This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Najis 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 |
![]() | A fact from Najis appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 May 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Khomeini believed non-Muslims to be najis. The information can be verified here. Auca m an Talk 02:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, could you please let me know if the Dhimmi's were banned not to go out in rain or snow. + was these restrictions at some places and at particular times, or they were global and at all times. Thanks -- Aminz 08:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Q #1. "Persian Muslims sought to limit contact with non-Muslims by requiring them to settle in separate parts of the city" In which cities did this happen? everywhere? Some cities? all cities? when?
Q #2. "banning them from public baths"; the same questions as above + Did those separate parts of the city have public baths? I believe most people didn't have private baths at that time so banning from public baths means they didn't take bath at all during their whole life?!
Q #3. "or even demanding them not to go out in rain or snow". Who demanded them? When and where was this demanded? was this demand global and at all times? Was it an obligation? Was it a restriction? + why should the sentence above tries to persuade the reader into thinking that such a DEMAND is worst than other RESTRICTIONS? (using the word "even").
Q #4. "where the belief in the uncleanness of non-Muslims brought restrictions and persecutions to the non-Muslim population of Persia." I am asking about the word "persecutions". Does any restriction by itself imply "persecution"? I think "persecution" has the element of violence in it. Doesn't it?
-- Aminz 21:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
No doubt they are sourced material but I just want to have them more precise. Please answer the above questions which will help us improving the article. Thanks -- Aminz 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The above questions are relevant I think. I know that your sentences are quotes from the sources but the sources should give a more detailed picture. Some of the questions are quite natural I think (like Q#2). I don't have access to the sources but you have so please add some quotes that make the sentences more clear. Thanks -- Aminz 21:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I understand your argument. I actually just talked about this a persian friend who conceded existence of such restrictions. I just removed the word "even" from the intro; the rest is fine with me. -- Aminz 00:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Everyone, let's not personalize this any more than it has already been. I've answered some of Aminz questions, so hopefully we can move on. Aucaman Talk 09:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me stress that it's not anyone's (certainly not one individual's) responsibility to answer people's questions. You can definitely ask questions, but they're unanswered it doesn't warrant the removal of sourced information. In any case here's an attempt to answer your questions:
This was an attempt to answer your questions. Aucaman Talk 02:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my last edit summary was incorrect - [ Quran 9:28 is, in fact, the right verse. All the others were wrong. We need to be more careful about these things. Timothy Usher 04:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"Designation of non-Muslims as unclean, mostly limited to Iranian Shi'ism, may be the product of Zoroastrian influences"
to
" Designation of non-Muslims as unclean, mostly limited to Iranian Shi'ism, according to Bernard Lewis may be the product of Zoroastrian influences."
Moving my conversation with Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg on this issue:
Hi Aminz, you are possibly right, however on wikipedia we are not supposed to state the author of the source in the articles text unless there is an opposing reference *and* if the original source is considered unreliable. Bernard Lewis however, is considered reputable and reliable enough. Feel free to add another reference so that you can spell out your complaints without it being original research. Usually by virtue of the name of the author of a source appearing most people will assume the article is suggesting that the person is biased.-- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg
Well its not common sense to me. I am admitedly not an expert on shiism or anything, but I think I am probably more knowledgable on it than an average person and I really wouldn't have the foggiest idea that it is common sense to Shiite Jurists.
The reasoning you provided not only doesn't seem like common sense but seems quite esoteric (to me, probably not to you though). I think you are just going to have to provide a reference for this one man. I understand what you mean though, for every culture there are things that have become so ingrained in their collective consciousness and memory from such a young age that it is near impossible to understand how some poeple do not already know it. I guess that is a problem with having such a heterogenous community on English Wikipedia.
