This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Islamic ethics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please explain why the article is POV? -- Aminz 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well...at first glance, this article seems rather pointless. Not that the idea behind its creation is bad, but its substance is greatly lacking. And as far as improving it goes, I am severely underqualified to make any suggestions Starwarp2k2 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
What does that mean?
What is the second sentence supposed to mean?
What does a capacity for discernment have to do with a covenant?
I think this needs more context. What is "That" which was in case?
So "the meaning of existence" leads to "the reality of God?" What is that supposed to mean?
What does this have to do with Islamic ethics? Wouldn't every religion have a belief of this kind?
So Hindu ascetics aren't Muslim because of their focus on material success?
At best this needs to be reworded.
What does this have to do with ethics?
"has to be lifted up" would have to be said another way. Has to be lifted up by whom, how?
This needs a "by."
A general comment: why is Islamic ethics being described in opposition to the pagan Arab tradition? Why this comparison? Why not Islamic ethics as opposed to the Jewish tradition, the Christian tradition, the Zoroastrian tradition? Or why isn't it being described as a discipline in its own right? The discussion of pagan Arab traditions is excessive and tangential. This stuff could be in an article about "ways that Islam was some improvement over the pagan Arab system" but this is hardly an article about Islamic ethics. I suppose that if the goal were to propagandize about positive aspects of Islam (not that that is the goal here), comparing it to paganism in Arabia is about all one could do. Arrow740 02:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we're headed for an AfD. Arrow740 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
There may be a source problem here. The section good and evil refers to the Quran, and seems to interpret it. Currently there are reliable sources in the section. That is good. However, I suspect that these source may not cover everything the section mentions. I am not sure of this. But someone should definetly verify that everything in the section is properly sourced to a sceondary one. Bless sins 23:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The entire section "Good and Bad qualities" is POV. It only presents the good qualities. I have removed that section.-- Sefringle 05:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, how is it to rename "Good and Bad qualities" to "Code of Behavior According to the Qur'an". I am sorry but I am a bit confused of "It only presents the good qualities." Does this rename solve the problem? If not, would you please explain in more details what kind of statements should the article include. Thanks -- Aminz 07:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the new title "Code of behavior" is more appropriate. Sefringle if you have a contrary viewpoint, with reliable sources that represents the mainstream view of Muslim on Islam, then feel free to add it. Bless sins 00:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
As it stands, the section "Foundational Motifs" is completely incomprehensible. Beit Or 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
"Arabian Pennsylvania" [3]... A Freudian slip? Beit Or 08:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've made an attempt to rewrite the "Foundational Motifs" section to fix the most egregious POV and incomprehensible stuff. However, having spent some time trying to do that, I've seen that the section as it stands is unsalvageable and requires a complete rewrite. The only workable solution is to remove it entirely and start afresh. Beit Or 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, would it be irrelevent to add sections on the Islamic ethics of life, such as abortion, euthanasia etc. Bless sins 00:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The article contradicts itself. First, it says that the Islamic ethic "was eventually shaped as a successful amalgamation of pre-Islamic Arabian tradition, the Qur'anic teaching and non-Arabic elements (mainly of Persian and Greek origins) embedded in or integrated with a general-Islamic structure." But then it ignores the non-Islamic sources and says "Islamic ethics were gradually developed based on the Muslim understanding and interpretations of the Qur'an and stories of Muhammad." Beit Or 21:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The foundational motif section discusses the Qur'an as understood by Muslims. That's why I added that sentence but I think we need to modify it. -- Aminz 00:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of the Qur'an in the article Ethics and the Qurʾān has to say the following about non-Muslims:
Since the Muslims are a single group, relations with non-Muslims are shaped by that fact. Yet, in the end, the claims of ethical behavior outweigh those of communal solidarity. The distinction between Muslims and non-Muslim Peoples of the Book is fundamental to qurʾānic behavioral norms, but a common ethical monotheism of the members of these traditions seems to underlie more superficial distinctions. For example, q 3:84-5 lists in credal fashion the faith described as Muslim, in a way that is inclusive of more than just the umma of Muḥammad: “We have faith in God, in what has been sent down to us and what has been sent to Abraham, Ishmael (q.v.)… We do not distinguish any of them from the others. We are to him submitters. And who follows other than the submission (al-islām) as a religion (dīnan) — it will not be accepted from him; he will be, in the afterlife, a loser” (q 3:84-5). Consequently the Qurʾān recognizes the existence of virtue and even religious virtue among Peoples of the Book: “…Of the People of the Book, there is an established people reciting the signs of God at the time of night prostrating themselves. They have faith in God and the last day and they command the good and forbid the reprehensible and hasten to good deeds (al-khayrāt); these are among the righteous (al-ṣāliḥīn). And whatever good they do, they will not be rejected” (q 3:113-4). In other words, the Qurʾān assumes a moral universe shared with the other Peoples of the Book.
