This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rifqa Bary controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 September 2009. The result of the discussion was delete without prejudice to later recreation if shows necessary. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Rifqa Bary controversy be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article still contains outright lies and "factual" statements without evidence.
And so it states that "On September 14, 2009, a Florida court ruled that it found no credible evidence that Bary's life or well-being had been threatened by her family." -- even though no court ruled in any such manner.
And so it is states that "Law enforcement investigations in both states found no credible evidence of physical or verbal abuse by her parents or that her parents had threatened her life or well-being" -- even though no evidence of Ohio law enforcement investigation into any alleged abuses is provided, and as far as I know does not exist, as there appears to have been only an investigation of Rifqa's disappearance in Ohio and not one of any of her allegations of abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.102.54.227 ( talk) 05:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I have put this article up because the story is drawing a very large amount of attention and is being covered as a signifier in the culture wars, not as an incident involving a single teenager. However, it is important to remember in AFD's that even some single incidents merit articles, it is a matter of scale and impact. Probably, in such a case, the AFD should be put on noticeboards and kept up long enough for several editors to weigh in. Historicist ( talk) 21:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I strongly admonish editors coming to this page, especially new editors and editors who have storng feelings on the subject, to try to keep it neutral if in no other way, at least from refraining from deleting material that puts the position of the other side in the dispute. Historicist ( talk) 21:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
That said, the article needs more details about the legal battle and other matters. Historicist ( talk) 21:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Just be sure by being neutral you don't end up only listening to liberal news stuff. We need to take this from all perspectives, Christian, Muslim, and others. Here is a Christian view of it, and he believes that Rifqa is in danger(he was at most if not all of the court hearings). [1] -- Ellington The Fool ( talk) 12:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
"Mr. Bary states that he did pick up Rifqa's Laptop to throw it but denies that he threatened to hit her with it, due to the cost of the laptop." I just read the report. Mr. Bary decided to not throw the laptop because of its cost. He never intended to hit his daughter with it (as the article suggested) but to throw and damage the laptop. 68.106.246.74 ( talk) 04:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
In reference to the edit [3] by an anonymous editor. There exist sources such as Time magazine which call this a cultural war. Furthermore the reports of law enforcement agencies are not "claims" the word "claim" is a WP:WTA Word to avoid here on Wikipedia. It implies that what was said is unreliable. It has it's uses but not in this case. Please bother to register and discuss before making changes to an article which due to media exposure is so important to the wikipedia project.
Present a source, which is not a blog (see WP:RS for why blogs are not acceptable sources here) which calls this an issue of Sharia VS US law. Then write it in the article. That's how it works here. The burden is on you to prove your claims.-- Hfarmer ( talk) 01:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not wedded to that name. However this article is not a bio of Rifqa. She is not yet by herself notable. However this affair has been adjudged notable by the community so be it. The article should be about all aspects of the affiar, as it is now. Any thoughts? -- Hfarmer ( talk) 14:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
In a recent edit, the following content was removed:
Claims on the punishment of apostasy have been central to the debate on the custody of Fathima Rifqa Bary. For example John Guandolo, former FBI agent, criticized the FDLE report based in part on his understanding that Sharia mandates honor killing for apostasy. [1] He also states his belief that the parent's attorneys, provided by CAIR, are really members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Modern Islamic scholars hold that apostasy in Sharia was used as a political-religious tool to punish treason against the state and is no longer valid under modern conditions, where no state is based solely on common Muslim faith. Under traditional Islamic law [2], however, an apostate may be given up to three days while in incarceration to repent and accept Islam again, and if not the apostate is to be killed without any reservations. In the period of the early Islamic Caliphate, apostasy was considered treason, and was accordingly treated as a capital offense; death penalties were carried out under the authority of the Caliph. [2] [3]
