This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Violence in the Quran 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 |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph 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. |
Since the material presented here relates to Jihad, it might better fit in there so I don't see the purpose of having a separate article for that. However, if you plan on adding more sections and content here, I would suggest renaming the article to something much more focused such as "Jihad in the Qur'an" or "Qur'an and War". Al-Andalusi ( talk) 17:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The meaning of the word Fitnah, as claimed by Scholar Ibn Kathir in his tafsir, is " Shirk".
and also Muhsin Khan clarifies, "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.) (Sura 2:193) ref"
Source: tafsir Ibn kathir (verse 2:193) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baristha ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, the article has a line that's referenced poorly, but I'm a bit out of my league on this topic. The claim is under the "Abrogation" header and states "The earlier suras were revealed to Muhammad in Mecca; the later suras were revealed while he was in Medina" while being referenced to a fairly anti-Islam book. Is this an accurate claim, and is there a better, more neutral source we can use for it? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 15:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the source doesn't seem particularly unbiased. Luckily, the sentence in question is pretty unrelated to the actual topic, or at least adds no more information than the linked sentence after it, so I'm comfortable removing the sentence and the citation.
MrEdTheTalkingHorseEditor (
talk) 00:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Based on the fact that the article was tagged for discussion of neutrality yet it never happened. I will remove the tag unless someone objects. Ravens freak0624 ( talk) 22:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
salam ...i have a big problem from last 2 months ..i got engaged to my fiance 3 months ago but from last 2 months he started disliking me and noe it has come to an end ..i am a muslim women and i cannot think to marry some one else...he hates me now he abuses me bt i still love him...i prayed alot to Allah bt i dont know what is His will ,,,i want my fiance back like the way he was before with me...plz suggest me some Queanic verses which can soften his heart for me which can make him love me again thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.161.135.18 ( talk) 21:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
|
I agree entirely. I request that anyone who retags this article discuss it somewhere on this page so that we can improve the article.
MrEdTheTalkingHorseEditor (
talk) 15:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I am just a user passing through. But I disagree with your reasoning. Just because it wasn't discussed doesn't mean the tag should be dismissed.
The reason that the nuetrality of this article is questionable to me, is that all the sources come from pro-Islamic scholars. I think balancing this with some critics of Islam, or a section including the opposing view, will make the article a little fairer. (Sorry, if I missed something, but after reading the article, my first thought was: "why does this article only show an Islamic response to criticisms?" - Chris
Given the nature of the article, the only real factual inaccuracy that could occur would be a misquote of the Quran. Since no one has discussed anything like this on the talk page and since a misquote of the Quran would likely be caught quickly regardless, I'm going to assume that the tag was meant in the spirit of the already present lack of neutrality tag. Accordingly, I'm going to delete the factual inaccuracy tag and focus on establishing neutrality in the article. MrEdTheTalkingHorseEditor ( talk) 03:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This phrase, When my butts of war dispersed, was in the article. What does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaronR ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this text, and it seemed deliberately misleading. Muhammad was certainly NOT a peaceful person. He was a military conqueror.
"""Nissim Rejwan asserts that, "violence and cruelty are not in the spirit of the Quran, nor are they found in the life of the Prophet, nor in the lives of saintly Muslims""" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.183.73 ( talk) 22:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Section
Violence in the Quran#At-Tawba 5, third paragraph about
Zakir Naik, curently begins with the follwoing unsourced POV:
"Popular Indian revivalist Muslim preacher Zakir Naik also emphasizes the context of the verse."
What is popular is infamous for another. This unsourced POV above has been replaced with the following well-sourced multi-citation statement:
'"Radical Islamic [1] [2] [3] Salafist [4] [5]- Wahhabist [6] [2] [7] [8] [9] televangelist currently banned in India, Bangladesh, Canada and the United Kingdom, [10] [11] [12] Indian revivalist preacher Zakir Naik also emphasizes the context of the verse."
2404:E800:E61E:452:BCD2:9EED:BA2D:5931 (
talk) 21:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
He then asks "In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security?" citation needed
2404:E800:E61E:452:BCD2:9EED:BA2D:5931 ( talk) 21:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
References
To examine this infrastructure, it is useful to consider the case of Zakir Naik, perhaps the most influential Salafi ideologue in India.
