Jump to content

Talk:Islamic ethics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV tag

[edit]

Please explain why the article is POV? --Aminz 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a selection of some positive reforms made by Islam. I.e. it's POV essay. Also an article by this name should describe ethics in Islam, and compare them to other world religions. Arrow740 02:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agree with arrow. clearly a POV essay Cydperez 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with POV. The article does not read like an objective assessment of Islamic ethics. The section on human rights is belittling: the idea of human rights is a modern one (did dhimmi have the same rights as muslims?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.8.71.103 (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article's Existance

[edit]

Well...at first glance, this article seems rather pointless. Not that the idea behind its creation is bad, but its substance is greatly lacking. And as far as improving it goes, I am severely underqualified to make any suggestionsStarwarp2k2 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where is the substance of this article. notability? possible AfD here? Cydperez 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be deleted, but it must contain a critical view of islam as well. Just not sure of any scholarly critical views. There is plenty of unscholarly views though. But since this article contains a ton of praise for Islam, it is clearly POV.--Sefringle 04:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain

[edit]
  • According to Encyclopedia of Ethics, Islamic ethics is meaningful in the context of a community which finds its reasons for being in carrying out the mission given to humanity, that is to submit actively and willingly to God.

What does that mean?

  • "Such mission involves efforts in all dimensions of person's life; it includes self-discipline, as well as calling of others to submission." The motive force in Islamic ethics, as a mode of discourse, is the call to "command the good and forbid the evil", in all life aspects. [2]

What is the second sentence supposed to mean?

  • The Qur'an and Sunna of Muhammad explain this mission further: All human beings bore the impress of a primordial covenant with God (meaning that all humans naturally have the capacity to discern God's will and submit):[2]

What does a capacity for discernment have to do with a covenant?

  • And when your Lord brought forth from the children of Adam, from their loins, their seed, and made them testify of themselves, asking: Am I not your Lord? They said: Yes! truly, we testify. That was in case you should say on the Day of Resurrection: We were not aware of this. Or in case you should say: Our fathers ascribed partners to God from ancient times, and we were only following them, as their seed. Will you destroy us on account of what they did? (7:172-173)

I think this needs more context. What is "That" which was in case?

  • In this view, the human beings, independent of their religous background or living place, are thus expected to reflect on the meaning of existence which is ultimately believed to lead to the reality of God from whom they come and to whom they return.

So "the meaning of existence" leads to "the reality of God?" What is that supposed to mean?

  • Muslims believe that when humans discern God's will and submit to it they practice Islam.

What does this have to do with Islamic ethics? Wouldn't every religion have a belief of this kind?

  • According to Qur'an, most human beings are in the state of jahiliyya or "headlessness" (as opposed to islam or "submission") by working against their nature. And they do so because of their focus on material success. "Rivalry in worldly increase distracts you," the Qur'an says. [2]

So Hindu ascetics aren't Muslim because of their focus on material success?

  • Muslims believe that Muhammad, like other messengers, was sent to remind human being of their responsibility. Muhammad, in opposition to what he considered as the state of jahiliyya or "headlessness", significantly focused on the following five aspects of the civilization of his time: [2]
  • The tribal organizations of Arabs based on kinship and blood ties was replaced by Umma, a community based on piety. The measure of value from ancestral lineage and wealth was placed on piety, taqwa.

At best this needs to be reworded.

  • Polytheism was replaced with Monotheism

What does this have to do with ethics?

  • Among human qualities, instead of the notion of muruwwa (manliness), the characteristics of the "big man" upon whose patronage others rely, the notion of humility and God-fearing (preparing for the Judgment day) has to be lifted up.

"has to be lifted up" would have to be said another way. Has to be lifted up by whom, how?

  • The notion that the supreme goal of the life from performance of the deeds that would make next generations remember, was replaced the notion of "returning to God" as the supreme goal of life.

This needs a "by."

  • Pattern of legimation based on ancestral tradition (i.e. that which always has been done) was replaced by what God sends down as a measure of legitimation.