Sharia law is ultimately based on what Muslims belive are the teachings of God as found in the Qur'an, hadith and sunnah. [4] On the issue of apostasy the Hadith conflict , in one Muhamad says "'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" [5], another says "The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases,". [6] He lists adultery, fighting (militarily) against the Muslim community, and murder. [6]. In the Quran "Verily, We sent down to you [O Muhammad] the Book [Qur'an] for mankind in truth. So, whosoever goes astray, he goes astray to his own loss. And you [O Muhammad] are not a guardian over them. (The Quran, Az-Zumar 39:41)
Medieval Muslim scholars (eg Sufyan al-Thawri) and modern (eg Hasan at-Turabi), have argued that the hadith used to justify execution of apostates should be taken to apply only to political betrayal of the Muslim community, rather than to apostasy in general. [7] These scholars argue for the freedom to convert to and from Islam without legal penalty, and consider the aforementioned Hadith quote as insufficient confirmation of harsh punishment; they regard apostasy as a serious crime, but undeserving of the death penalty. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, an Islamic scholar, writes that punishment for apostasy was part of Divine punishment for only those who denied the truth even after clarification in its ultimate form by Muhammad (see Itmaam-i-hujjat), hence, he considers it a time-bound command and no longer punishable. [8] Jamal Badwi a professor of religion at St Mary's University quoting Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi "The benefit of doubt must be given and only those in legitimate authority and knowledge may deal with such situation as no one is allowed to take the law in their own hands." [9]
The 2006 case of Abdul Rahman is an example of how apostasy is treated by the most radical of muslim states. He was tried and sentenced to death by a court in Afganistan for conversion to Christianity in Afganistan 16 years prior. [10] After a worldwide public outcry, and especially considering the ongoing Western support of, and presence in, the nation of Aghanistan, Rahman was released from jail and was granted asylum in Italy in 2007. [11] [12]
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
FDLE_rprt_crit_lorenz
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ a b according to Abdurrahmani'l-Djaziri's Kitabul'l-fiqh 'ala'l-madhahibi'l-'arba'a i.e. Apostasy in Islam according to the Four Schools of Islamic Law (Vol. 5, pp. 422-440) First English Edition (Villach): 1997
- ^ [ Freedom of religion, apostasy and Islam], By Hassan Saeed, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2004, ISBN 0754630838, 9780754630838, Pages 66-68, All of Chapter 5 "Evidence Against Capital Punishment for Apostasy"
- ^ Coulson, Noel James. A history of Islamic law (Islamic surveys). Oxford: University Press, 1964.
- ^ Sahih al Bukari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57 via Center for Muslim Jewish Engagement
- ^ a b Sunan Abu Dawud, book 31 Kitab al Hudud, (Prescribed Punishments)
- ^ "Islam & Pluralism - A Contemporary Approach". Islam Online. Retrieved 2006-03-23.
- ^ Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. The Punishment for Apostasy,Renaissance, Al-Mawrid Institute, 6(11), November, 1996
- ^ Is Apostasy a Capital Crime in Islam? Dr Jamal Badwi
- ^ Afghan convert 'would be killed'Last Updated: Friday, 31 March 2006, 08:46 GMT 09:46 UK BBC
- ^ Christian Convert Released From Prison, Amir Shah, AP, 28 March 2006
- ^ Afghan convert 'arrives in Italy', BBC, 29 March 2006, 17:07 GMT
Is there a reason why this has been removed? And if it has been removed, is this information already in the article which is already in Apostasy in Islam? And if not, shouldn't it be added. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 13:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary for the title of the article to be so long? Since the issue resolves around one girl I think it would be more efficient to rename the article to be simply “Fathima Rifqa Bary” rather than “Fathima Rifqa Bary conversion and custody controversy”. -- jfry3 ( talk) 19:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the section edit links are missing on this article? — Chris Capoccia T⁄ C 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
{{Portal:Christianity/box-header|''Christianity topics''|Template:Christianityfooter|}} appears to be it. No idea why.- Sinneed 06:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The quotes at the end of this article are a clear insertion of bias. They should be removed and replaced with NPOV summary. 74.215.255.82 ( talk) 15:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The section is presently unbalanced towards one side of the debate. Other referenced points of debate should be added to the section so that one side isn't given undue weight. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This section needs to be balanced. A debate is between two people with two different viewpoints. This only shows one viewpoint. Blooddraken ( talk) 03:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
