This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of ليبرالية إسلامية from ar.wikipedia. |
Index
|
|
Was searching for the definition of "Moderate Islam" and was redirected to this page. There should be treatment on the phrase "Moderate Islam" or "Moderate Muslim". -- 70.142.44.41 ( talk) 22:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Large sections of this article are unsourced. They should either be referenced or deleted. The article has been tagged for original research for more than 3 years. VR talk 06:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Whrn I read this article, I was struck by the similarity of liberal Islamic movements to my own Reform Judaism. This should not be surprising. Judaism and Islam are cut from the same cloth. They both operate around religious law, are both monotheistic, and took similar norms and values from a somewhat similar sacred origin-story. However, Judaism has long been a minority religion in the many lands it has dwelt in, while Islam has been a majority religion in many of its own countries.
Nonetheless, what has happened to Islam in Western countries may be like what happened to Judaism during the Haskalah and the emigration to America and out of Europe. People were free to interact with an outside society. Values of tolerance and friendship, of common courtesy and diversity, were learned, and a traditional society had to cope with the norms and values of a new one. Thus, reform movements naturally arose.
Thus, I felt including Reform Judaism in this article might be helpful. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 04:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know Jelali revolts (XVI. and XVII. century) during the Ottoman era was the first revolt made by people against the religious order. Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed Pasha was also supporting by Jelali revolters who were looking for a more free order. That can be also mentioned. Cemyildiz ( talk) 14:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
This word needs to be replaced by a word in english: "madhahabs".
This is an english encyclopedia. It would be tolerable (just about) if this arabic word were linked to an article explaining what it means; but it links to nothing.
I am going to delete the prose that includes this word; if you restore that deleted text, I presume that you know what the word means, and I expect you to translate it into english. Thanks!
MrDemeanour ( talk) 21:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
Liberal Muslim movements. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Liberal and Progressive Muslim movements's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "AP_detained21May":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Reference named "Metz_KSA_legal_system":
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Reference named "Forbes_lashes_revoked":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Reference named "NPR_lashes_revoked":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Reference named "teleg_w2d_vs_Interior":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Liberal and Progressive Muslim movements's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "AJE_women2325April":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Reference named "arabtimes_4kQatifetc_18March":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Reference named "pressTV_17March_4kQatif":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear LouisAragon, its not about is content sourced or not, problem is that its WP:IRRELEVANT to the title. There are long articles about Green movement and protests. Someone can also copy-paste content from Iran student protests of July 1999, but it would still be irrelevant if sourced text doesn't explain how its related to Liberal/Progressive ideologies. That's all. -- MehrdadFR ( talk) 13:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Rupert loup, you added too much information which are not very relevant to title of this article. Other thing, "see also" section was full of marginal unknown parties which are neither Liberal or Progressive (but monarchist or ultra-nationalist), and not even Muslim. I tried to help by inserting material from Dabashi book about Green movement, and unfortunately I couldn't find label which would fit the title. Still, I found it in another book so OK, it can stay and it may even be expanded, but removing important figures which inspired many youth movements is not acceptable. You should not accuse others for "POV" without any basis, there's nothing related to it in my edits, only obvious problem is you're very ill-informed about Iranian intellectual movements. -- MehrdadFR ( talk) 22:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Liberal and progressive Muslim movements's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "WSJ":
{{
cite news}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
How come Syrian Rebels who are supported by Saudi Arabia are among Liberal and progressive Muslim movements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.233.63 ( talk) 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure it was well-intentioned, but the new title could be about non-religious political progressivism in countries which happen to be Muslim majority, while the old title was about progressivism within Islam (as it said), so that the two are not remotely equivalent... AnonMoos ( talk) 21:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 128 external links on Liberalism and progressivism in the Muslim world. 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) 06:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Liberalism and progressivism in the Muslim world. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ipsnews.net/text/news.asp?idnews=55293{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sff.ba/news/show/id/1149/culture/en?symfony=04b0df9dcac96cf6cb5cdf8ef42e57fb{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.edmondsun.com/news_tab3/x2122765173/Syrian-dissidents-form-national-council{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.aawsat.net/2012/05/article55242200{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.aawsat.net/2013/02/article55291309{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://suroyotv.com/en/images/files/The_Syriac_Union_Party_In_Syria_entered_the_syrian_embassy_in_Sweden.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://jumacircle.com/2013/03/13/etjc-in-the-news-muslims-talking-about-queer-sexuality/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) 13:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The move to "Reform movements" was apparently motivated by certain currents of discourse in the West that associate the term "reform(ation)" in an Islamic context with liberalism, secularism, etc. This is not how the term "reform(ism)" is generally used in Islamic studies. See, for instance, Lapidus, Ira M. (2014). A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge University Press:
Modern Islamic reformism began as the religious and moral response of ulama, tribal, and urban communities to the decline of Islamic states [...] The reformers were opposed to later accretions to the foundational texts, and to the blending of Muslim and non-Muslim cultures. [...] Reformism came in a broad spectrum of colors, from light corrections of Sufi practice to deep hues of fundamentalism. [...] Contemporary movements of this type are also called "Islamist". [...] The earliest example of a reformist movement in a pastoral and tribal society was the Wahhabi movement in Arabia. p. 514
See also the collection of encyclopedic quotes in the first ref of Wahhabism to confirm that this is standard usage. The older title is also problematic because it conflates liberal/progressive/etc religious interpretations of Islam with movements and ideologies where religion plays little or no role at all. The whole history of Westernisation, communism, socialism, secular nationalism, etc, in the Muslim world could be included here. On the other hand, restricting the scope by using the term "Islamic" in the title would invite OR as to what movements are and aren't sufficiently "Islamic". Unfortunately, there no easy way to make this article anything other than a sprawling gallery of arbitrarily picked "Good Muslims" whom someone somewhere has called "liberal" or "progressive" (and I doubt anyone has bothered to check that it's the case for many of the movements and people listed here). However, the latest move was clearly not an improvement. Eperoton ( talk) 14:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 120 external links on Liberalism and progressivism in the Muslim world. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://europa.eu/youth/se/article/39/24446_en{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=796{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/17264When 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) 21:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The article was WAY too long. I often had to access from low-spec PC or places with crappy Internet connections, and the article was nothing but a nuisance. Made overhauling by (re)focusing on Islam, cutting contents regarding liberal/socialist/social democratic movements that have nothing to do with Islam, creating new articles for notable figures and individual movements:
Even if you disagree with my edit, I seriously urge you not to revert to the old revision. I'm simultaneously a Wikipedia editor and a user, and from user's perspective, it was a complete and immense failure of an article. JahlilMA ( talk) 15:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Liberalism and progressivism within Islam. 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) 19:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
This article has a number of accuracy issues around liberal or progressive Islam. Liberal and progressive Islam doesn’t really go back to any sort of classical Islam. Classical or mainstream Islam derived from Quran and Hadith is conservative or as some might say “fundamental” (meaning practicing the fundamentals not as in extremism).
Rather liberal and progressive Islam tends to depart from the pillars and foundations of Islam and the Quran and Hadith. Examples are in liberal and progressive Islam music is more widely accepted as permissible while it’s haram according to a majority of modern and traditional scholars which point to Hadith.
Liberal and progressive Islam is just a liberal application of Islam to ones daily life and many in those circles believe that Islam can be changed to be more suitable for modern time.
Anyways as advanced notice I intend to overhaul this article to make it accurate as right now it’s not and is misleading. Bkerensa (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
or rationalistic" from sentence
Liberal ideas are considered controversial by traditional Muslims, who criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western or rationalistic"
or rationalistic"
Liberal ideas are considered controversial by traditional Muslims, who criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too... rationalistic.
Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.— WP:IMPARTIAL
Liberal ideas are considered controversial by traditional Muslims, who criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western or rationalistic. [1]
Tariq, Malik Muhammad. "The Ideological Background of Rationality in Islam." (2008): 31-56.
Liberal ideas are considered controversial by traditional Muslims, who, according to Oxford Islamic Studies Online, criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western or rationalistic. However, Muslims argue their religion is grounded in rationality, and some Muslim scholars, such as Mustafa Sabri criticise western thought.
Liberal ideas are considered controversial by traditional Muslims, who, according to Oxford Islamic Studies Online, criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western or rationalistic. However, Muslims argue their religion conforms to rationalism, and some Muslim scholars, such as Mustafa Sabri criticise western thought.
The basic point being made in the cited source seems sound and doesn't make a claim about all traditional forms of traditional Islamic views, so I don't see why its inclusion would be a problem.
