Talk:Al-Ma'idah: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 91: Line 91:


This is called secondary literature and tafsīr, unlike the Youtube-channel. I provided you classic as well as modern tafsīr by Maududi & Asad, only 10 seconds of googling and you would have found out, that these man died in 1979 & 1992. So much regarding "Ancient commentaries". Are we now to believe that 30-40 years is ancient? And yes, Islam's different schools of law STILL rely on these interpretations, classic as well as modern. You may not like it, but this a fact.[[User:AshleighHanley82|AshleighHanley82]] ([[User talk:AshleighHanley82|talk]]) 14:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
This is called secondary literature and tafsīr, unlike the Youtube-channel. I provided you classic as well as modern tafsīr by Maududi & Asad, only 10 seconds of googling and you would have found out, that these man died in 1979 & 1992. So much regarding "Ancient commentaries". Are we now to believe that 30-40 years is ancient? And yes, Islam's different schools of law STILL rely on these interpretations, classic as well as modern. You may not like it, but this a fact.[[User:AshleighHanley82|AshleighHanley82]] ([[User talk:AshleighHanley82|talk]]) 14:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

: Thanks for the ping.👍 I'm already keeping a lookout on the progress, it's just that I've been uncharacteristically busy lately.
: Regarding using these biased sources, an argument can be made for their inclusion as long as the following conditions are met:
:# The opinions given must have more than just fringe support, they should be notable. [[WP:UNDUE]] mentions: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all..."
:# The statements should definitely not be stated as unqualified, objective truths; it should be clearly declared that the source of these claims is biased and anti-Islamic or Islam-critic or whatever is the proper term here.
:# For balance and NPOV, counter-arguments to those controversial claims should clearly be represented also.
: Regarding the [[Al-Ma'ida]] and [[Al-Fatiha]] cases, I personally don't know how notable these criticisms on Islam are. Furthermore, regarding the third point, apparently, these criticisms are unpopular enough that I was unable to find any published counter-arguments. The counter-arguments (such as Islamic scripture criticises only a particular group of non-Muslims and not all of them) ''are'' obvious, but looks like no one has bothered to formally publish them specifically for the present cases. Therefore, the needed balance to make the article NPOV, requires including statements which as of yet don't appear to have published secondary sources. Presently, I'm unsure how to deal with the dilemma.
: — [[User:AhmadF.Cheema|AhmadF.Cheema]] ([[User talk:AhmadF.Cheema|talk]]) 18:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


==Verses 5:32 and 5:33==
==Verses 5:32 and 5:33==

Revision as of 18:23, 8 December 2019

5:51

Auliyâ’ means friends, protectors, helpers. If just translated as friends it is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.34.50.105 (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Why is this a stub ??? The translation of "Al-Ma'ida" is "Table" like the stone tables in the Bible...

Wim

Shi'a bias.

Some of the verses show a clear shi'a bias. Pure inuyasha 23:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What verses are biased? --Striver 01:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:005 abdulbaset ma'ida.ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:005 abdulbaset ma'ida.ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christians and Muslims

Reverted the entry about the God of the Christians not being the same as that of the Muslims. Using an online op-ed from the editor of a local, small-town Kansas newspaper who is arguing that the United States is a "Christian nation" does not seem to be a proper theological source. If wikipedia is going to start relying on politically-motivated op-ed pieces from local media around the world, you will get some seriously terrible theology.

There are plenty of Christians (and Muslims) who do think this way, but (for example) the Catholic Church does not hold that teaching, nor do many noted theologians. And none of these arguments actually have to do with this Sura, so the question is best addressed elsewhere like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Islam#Comparative_theology .Konchevnik81 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Al-Ma'ida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019 edits

Comments regarding AshleighHanley82's edits:

  • Special:Diff/929506840, Special:Diff/929630196 - Don't completely agree with this. There are probably a few balance issues, but its somewhat difficult to justify complete removal here.🤔 I think how the verse gets used in modern day politics should be relevant and appears to be includable. What do you think?
  • Special:Diff/929507223 - Agree.
  • Special:Diff/929633803 - Sources aren't good but the overall information appears includable. The "abbreviated rephrasing" criticism appears WP:NOTE. Further explanation and balance is probably needed. I'll look into it.

