![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Qisas and Diyya are two sides of the same idea. Qisas is the idea of exact retribution (eye for an eye) and diyya is the idea of compensation instead of exact retribution. both articles contain much of the same material and might therefore benefit from merging. Misheu 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
A reference to Pan Am 103 and IR655 has been placed on this page. I defy the CIA to remove it. Tarannon103 ( talk) 16:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
@ KahnJohn27: You left the edit comment, "The source is actually stating that Maliki, Hanafi and Hanafi schools don't apply Qisas in case a Muslim kills a non-Muslim." Please note that the article read, "(Qisas applies when) a Muslim kills another Muslim; and, when a non-Muslim kills a Muslim." You are confusing that with "Muslim killing a non-Muslim." I have, after checking the source again, and adding another reliable cite, reinstated and reworded the text. RLoutfy ( talk) 04:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@ KahnJohn27: Please stop creating your own rules for wikipedia. WP:V states that sources must be verifiable, which does not mean "it must be visible to general public in google preview". Verifiable reliable source includes anything in a good library and all scholarly publications that one must pay to access/read. Yes, go to a library or buy the book. Or, show me a wikipedia policy or guideline page which states, ""WP:V means the content must be visible to the general public in google preview". Meanwhile, I suggest you do not remove cites in future that "google preview" does not show you; instead, assume good faith, consider WP:SOURCEACCESS and someone may be able to help you with reliable sources that "google preview" doesn't display.
FYI, in some cases, google preview does not display pages or search-match that are blocked from view. On Friedmann, read again. The context and footnotes make it obvious that it is al-Sarakhsi views. Are you able to read pages 45-50, or is it blocked in google preview for you? Different views are summarized on page 45 onwards. RLoutfy ( talk) 20:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
KahnJohn27 Okay. We are interpreting Friedmann's p. 44-45 differently. Friedmann states "According to al-Sarakhsi...." on p. 44 line 20, and notes in footnote 166 the different view of al-Shabi right after attributing it to Abu Hanifa. You alleged in your comment at 23:19-15 February, "It wasn't talking about al-Sarakshi's views nor did it even use al-Sarakshi as a source." Now, you accept that it is "multiple views, not just of al-Sarakhsi." Either way, the article is better now than it was before. I appreciate your comments. Our primary dispute is elsewhere. Our dispute is "your deleting reliable sources." Just don't. Please respect wikipedia policies, such as one quoted above.
RLoutfy (
talk)
15:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The section doesn't even the word "honor crime" anywhere. It only mentions Qisas isn't applicable if a parent or grandparent kills their children. The section should talk about honor crimes only or the Qisas not being applicable should be linked with honor crimes using sources. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 20:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
This section includes two hadiths, can anyone verify their authenticity? 20:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC) CounterTime ( talk)
While working on article Islamic advice literature I realized that word 'Qisas' is appearing in different meaning at Qisas Al-Anbiya it comes as story/anecdote telling (alternative spelling Kissa). And in article named Qisas seems to come as revenge. Need support in creating proper disambiguation page and links so reader do not end up in unexpected pages.
Of course article Islamic advice literature too needs support in update and expansion since lot of scholarly references are available in books and google scholar too.