Christians and Jews, then, are not a demonized Other, the anti-thesis of Muslims, but they belong to the same religious genus. Yet, because of their theological errors, and, more importantly, due to their animus against Islam (cf. q 5:82 for the anti-Jewish and anti-“associator” polemic), the Muslims are enjoined not to take them as friends: “O you who are faithful! Do not take the Jews and Christians as friends. They are each other's protégés (awliyāʾ). Who has taken one of them as a protégé — he is one of them. God does not guide a wrong-doing people” (q 5:51; the whole anti-People of the Book polemic can be found at q 5:41-82; see also q 3:118; 4:144). Furthermore, their theology leads them to moral error (q 5:62-3).
Indeed, it is the claim of the scriptuaries that moral norms do not apply to other than their own moral communities that brings God's condemnation: “…And among [the People of the Book] are those who if you entrust them with a dīnār, do not return it to you unless you insist upon it; this is because they say ‘We have no duty toward the gentiles They say of God a falsehood, which they know” (q 3:75). Only a single verse enjoins struggle against People of the Book (this, contrary to Vajda in ei 2, i, 264): “Fight those who do not believe in God nor the last day and do not forbid that which God and his messengers have forbidden and who are not religious with the religion of truth from among those given the scripture until they give a reward [for being spared] while they are ignominious” (q 9:29; for this translation, see Bravmann, Ancient Arab background). In sum, the boundaries of religious identity are irreducible in the qurʾānic understanding and crucially shape the ethical conduct of Muslims toward one another and towards others. A norm of moral conduct that transcends communal boundaries is, however, equally a part of the qurʾānic message.
Sefringle, are you okay if we summerize this? -- Aminz 01:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, how's this summary?
Since Muslims are a single group, relations with Christians and Jews are shaped by the fact that they are non-muslims. The distinction between Muslims and non-Muslim People of the Book is fundamental to qur'anic behavioral norms but a common ethical monotheism of the members of these traditions seems to underlie more superficial distinctions. The qur'an recognizes the existence people of the book, and assumes a moral universe shared with them, thus recognizing the virtue of their religions. ([ Quran 3:84-5, [ Quran 3:113-114) Christians and Jews thus are not the enemies of Islam, since they share many beliefs. But since the Islam considers itself to be superior to other religions, muslims are enjoined not to befriend the people of the book ([ Quran 5:82) as muslims believegod does not guide non-believers. ([ Quran 3:118, [ Quran 4:144, [ Quran 5:51, [ Quran 5:62-63) The moral norms do not apply to those who disbelieve. ([ Quran 3:75) And one verse commands muslims to fight the people of the book ([ Quran 9:29)
-- Sefringle 21:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is my suggestion. I have tried to summerize all points.
The Qur'anic norms of behavior towards Christians and Jews are shaped by the fact that they are Non-Muslims but a common ethical monotheism of the members of these traditions seems to underlie more superficial distinctions (e.g. see [ Quran 3:84). The Qur'an assumes a moral universe shared with the people of the book, thus recognizing the virtue of their religions (see [ Quran 3:84-5, [ Quran 3:113-114). Christians and Jews thus are not the enemies of Islam, since they share the same religious genus. But the Qur'an enjoins Muslims not to befriend the People of the Book because of what it sees as their theological errors and, more importantly, their animus against Islam([ Quran 5:82); the Qur'an claims that some among the Jews do not apply the same moral norms to the Gentiles as they apply to themselves ([ Quran 3:75). Only one verse commands Muslims to fight those of the People of the Book who do neither believe in God nor in the last day until they are brought low and pay the jizya tax, ([ Quran 9:29). In sum both the boundaries of religious identity and a norm of moral conduct that transcends communal boundaries are equally part of the Qur'anic message.
