![]() | A fact from Pacifism in Islam appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 November 2009 (
check views). 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Nonviolence ( inactive) | |||
|
I have some concerns about the intro of this article. To begin with, it states that:
Unlike its Christian counterpart, Pacifism in Islam is traditionally seen as governing non-violence within the Muslim Ummah, rather than fostering the unattainable ideal of global peace which is not desired until the Mahdi arrives, and the world converts to Islam.
There is only one source given for this statement, and given the variable quality of Western scholarship re: Islam I would like to see more support for this statement, specifically from respected scholars.
Edit: Having had some more time to look into this, I have found the source in question, and it appears to contain not a single statement in support of the above. This is obviously quite a cause for concern.
The intro goes on to state:
Mainstream scholars have suggested the idea of pacifism is "problematic" within the confines of Islamic interpretation, as Muhammad led a successful string of conquests to expand the Muslim empire.
Anyone can make such bold claims. But who are these "mainstream scholars"? For potentially controversial statements, we need specific statements, not bold but unsupported assertions. Gatoclass ( talk) 09:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it's confusing, especially for a Wiki reader who knows little about pacifism in Islam and comes to the article for an introduction to the topic.
The "Recent Movements" content (to the left of the quote) lists historic examples of pacifists, so many readers are probably expecting that the quote will also point out the significance of pacifism in Islam. Yet the quote goes in the opposite direction. If I'm interpreting correctly, Khomeini is attacking those in Islam who counsel against war. NinetyNineFennelSeeds ( talk) 22:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
A source that I found that talk about pacifism in Islamic scriptures. Rupert Loup ( talk) 12:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted (at 3RR now), pointed the IP to WP:V and WP:BRD but to no avail. The source cited "Majid Khadduri, The Law of War and Peace" is apparantly a 1941 Ph.D. thesis which has not gained much traction. The book mentions the term "pacifist" only once in conjunction with a "extremely pacifist sect", the maziyariyya", which appears anything but mainstream. Even the title of the book does not jive with the basic tenets of pacifism. All this (and the editwarring) leads me to conclude that the source mentioned isn't used appropriately and IP is POV-pushing. Kleuske ( talk) 12:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Some users push all the time mentioning of "Pacifist traditions" in islam and removing quality content to make it looking in their way. Adding sources what didnt made any impact or are personal opinions. pov pushing and cherry picking 178.221.249.176 ( talk) 23:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Where it is said to there is no normative tradition of islam, it is true. Facts are presented in the sources about rules and historical examples of warfare. Numerous sources can be found about Quran and Hadith and about history. Majority of muslims are Sunni and Shia and by numbers and infulence they are almost absolute and mainstream. There cant be taken fringe communities, movements and personal examples as rule or showing to things are different. Pacifism is clear. Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, but should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist that is balance. 178.221.249.176 ( talk) 03:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Cant be taken small not mainstream communities, movements and personal examples as rule or showing to things are different. Especially not in leading section. Pacifism is clear. If you promote some own agenda make blog or something like that and then preach. 178.221.249.176 ( talk) 03:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I understand your point, but we cant make to put notability about if minority hold some opinion and majority doesnt, it can look as pov pushing, advocacy etc. It should be about facts. Also traditions are clearly on the side of mainstream majority . There is indeed minority but it is already into content, under History secction, it is content about movements and schools of thought and personal achievements. Waging war is different and totally oposite of pacifism. And what to do, serious majority of scholars and population hold opinion to self defence, aid to other muslims and breaking deal is the reasons to wage war. We cant ignore what normative mean, what traditions are, what some general rules are, and to warfare has been integral part of Islamic history and for defense and for the other reasons. So I am for to content stay as it is. Thank you. 178.221.249.176 ( talk) 05:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I understand to you maybe have a motivation to if there is not some accepted pacifism to make one, for that you can make your own web blog. "Sufyān al- Thawrī (d. 161/778) headed what Khadduri calls a pacifist school which maintained that jihād was only a defensive war" You dont know what pacifism is . And waging war even defensive is not acording to pacifism. Sources represents teaching and historical examples to war is well accepted and regulated In islam since prophet Muhammad life. 178.221.249.176 ( talk) 17:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