We should not be tampering with quotes, but the interpretation of that passage is filled with landmines: e.g., who is a "traditional Muslim", given that some of the liberal currents in Islamic thought long predate the Renaissance? Are we using "traditional" in the sense of political reaction or religious fidelity? I would normally say that providing a little context regarding the source is a good strategy, but I see no connection between the passage and the source at all. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
References
Bookku I don't disagree with
Imtiaz ahmed rifat's removal
here. The article says Liberal ideas are considered controversial by some
traditional Muslims, who criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too
Western or
rationalistic
and that is misleading. Instead the source
says,
Takes several specifically Islamic forms: that divine revelation requires liberalism, that divine revelation allows but does not require liberalism, or that liberalism follows from the fallibility and multiplicity of human interpretations of divine revelation. Remains a controversial position among traditional Muslims, often vilified as inordinately Western or rationalistic.
This seems to be a criticism of rationalism not rationality. In the Islamic context, rationalism often refers to mutazila, though its not clear from this source. Without this additional qualifier, saying that "liberal ideas are criticized for being rationalist" is misleading. VR talk 14:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
relates to second part of second sentence sentences in sourced paragraph i.e. to"... Remains a controversial position among traditional Muslims, often vilified as inordinately Western or rationalistic."
; so better way to simplified reading would be like following."... An ideology encompassing belief in electoral democracy, civil rights, gender equality, human progress, and/or the abolition of premodern social hierarchies. Introduced to the Islamic world in the nineteenth century by Europeans, then wielded against Europeans by Muslim intellectuals who noted the discrepancy between liberal ideals and colonial (and later postcolonial) practices.."
"..., then wielded against Europeans by Muslim intellectuals who noted the discrepancy between liberal ideals and colonial (and later postcolonial) practices....Remains a controversial position among traditional Muslims, often vilified as inordinately Western or rationalistic. "
Liberal ideas are considered controversial by some traditional Muslim intellectuals, who criticize Rationalism of liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western' would be a better sentence ?
The article has a section on Liberalism and progressivism within Islam#Sayyid supremacism and caste system in Islam. How is that related to this topic? Are there sources that consider this a major issue for liberal Islam? VR talk 02:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
This is just information. No action expected nor required vis a vis your edit.
Your recent edit dif 325137 to this article reminded me of a very very very very slow discussion process I began on couple of article talk pages for example @ Talk:Apostasy in Islam#Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?. Some how I missed this article, may be after some more weeks/months I will begin a formal discussion here too.
Usually Wikipedia traditions usually goes as per which term is most used in reliable English languages sources. And most terminology comes in accordingly. Most times one does not need to look in to underlying nuanced issues. For example most people are usually not aware and not careful about differentiation between word 'Muslim' and word 'Islam'. If copy editors doing article maintenance know there can be issues about appropriateness may help a little in long run.
For some people (many of them likely conservative) Liberalism and progressivism is basically reinterpreting Islamic scriptures liberally. Islam does not reinterpret it self, who reinterprets is Muslims and liberals. So one can rightly claim that article title should have been, "Liberalism and progressivism among Muslims and liberals".
Probably that was the reason the other editor tried his good faith edit changing 'within Islam' to 'about Islam'.
I just tried to explain, how nuances are experienced differently through different perceptions, and how it connects to copy editing and maintenance tasks, very much indirectly though.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku ( talk) 13:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Greetings @ GenoV84:,
First of all let me appreciate you took lead in recently (October end) updating the article. Same time I do have some concerns about the edits.
Is this accidental deletion or it is really case that you wish to value revivalism more than reinterpretation?
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 09:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Kurzman 1998
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Greetings,
Adequate and nuanced overview for even non– Muslim audience is expected out of the articles Muslims and Muslim world. Whether the articles are achieving that purpose adequately? Requesting and expecting proactive participation in providing inputs from non–Muslim audience too along with Muslim users.
Since the article Muslim world is tagged various improvements it can not be submitted to formal review process still I feel the article deserves more inputs for content improvement.
Requesting your visit to the articles
Thanks
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 06:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
This page currently refers to non-Muslims as "unbelievers". This has a negative connotation and is unnecessary.
Sia271 ( talk) 05:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
There are passages like "Liberal Islam originally emerged out of the Islamic revivalist movement of the 18th-19th centuries" and "and a modern view of Islamic theology, ethics, sharia, culture, tradition, and other ritualistic practices in Islam."