Thanks -- Aminz 07:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
It is important to see who says that "maybe". I think we should say according to some scholars it is maybe. According to Shia jurists it is not even "maybe". They believe their Hadiths to be authentic. -- Aminz 07:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, when you don't post anything here, I assume you have agreed with my argument. Silence is a sign of acceptance. Isn't it? -- Aminz 09:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"Designation of non-Muslims as unclean is mostly limited to Iranian Shi'ism" is incorrect. See the view of Sistani who is an Iraqi regarding uncleanness of non-Muslims: Ali al-Sistani states that Jews and the Christians who do not accept the prophethood of Muhammad "are commonly considered najis, but it is not improbable that they are Pak [that is, clean]. However, it is better to avoid them." -- Aminz 23:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
What's the problem with mentioning Bernard Lewis in text? Conversely, why is it necessary, as he's cited either way? I've nothing against him, I just want to hear from both parties why this is a dispute. Timothy Usher 08:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, your last edit summary said "yes but it is not the POV shared by Shia scholars", if that is true then add them using a reputbale and reliable source. We are not allowed to just say the author of a source in the text because we do not agree with it. By doing so you are iinsinuating that he is biuased and unreliable, please don't do that.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Timothy, Pecher and Moshe: in the last 200 years, e.g. christendom never had much qualms admitting pagan influence on Christmas or Easter. Such stance is not to be expected by Shia - or Sunni Muslims, which even nowadays could't admit pagan heritage theologically. Just an assessment, no evaluation intended, as the issue is out of focus anyway. As far as we know by the sources given (so far only heavyweight Lewis) it's the authoritative academic opinion, adding a qualifier puts that into doubt. As long as a differing academic opinion isn't cited, that's unwarranted. -- tickle me 01:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, please read the section carefully: it includes both Muslim holy texts and influences of other religions. It is not only academic view, but the views of both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. Pecher Talk 13:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I tried to make the Shi'a ideas about this issue more NPOV by using "Islamic low"(Resala Amalya) and I tried to show all of the viewpoints not few of them. -- Sa.vakilian 06:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Should this be merged to Ritual purity in Islam? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
There appears to be a contradiction between the two lines:
“Najis things cannot be purified, in contrast to things which are defiled only..”
and “It is possible to purify a thing which has become najis.” 21fafs ( talk) 18:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
sbxbxn
Dhxbnc
Fbcvxv
Cncxbn
Cncnmf
धज्डज
Fbcbx
CR cncb 2409:4051:4E1D:B38D:0:0:770B:9D05 ( talk) 03:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Najis 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 |
![]() | A fact from Najis appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 7 May 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Khomeini believed non-Muslims to be najis. The information can be verified here. Auca m an Talk 02:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, could you please let me know if the Dhimmi's were banned not to go out in rain or snow. + was these restrictions at some places and at particular times, or they were global and at all times. Thanks -- Aminz 08:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Q #1. "Persian Muslims sought to limit contact with non-Muslims by requiring them to settle in separate parts of the city" In which cities did this happen? everywhere? Some cities? all cities? when?
Q #2. "banning them from public baths"; the same questions as above + Did those separate parts of the city have public baths? I believe most people didn't have private baths at that time so banning from public baths means they didn't take bath at all during their whole life?!
Q #3. "or even demanding them not to go out in rain or snow". Who demanded them? When and where was this demanded? was this demand global and at all times? Was it an obligation? Was it a restriction? + why should the sentence above tries to persuade the reader into thinking that such a DEMAND is worst than other RESTRICTIONS? (using the word "even").
Q #4. "where the belief in the uncleanness of non-Muslims brought restrictions and persecutions to the non-Muslim population of Persia." I am asking about the word "persecutions". Does any restriction by itself imply "persecution"? I think "persecution" has the element of violence in it. Doesn't it?
-- Aminz 21:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
No doubt they are sourced material but I just want to have them more precise. Please answer the above questions which will help us improving the article. Thanks -- Aminz 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The above questions are relevant I think. I know that your sentences are quotes from the sources but the sources should give a more detailed picture. Some of the questions are quite natural I think (like Q#2). I don't have access to the sources but you have so please add some quotes that make the sentences more clear. Thanks -- Aminz 21:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I understand your argument. I actually just talked about this a persian friend who conceded existence of such restrictions. I just removed the word "even" from the intro; the rest is fine with me. -- Aminz 00:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Everyone, let's not personalize this any more than it has already been. I've answered some of Aminz questions, so hopefully we can move on. Aucaman Talk 09:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me stress that it's not anyone's (certainly not one individual's) responsibility to answer people's questions. You can definitely ask questions, but they're unanswered it doesn't warrant the removal of sourced information. In any case here's an attempt to answer your questions:
This was an attempt to answer your questions. Aucaman Talk 02:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my last edit summary was incorrect - [ Quran 9:28 is, in fact, the right verse. All the others were wrong. We need to be more careful about these things. Timothy Usher 04:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"Designation of non-Muslims as unclean, mostly limited to Iranian Shi'ism, may be the product of Zoroastrian influences"
to
" Designation of non-Muslims as unclean, mostly limited to Iranian Shi'ism, according to Bernard Lewis may be the product of Zoroastrian influences."