Comments regarding Koreangauteng's edits:

-- AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both Muslims and those who have concerns about Islam in 2019, do not get their information from non-internet, inevitably-complex, ancient, commentaries, rather both groups watch the internet.
Rather than just listening to this man, check all the Islamic references/sources he uses in his talk.
No Compulsion in Religion? An Examination of Quran 2:256 (Islam Critiqued) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0xcPGNvLa8 A lot more more sites are available.
Wikipedia articles should present, simply, all points of view - including using those specified Islamic references/sources. Koreangauteng (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page you provided links to Acts17Apologetics, a (as the name suggests) christian apologetic Youtube-channel with complete non-scholar & anti-muslim tendencies. This is the definition of POV https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POV_and_OR_from_editors,_sources,_and_fields. These do not count as secondary literature in any shape or form. Such citations lead to vandalism reports. Secondary sources are reliable sources by scholars in their respective field of research, this being Islamic Studies/Arabistic because we are dealing with Islam and the Quran here. This is Wikipedia not Youtube. AshleighHanley82 (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry. The issue is the, "specified Islamic references/sources". Please read the reference you supplied. "Editors, sources, and academic disciplines or fields of study may have points of view (POV) and perform original research (OR). Even some edits can reflect a POV. If that was not permitted, probably most of Wikipedia could not exist. Articles must have a neutral point of view (NPOV) and no original research (NOR) but that does not restrict any editors, sources, or fields, or some edits". Koreangauteng (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How far do we really have to go back on this? Back to the 1o1 of proper citation or what NPOV or NOG means? Do I really have to explain to you why an anti-muslim Youtube-Channel is not allowed as a secondary source? Your inability to properly read & understand pages, your constant selective referencing is de facto disturbing. The key guideline in proper sourcing and citation is as follows: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

And here one more "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Are we now here to really discuss why a christian missionary on an anti-muslim youtube channel does not count as reliable? Again et voila "Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Your youtube channel fits this criterium over here-> "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, internet forumpostings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources." (Ibid)

This talk is getting absurd at this point. An admin should help AshleighHanley82 (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No no. Again, as I continuously say, it is the Islamic (reliable, independent, published) sources/references he used in his presentation - not his opinion. Koreangauteng (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research per definition, he himself interpretes the verse and judges the exegetes himself from those he provided. He is not a reliable source, he is not a scholar, no reputation, POV & I'm repeating myself for the third time now: this channel is an apologetic social media page with anti-muslim tendencies. Pinging @AhmadF.Cheema:.AshleighHanley82 (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Both Muslims and those who have concerns about Islam in 2019, do not get their information from non-internet, inevitably-complex, ancient, commentaries, rather both groups watch the internet". Ashleigh > in 2019 you have to counter that with succinct augments - not with typical Quranic Hermeneutics. Koreangauteng (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is called secondary literature and tafsīr, unlike the Youtube-channel. I provided you classic as well as modern tafsīr by Maududi & Asad, only 10 seconds of googling and you would have found out, that these man died in 1979 & 1992. So much regarding "Ancient commentaries". Are we now to believe that 30-40 years is ancient? And yes, Islam's different schools of law STILL rely on these interpretations, classic as well as modern. You may not like it, but this a fact.AshleighHanley82 (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping.👍 I'm already keeping a lookout on the progress, it's just that I've been uncharacteristically busy lately.
Regarding using these biased sources, an argument can be made for their inclusion as long as the following conditions are met:
  1. The opinions given must have more than just fringe support, they should be notable. WP:UNDUE mentions: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all..."
  2. The statements should definitely not be stated as unqualified, objective truths; it should be clearly declared that the source of these claims is biased and anti-Islamic or Islam-critic or whatever is the proper term here.
  3. For balance and NPOV, counter-arguments to those controversial claims should clearly be represented also.
Regarding the Al-Ma'ida and Al-Fatiha cases, I personally don't know how notable these criticisms on Islam are. Furthermore, regarding the third point, apparently, these criticisms are unpopular enough that I was unable to find any published counter-arguments. The counter-arguments (such as Islamic scripture criticises only a particular group of non-Muslims and not all of them) are obvious, but looks like no one has bothered to formally publish them specifically for the present cases. Therefore, the needed balance to make the article NPOV, requires including statements which as of yet don't appear to have published secondary sources. Presently, I'm unsure how to deal with the dilemma.
— AhmadF.Cheema (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verses 5:32 and 5:33

The issue is yet unresolved relates to Verses 32 and 33 and their RS citations. Verse 32 have been covered in Wikipedia for at least 7 years. Verse 33 is now deleted. Verse 32 is decimated. This how it stood on 5 Dec 2019 > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ma%27ida&oldid=929418311 No problems removing, "The response-punishment (Verse 5:33) is brutal". Suggest reinstate 5:32 and 5:33 with your (Ashleigh) wording added. Koreangauteng (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind reinstating this sub-section. My main issue here are some very suspicious news articles, that do not support the phrases and have dubious reputations. So, frankly, I'm really not against it. The phrase "The response punishment is brutal" is of course POV, does not belong in here. We could add one classic tafsir & one modern tafsir. The status quo ante 2016 mentioned A. Bustom. He is an author of non-scholar books, I think this one you would like to include, too? AshleighHanley82 (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Ma%27idah&oldid=929858876"