While this seems to be true for many movements, should other Islamic movements that took inspiration from European economics and values be listed in this article as well? GoutComplex ( talk) 21:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The § Ali Shariati section requires a rewrite in fluent, grammatical English. Which particular variety of English isn't as important as that the result be readily understood by most English speakers. The existing text does not rise to this level. Ideally, such a rewrite would be carried out by an editor who is familiar with the work of Ali Shariati. yoyo ( talk) 09:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of ليبرالية إسلامية from ar.wikipedia. |
Index
|
|
Was searching for the definition of "Moderate Islam" and was redirected to this page. There should be treatment on the phrase "Moderate Islam" or "Moderate Muslim". -- 70.142.44.41 ( talk) 22:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Large sections of this article are unsourced. They should either be referenced or deleted. The article has been tagged for original research for more than 3 years. VR talk 06:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Whrn I read this article, I was struck by the similarity of liberal Islamic movements to my own Reform Judaism. This should not be surprising. Judaism and Islam are cut from the same cloth. They both operate around religious law, are both monotheistic, and took similar norms and values from a somewhat similar sacred origin-story. However, Judaism has long been a minority religion in the many lands it has dwelt in, while Islam has been a majority religion in many of its own countries.
Nonetheless, what has happened to Islam in Western countries may be like what happened to Judaism during the Haskalah and the emigration to America and out of Europe. People were free to interact with an outside society. Values of tolerance and friendship, of common courtesy and diversity, were learned, and a traditional society had to cope with the norms and values of a new one. Thus, reform movements naturally arose.
Thus, I felt including Reform Judaism in this article might be helpful. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 04:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know Jelali revolts (XVI. and XVII. century) during the Ottoman era was the first revolt made by people against the religious order. Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed Pasha was also supporting by Jelali revolters who were looking for a more free order. That can be also mentioned. Cemyildiz ( talk) 14:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
This word needs to be replaced by a word in english: "madhahabs".
This is an english encyclopedia. It would be tolerable (just about) if this arabic word were linked to an article explaining what it means; but it links to nothing.
I am going to delete the prose that includes this word; if you restore that deleted text, I presume that you know what the word means, and I expect you to translate it into english. Thanks!
MrDemeanour ( talk) 21:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 5 external links on
Liberal Muslim movements. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Liberal and Progressive Muslim movements's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "AP_detained21May":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Reference named "Metz_KSA_legal_system":
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Reference named "Forbes_lashes_revoked":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Reference named "NPR_lashes_revoked":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Reference named "teleg_w2d_vs_Interior":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Liberal and Progressive Muslim movements's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "AJE_women2325April":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Reference named "arabtimes_4kQatifetc_18March":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Reference named "pressTV_17March_4kQatif":
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Dear LouisAragon, its not about is content sourced or not, problem is that its WP:IRRELEVANT to the title. There are long articles about Green movement and protests. Someone can also copy-paste content from Iran student protests of July 1999, but it would still be irrelevant if sourced text doesn't explain how its related to Liberal/Progressive ideologies. That's all. -- MehrdadFR ( talk) 13:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Dear Rupert loup, you added too much information which are not very relevant to title of this article. Other thing, "see also" section was full of marginal unknown parties which are neither Liberal or Progressive (but monarchist or ultra-nationalist), and not even Muslim. I tried to help by inserting material from Dabashi book about Green movement, and unfortunately I couldn't find label which would fit the title. Still, I found it in another book so OK, it can stay and it may even be expanded, but removing important figures which inspired many youth movements is not acceptable. You should not accuse others for "POV" without any basis, there's nothing related to it in my edits, only obvious problem is you're very ill-informed about Iranian intellectual movements. -- MehrdadFR ( talk) 22:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Liberal and progressive Muslim movements's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "WSJ":
{{
cite news}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