That is, statistically, in the whole Quran the number of violent verses w.r.t. the number of positive verses.
Moreover, the article doesn't contain a comprehensive list of all the violent verses. An absence of a comprehensive list is highly objectionable.
Hope that this list is posted on the article faithfully.
Bkpsusmitaa ( talk) 14:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The section cherry-picks two authors and does not go into detail. In fact, with the first article quoted, there is a divergence of view between the two interviewed.-- Guiletheme ( talk) 10:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
A random user wrote down his own opinion in this section, I undid this. What the user wrote down can be seen here (19th May 2020)
If you know of any reputable source arguing that the Quran is worse than the Bible, there's no one stopping you from inserting it yourself. — 2804:7F7:DC80:D784:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 21:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Given that the article is about Violence in the Quran, I think this section is out of place on this article entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.114.12 ( talk) 13:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
It is not clear what this article might add that is not already covered by Islam and violence. This article should be merged with that one. VR talk 19:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
This edit by
Grufo adds original research. By adding 9:29 to a list that starts with "The Quran emphasizes the supremacy of Islam as well as Islam's messenger (Muhammad)
", Grufo is pushing the POV that Qur'an 9:29 asserts such supremacy, while providing no secondary sources. It is
WP:OR to interpret the Qur'an in this way. In fact the entire section
Violence_in_the_Quran#Supremacy_of_Islam should be deleted as it is
WP:OR.
VR
talk 16:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Grufo removed the following source and the content sourced to it:
The author is professor at Georgetown University and the journal Religions says its peer-reviewed. Can Grufo explain what issue there is with this source? VR talk 01:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Hard to see why a trained economist and journalist by practice, who has affiliations with islamphobic Hindu organisations, should be privileged with his opinion on this section. Including a noted scholar in this field would be far more objective. 86.5.136.198 ( talk) 00:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
s/Volence/Violence/
I don't know how to fix that. Editors? 77.137.68.54 ( talk) 14:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion of later sayings and later history is irrelevant to the topic. Burressd ( talk) 04:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Violence in the Quran 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 |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph 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. |
Since the material presented here relates to Jihad, it might better fit in there so I don't see the purpose of having a separate article for that. However, if you plan on adding more sections and content here, I would suggest renaming the article to something much more focused such as "Jihad in the Qur'an" or "Qur'an and War". Al-Andalusi ( talk) 17:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The meaning of the word Fitnah, as claimed by Scholar Ibn Kathir in his tafsir, is " Shirk".
and also Muhsin Khan clarifies, "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.) (Sura 2:193) ref"
Source: tafsir Ibn kathir (verse 2:193) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baristha ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, the article has a line that's referenced poorly, but I'm a bit out of my league on this topic. The claim is under the "Abrogation" header and states "The earlier suras were revealed to Muhammad in Mecca; the later suras were revealed while he was in Medina" while being referenced to a fairly anti-Islam book. Is this an accurate claim, and is there a better, more neutral source we can use for it? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 15:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the source doesn't seem particularly unbiased. Luckily, the sentence in question is pretty unrelated to the actual topic, or at least adds no more information than the linked sentence after it, so I'm comfortable removing the sentence and the citation.
MrEdTheTalkingHorseEditor (
talk) 00:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Based on the fact that the article was tagged for discussion of neutrality yet it never happened. I will remove the tag unless someone objects. Ravens freak0624 ( talk) 22:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
salam ...i have a big problem from last 2 months ..i got engaged to my fiance 3 months ago but from last 2 months he started disliking me and noe it has come to an end ..i am a muslim women and i cannot think to marry some one else...he hates me now he abuses me bt i still love him...i prayed alot to Allah bt i dont know what is His will ,,,i want my fiance back like the way he was before with me...plz suggest me some Queanic verses which can soften his heart for me which can make him love me again thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.161.135.18 ( talk) 21:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
|
I agree entirely. I request that anyone who retags this article discuss it somewhere on this page so that we can improve the article.
MrEdTheTalkingHorseEditor (
talk) 15:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I am just a user passing through. But I disagree with your reasoning. Just because it wasn't discussed doesn't mean the tag should be dismissed.