ok, seems yo dont get it, islam has a lot of sources and I can find many about war and when to wage war and how, pacifism is against to wage war in self defence or anyhow. personal doing of couple of examples, not many just couple, and schools of thought and some movements do not make impact about mainstream and normative traditions . We cant here lie and pretend to things are different. 178.221.249.176 ( talk) 17:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Only you do pov pushing, if your personal opinion is different you want to present thing in your own way. Some movements and some persons tryied to link pacifism with their teachings and that is all. And pacifism is not if someone does not opose war and violence in self defence or for some other reasons. Normative traditions and mainstream schools and majority of population think in not pacifist way, history sources also shows that, and facts shows that. in the name of balancing is noted when reasons for to stop waging war stop, fighting should stop too and that is it. 178.221.249.176 ( talk) 18:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems that the topic of pacifism in Islam is a devisive topic and I believe it should not be. Mohammed ( peace be upon him) was a very peaceful man at the outset of the birth of Islam. However it must be realised that for the Qur'an to be properly interpreted we must view it through the eye's of Mohammed. All earlier verses were abrogated by him in favour of verses that were written at a later date. By this time Mohammed was in fact a warlord and had conquered nearly 10 million square miles. Islam did not spread, it was inflicted upon people much like Christianity. Pacifism in Islam does exist, but only within Islam. Maybe the title could be changed to reflect this fact. Actions(violence) against infidels is not only tolerated but encouraged by the holy book. Interpretation of the Qur'an is key to this topic, but nowhere does it state to be peaceful to the kafir. RuthMargolis ( talk) 21:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Some bands of Muslims favour violence against anybody outside of their class of Islam as deemed permissible by the Qur'an. Pacifism means settling any dispute by peaceful means. Self defense can not be regarded as being peaceful, therefore you can not be termed a pacifist. If a religion calls for self defence then it can not be deemed to be a form of pacifism.
RuthMargolis ( talk) 21:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Two relatively similar articles/topics. Citations needed on Peace in Islam. The two pages are not too long. Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Reference 2 is in https://www.clearquran.com/010.html. It is a verse in the Quran. However its contextual occurrence indicates end-of-times peace as in Paradise, which is mentioned in the following verse 10:26, I'm not opposed to keeping it, however if the intent is to discuss Islam and world view peace why not mention verse 49:13 "O people! We created you from a male and a female, and made you races and tribes, that you may know one another. The best among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is All-Knowing, Well-Experienced." Finally if the objective is to find a basis or lack thereof for compulsion in Islam, why not quote verse 2:256 "There shall be no compulsion in religion; the right way has become distinct from the wrong way. Whoever renounces evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handle; which does not break. God is Hearing and Knowing."
On a personal basis, I'm an american muslim born in Morocco, a predominately muslim country. I grew up with christian and jewish neighbors, and I went to a christian pre-school, never felt they were compelled to change their view on religion. Of course there are extremists in 1.7 B population but they do not define the majority view on peace. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.100.26 ( talk) 00:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the title "Peace in Islamic Philosophy" reflects a good topic and should remain as a distinct topic from "pacifism", this is a slightly different topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.100.26 ( talk) 00:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I am against proposed merge. It should stay how it is. Different articles and different topics. "Pacifism" is not equal to "peace" in general. Thank you. Avigorlevy^^ ( talk) 20:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Pacifism in Islam: The first paragraph needs a more balanced edit. The page indicated by the first reference does not support the first sentence in this entry, may be another page in the book?. The second reference is obviously less than neutral. While Pacifism as a solution to everything is not central to Islam, it is acknowledged and made as an example of behavior in some situations as in the story of Cain and Abel in the Quran 5:28,
5:28 “If you extend your hand to kill me, I will not extend my hand to kill you; for I fear God, Lord of the Worlds.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.102.202 ( talk) 03:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is good. And about content it is well balanced. Mainstream mean all main major denomination. Sources in Islam are Quran and Hadith too. Also main consensus of islam scholars,Figh. Pacifism is pacifism and in Islam fight in self defense is accepted and permited and even obligatory and multiple sources are aviable for that. Also as aid to other Muslims. Tnx. Avigorlevy^^ ( talk) 07:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Some of the sources that has been added were WP:PRIMARY, Wikipedia discourages their use so we should discuss their addition first. This discussion is also talking place in Talk:Islam and violence#Response to Pacifism Post Above. Rupert Loup ( talk) 10:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
According to First Intifada, violence such as stone throwing, Molotov cocktails was used, alongside nonviolent tactics, by Palestinians right from the beginning of the Intifada in 1987. This article suggests otherwise. Which article is correct? -- 2A02:3030:406:CEA0:71C8:B0D7:89B:C7A4 ( talk) 09:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Pacifism in Islam appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 25 November 2009 (
check views). 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Nonviolence ( inactive) | |||
|
I have some concerns about the intro of this article. To begin with, it states that:
Unlike its Christian counterpart, Pacifism in Islam is traditionally seen as governing non-violence within the Muslim Ummah, rather than fostering the unattainable ideal of global peace which is not desired until the Mahdi arrives, and the world converts to Islam.