How come Syrian Rebels who are supported by Saudi Arabia are among Liberal and progressive Muslim movements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.233.63 ( talk) 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure it was well-intentioned, but the new title could be about non-religious political progressivism in countries which happen to be Muslim majority, while the old title was about progressivism within Islam (as it said), so that the two are not remotely equivalent... AnonMoos ( talk) 21:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 128 external links on Liberalism and progressivism in the Muslim world. 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) 06:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Liberalism and progressivism in the Muslim world. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://ipsnews.net/text/news.asp?idnews=55293{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sff.ba/news/show/id/1149/culture/en?symfony=04b0df9dcac96cf6cb5cdf8ef42e57fb{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.edmondsun.com/news_tab3/x2122765173/Syrian-dissidents-form-national-council{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.aawsat.net/2012/05/article55242200{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.aawsat.net/2013/02/article55291309{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://suroyotv.com/en/images/files/The_Syriac_Union_Party_In_Syria_entered_the_syrian_embassy_in_Sweden.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://jumacircle.com/2013/03/13/etjc-in-the-news-muslims-talking-about-queer-sexuality/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) 13:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The move to "Reform movements" was apparently motivated by certain currents of discourse in the West that associate the term "reform(ation)" in an Islamic context with liberalism, secularism, etc. This is not how the term "reform(ism)" is generally used in Islamic studies. See, for instance, Lapidus, Ira M. (2014). A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge University Press:
Modern Islamic reformism began as the religious and moral response of ulama, tribal, and urban communities to the decline of Islamic states [...] The reformers were opposed to later accretions to the foundational texts, and to the blending of Muslim and non-Muslim cultures. [...] Reformism came in a broad spectrum of colors, from light corrections of Sufi practice to deep hues of fundamentalism. [...] Contemporary movements of this type are also called "Islamist". [...] The earliest example of a reformist movement in a pastoral and tribal society was the Wahhabi movement in Arabia. p. 514
See also the collection of encyclopedic quotes in the first ref of Wahhabism to confirm that this is standard usage. The older title is also problematic because it conflates liberal/progressive/etc religious interpretations of Islam with movements and ideologies where religion plays little or no role at all. The whole history of Westernisation, communism, socialism, secular nationalism, etc, in the Muslim world could be included here. On the other hand, restricting the scope by using the term "Islamic" in the title would invite OR as to what movements are and aren't sufficiently "Islamic". Unfortunately, there no easy way to make this article anything other than a sprawling gallery of arbitrarily picked "Good Muslims" whom someone somewhere has called "liberal" or "progressive" (and I doubt anyone has bothered to check that it's the case for many of the movements and people listed here). However, the latest move was clearly not an improvement. Eperoton ( talk) 14:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 120 external links on Liberalism and progressivism in the Muslim world. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://europa.eu/youth/se/article/39/24446_en{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=796{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/17264When 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) 21:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The article was WAY too long. I often had to access from low-spec PC or places with crappy Internet connections, and the article was nothing but a nuisance. Made overhauling by (re)focusing on Islam, cutting contents regarding liberal/socialist/social democratic movements that have nothing to do with Islam, creating new articles for notable figures and individual movements:
Even if you disagree with my edit, I seriously urge you not to revert to the old revision. I'm simultaneously a Wikipedia editor and a user, and from user's perspective, it was a complete and immense failure of an article. JahlilMA ( talk) 15:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Liberalism and progressivism within Islam. 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) 19:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
This article has a number of accuracy issues around liberal or progressive Islam. Liberal and progressive Islam doesn’t really go back to any sort of classical Islam. Classical or mainstream Islam derived from Quran and Hadith is conservative or as some might say “fundamental” (meaning practicing the fundamentals not as in extremism).
Rather liberal and progressive Islam tends to depart from the pillars and foundations of Islam and the Quran and Hadith. Examples are in liberal and progressive Islam music is more widely accepted as permissible while it’s haram according to a majority of modern and traditional scholars which point to Hadith.
Liberal and progressive Islam is just a liberal application of Islam to ones daily life and many in those circles believe that Islam can be changed to be more suitable for modern time.
Anyways as advanced notice I intend to overhaul this article to make it accurate as right now it’s not and is misleading. Bkerensa (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
or rationalistic" from sentence
Liberal ideas are considered controversial by traditional Muslims, who criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western or rationalistic"
or rationalistic"
Liberal ideas are considered controversial by traditional Muslims, who criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too... rationalistic.
Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.— WP:IMPARTIAL
Liberal ideas are considered controversial by traditional Muslims, who criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western or rationalistic. [1]
Tariq, Malik Muhammad. "The Ideological Background of Rationality in Islam." (2008): 31-56.
Liberal ideas are considered controversial by traditional Muslims, who, according to Oxford Islamic Studies Online, criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western or rationalistic. However, Muslims argue their religion is grounded in rationality, and some Muslim scholars, such as Mustafa Sabri criticise western thought.
Liberal ideas are considered controversial by traditional Muslims, who, according to Oxford Islamic Studies Online, criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western or rationalistic. However, Muslims argue their religion conforms to rationalism, and some Muslim scholars, such as Mustafa Sabri criticise western thought.
The basic point being made in the cited source seems sound and doesn't make a claim about all traditional forms of traditional Islamic views, so I don't see why its inclusion would be a problem.