76.167.227.243 ( talk) 02:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)typical pro-muslim bias in wikipedia. the public debate section contains 2 quotes which are both favorable to islam because they diminish the idea that rifqa barry is legitimately under death due to islamic doctrine and the fact that, according to the world health organization, there are 5,000 muslim honor killings annually http://www.feminist.com/violence/spot
i am SICK SICK SICK of seeing this insidious pro-muslim bias infiltrating pretty every wikipedia article that relates to islam in some way
wikipedias existing rules are not sufficient to prevent muslims from manipulating wikipedia as an islamic propaganda tool, while staying comfortably within wikipedia best practices
There's currently a claim on the page that the return of Rifqa Bary to Ohio depended on immigration papers being provided. I have only ever seen the immigration status of the parents brought up as an issue in more biased sources. In fact the article provided as a reference for this makes no mention of immigration status whatsoever: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/crime/orl-bk-rifqa-bary-ohio-court-102709,0,3435609.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.232.12 ( talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)This article is just way too biased and false, in particular the section on Law enforcement investigations. It is untrue that "Two independent investigations in Ohio and Florida found no credible evidence that her life was in danger" -- no agency ever stated that the girl's testimony and fears are not credible. And where is any report of an Ohio investigation that was "independent" of FDLE? Sounds made up. It is blatantly false that "a Florida court ruled that it found no credible evidence that Bary's life or well-being had been threatened by her family" -- there's no such court conclusion what-so-ever, otherwise there would be no case anymore. The Florida court simply transfered the case to Ohio, as was inevitable. It is ludicrous to say that cheerleading pictures displayed AFTER Rifqa ran away somehow prove her parents were well aware of what she does during cheerleading; Rifqa said clearly in her first interview that NOW her parents do have photos, but did not before. FDLE did not even ask how long have those cheerleading pictures displayed in the apartment. This whole section just reeks of bias. This entire article should be rewritten by someone with an ounce of honesty or just deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.74.114 ( talk) 09:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The entire point of my comment was that statements not supported by any reliable sources should be DELETED. In other words much of the entire article needs to be deleted. At this point it's mostly fantasy rather than facts. I already pointed out some of the falsehoods. There are statements that have NO support in any of the reliable sources listed. (86.49.74.114)
Can we get a birth date? The article just says that she's a 17-year-old. That obviously won't work. Bob A ( talk) 18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
This article is obviously controlled by a biased user unwilling to admit any corrections. I'm not a registered user but someone capable of basic impartiality on this topic needs to semi-protect it and delete all the nonsense.
Note that Capoccia even undid my simple change of all the 3 words "claimed" to "said". Capoccia justified this by writing that it is properly used for "opinions that are not based in hard facts and are disputed by opposing viewpoints." So Rifqa saying that her father threatened to kill her is de facto labeled by Capoccia "an opinion" not based on hard fact -- apparently because Capoccia KNOWS it never happened. On the other hand he's OK with "Muslim sources SAY it is motivated by Islamophobia" because that, apparently, must be based on hard fact and is not disputed by anyone.
And of course Rifqa's parents never CLAIM anything per Capoccia because whatever they say must be hard fact and somehow Capoccia knows that.
This is precisely why the subjective term "claimed" should be used very carefully and only when applied the same across the article. Capoccia used it here to simply impose his own bias on the readers. He has no clue what being objective means.
Again, please some registered user with an ounce of honesty clean this up and protect it from the zealots on both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.74.114 ( talk) 01:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The ruling of the Florida Ct on 9/14/09 was that Ohio had jurisdiction of the case, NOT that there was no credible threat to Rifqa's safety. As a child protection attorney, I consider that an important distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.182.35 ( talk) 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
So it is OK for you to LIE and just falsely assert the court ruled something it never did? You still have absolutely no clue what it means to be truthful.