Thanks in advance and greetings
Bookku ( talk) 07:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There should be more primary sources concerning the ahadith and Fiqhi issues related to the Qisas on Muslims in the Case of non Muslims and the differentiation between someone who is and isn’t under the protection of the state (Dhimmi). A good place to start is Fath ul-Bari 6517 93.112.194.126 ( talk) 07:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Peace be upon you, I have a question: I edited a section to provide context for a verse, and that was not accepted. Why is that? I provided a source for the quotation, and anyone can go check it if they want. The context is very important so the reader could understand the meaning of it. Leaving it without context means that it is likely people misinterpret it, and I do not see the mistake in providing a view from authetic Islamic sources. Anwar Jihad ( talk) 17:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
My changes in this article keep getting reverted, even though I have modified it several times to the recommendations of those editing. Can someone please explain why this is? I have left the different view in it's place, and added another one. Is there no place for contrasting opinions on Wikipedia? This is very annoying, and may I add, a little disrespectful, as I do not see why my opinion on what needs to be added or not is any less than any other user's. Anwar Jihad ( talk) 17:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Qisas and Diyya are two sides of the same idea. Qisas is the idea of exact retribution (eye for an eye) and diyya is the idea of compensation instead of exact retribution. both articles contain much of the same material and might therefore benefit from merging. Misheu 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
A reference to Pan Am 103 and IR655 has been placed on this page. I defy the CIA to remove it. Tarannon103 ( talk) 16:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
@ KahnJohn27: You left the edit comment, "The source is actually stating that Maliki, Hanafi and Hanafi schools don't apply Qisas in case a Muslim kills a non-Muslim." Please note that the article read, "(Qisas applies when) a Muslim kills another Muslim; and, when a non-Muslim kills a Muslim." You are confusing that with "Muslim killing a non-Muslim." I have, after checking the source again, and adding another reliable cite, reinstated and reworded the text. RLoutfy ( talk) 04:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@ KahnJohn27: Please stop creating your own rules for wikipedia. WP:V states that sources must be verifiable, which does not mean "it must be visible to general public in google preview". Verifiable reliable source includes anything in a good library and all scholarly publications that one must pay to access/read. Yes, go to a library or buy the book. Or, show me a wikipedia policy or guideline page which states, ""WP:V means the content must be visible to the general public in google preview". Meanwhile, I suggest you do not remove cites in future that "google preview" does not show you; instead, assume good faith, consider WP:SOURCEACCESS and someone may be able to help you with reliable sources that "google preview" doesn't display.
FYI, in some cases, google preview does not display pages or search-match that are blocked from view. On Friedmann, read again. The context and footnotes make it obvious that it is al-Sarakhsi views. Are you able to read pages 45-50, or is it blocked in google preview for you? Different views are summarized on page 45 onwards. RLoutfy ( talk) 20:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
KahnJohn27 Okay. We are interpreting Friedmann's p. 44-45 differently. Friedmann states "According to al-Sarakhsi...." on p. 44 line 20, and notes in footnote 166 the different view of al-Shabi right after attributing it to Abu Hanifa. You alleged in your comment at 23:19-15 February, "It wasn't talking about al-Sarakshi's views nor did it even use al-Sarakshi as a source." Now, you accept that it is "multiple views, not just of al-Sarakhsi." Either way, the article is better now than it was before. I appreciate your comments. Our primary dispute is elsewhere. Our dispute is "your deleting reliable sources." Just don't. Please respect wikipedia policies, such as one quoted above.
RLoutfy (
talk)
15:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The section doesn't even the word "honor crime" anywhere. It only mentions Qisas isn't applicable if a parent or grandparent kills their children. The section should talk about honor crimes only or the Qisas not being applicable should be linked with honor crimes using sources. KahnJohn27 ( talk) 20:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
This section includes two hadiths, can anyone verify their authenticity? 20:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC) CounterTime ( talk)
While working on article Islamic advice literature I realized that word 'Qisas' is appearing in different meaning at Qisas Al-Anbiya it comes as story/anecdote telling (alternative spelling Kissa). And in article named Qisas seems to come as revenge. Need support in creating proper disambiguation page and links so reader do not end up in unexpected pages.
Of course article Islamic advice literature too needs support in update and expansion since lot of scholarly references are available in books and google scholar too.
Thanks in advance and greetings
Bookku ( talk) 07:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
There should be more primary sources concerning the ahadith and Fiqhi issues related to the Qisas on Muslims in the Case of non Muslims and the differentiation between someone who is and isn’t under the protection of the state (Dhimmi). A good place to start is Fath ul-Bari 6517 93.112.194.126 ( talk) 07:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Peace be upon you, I have a question: I edited a section to provide context for a verse, and that was not accepted. Why is that? I provided a source for the quotation, and anyone can go check it if they want. The context is very important so the reader could understand the meaning of it. Leaving it without context means that it is likely people misinterpret it, and I do not see the mistake in providing a view from authetic Islamic sources. Anwar Jihad ( talk) 17:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
My changes in this article keep getting reverted, even though I have modified it several times to the recommendations of those editing. Can someone please explain why this is? I have left the different view in it's place, and added another one. Is there no place for contrasting opinions on Wikipedia? This is very annoying, and may I add, a little disrespectful, as I do not see why my opinion on what needs to be added or not is any less than any other user's. Anwar Jihad ( talk) 17:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)