A general comment: why is Islamic ethics being described in opposition to the pagan Arab tradition? Why this comparison? Why not Islamic ethics as opposed to the Jewish tradition, the Christian tradition, the Zoroastrian tradition? Or why isn't it being described as a discipline in its own right? The discussion of pagan Arab traditions is excessive and tangential. This stuff could be in an article about "ways that Islam was some improvement over the pagan Arab system" but this is hardly an article about Islamic ethics. I suppose that if the goal were to propagandize about positive aspects of Islam (not that that is the goal here), comparing it to paganism in Arabia is about all one could do. Arrow740 02:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like many other articles on Islam, this one will definitely benefit from a more consistent application of the sui generis approach. Beit Or 21:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're headed for an AfD. Arrow740 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete and merge" (if there is anything useful here) is the motto of the day. Beit Or 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur.Proabivouac 08:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True the quality of this article is quite poor. However, if articles such Jewish ethics exist, then so should this one.Bless sins 23:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could end up being a good article. The "foundational motifs" section needs to be cleaned up, as I strongly indicated above. Arrow740 08:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arrow! The simple answer is that this whole section is written using "Islamic ethics" article from "Encyclopedia of Ethics" and also from Encyclopedia of Islam "Akhlaq" or ethics article. Both sources are peer-reviewed scholarly sources. This is enough explanation for not removing the section. Secondly, if two scholarly encyclopedias have discussed this issue in this manner, it should be discussed this way. And please, wikipedia not based on Truth, rather it is based on the principle of verifiability. TruthSpreaderreply 05:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The section is a POV essay and moreover is barely comprehensible. Arrow740 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

There may be a source problem here. The section good and evil refers to the Quran, and seems to interpret it. Currently there are reliable sources in the section. That is good. However, I suspect that these source may not cover everything the section mentions. I am not sure of this. But someone should definetly verify that everything in the section is properly sourced to a sceondary one.Bless sins 23:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole list was refered to Mizan. I think that previous setup was much more readable. What do you say? TruthSpreaderreply 01:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was more readable. An essential problem is that many things listed as acts are not acts at all. A belief is not an act. It's certainly an idea started long ago in ancient Palestine that your belief makes you good or bad but this isn't an action. Arrow740 08:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored previous list, as the information was a little bit skewed as referred source was talking in a specific order. Regarding Arrow! If people do follow monotheism properly, they are not oblidged to follow any cleric, any religious doctorine or any Mullah, rather they will only follow God and will only be answerable to God. Unfortunately, Ulema have de facto powers in Islamic society. But these powers have no roots in islamic teaching. The first four Imams were only scholars, while contemporary scholars are trying to be politicians as well (which I find really odd, as it is the job of politicians and not Ulema to govern).TruthSpreaderreply 15:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not going to edit war with you, I disagree with ur revert. When someone comes to this article they don't jsut want a list of good/bad, rather they would like to know the reasons these acts are considered good/evil, and the philosophy behind this. Obviously a list can't address these issues, but a paragraph structure can.
Could you please reconsider you revert?Bless sins 21:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not discussing in detail before reverting. The first thing is that we simply can't have Qur'anic verses alone. They have to be referred by some secondary source, and in this case it is Mizan. The list is discussed in a lot more detail with every verse and every hadith, which is referred here. Plus there is another list which includes the qualities required to excel in character. This include Islam, belief, thanksgiving (to be grateful to whatever you've got), honesty, patience, humility, charity, fasting, protection of private parts, and excessive remembrance of God. The book is in Urdu, hence I might not have translated it accurately. After giving the list, which is on the article, the author also implies at the end that these ten qualities are the ones which God has ordained to us, just like 10 commandments were given to Israelites. This is why, I believe that by changing in paragraph, we are changing the order and heirchy of these deeds. But if you have suggestion, I am ready to listen. Cheers! TruthSpreaderreply 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My removal of POV material

[edit]