Speaking of truthful, when you quoted FDLE as stating that "FDLE conducted a thorough investigation of this situation", you willfully deleted the rest of the sentence, namely: "and has not developed any information to support any allegations of criminal activity in Florida, where our jurisdiction resides." Not in Ohio, in FLORIDA. Of course why not delete any information you dislike, since this entire article is an exercise in misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.40.145 ( talk) 12:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, I often replace "claimed" with "said" for precisely that reason. Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC).
don't have time to integrate the info from two good news articles right now. i'll just list them here. maybe i'll get to them soon or maybe someone else can build the article with this info:
Unsourced - stated further down with sources - bad structure with or without following chunk
"Sources" but only cites one source - an interview that is with a more political than religious figure
Source states she is being endangered - not the same
Not in source
Sythesis and arguing against the source.
Interesting, possibly usable statement.
FDLE_rprt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
Rich Farmbrough, 16:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC).
Rifqa doesn't have to go back home to her parents. She was declared a dependent of Ohio. Mr. and Mrs. Bary did the right thing because if there had been a dependency case they wouldn't have won. All Rifqa had to was admit that she broke the rules when she ran away from home. It's important to add Rifqa's brothers, where she was Baptized, what Church she attends, and how old she was when she became a Christian becuase Wikipedia doesn't have that information. Rifqa's WikiIslam page has information that Wikipedia doesn't have. Also at the end of her History Section I put two commas by accident. For proof that Rifqa is a member of The Korean United Methodist Church and that she was Baptized in Big Walnut Creek at Hoover Dam Park y'all can visit http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/10/michael-kruse-the-life-rifqa-bary-ran-away-from/ and http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/the-life-rifqa-bary-ran-away-from/1042759 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.211.187 ( talk) 08:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Come on guys, don't you think the three opinions expressed in the "public debate" section are a little aligned and only represent one side? All three of the opinions state one thing: You're a paranoid nut job if you dare insult Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.35.93.145 ( talk) 02:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
"All three"? how do you count? I count 5. Only 2 are Muslim:
— Chris Capoccia T⁄ C 09:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I say that even with citations, the entire section reeks of original research; will more knowledgeable editors consider deleting the entire section?-- Kencaesi ( talk) 15:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It's highly unusual to have an article named like this. If Bary is notable enough to have an article, then the article should simply be under her name. Gigs ( talk) 03:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
A large portion of this article concerning events in Bary's life since the controversy (being diagnosed with uterine cancer, faith healing, turning 18) is completely unsourced. The material isn't negative as such, so I didn't remove it on sight, but I've collected it in one section at the bottom of the article. This content does still need sourcing, and if sources can't be found, it should be removed. Robofish ( talk) 19:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
To the editors,
My name is Rachel Masri and I am currently working at the law offices of John Stemberger. I have several court documents and sworn affidavits from Rifqa which I am sure will enhance this piece regarding the legal battle and the claims on both sides of the case. The reason I'm posting here is that I have observed the numerous edits and re-edits that have taken place, and wanted to know if a well-referenced edit which is written neutrally, but which has come from this office, would be considered inherently biased. Like I said, the documents I have are official court documents and there would be no unreferenced material added. Some insight into the standard of neutrality for Wikipedia would be extremely helpful. Thank you for your time and your contributions to Wikipedia.
Rachel — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelJalila ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Any truth to this, if not, can we Please remove it?
Thanks.
Chuckk8cpa ( talk) 01:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed the cancer part of this entry. There was zero reference for this, and so, it's gone. If you going to talk smack; cite your sources about her.
Chuckk8cpa ( talk) 22:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Chuckk8cpa, has it ever occurred to you to type "rifqa cancer" into google?