BTW, as far as I know, other scholars disagree with the author on the issue of befriending the People of the Book. -- Aminz 02:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
My first suggestion is to remove the word "only" where it is refering to verse 9:29. After that, I would suggest restoring/summarizing the part about god not guiding the nonbelievers. It seems the origional quote gives an entire paragraph to this. It seems important.-- Sefringle 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ibn Kathir says that the surah was revealed after the battle of Tabuk. Your source is a revisionist. Arrow740 08:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add this paragraph to begin the section titled "freedom of Speech":
There is no freedom of speech with regard to Islam itself. To speak out against Islam is to commit apostasy which is punishable by death. This is one of the main reasons that Islam is nearly impossible to reform/change because just starting a dialog about Islam can be a death sentence. The absolute prohibition against the questioning of Islam is also applied to anyone outside of Islam. There are many examples of people (Muslim and non-Muslim) that have been issued a fatwa of death for speaking about Islam. Two of the most famous are Salman Rushdie and Theo van Gogh (film director). Any Muslim is allowed to kill such apostates in cold blood and any Muslim that dies trying is considered a martyr such as Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh who died trying to kill Salman Rushdie.
I thought I would post it here first in the case that it causes an uproar. Any comments? Bluetd ( talk) 00:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Amnesty International has many warnings on its website against exercising freedom of speech with regard to Islam itself in Islamic countries for you may be attacked and killed by angry mobs or arrested by the government under Islamic blasphemy laws and then subjected to harsh punishments which include torture and the death penalty. [1] Islamic countries have moved to criminalize freedom of expression in a UN amendment which passed on March 28, 2008. [2] Slovenia's ambassador Andrej Logar, stated that the UN council’s focus is shifting from protection of free speech to limiting it because of this amendment. [3] In Pakistan, their Islamic blasphemy law carries a mandatory death penalty and contributes to violence and oppression. [4]
Obviously, references 1 and 2 aren't pertinent here and probably just reflect some ref tags used earlier in this page. I've explained above why the content does not meet core policies. I also think it doesn't really belong in this article, which is about ethical guidelines in Islamic thought, and not the status of human rights in modern day states. ITAQALLAH 00:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is a great reference I found, what does everyone think about it? Bluetd ( talk) 15:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC) http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1023
I got a book from Amazon.com titled "23 Years : A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad" by Ali Dashti. Is this book good enough to use as a reference? Bluetd ( talk) 02:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Could someone find quotations from the qur'an or, at least, from the hadiths instead of "mere" jurisprudence and doctrine? I mean there are many tendencies in Islam (Shias and sunnis, differences between sunnis madhhabs, etc.), so you can't say that some scholars represent the whole Umma. Mitch1981 ( talk) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed this article was deleted in August 2010 without any proposal or discussion.
I understand that much of the article was written by Jagged85, and cleanup is proceding.
According to Wikipedia:Jagged_85_cleanup, anyone cleaning up is required to "Assess whether the current text satisfies relevant policies such as WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV". Mass blanking demonstrates no such assessment was made.
Furthermore Jagged85 isn't the only one that contributed to this article. I remember having contributed to it as well, as have many other editors. Blanking the article article nullifies our contributions. Bless sins ( talk) 22:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Ismail has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
please also quote the original sources of knowledge from al -Quran and al-hadith
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Ismail has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
ExpertIdeas ( talk) 06:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Islamic ethics. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Islamic ethics. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The following cites McAuliffe to support the idea that Eickelman wrote that Bellah suggested an interpretation. This is a little extreme in terms of indirect citation. Is there any way of finding the Eickelman source, or at least the Bellah source?
Dale Eickelman writes that Bellah suggests "the early Islamic community placed a particular value on individuals, as opposed to collective or group responsibility." [1] Clean Copy talk 12:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Rewriting it with some of the criticisms made on this page in mind, such as adding a comparison of Islamic ethical systems with other religions.