The entire section "Good and Bad qualities" is POV. It only presents the good qualities. I have removed that section.--Sefringle 05:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Qur'an presents good qualities, it has to be on wikipedia even if it is a POV of Qur'an. Otherwise, you are implying that POV of Qur'an is not important. TruthSpreaderreply 05:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the article is sourced from Mizan and it is sourced to different verses of Qur'an and hadith. Such mass removals can amount to censorship. TruthSpreaderreply 05:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is still POV pushing. It is not censorship, it is rmovial of POV material. Including this POV material is Propaganda. Wikipedia is not censored, but it is also not a soapbox. If it only includes one side, it is POV pushing. POV material should not be in wikipeida articles, unless balanced.--Sefringle 05:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that criticism of Qur'an, which has its own POV is allowed, but ethics POV of Qur'an which is discussed by scholarly sources is not allowed on Wikipedia. This is double standards. TruthSpreaderreply 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we are mentioning every POV article, lets not forget the following ones:
The point I am trying to make is that I am OK if you add the POV quran section on the condition that you also add a contrary viewpoint.--Sefringle 05:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please confine the discussion to the topic under discussion. This article already had the POV tag on it, for which you had the time to find the contrary information and add to the article, rather than mass-removing sourced material, which Qur'an strongly purports. And just a comment to Arrow, wikipedians are not expected to be scholars. Hence, if you don't understand the article, this shouldn't be a reason for removal of material from prestigious scholarly sources. TruthSpreaderreply 05:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the quran does not strongly purport anything. I can find many examples to say the quran is bad just like you can to say it is good. However it would still be WP:OR. I think we shouldn't include any viewpoint unless we can find an alternative opinion on the morals of the quran that is scholarly. Otherwise this article is POV pushing. Instead, we should focus this article more on ethics and customs of Muslims, and less on the alleged moral teachings of islam.--Sefringle 06:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion; maybe we should focus this article on the changes Muhammad made in Meccan culture and life, and the history of how muslims have applied the teachings throughout islamic history.--Sefringle 06:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you both have good points. Sefringle is certainly right that the deficiencies of Islamic ethics should be covered here, and I believe that Spencer would be a reliable source for that. I.e., the dowry paid is purchase of use of the wife's genitals in some schools of Islamic thought, so the woman has to let the man have sex with her whenever he wants. However I see no problem with listing positive aspects of Islamic ethics, or improvements Islam made to the ethics of the society of the place and time. Any comments? Arrow740 06:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you elaborate what you are talking about. Lending wife's genitals??? And by the way, Dowry is not buying someone's freedom, Qur'an says very clearly that they are not object of inheritence. Rather, after marriage, women has certain rights which men don't have, i.e. the right to be supported and this dowry is a token to show this commitment. And secondly, dowry is wife's right, atleast according to Qur'an. TruthSpreaderreply 06:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Sharia the marriage is a transaction, money (dowry) for genitals: [1]. He quotes Sharia manuals. I warn you that he quotes hadith that mentions of Muhammad's physical interaction with Aisha which is not for the faint of heart. Arrow740 07:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Islam-watch! There is nothing offensive in that article regarding Aisha (ra). It shows that women are not to be isolated during menstruation. Which is much more fair than Jewish laws who used to isolate women socially during menstruation days. Rather, it tells the principle that during mensntruation, only penetration is prohibited, which makes alot more sense as bleeding is only in vagina. But please Arrow! Islam-watch? And how this guy uses Islamic sources to prove his point of view, it is just undescribable. TruthSpreaderreply 07:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He quotes Ibn Kathir and others. Arrow740 18:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there are many instances where if a man wishes to copulate with his wife he is not permitted or recommended not to. for the former, it includes instances like menses or late pregnancy (i think). for the latter, jurists mention instances where the wife is feeling unwell or has a reasonable reason not to. i don't think (the unqualified) Spencer is in any position to discuss the topic of Islamic ethics (akhlaq), or any Islamic field/science at all - you seem to forget that he only scrapes notability in articles where its' subject is criticism itself. ITAQALLAH 16:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most notable critic of Islam is not notable enough for the criticism article eh? He is qualified to point out the deficiencies of Islamic ethics vis a vis Christian ethics. Arrow740 18:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The most notable critic of Islam is not notable enough for the criticism article eh?" excuse me?
he can talk about Christian ethics all he likes, he is not an authority on the discipline of akhlāq, or on anything else related to Islam. as such, his opinions are not warranted in this article. ITAQALLAH 19:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dekh lenge. Poor akhlaaq! Arrow740 19:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sefringle, how is it to rename "Good and Bad qualities" to "Code of Behavior According to the Qur'an". I am sorry but I am a bit confused of "It only presents the good qualities." Does this rename solve the problem? If not, would you please explain in more details what kind of statements should the article include. Thanks --Aminz 07:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the section mentions only the good qualities in the quran and none of the bad qualities. That is POV.--Sefringle 08:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please explain what does good or bad quality means? Do you mean the Qur'an commands to something which is bad? Thanks --Aminz 08:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are numerous examples of both good and bad things that the quran commands muslims to do.--Sefringle 19:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example? And please spcify according to whom they are good or bad. Thanks. --Aminz 23:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example the following verses are examples of bad things the quran asks muslims to do: [Quran 45:11], [Quran 41:27-28], [Quran 35:26], [Quran 6:49], [Quran 5:73], [Quran 18:29], [Quran 98:6],[Quran 8:65], [Quran 8:39], [Quran 3:106], [Quran 61:9], [Quran 9:30], [Quran 9:29], [Quran 9:5], [Quran 8:36], [Quran 8:12], [Quran 3:151], [Quran 7:4-5], [Quran 4:34], [Quran 2:216], etc.