The reason that the nuetrality of this article is questionable to me, is that all the sources come from pro-Islamic scholars. I think balancing this with some critics of Islam, or a section including the opposing view, will make the article a little fairer. (Sorry, if I missed something, but after reading the article, my first thought was: "why does this article only show an Islamic response to criticisms?" - Chris
Given the nature of the article, the only real factual inaccuracy that could occur would be a misquote of the Quran. Since no one has discussed anything like this on the talk page and since a misquote of the Quran would likely be caught quickly regardless, I'm going to assume that the tag was meant in the spirit of the already present lack of neutrality tag. Accordingly, I'm going to delete the factual inaccuracy tag and focus on establishing neutrality in the article. MrEdTheTalkingHorseEditor ( talk) 03:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This phrase, When my butts of war dispersed, was in the article. What does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaronR ( talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I stumbled upon this text, and it seemed deliberately misleading. Muhammad was certainly NOT a peaceful person. He was a military conqueror.
"""Nissim Rejwan asserts that, "violence and cruelty are not in the spirit of the Quran, nor are they found in the life of the Prophet, nor in the lives of saintly Muslims""" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.183.73 ( talk) 22:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Section
Violence in the Quran#At-Tawba 5, third paragraph about
Zakir Naik, curently begins with the follwoing unsourced POV:
"Popular Indian revivalist Muslim preacher Zakir Naik also emphasizes the context of the verse."
What is popular is infamous for another. This unsourced POV above has been replaced with the following well-sourced multi-citation statement:
'"Radical Islamic [1] [2] [3] Salafist [4] [5]- Wahhabist [6] [2] [7] [8] [9] televangelist currently banned in India, Bangladesh, Canada and the United Kingdom, [10] [11] [12] Indian revivalist preacher Zakir Naik also emphasizes the context of the verse."
2404:E800:E61E:452:BCD2:9EED:BA2D:5931 (
talk) 21:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
He then asks "In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security?" citation needed
2404:E800:E61E:452:BCD2:9EED:BA2D:5931 ( talk) 21:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
References
To examine this infrastructure, it is useful to consider the case of Zakir Naik, perhaps the most influential Salafi ideologue in India.
That is, statistically, in the whole Quran the number of violent verses w.r.t. the number of positive verses.
Moreover, the article doesn't contain a comprehensive list of all the violent verses. An absence of a comprehensive list is highly objectionable.
Hope that this list is posted on the article faithfully.
Bkpsusmitaa ( talk) 14:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The section cherry-picks two authors and does not go into detail. In fact, with the first article quoted, there is a divergence of view between the two interviewed.-- Guiletheme ( talk) 10:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
A random user wrote down his own opinion in this section, I undid this. What the user wrote down can be seen here (19th May 2020)
If you know of any reputable source arguing that the Quran is worse than the Bible, there's no one stopping you from inserting it yourself. — 2804:7F7:DC80:D784:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 21:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Given that the article is about Violence in the Quran, I think this section is out of place on this article entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.114.12 ( talk) 13:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
It is not clear what this article might add that is not already covered by Islam and violence. This article should be merged with that one. VR talk 19:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
This edit by
Grufo adds original research. By adding 9:29 to a list that starts with "The Quran emphasizes the supremacy of Islam as well as Islam's messenger (Muhammad)
", Grufo is pushing the POV that Qur'an 9:29 asserts such supremacy, while providing no secondary sources. It is
WP:OR to interpret the Qur'an in this way. In fact the entire section
Violence_in_the_Quran#Supremacy_of_Islam should be deleted as it is
WP:OR.
VR
talk 16:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Grufo removed the following source and the content sourced to it:
The author is professor at Georgetown University and the journal Religions says its peer-reviewed. Can Grufo explain what issue there is with this source? VR talk 01:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Hard to see why a trained economist and journalist by practice, who has affiliations with islamphobic Hindu organisations, should be privileged with his opinion on this section. Including a noted scholar in this field would be far more objective. 86.5.136.198 ( talk) 00:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
s/Volence/Violence/
I don't know how to fix that. Editors? 77.137.68.54 ( talk) 14:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion of later sayings and later history is irrelevant to the topic. Burressd ( talk) 04:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)