−36,258 bytes gone. From his edits from October and December 2008. -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 19:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Islamic ethics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please explain why the article is POV? -- Aminz 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Well...at first glance, this article seems rather pointless. Not that the idea behind its creation is bad, but its substance is greatly lacking. And as far as improving it goes, I am severely underqualified to make any suggestions Starwarp2k2 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
What does that mean?
What is the second sentence supposed to mean?
What does a capacity for discernment have to do with a covenant?
I think this needs more context. What is "That" which was in case?
So "the meaning of existence" leads to "the reality of God?" What is that supposed to mean?
What does this have to do with Islamic ethics? Wouldn't every religion have a belief of this kind?
So Hindu ascetics aren't Muslim because of their focus on material success?
At best this needs to be reworded.
What does this have to do with ethics?
"has to be lifted up" would have to be said another way. Has to be lifted up by whom, how?
This needs a "by."
A general comment: why is Islamic ethics being described in opposition to the pagan Arab tradition? Why this comparison? Why not Islamic ethics as opposed to the Jewish tradition, the Christian tradition, the Zoroastrian tradition? Or why isn't it being described as a discipline in its own right? The discussion of pagan Arab traditions is excessive and tangential. This stuff could be in an article about "ways that Islam was some improvement over the pagan Arab system" but this is hardly an article about Islamic ethics. I suppose that if the goal were to propagandize about positive aspects of Islam (not that that is the goal here), comparing it to paganism in Arabia is about all one could do. Arrow740 02:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we're headed for an AfD. Arrow740 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
There may be a source problem here. The section good and evil refers to the Quran, and seems to interpret it. Currently there are reliable sources in the section. That is good. However, I suspect that these source may not cover everything the section mentions. I am not sure of this. But someone should definetly verify that everything in the section is properly sourced to a sceondary one. Bless sins 23:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The entire section "Good and Bad qualities" is POV. It only presents the good qualities. I have removed that section.-- Sefringle 05:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, how is it to rename "Good and Bad qualities" to "Code of Behavior According to the Qur'an". I am sorry but I am a bit confused of "It only presents the good qualities." Does this rename solve the problem? If not, would you please explain in more details what kind of statements should the article include. Thanks -- Aminz 07:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the new title "Code of behavior" is more appropriate. Sefringle if you have a contrary viewpoint, with reliable sources that represents the mainstream view of Muslim on Islam, then feel free to add it. Bless sins 00:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
As it stands, the section "Foundational Motifs" is completely incomprehensible. Beit Or 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
"Arabian Pennsylvania" [3]... A Freudian slip? Beit Or 08:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've made an attempt to rewrite the "Foundational Motifs" section to fix the most egregious POV and incomprehensible stuff. However, having spent some time trying to do that, I've seen that the section as it stands is unsalvageable and requires a complete rewrite. The only workable solution is to remove it entirely and start afresh. Beit Or 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, would it be irrelevent to add sections on the Islamic ethics of life, such as abortion, euthanasia etc. Bless sins 00:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The article contradicts itself. First, it says that the Islamic ethic "was eventually shaped as a successful amalgamation of pre-Islamic Arabian tradition, the Qur'anic teaching and non-Arabic elements (mainly of Persian and Greek origins) embedded in or integrated with a general-Islamic structure." But then it ignores the non-Islamic sources and says "Islamic ethics were gradually developed based on the Muslim understanding and interpretations of the Qur'an and stories of Muhammad." Beit Or 21:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The foundational motif section discusses the Qur'an as understood by Muslims. That's why I added that sentence but I think we need to modify it. -- Aminz 00:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedia of the Qur'an in the article Ethics and the Qurʾān has to say the following about non-Muslims:
Since the Muslims are a single group, relations with non-Muslims are shaped by that fact. Yet, in the end, the claims of ethical behavior outweigh those of communal solidarity. The distinction between Muslims and non-Muslim Peoples of the Book is fundamental to qurʾānic behavioral norms, but a common ethical monotheism of the members of these traditions seems to underlie more superficial distinctions. For example, q 3:84-5 lists in credal fashion the faith described as Muslim, in a way that is inclusive of more than just the umma of Muḥammad: “We have faith in God, in what has been sent down to us and what has been sent to Abraham, Ishmael (q.v.)… We do not distinguish any of them from the others. We are to him submitters. And who follows other than the submission (al-islām) as a religion (dīnan) — it will not be accepted from him; he will be, in the afterlife, a loser” (q 3:84-5). Consequently the Qurʾān recognizes the existence of virtue and even religious virtue among Peoples of the Book: “…Of the People of the Book, there is an established people reciting the signs of God at the time of night prostrating themselves. They have faith in God and the last day and they command the good and forbid the reprehensible and hasten to good deeds (al-khayrāt); these are among the righteous (al-ṣāliḥīn). And whatever good they do, they will not be rejected” (q 3:113-4). In other words, the Qurʾān assumes a moral universe shared with the other Peoples of the Book.
