Contents • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • History of Islam, not the History of Muslim Societies [ ] This article is not a history of Islam at all; it is a history of Muslim societies. Where is a history of the evolution of religious practice, of philosophical interpretations of the Quran, of cross-cultural influences on Islam?

Despite what Orientalists or certain fundamentalists might have you believe, Muslims do not live by religion alone, and Islam is not unchanging. It has a history.

The form Koran was most predominant from the second half of the 18th century till the 1980s, when it has been superseded by either Qur'an or Quran.

The evolution of Islamic law, the rise of Sufism and other topics might seem arcane, but they are of overwhelming importance. There needs to be a single article which summarizes these and other developments. 22:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC) What you say here makes sense.

So we should have another topic on History of Islam - () 12:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC) I agree. Present article is more a history of Muslim rulers, conquests and kingdoms! 12:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC) I strongly suggest to revert title to 'History of Islam' rather than 'Muslim History'. A muslim is one person, while Islam is a nation.

And since you are talking about history of the nation, it will be much more appropriate to call it 'History of Islam'. -- () 08:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC) I will reiterate: this is NOT a history of Islam, so far. Until it actually becomes a History Of Islam, its title should reflect its actual content. So far, it is a History of the Succession of Political Power in Parts of the Islamic World Written from an Extremely Biased Viewpoint of One Who is Obviously Shi'ite and Who Chooses to Present Only those Facts and Comments that Support His Chosen Prejudice. To leave this titled 'History of Islam' is a horrible slander against Islam and, clearly, most of its adherents throughout the last 1400+ years. - —Preceding comment added 15:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Suggestions for Changes, 2004 [ ] Sections 5-17 (except 12.1) are completely off topic.

This article is titled 'History of Islam'. Islam as a religious belief has changed very little since its inception, and the mention of anything dated after the second Fitna is a dead giveaway that the writers of this article are idiots. -20721 — The preceding comment was added by ( • ) 7 Sept 2005. I'm not sure where, but it seems like a history of Islam should mention the Qur'an and Haddith somewhere. For example, how does the Qur'an fit into the timeline of Muslim history?

It could be right in the table of contents somewhere. The first sentence is not quite true. The Meccans were settled arabs.

Also, the part on the Shiite-Sunnite controversions should be moved out of the article, but I don't know where. 19:57, 17 May 2004 (UTC) lists Muhammad's (peace be upon him) date of birth as circa 570, while this one lists it as 571. I know it's not a big difference (especially because of the 'circa'), but I think we should choose one or the other. 01:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC) Muhammad was born in the Year of the Elephant which most Muslims equate with the Western year 570 but some Muslims equate with 571.

— 23:29, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC) Shift in attitude toward learning [ ] I've yet to find information on when and why there was a shift in attitude toward science, culture, learning, etc. That lead to some of the attitudes apparent in the current conservative sects of Islam. Anyone have any information about this? 05:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC) link to [ ] How is a disputed article relevant to History of Islam page? I didn't even know it was disputed. Hadn't looked at it, was going totally by its topic.

Radimpex Tower 6 - Tower 7.

I don't think that the fact that it is currently disputed has any bearing on whether it's a relevant link: we wouldn't fail to link the word if it came up in a sentence, just because the article is currently a mess. I just went and looked for a more appropriate link for the matter, but is just a redirect to. And looking at, the dispute is just about POV, not factual matters.

It's certainly a closely related topic. Is there any objection to the link other than the current state of that article? -- 23:12, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC) How about? So there is a dispute going on (or was going on) between and that article. Both articles are dealing with the same subject and calling the other one POV 04:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) I was unaware of that article. I hope they link to each other. -- 07:22, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC) They don't link.

Each claims the other is POV 07:39, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) Opps does link 07:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) The change in attitude was not like a one day affair rather it happened over a period of time. However, it is said to have started after the fall of Baghdad by the Mongols.

The trauma of defeat and humiliation made them recoil within themselves and the thought that all this happened because of not following the 'real islam' took root. Then on they gave up all research and inquiry stuck to the fundamentals. S H B KHAMIS —The preceding comment was added by ( • ) 2 July 2006. Dynasties [ ] OneGuy, I notice that in your recent and clearly mainly beneficial reworking of the list of Muslim dynasties the following were removed without comment: • • I'm guessing you had a good reason for this, you clearly know this topic better than I, but I'd appreciate knowing why these were removed: if nothing else, it will provide a basis on which people can revert re-addition of inappropriate material later. -- 19:18, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC) I added the second one. Regarding Kingdom of Nekor, the first paragraph says, ' The Kingdom. Salih I ibn Mansur al-Himyari in 710 AD, by (Abbasid) Caliphal grant.'