Shores of bohemia ( talk) 03:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rifqa Bary controversy. 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, 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rifqa Bary controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 8 September 2009. The result of the discussion was delete without prejudice to later recreation if shows necessary. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Rifqa Bary controversy be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article still contains outright lies and "factual" statements without evidence.
And so it states that "On September 14, 2009, a Florida court ruled that it found no credible evidence that Bary's life or well-being had been threatened by her family." -- even though no court ruled in any such manner.
And so it is states that "Law enforcement investigations in both states found no credible evidence of physical or verbal abuse by her parents or that her parents had threatened her life or well-being" -- even though no evidence of Ohio law enforcement investigation into any alleged abuses is provided, and as far as I know does not exist, as there appears to have been only an investigation of Rifqa's disappearance in Ohio and not one of any of her allegations of abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.102.54.227 ( talk) 05:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I have put this article up because the story is drawing a very large amount of attention and is being covered as a signifier in the culture wars, not as an incident involving a single teenager. However, it is important to remember in AFD's that even some single incidents merit articles, it is a matter of scale and impact. Probably, in such a case, the AFD should be put on noticeboards and kept up long enough for several editors to weigh in. Historicist ( talk) 21:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I strongly admonish editors coming to this page, especially new editors and editors who have storng feelings on the subject, to try to keep it neutral if in no other way, at least from refraining from deleting material that puts the position of the other side in the dispute. Historicist ( talk) 21:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
That said, the article needs more details about the legal battle and other matters. Historicist ( talk) 21:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Just be sure by being neutral you don't end up only listening to liberal news stuff. We need to take this from all perspectives, Christian, Muslim, and others. Here is a Christian view of it, and he believes that Rifqa is in danger(he was at most if not all of the court hearings). [1] -- Ellington The Fool ( talk) 12:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
"Mr. Bary states that he did pick up Rifqa's Laptop to throw it but denies that he threatened to hit her with it, due to the cost of the laptop." I just read the report. Mr. Bary decided to not throw the laptop because of its cost. He never intended to hit his daughter with it (as the article suggested) but to throw and damage the laptop. 68.106.246.74 ( talk) 04:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
In reference to the edit [3] by an anonymous editor. There exist sources such as Time magazine which call this a cultural war. Furthermore the reports of law enforcement agencies are not "claims" the word "claim" is a WP:WTA Word to avoid here on Wikipedia. It implies that what was said is unreliable. It has it's uses but not in this case. Please bother to register and discuss before making changes to an article which due to media exposure is so important to the wikipedia project.
Present a source, which is not a blog (see WP:RS for why blogs are not acceptable sources here) which calls this an issue of Sharia VS US law. Then write it in the article. That's how it works here. The burden is on you to prove your claims.-- Hfarmer ( talk) 01:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not wedded to that name. However this article is not a bio of Rifqa. She is not yet by herself notable. However this affair has been adjudged notable by the community so be it. The article should be about all aspects of the affiar, as it is now. Any thoughts? -- Hfarmer ( talk) 14:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
In a recent edit, the following content was removed:
Claims on the punishment of apostasy have been central to the debate on the custody of Fathima Rifqa Bary. For example John Guandolo, former FBI agent, criticized the FDLE report based in part on his understanding that Sharia mandates honor killing for apostasy. [1] He also states his belief that the parent's attorneys, provided by CAIR, are really members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Modern Islamic scholars hold that apostasy in Sharia was used as a political-religious tool to punish treason against the state and is no longer valid under modern conditions, where no state is based solely on common Muslim faith. Under traditional Islamic law [2], however, an apostate may be given up to three days while in incarceration to repent and accept Islam again, and if not the apostate is to be killed without any reservations. In the period of the early Islamic Caliphate, apostasy was considered treason, and was accordingly treated as a capital offense; death penalties were carried out under the authority of the Caliph. [2] [3]