There is only one source given for this statement, and given the variable quality of Western scholarship re: Islam I would like to see more support for this statement, specifically from respected scholars.
Edit: Having had some more time to look into this, I have found the source in question, and it appears to contain not a single statement in support of the above. This is obviously quite a cause for concern.
The intro goes on to state:
Mainstream scholars have suggested the idea of pacifism is "problematic" within the confines of Islamic interpretation, as Muhammad led a successful string of conquests to expand the Muslim empire.
Anyone can make such bold claims. But who are these "mainstream scholars"? For potentially controversial statements, we need specific statements, not bold but unsupported assertions. Gatoclass ( talk) 09:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it's confusing, especially for a Wiki reader who knows little about pacifism in Islam and comes to the article for an introduction to the topic.
The "Recent Movements" content (to the left of the quote) lists historic examples of pacifists, so many readers are probably expecting that the quote will also point out the significance of pacifism in Islam. Yet the quote goes in the opposite direction. If I'm interpreting correctly, Khomeini is attacking those in Islam who counsel against war. NinetyNineFennelSeeds ( talk) 22:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
A source that I found that talk about pacifism in Islamic scriptures. Rupert Loup ( talk) 12:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted (at 3RR now), pointed the IP to WP:V and WP:BRD but to no avail. The source cited "Majid Khadduri, The Law of War and Peace" is apparantly a 1941 Ph.D. thesis which has not gained much traction. The book mentions the term "pacifist" only once in conjunction with a "extremely pacifist sect", the maziyariyya", which appears anything but mainstream. Even the title of the book does not jive with the basic tenets of pacifism. All this (and the editwarring) leads me to conclude that the source mentioned isn't used appropriately and IP is POV-pushing. Kleuske ( talk) 12:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Some users push all the time mentioning of "Pacifist traditions" in islam and removing quality content to make it looking in their way. Adding sources what didnt made any impact or are personal opinions. pov pushing and cherry picking 178.221.249.176 ( talk) 23:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Where it is said to there is no normative tradition of islam, it is true. Facts are presented in the sources about rules and historical examples of warfare. Numerous sources can be found about Quran and Hadith and about history. Majority of muslims are Sunni and Shia and by numbers and infulence they are almost absolute and mainstream. There cant be taken fringe communities, movements and personal examples as rule or showing to things are different. Pacifism is clear. Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, but should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist that is balance. 178.221.249.176 ( talk) 03:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Cant be taken small not mainstream communities, movements and personal examples as rule or showing to things are different. Especially not in leading section. Pacifism is clear. If you promote some own agenda make blog or something like that and then preach. 178.221.249.176 ( talk) 03:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I understand your point, but we cant make to put notability about if minority hold some opinion and majority doesnt, it can look as pov pushing, advocacy etc. It should be about facts. Also traditions are clearly on the side of mainstream majority . There is indeed minority but it is already into content, under History secction, it is content about movements and schools of thought and personal achievements. Waging war is different and totally oposite of pacifism. And what to do, serious majority of scholars and population hold opinion to self defence, aid to other muslims and breaking deal is the reasons to wage war. We cant ignore what normative mean, what traditions are, what some general rules are, and to warfare has been integral part of Islamic history and for defense and for the other reasons. So I am for to content stay as it is. Thank you. 178.221.249.176 ( talk) 05:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I understand to you maybe have a motivation to if there is not some accepted pacifism to make one, for that you can make your own web blog. "Sufyān al- Thawrī (d. 161/778) headed what Khadduri calls a pacifist school which maintained that jihād was only a defensive war" You dont know what pacifism is . And waging war even defensive is not acording to pacifism. Sources represents teaching and historical examples to war is well accepted and regulated In islam since prophet Muhammad life. 178.221.249.176 ( talk) 17:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