We should not be tampering with quotes, but the interpretation of that passage is filled with landmines: e.g., who is a "traditional Muslim", given that some of the liberal currents in Islamic thought long predate the Renaissance? Are we using "traditional" in the sense of political reaction or religious fidelity? I would normally say that providing a little context regarding the source is a good strategy, but I see no connection between the passage and the source at all. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
References
Bookku I don't disagree with
Imtiaz ahmed rifat's removal
here. The article says Liberal ideas are considered controversial by some
traditional Muslims, who criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too
Western or
rationalistic
and that is misleading. Instead the source
says,
Takes several specifically Islamic forms: that divine revelation requires liberalism, that divine revelation allows but does not require liberalism, or that liberalism follows from the fallibility and multiplicity of human interpretations of divine revelation. Remains a controversial position among traditional Muslims, often vilified as inordinately Western or rationalistic.
This seems to be a criticism of rationalism not rationality. In the Islamic context, rationalism often refers to mutazila, though its not clear from this source. Without this additional qualifier, saying that "liberal ideas are criticized for being rationalist" is misleading. VR talk 14:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
relates to second part of second sentence sentences in sourced paragraph i.e. to"... Remains a controversial position among traditional Muslims, often vilified as inordinately Western or rationalistic."
; so better way to simplified reading would be like following."... An ideology encompassing belief in electoral democracy, civil rights, gender equality, human progress, and/or the abolition of premodern social hierarchies. Introduced to the Islamic world in the nineteenth century by Europeans, then wielded against Europeans by Muslim intellectuals who noted the discrepancy between liberal ideals and colonial (and later postcolonial) practices.."
"..., then wielded against Europeans by Muslim intellectuals who noted the discrepancy between liberal ideals and colonial (and later postcolonial) practices....Remains a controversial position among traditional Muslims, often vilified as inordinately Western or rationalistic. "
Liberal ideas are considered controversial by some traditional Muslim intellectuals, who criticize Rationalism of liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western' would be a better sentence ?
The article has a section on Liberalism and progressivism within Islam#Sayyid supremacism and caste system in Islam. How is that related to this topic? Are there sources that consider this a major issue for liberal Islam? VR talk 02:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
This is just information. No action expected nor required vis a vis your edit.
Your recent edit dif 325137 to this article reminded me of a very very very very slow discussion process I began on couple of article talk pages for example @ Talk:Apostasy in Islam#Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?. Some how I missed this article, may be after some more weeks/months I will begin a formal discussion here too.
Usually Wikipedia traditions usually goes as per which term is most used in reliable English languages sources. And most terminology comes in accordingly. Most times one does not need to look in to underlying nuanced issues. For example most people are usually not aware and not careful about differentiation between word 'Muslim' and word 'Islam'. If copy editors doing article maintenance know there can be issues about appropriateness may help a little in long run.
For some people (many of them likely conservative) Liberalism and progressivism is basically reinterpreting Islamic scriptures liberally. Islam does not reinterpret it self, who reinterprets is Muslims and liberals. So one can rightly claim that article title should have been, "Liberalism and progressivism among Muslims and liberals".
Probably that was the reason the other editor tried his good faith edit changing 'within Islam' to 'about Islam'.
I just tried to explain, how nuances are experienced differently through different perceptions, and how it connects to copy editing and maintenance tasks, very much indirectly though.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku ( talk) 13:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Greetings @ GenoV84:,
First of all let me appreciate you took lead in recently (October end) updating the article. Same time I do have some concerns about the edits.
Is this accidental deletion or it is really case that you wish to value revivalism more than reinterpretation?
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 09:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Kurzman 1998
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Greetings,
Adequate and nuanced overview for even non– Muslim audience is expected out of the articles Muslims and Muslim world. Whether the articles are achieving that purpose adequately? Requesting and expecting proactive participation in providing inputs from non–Muslim audience too along with Muslim users.
Since the article Muslim world is tagged various improvements it can not be submitted to formal review process still I feel the article deserves more inputs for content improvement.
Requesting your visit to the articles
Thanks
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 06:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
This page currently refers to non-Muslims as "unbelievers". This has a negative connotation and is unnecessary.
Sia271 ( talk) 05:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
There are passages like "Liberal Islam originally emerged out of the Islamic revivalist movement of the 18th-19th centuries" and "and a modern view of Islamic theology, ethics, sharia, culture, tradition, and other ritualistic practices in Islam."
While this seems to be true for many movements, should other Islamic movements that took inspiration from European economics and values be listed in this article as well? GoutComplex ( talk) 21:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The § Ali Shariati section requires a rewrite in fluent, grammatical English. Which particular variety of English isn't as important as that the result be readily understood by most English speakers. The existing text does not rise to this level. Ideally, such a rewrite would be carried out by an editor who is familiar with the work of Ali Shariati. yoyo ( talk) 09:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)