census[2] Muslim (90%)"

Even if the latter data is altered to match the 92% from ONS link (63) is the 0.64% difference between 92% and 91.46% statistically significant enough to warrant that the original statement, that isn't consistent with the "Pakistanis" section anyhow? On the issue of consistency in the South Asia section, "The British Bangladeshi community has held a strong point in Islam, often opening large mosques such as East London Mosque and Brick Lane Masjid, as well as opening madrassas and Islamic TV Channels." is out of place as large mosques formed by other groups, such as Arabs and Pakistanis are not similarly mentioned, and that East London Mosque ranks at six on statista for example, https://www.statista.com/statistics/753701/biggest-masjids-in-uk/

Useful ref

[edit]
  • Hasan, Rumy. Multiculturalism: Some Inconvenient Truths. United Kingdom, Politico's, 2010.
  • Morris, Carl - Creating a Space. Muslim Musicians, Media Organisations and Female Performance in Britain; Rocking Islam: Music and the Making of New Muslim Identities. Germany, Waxmann Verlag GmbH, 2021.- books.google.com
  • Husain, Ed. Among the Mosques: A Journey Across Muslim Britain. United Kingdom, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021.

Bookku (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Khan, Sabah. Muslim Diaspora in Britain: Identity and Transnationalism Among South Asian Muslim Communities. N.p., Taylor & Francis, 2024.

Bookku (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1257848172"