ok, seems yo dont get it, islam has a lot of sources and I can find many about war and when to wage war and how, pacifism is against to wage war in self defence or anyhow. personal doing of couple of examples, not many just couple, and schools of thought and some movements do not make impact about mainstream and normative traditions . We cant here lie and pretend to things are different. 178.221.249.176 ( talk) 17:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Only you do pov pushing, if your personal opinion is different you want to present thing in your own way. Some movements and some persons tryied to link pacifism with their teachings and that is all. And pacifism is not if someone does not opose war and violence in self defence or for some other reasons. Normative traditions and mainstream schools and majority of population think in not pacifist way, history sources also shows that, and facts shows that. in the name of balancing is noted when reasons for to stop waging war stop, fighting should stop too and that is it. 178.221.249.176 ( talk) 18:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems that the topic of pacifism in Islam is a devisive topic and I believe it should not be. Mohammed ( peace be upon him) was a very peaceful man at the outset of the birth of Islam. However it must be realised that for the Qur'an to be properly interpreted we must view it through the eye's of Mohammed. All earlier verses were abrogated by him in favour of verses that were written at a later date. By this time Mohammed was in fact a warlord and had conquered nearly 10 million square miles. Islam did not spread, it was inflicted upon people much like Christianity. Pacifism in Islam does exist, but only within Islam. Maybe the title could be changed to reflect this fact. Actions(violence) against infidels is not only tolerated but encouraged by the holy book. Interpretation of the Qur'an is key to this topic, but nowhere does it state to be peaceful to the kafir. RuthMargolis ( talk) 21:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Some bands of Muslims favour violence against anybody outside of their class of Islam as deemed permissible by the Qur'an. Pacifism means settling any dispute by peaceful means. Self defense can not be regarded as being peaceful, therefore you can not be termed a pacifist. If a religion calls for self defence then it can not be deemed to be a form of pacifism.
RuthMargolis ( talk) 21:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Two relatively similar articles/topics. Citations needed on Peace in Islam. The two pages are not too long. Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Reference 2 is in https://www.clearquran.com/010.html. It is a verse in the Quran. However its contextual occurrence indicates end-of-times peace as in Paradise, which is mentioned in the following verse 10:26, I'm not opposed to keeping it, however if the intent is to discuss Islam and world view peace why not mention verse 49:13 "O people! We created you from a male and a female, and made you races and tribes, that you may know one another. The best among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is All-Knowing, Well-Experienced." Finally if the objective is to find a basis or lack thereof for compulsion in Islam, why not quote verse 2:256 "There shall be no compulsion in religion; the right way has become distinct from the wrong way. Whoever renounces evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handle; which does not break. God is Hearing and Knowing."
On a personal basis, I'm an american muslim born in Morocco, a predominately muslim country. I grew up with christian and jewish neighbors, and I went to a christian pre-school, never felt they were compelled to change their view on religion. Of course there are extremists in 1.7 B population but they do not define the majority view on peace. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.100.26 ( talk) 00:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the title "Peace in Islamic Philosophy" reflects a good topic and should remain as a distinct topic from "pacifism", this is a slightly different topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.100.26 ( talk) 00:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I am against proposed merge. It should stay how it is. Different articles and different topics. "Pacifism" is not equal to "peace" in general. Thank you. Avigorlevy^^ ( talk) 20:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Pacifism in Islam: The first paragraph needs a more balanced edit. The page indicated by the first reference does not support the first sentence in this entry, may be another page in the book?. The second reference is obviously less than neutral. While Pacifism as a solution to everything is not central to Islam, it is acknowledged and made as an example of behavior in some situations as in the story of Cain and Abel in the Quran 5:28,
5:28 “If you extend your hand to kill me, I will not extend my hand to kill you; for I fear God, Lord of the Worlds.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.102.202 ( talk) 03:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
This article is good. And about content it is well balanced. Mainstream mean all main major denomination. Sources in Islam are Quran and Hadith too. Also main consensus of islam scholars,Figh. Pacifism is pacifism and in Islam fight in self defense is accepted and permited and even obligatory and multiple sources are aviable for that. Also as aid to other Muslims. Tnx. Avigorlevy^^ ( talk) 07:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Some of the sources that has been added were WP:PRIMARY, Wikipedia discourages their use so we should discuss their addition first. This discussion is also talking place in Talk:Islam and violence#Response to Pacifism Post Above. Rupert Loup ( talk) 10:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
According to First Intifada, violence such as stone throwing, Molotov cocktails was used, alongside nonviolent tactics, by Palestinians right from the beginning of the Intifada in 1987. This article suggests otherwise. Which article is correct? -- 2A02:3030:406:CEA0:71C8:B0D7:89B:C7A4 ( talk) 09:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)