Sharia law is ultimately based on what Muslims belive are the teachings of God as found in the Qur'an, hadith and sunnah. [4] On the issue of apostasy the Hadith conflict , in one Muhamad says "'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" [5], another says "The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases,". [6] He lists adultery, fighting (militarily) against the Muslim community, and murder. [6]. In the Quran "Verily, We sent down to you [O Muhammad] the Book [Qur'an] for mankind in truth. So, whosoever goes astray, he goes astray to his own loss. And you [O Muhammad] are not a guardian over them. (The Quran, Az-Zumar 39:41)
Medieval Muslim scholars (eg Sufyan al-Thawri) and modern (eg Hasan at-Turabi), have argued that the hadith used to justify execution of apostates should be taken to apply only to political betrayal of the Muslim community, rather than to apostasy in general. [7] These scholars argue for the freedom to convert to and from Islam without legal penalty, and consider the aforementioned Hadith quote as insufficient confirmation of harsh punishment; they regard apostasy as a serious crime, but undeserving of the death penalty. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, an Islamic scholar, writes that punishment for apostasy was part of Divine punishment for only those who denied the truth even after clarification in its ultimate form by Muhammad (see Itmaam-i-hujjat), hence, he considers it a time-bound command and no longer punishable. [8] Jamal Badwi a professor of religion at St Mary's University quoting Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi "The benefit of doubt must be given and only those in legitimate authority and knowledge may deal with such situation as no one is allowed to take the law in their own hands." [9]
The 2006 case of Abdul Rahman is an example of how apostasy is treated by the most radical of muslim states. He was tried and sentenced to death by a court in Afganistan for conversion to Christianity in Afganistan 16 years prior. [10] After a worldwide public outcry, and especially considering the ongoing Western support of, and presence in, the nation of Aghanistan, Rahman was released from jail and was granted asylum in Italy in 2007. [11] [12]
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
FDLE_rprt_crit_lorenz
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ a b according to Abdurrahmani'l-Djaziri's Kitabul'l-fiqh 'ala'l-madhahibi'l-'arba'a i.e. Apostasy in Islam according to the Four Schools of Islamic Law (Vol. 5, pp. 422-440) First English Edition (Villach): 1997
- ^ [ Freedom of religion, apostasy and Islam], By Hassan Saeed, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2004, ISBN 0754630838, 9780754630838, Pages 66-68, All of Chapter 5 "Evidence Against Capital Punishment for Apostasy"
- ^ Coulson, Noel James. A history of Islamic law (Islamic surveys). Oxford: University Press, 1964.
- ^ Sahih al Bukari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57 via Center for Muslim Jewish Engagement
- ^ a b Sunan Abu Dawud, book 31 Kitab al Hudud, (Prescribed Punishments)
- ^ "Islam & Pluralism - A Contemporary Approach". Islam Online. Retrieved 2006-03-23.
- ^ Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. The Punishment for Apostasy,Renaissance, Al-Mawrid Institute, 6(11), November, 1996
- ^ Is Apostasy a Capital Crime in Islam? Dr Jamal Badwi
- ^ Afghan convert 'would be killed'Last Updated: Friday, 31 March 2006, 08:46 GMT 09:46 UK BBC
- ^ Christian Convert Released From Prison, Amir Shah, AP, 28 March 2006
- ^ Afghan convert 'arrives in Italy', BBC, 29 March 2006, 17:07 GMT
Is there a reason why this has been removed? And if it has been removed, is this information already in the article which is already in Apostasy in Islam? And if not, shouldn't it be added. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 13:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary for the title of the article to be so long? Since the issue resolves around one girl I think it would be more efficient to rename the article to be simply “Fathima Rifqa Bary” rather than “Fathima Rifqa Bary conversion and custody controversy”. -- jfry3 ( talk) 19:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the section edit links are missing on this article? — Chris Capoccia T⁄ C 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
{{Portal:Christianity/box-header|''Christianity topics''|Template:Christianityfooter|}} appears to be it. No idea why.- Sinneed 06:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The quotes at the end of this article are a clear insertion of bias. They should be removed and replaced with NPOV summary. 74.215.255.82 ( talk) 15:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The section is presently unbalanced towards one side of the debate. Other referenced points of debate should be added to the section so that one side isn't given undue weight. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This section needs to be balanced. A debate is between two people with two different viewpoints. This only shows one viewpoint. Blooddraken ( talk) 03:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