However they can't be included like this, since that is WP:OR--Sefringle 02:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sefringle, some might conisder these verses to be bad, some not. I have changed the title of the section to "Code of behavior". Many of the above mentioned verses do not intersect this topic. Since this article is on ethics, all "dhimmi-related" could be covered in a sub-section on "Toleration". How is that? --Aminz 06:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how anyone can see a writing that calls for the killing of innocent people or male superiority to not be consitered bad.--Sefringle 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sefringle, do you agree if we have a section on "Religous tolerance"? "Ethics of family" could be also another section. Does it sound good? --Aminz 00:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the content of the page. Why don't you create a temp page and we can discuss it.--Sefringle 00:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Humiliation" will be more appropriate. Beit Or 08:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Toleration" can be centered around the development of Toleration as a virtue which is in the context of this article. --08:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the new title "Code of behavior" is more appropriate. Sefringle if you have a contrary viewpoint, with reliable sources that represents the mainstream view of Muslim on Islam, then feel free to add it.Bless sins 00:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better just to not include either viewpoint.--Sefringle 02:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it should probably focus on the idea of tolerance as a virtue and its developments. Regarding that , we have Professor Mark Cohen who says: "Neither for Islam, nor for Christianity prior to modern times, did tolerance, at least as we in the West have understood since John Locke, constitute a virtue... It seems, therefore, that monotheistic religions in power throughout history have felt it proper, if not obligatory, to persecute nonconforming religions. Thus, it is not surprising that medieval Islam should have persecuted non-Muslims, just as medieval Christianity persecuted Jews(and also Muslims), and as Judaism -briefly in power during the Hasmonean period (second century B.C.E.)-should have persecuted the pagan Idumeans, focibly converting them to Judaism. When all is said and done, however, the historical evidence indicates that the Jews of Islam, especially during the formative and classical centuries (up to the thirteenth century), experienced much less persecution that did the Jews of Christendom. This begs a more thorough and nuanced explanation than has hitherto been given."
Also, we have Bernard Lewis writing about the idea of tolerance in pre-modern times: "This was tolerance and no more than that. Tolerance is by modern standards an essentially intolerant idea. Tolerance means that I am in charge. I will allow you some though not all of the rights and privileges that I enjoy, provided that you behave yourself according to rules that I will lay down and enforce. That seems a fair definition of tolerance as usually understood and applied. It is, of course, an intolerant idea, but it is a lot better than intolerance as such, and the limited but substantial tolerance accorded to Jews and other non-Muslim communities in the Muslim states until early modern times was certainly vastly better than anything that was available in Christendom."--Aminz 02:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've already seen these quotes, Aminz. I acknowledge the flaws of medieval Christendom and second century Judaism. Can we move on? Arrow740 03:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arrow, I know but we are trying to write a sub-section on tolerance because Sefringle thinks we should add the code-behavior together with this section. --Aminz 03:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase that, since you misinterprited what I said. I said we can include the section on tolerence. I never said anything about the "code of behavior" section.--Sefringle 00:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that can be included under the title "tolerence."--Sefringle 02:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I want to see what Encyclopedia of Ethics and Encyclopedia of Religion have to say on this issue. "Tolerance" could be a subsection in the "code of behavior" section. The focus should probably be on ethics. We probably need to write a bit about John Locke as well. --Aminz 03:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the section "Foundational Motifs" is completely incomprehensible. Beit Or 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is propaganda, pure and simple. Arrow740 07:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arrow, the author is [2] --Aminz 07:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I alone in my impression that this section is a copyvio? Beit Or 08:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please be more specific. --Aminz 08:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, I was talking about the earlier version, The current one, however, is even more incomprehensible. Beit Or 08:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Arabian Pennsylvania"[3]... A Freudian slip? Beit Or 08:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made an attempt to rewrite the "Foundational Motifs" section to fix the most egregious POV and incomprehensible stuff. However, having spent some time trying to do that, I've seen that the section as it stands is unsalvageable and requires a complete rewrite. The only workable solution is to remove it entirely and start afresh. Beit Or 20:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked it with the source[4]? --Aminz 20:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I did. As most authors on philosophical subjects, such as ethics, Kelsay can sometimes be less than lucid, but the section is basically a heap of unrelated words. One needs not check sources to say that some material is impossible to parse. Beit Or 20:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know in what sense it is incomperhensive, but of course, the section can always be improved. --Aminz 20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's incomprehensible in the sense that I can't comprehend it. Beit Or 21:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other sections