Christians and Jews, then, are not a demonized Other, the anti-thesis of Muslims, but they belong to the same religious genus. Yet, because of their theological errors, and, more importantly, due to their animus against Islam (cf. q 5:82 for the anti-Jewish and anti-“associator” polemic), the Muslims are enjoined not to take them as friends: “O you who are faithful! Do not take the Jews and Christians as friends. They are each other's protégés (awliyāʾ). Who has taken one of them as a protégé — he is one of them. God does not guide a wrong-doing people” (q 5:51; the whole anti-People of the Book polemic can be found at q 5:41-82; see also q 3:118; 4:144). Furthermore, their theology leads them to moral error (q 5:62-3).
Indeed, it is the claim of the scriptuaries that moral norms do not apply to other than their own moral communities that brings God's condemnation: “…And among [the People of the Book] are those who if you entrust them with a dīnār, do not return it to you unless you insist upon it; this is because they say ‘We have no duty toward the gentiles They say of God a falsehood, which they know” (q 3:75). Only a single verse enjoins struggle against People of the Book (this, contrary to Vajda in ei 2, i, 264): “Fight those who do not believe in God nor the last day and do not forbid that which God and his messengers have forbidden and who are not religious with the religion of truth from among those given the scripture until they give a reward [for being spared] while they are ignominious” (q 9:29; for this translation, see Bravmann, Ancient Arab background). In sum, the boundaries of religious identity are irreducible in the qurʾānic understanding and crucially shape the ethical conduct of Muslims toward one another and towards others. A norm of moral conduct that transcends communal boundaries is, however, equally a part of the qurʾānic message.
Sefringle, are you okay if we summerize this? -- Aminz 01:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Aminz, how's this summary?
Since Muslims are a single group, relations with Christians and Jews are shaped by the fact that they are non-muslims. The distinction between Muslims and non-Muslim People of the Book is fundamental to qur'anic behavioral norms but a common ethical monotheism of the members of these traditions seems to underlie more superficial distinctions. The qur'an recognizes the existence people of the book, and assumes a moral universe shared with them, thus recognizing the virtue of their religions. ([ Quran 3:84-5, [ Quran 3:113-114) Christians and Jews thus are not the enemies of Islam, since they share many beliefs. But since the Islam considers itself to be superior to other religions, muslims are enjoined not to befriend the people of the book ([ Quran 5:82) as muslims believegod does not guide non-believers. ([ Quran 3:118, [ Quran 4:144, [ Quran 5:51, [ Quran 5:62-63) The moral norms do not apply to those who disbelieve. ([ Quran 3:75) And one verse commands muslims to fight the people of the book ([ Quran 9:29)
-- Sefringle 21:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Here is my suggestion. I have tried to summerize all points.
The Qur'anic norms of behavior towards Christians and Jews are shaped by the fact that they are Non-Muslims but a common ethical monotheism of the members of these traditions seems to underlie more superficial distinctions (e.g. see [ Quran 3:84). The Qur'an assumes a moral universe shared with the people of the book, thus recognizing the virtue of their religions (see [ Quran 3:84-5, [ Quran 3:113-114). Christians and Jews thus are not the enemies of Islam, since they share the same religious genus. But the Qur'an enjoins Muslims not to befriend the People of the Book because of what it sees as their theological errors and, more importantly, their animus against Islam([ Quran 5:82); the Qur'an claims that some among the Jews do not apply the same moral norms to the Gentiles as they apply to themselves ([ Quran 3:75). Only one verse commands Muslims to fight those of the People of the Book who do neither believe in God nor in the last day until they are brought low and pay the jizya tax, ([ Quran 9:29). In sum both the boundaries of religious identity and a norm of moral conduct that transcends communal boundaries are equally part of the Qur'anic message.