76.167.227.243 ( talk) 02:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)typical pro-muslim bias in wikipedia. the public debate section contains 2 quotes which are both favorable to islam because they diminish the idea that rifqa barry is legitimately under death due to islamic doctrine and the fact that, according to the world health organization, there are 5,000 muslim honor killings annually http://www.feminist.com/violence/spot
i am SICK SICK SICK of seeing this insidious pro-muslim bias infiltrating pretty every wikipedia article that relates to islam in some way
wikipedias existing rules are not sufficient to prevent muslims from manipulating wikipedia as an islamic propaganda tool, while staying comfortably within wikipedia best practices
There's currently a claim on the page that the return of Rifqa Bary to Ohio depended on immigration papers being provided. I have only ever seen the immigration status of the parents brought up as an issue in more biased sources. In fact the article provided as a reference for this makes no mention of immigration status whatsoever: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/crime/orl-bk-rifqa-bary-ohio-court-102709,0,3435609.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.232.12 ( talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)This article is just way too biased and false, in particular the section on Law enforcement investigations. It is untrue that "Two independent investigations in Ohio and Florida found no credible evidence that her life was in danger" -- no agency ever stated that the girl's testimony and fears are not credible. And where is any report of an Ohio investigation that was "independent" of FDLE? Sounds made up. It is blatantly false that "a Florida court ruled that it found no credible evidence that Bary's life or well-being had been threatened by her family" -- there's no such court conclusion what-so-ever, otherwise there would be no case anymore. The Florida court simply transfered the case to Ohio, as was inevitable. It is ludicrous to say that cheerleading pictures displayed AFTER Rifqa ran away somehow prove her parents were well aware of what she does during cheerleading; Rifqa said clearly in her first interview that NOW her parents do have photos, but did not before. FDLE did not even ask how long have those cheerleading pictures displayed in the apartment. This whole section just reeks of bias. This entire article should be rewritten by someone with an ounce of honesty or just deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.74.114 ( talk) 09:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The entire point of my comment was that statements not supported by any reliable sources should be DELETED. In other words much of the entire article needs to be deleted. At this point it's mostly fantasy rather than facts. I already pointed out some of the falsehoods. There are statements that have NO support in any of the reliable sources listed. (86.49.74.114)
Can we get a birth date? The article just says that she's a 17-year-old. That obviously won't work. Bob A ( talk) 18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
This article is obviously controlled by a biased user unwilling to admit any corrections. I'm not a registered user but someone capable of basic impartiality on this topic needs to semi-protect it and delete all the nonsense.
Note that Capoccia even undid my simple change of all the 3 words "claimed" to "said". Capoccia justified this by writing that it is properly used for "opinions that are not based in hard facts and are disputed by opposing viewpoints." So Rifqa saying that her father threatened to kill her is de facto labeled by Capoccia "an opinion" not based on hard fact -- apparently because Capoccia KNOWS it never happened. On the other hand he's OK with "Muslim sources SAY it is motivated by Islamophobia" because that, apparently, must be based on hard fact and is not disputed by anyone.
And of course Rifqa's parents never CLAIM anything per Capoccia because whatever they say must be hard fact and somehow Capoccia knows that.
This is precisely why the subjective term "claimed" should be used very carefully and only when applied the same across the article. Capoccia used it here to simply impose his own bias on the readers. He has no clue what being objective means.
Again, please some registered user with an ounce of honesty clean this up and protect it from the zealots on both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.74.114 ( talk) 01:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The ruling of the Florida Ct on 9/14/09 was that Ohio had jurisdiction of the case, NOT that there was no credible threat to Rifqa's safety. As a child protection attorney, I consider that an important distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.182.35 ( talk) 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
So it is OK for you to LIE and just falsely assert the court ruled something it never did? You still have absolutely no clue what it means to be truthful.
