This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zakat 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: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
{{ anchor | Bias | Objection. free Palestine 🇵🇸
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seems like an IP has a problem with Zakat#Role_of_zakat_in_terrorism_funding. Please elaborate here. Thank you. DTM ( talk) 11:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@ DiplomatTesterMan:: I think we have completely lost this. Should I remove the related text per references provided above? - Aaqib Anjum Aafī ( talk) 02:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
A. Adressing ideological and emotive aspects: I have tried to address ideological and emotive aspect so editors can see things in the rational perspective.
B: Keeping 'misuse of zakat for terror funding' out of wikipediais attack on muslims who donate with good intention: Statements like "Islam under attack" is a way of lobbying which is in violation of wikipedia policies. This is not an attack on islam at all. Even from a pro-muslim perspective, imagine the plight of those well-intentioned muslims who donate money for zakat for humanitarian causes and unbeknown to them it somehow ends up in terror funding. Since most of the victims of islamic fundamentalism/terrorism are muslims themselves, stuck in fight zones of various fiqs/maddhabs/sects of islam, keeping the edits related to the "misuse of zakat for terrorism" and "misuse of islamic banking for channeling terror funding" out of wikipedia is actually an attack on muslims and humanity. Anyway, lets resolve the logjam.
C. Show intent to collaborate by providing "construtive feedback" with not only objections but also what you agree with so that those edits could be retained immediately, and also provide specific objections and suggest actionable remedies: Wikipedia policies require "collaborative editing": Demonstrate the intention to collaborate by citing specific sources you have issues with, and explain why it is not valid/reliable by citing corresponding passage in a specific policy. To ensure you are abiding by the 'collaborative spirit", also provide the list of cited sources in my edits that you do not have objection to. That way we have a basis to move forward with what to keep without contention. In case, if you dispute all sources, even then please provide the specific and actionable objection for each source so that I can remedy it. Otherwise, it coems across as "deliberate" WP:DISRUPTIVE vauge objection, which is a basis for ban from editing. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 06:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Zakat 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: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
{{ anchor | Bias | Objection. free Palestine 🇵🇸
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seems like an IP has a problem with Zakat#Role_of_zakat_in_terrorism_funding. Please elaborate here. Thank you. DTM ( talk) 11:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@ DiplomatTesterMan:: I think we have completely lost this. Should I remove the related text per references provided above? - Aaqib Anjum Aafī ( talk) 02:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
A. Adressing ideological and emotive aspects: I have tried to address ideological and emotive aspect so editors can see things in the rational perspective.
B: Keeping 'misuse of zakat for terror funding' out of wikipediais attack on muslims who donate with good intention: Statements like "Islam under attack" is a way of lobbying which is in violation of wikipedia policies. This is not an attack on islam at all. Even from a pro-muslim perspective, imagine the plight of those well-intentioned muslims who donate money for zakat for humanitarian causes and unbeknown to them it somehow ends up in terror funding. Since most of the victims of islamic fundamentalism/terrorism are muslims themselves, stuck in fight zones of various fiqs/maddhabs/sects of islam, keeping the edits related to the "misuse of zakat for terrorism" and "misuse of islamic banking for channeling terror funding" out of wikipedia is actually an attack on muslims and humanity. Anyway, lets resolve the logjam.
C. Show intent to collaborate by providing "construtive feedback" with not only objections but also what you agree with so that those edits could be retained immediately, and also provide specific objections and suggest actionable remedies: Wikipedia policies require "collaborative editing": Demonstrate the intention to collaborate by citing specific sources you have issues with, and explain why it is not valid/reliable by citing corresponding passage in a specific policy. To ensure you are abiding by the 'collaborative spirit", also provide the list of cited sources in my edits that you do not have objection to. That way we have a basis to move forward with what to keep without contention. In case, if you dispute all sources, even then please provide the specific and actionable objection for each source so that I can remedy it. Otherwise, it coems across as "deliberate" WP:DISRUPTIVE vauge objection, which is a basis for ban from editing. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 ( talk) 06:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)