Moving my conversation with Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg on this issue:
Hi Aminz, you are possibly right, however on wikipedia we are not supposed to state the author of the source in the articles text unless there is an opposing reference *and* if the original source is considered unreliable. Bernard Lewis however, is considered reputable and reliable enough. Feel free to add another reference so that you can spell out your complaints without it being original research. Usually by virtue of the name of the author of a source appearing most people will assume the article is suggesting that the person is biased.-- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg
Well its not common sense to me. I am admitedly not an expert on shiism or anything, but I think I am probably more knowledgable on it than an average person and I really wouldn't have the foggiest idea that it is common sense to Shiite Jurists.
The reasoning you provided not only doesn't seem like common sense but seems quite esoteric (to me, probably not to you though). I think you are just going to have to provide a reference for this one man. I understand what you mean though, for every culture there are things that have become so ingrained in their collective consciousness and memory from such a young age that it is near impossible to understand how some poeple do not already know it. I guess that is a problem with having such a heterogenous community on English Wikipedia.
Thanks -- Aminz 07:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
It is important to see who says that "maybe". I think we should say according to some scholars it is maybe. According to Shia jurists it is not even "maybe". They believe their Hadiths to be authentic. -- Aminz 07:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, when you don't post anything here, I assume you have agreed with my argument. Silence is a sign of acceptance. Isn't it? -- Aminz 09:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
"Designation of non-Muslims as unclean is mostly limited to Iranian Shi'ism" is incorrect. See the view of Sistani who is an Iraqi regarding uncleanness of non-Muslims: Ali al-Sistani states that Jews and the Christians who do not accept the prophethood of Muhammad "are commonly considered najis, but it is not improbable that they are Pak [that is, clean]. However, it is better to avoid them." -- Aminz 23:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
What's the problem with mentioning Bernard Lewis in text? Conversely, why is it necessary, as he's cited either way? I've nothing against him, I just want to hear from both parties why this is a dispute. Timothy Usher 08:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, your last edit summary said "yes but it is not the POV shared by Shia scholars", if that is true then add them using a reputbale and reliable source. We are not allowed to just say the author of a source in the text because we do not agree with it. By doing so you are iinsinuating that he is biuased and unreliable, please don't do that.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Timothy, Pecher and Moshe: in the last 200 years, e.g. christendom never had much qualms admitting pagan influence on Christmas or Easter. Such stance is not to be expected by Shia - or Sunni Muslims, which even nowadays could't admit pagan heritage theologically. Just an assessment, no evaluation intended, as the issue is out of focus anyway. As far as we know by the sources given (so far only heavyweight Lewis) it's the authoritative academic opinion, adding a qualifier puts that into doubt. As long as a differing academic opinion isn't cited, that's unwarranted. -- tickle me 01:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Aminz, please read the section carefully: it includes both Muslim holy texts and influences of other religions. It is not only academic view, but the views of both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars. Pecher Talk 13:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I tried to make the Shi'a ideas about this issue more NPOV by using "Islamic low"(Resala Amalya) and I tried to show all of the viewpoints not few of them. -- Sa.vakilian 06:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Should this be merged to Ritual purity in Islam? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
There appears to be a contradiction between the two lines:
“Najis things cannot be purified, in contrast to things which are defiled only..”
and “It is possible to purify a thing which has become najis.” 21fafs ( talk) 18:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
sbxbxn
Dhxbnc
Fbcvxv
Cncxbn
Cncnmf
धज्डज
Fbcbx
CR cncb 2409:4051:4E1D:B38D:0:0:770B:9D05 ( talk) 03:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)