Speaking of truthful, when you quoted FDLE as stating that "FDLE conducted a thorough investigation of this situation", you willfully deleted the rest of the sentence, namely: "and has not developed any information to support any allegations of criminal activity in Florida, where our jurisdiction resides." Not in Ohio, in FLORIDA. Of course why not delete any information you dislike, since this entire article is an exercise in misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.40.145 ( talk) 12:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, I often replace "claimed" with "said" for precisely that reason. Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC).
don't have time to integrate the info from two good news articles right now. i'll just list them here. maybe i'll get to them soon or maybe someone else can build the article with this info:
Unsourced - stated further down with sources - bad structure with or without following chunk
"Sources" but only cites one source - an interview that is with a more political than religious figure
Source states she is being endangered - not the same
Not in source
Sythesis and arguing against the source.
Interesting, possibly usable statement.
FDLE_rprt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
Rich Farmbrough, 16:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC).
Rifqa doesn't have to go back home to her parents. She was declared a dependent of Ohio. Mr. and Mrs. Bary did the right thing because if there had been a dependency case they wouldn't have won. All Rifqa had to was admit that she broke the rules when she ran away from home. It's important to add Rifqa's brothers, where she was Baptized, what Church she attends, and how old she was when she became a Christian becuase Wikipedia doesn't have that information. Rifqa's WikiIslam page has information that Wikipedia doesn't have. Also at the end of her History Section I put two commas by accident. For proof that Rifqa is a member of The Korean United Methodist Church and that she was Baptized in Big Walnut Creek at Hoover Dam Park y'all can visit http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/10/michael-kruse-the-life-rifqa-bary-ran-away-from/ and http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/the-life-rifqa-bary-ran-away-from/1042759 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.211.187 ( talk) 08:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Come on guys, don't you think the three opinions expressed in the "public debate" section are a little aligned and only represent one side? All three of the opinions state one thing: You're a paranoid nut job if you dare insult Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.35.93.145 ( talk) 02:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
"All three"? how do you count? I count 5. Only 2 are Muslim:
— Chris Capoccia T⁄ C 09:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I say that even with citations, the entire section reeks of original research; will more knowledgeable editors consider deleting the entire section?-- Kencaesi ( talk) 15:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It's highly unusual to have an article named like this. If Bary is notable enough to have an article, then the article should simply be under her name. Gigs ( talk) 03:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
A large portion of this article concerning events in Bary's life since the controversy (being diagnosed with uterine cancer, faith healing, turning 18) is completely unsourced. The material isn't negative as such, so I didn't remove it on sight, but I've collected it in one section at the bottom of the article. This content does still need sourcing, and if sources can't be found, it should be removed. Robofish ( talk) 19:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
To the editors,
My name is Rachel Masri and I am currently working at the law offices of John Stemberger. I have several court documents and sworn affidavits from Rifqa which I am sure will enhance this piece regarding the legal battle and the claims on both sides of the case. The reason I'm posting here is that I have observed the numerous edits and re-edits that have taken place, and wanted to know if a well-referenced edit which is written neutrally, but which has come from this office, would be considered inherently biased. Like I said, the documents I have are official court documents and there would be no unreferenced material added. Some insight into the standard of neutrality for Wikipedia would be extremely helpful. Thank you for your time and your contributions to Wikipedia.
Rachel — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelJalila ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Any truth to this, if not, can we Please remove it?
Thanks.
Chuckk8cpa ( talk) 01:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed the cancer part of this entry. There was zero reference for this, and so, it's gone. If you going to talk smack; cite your sources about her.
Chuckk8cpa ( talk) 22:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Chuckk8cpa, has it ever occurred to you to type "rifqa cancer" into google?
Shores of bohemia ( talk) 03:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rifqa Bary controversy. 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, 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)