BTW, as far as I know, other scholars disagree with the author on the issue of befriending the People of the Book. -- Aminz 02:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
My first suggestion is to remove the word "only" where it is refering to verse 9:29. After that, I would suggest restoring/summarizing the part about god not guiding the nonbelievers. It seems the origional quote gives an entire paragraph to this. It seems important.-- Sefringle 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ibn Kathir says that the surah was revealed after the battle of Tabuk. Your source is a revisionist. Arrow740 08:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add this paragraph to begin the section titled "freedom of Speech":
There is no freedom of speech with regard to Islam itself. To speak out against Islam is to commit apostasy which is punishable by death. This is one of the main reasons that Islam is nearly impossible to reform/change because just starting a dialog about Islam can be a death sentence. The absolute prohibition against the questioning of Islam is also applied to anyone outside of Islam. There are many examples of people (Muslim and non-Muslim) that have been issued a fatwa of death for speaking about Islam. Two of the most famous are Salman Rushdie and Theo van Gogh (film director). Any Muslim is allowed to kill such apostates in cold blood and any Muslim that dies trying is considered a martyr such as Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh who died trying to kill Salman Rushdie.
I thought I would post it here first in the case that it causes an uproar. Any comments? Bluetd ( talk) 00:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Amnesty International has many warnings on its website against exercising freedom of speech with regard to Islam itself in Islamic countries for you may be attacked and killed by angry mobs or arrested by the government under Islamic blasphemy laws and then subjected to harsh punishments which include torture and the death penalty. [1] Islamic countries have moved to criminalize freedom of expression in a UN amendment which passed on March 28, 2008. [2] Slovenia's ambassador Andrej Logar, stated that the UN council’s focus is shifting from protection of free speech to limiting it because of this amendment. [3] In Pakistan, their Islamic blasphemy law carries a mandatory death penalty and contributes to violence and oppression. [4]
Obviously, references 1 and 2 aren't pertinent here and probably just reflect some ref tags used earlier in this page. I've explained above why the content does not meet core policies. I also think it doesn't really belong in this article, which is about ethical guidelines in Islamic thought, and not the status of human rights in modern day states. ITAQALLAH 00:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is a great reference I found, what does everyone think about it? Bluetd ( talk) 15:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC) http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1023
I got a book from Amazon.com titled "23 Years : A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad" by Ali Dashti. Is this book good enough to use as a reference? Bluetd ( talk) 02:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Could someone find quotations from the qur'an or, at least, from the hadiths instead of "mere" jurisprudence and doctrine? I mean there are many tendencies in Islam (Shias and sunnis, differences between sunnis madhhabs, etc.), so you can't say that some scholars represent the whole Umma. Mitch1981 ( talk) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed this article was deleted in August 2010 without any proposal or discussion.
I understand that much of the article was written by Jagged85, and cleanup is proceding.
According to Wikipedia:Jagged_85_cleanup, anyone cleaning up is required to "Assess whether the current text satisfies relevant policies such as WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV". Mass blanking demonstrates no such assessment was made.
Furthermore Jagged85 isn't the only one that contributed to this article. I remember having contributed to it as well, as have many other editors. Blanking the article article nullifies our contributions. Bless sins ( talk) 22:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Ismail has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
please also quote the original sources of knowledge from al -Quran and al-hadith
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Ismail has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
ExpertIdeas ( talk) 06:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Islamic ethics. 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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Islamic ethics. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
The following cites McAuliffe to support the idea that Eickelman wrote that Bellah suggested an interpretation. This is a little extreme in terms of indirect citation. Is there any way of finding the Eickelman source, or at least the Bellah source?
Dale Eickelman writes that Bellah suggests "the early Islamic community placed a particular value on individuals, as opposed to collective or group responsibility." [1] Clean Copy talk 12:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Rewriting it with some of the criticisms made on this page in mind, such as adding a comparison of Islamic ethical systems with other religions.
−36,258 bytes gone. From his edits from October and December 2008. -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 19:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)