Talk:Reliance of the Traveller

Omissions regarding slavery.[edit]

Hello CuriousOliver. There are many sections that are left untranslated in the Reliance. I have a copy myself. Another example is the ruling on fixing utensils with gold. I'm not sure about the slave section (I'll check today and get back to you). However, I don't think it adds anything to the value of the article itself. In fact, I think it biasses the article against the book (makes it sound like "it's censored to remove certain practices which are offensive to modern society"). If an omissions section is truly needed (and I don't think it is), it will have to list all (or atleast most) of the untranslated parts. That would be beyond the scope of the article. A note on the fact that some sections which are not relevant to contemporary times have been left untranslated might enhance the value though.

I'll update this message after checking with the book today evening and then if necessary, will revert/edit it. Please let me know what you think.--Nkv 14:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nkv. Not all omissions are notable, but this one is, because it comes up very often in discussions. Also, skimming through the book (I have the 1994 edition), this is the only case were I found a whole section is omitted. You say mentioning this fact "makes it sound like "it's censored to remove certain practices which are offensive to modern society". Why don't we let people judge for themselves? I have no objections against listing other parts that have been ommitted.

People judging for themselves is fine. I'm for that. However, saying something like "Shaykh Nuh doesn't translate this section which deals with the sexual rights of a master over his slaves" and ending it there can give a wrong idea about the book and about Islam in general. Quite frankly though, I don't think it belongs here at all. There is an article that details Slavery_in_Islam and such matters belong there.--Nkv 06:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nkv. It is quite notable that most omissions deal with slavery. It is also notable that while not translating section k32.0, he does write a longer comment on it, which is actually quite misleading. CuriousOliver 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the copy of the book which I have, the untranslated section is half a page long (full width, not the 1/3rd that's usually used) but the comment which Shaykh Nuh has written is about 5 or ten lines long. You're talking about the section on 'Itq. Correct? As for the omissions relating slavery, that's quite natural. He doesn't translate sections which are not relevant to modern times. Details on the rules of slavery are of no practical benefit to people these days since the practice doesn't even exist. I suppose (but this is purely *my* opinion) he's trying to defend Islam against people who (quite commonly these days) say things like "Islam doesn't prohibit slavery" without considering that the religion was revealed 1400 years ago. --Nkv 16:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I find it very notable that Sheikh Keller translates some 95% or more and leaves out some parts where many Muslims do have questions. Especially issues like slavery, sex slavery and women's rights are contentious issues between traditionalist Muslims and Muslim reformers, and how authorities like Sheikh Keller deal with such controversial issues is very important. Please let me know what you think.CuriousOliver 15:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of slavery is left out because slavery doesn't exist today. Other questions on women's rights such as chosing a husband, conjugal rights etc. are translated in detail and commented on. Contentious questions like homosexuality and certain sexual practices are also dealth with. The issue of slavery is of theoretical interest since Islam has a position on it. However, the book is meant to be a practical handbook and not an accurate relic (as Shaykh Nuh himself says in the preface) and that's why the section was left untranslated.

On the overall, although the section you have added is factually accurate, I think the presentation biasses the article against the book. I can't list out all the omissions. There's too many for that. Singling this one and listing it skews the article. The omissions section forms a little less than half the article and that biasses it. What do you think? --Nkv 06:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is definitely too important to be ommitted. Considering your point, I think the best solution would be to summarize in the article some of what I said here and add a link to Slavery_in_Islam. I will do that and I will try to get a full translation of section k32.0 to put it on Slavery_in_Islam, though that might take some time. CuriousOliver 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds workable. I think details of Islamic Fiqh regarding slaves should be in the Slavery_in_Islam article. A link from here with some of what you said is probably enough. Thanks for your interest and the discussion.--Nkv 16:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited your addition a little. Do take a look. --Nkv 07:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at it and probably edit it somewhat myself. Let me know what you think. CuriousOliver 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. --Nkv 16:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing without seeking a consensus first[edit]

A user recently rewrote this entire article without first conferring with others here on the talk page. I reversed all the edits not because I took issue with the specific changes but because it isn't right to simply trash one version of an article and write an entirely new one without checking here on the talk page. In the future please do not make sweeping edits without first talking it over. MezzoMezzo 20:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I don't consider me entitled to edit the article-page (first because I'm not even a native english speaking person myself, and second because of the consensus remark above (9 May 2007)), but I read in the article : "Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources". Well, the source I have to offer, is the work in question itself. It is to be found at http://www.shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/relianceoftraveller.pdf . Maybe, if consensus is reached, someone likes to add it as an external link. Fri 16 sept 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.96.51.15 (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want to add something in the article itself because, after a brain infarct, I'm not sure it will go allright, but the book is online here : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_dHZZdNbcK6dYSh_pkqZYE4bbcbYjA4p/view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.103.198.217 (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section that involves criticisms of this particular thing? Quite frankly, it seems like the sort of thing that should be broadly condemned by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It's a pretty basic idea, really. There are Criticism sections in thousands of other Wikipedia articles. And Reliance of the Traveller pretty well invites criticism, doesn't it? We are talking about 14th century Islam here. And just to be clear- yes this is Islam, it's really Islam, it's not some false version of Islam, it is well and truly Islam. And it's truly awful, isn't it? It's just crammed full of terrible ideas that should be disputed, rejected, and left in the past- actually, so many of these ideas should have never been ideated in the first place. They absolutely should not be defended or even partially dragged into the modern day, just in the interest of saving face. That is yet another terrible idea.

12.119.36.46 (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]