[edit]

Hey, would it be irrelevent to add sections on the Islamic ethics of life, such as abortion, euthanasia etc.Bless sins 00:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes. I think we should focus more on that than on the morality of the quran.--Sefringle 02:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

[edit]

The article contradicts itself. First, it says that the Islamic ethic "was eventually shaped as a successful amalgamation of pre-Islamic Arabian tradition, the Qur'anic teaching and non-Arabic elements (mainly of Persian and Greek origins) embedded in or integrated with a general-Islamic structure." But then it ignores the non-Islamic sources and says "Islamic ethics were gradually developed based on the Muslim understanding and interpretations of the Qur'an and stories of Muhammad." Beit Or 21:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The foundational motif section discusses the Qur'an as understood by Muslims. That's why I added that sentence but I think we need to modify it. --Aminz 00:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of that one simple contradiction, you can't remove the whole section. Pls. stop.Bless sins 15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this talk page from top to bottom before commenting on my actions. Arrow740 19:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this whole section is completely meaningless. Beit Or 19:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of this section is "incomprehensible"? State to me a sentence - one at a time - and I will either explain to you the meaning or make it comprehensible.Bless sins 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is with the editor who wants to make an edit: you, in this case. Either rewrite the section so that it is well-wriiten and NPOV or demonstrate that it is well-written and NPOV in your current version. Beit Or 17:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse, the burden is on me make it well written. Can you please specify one sentence that is not well-written.Bless sins 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of which proof? If someone claims that X is true, the proof is on the person who claims. So, if one wants to add something to the article, he must source it. However, if one claims that the section is incomperhensive, then he has to show it. --Aminz 23:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People of the book

[edit]

Encyclopedia of the Qur'an in the article Ethics and the Qurʾān has to say the following about non-Muslims:

Since the Muslims are a single group, relations with non-Muslims are shaped by that fact. Yet, in the end, the claims of ethical behavior outweigh those of communal solidarity. The distinction between Muslims and non-Muslim Peoples of the Book is fundamental to qurʾānic behavioral norms, but a common ethical monotheism of the members of these traditions seems to underlie more superficial distinctions. For example, q 3:84-5 lists in credal fashion the faith described as Muslim, in a way that is inclusive of more than just the umma of Muḥammad: “We have faith in God, in what has been sent down to us and what has been sent to Abraham, Ishmael (q.v.)… We do not distinguish any of them from the others. We are to him submitters. And who follows other than the submission (al-islām) as a religion (dīnan) — it will not be accepted from him; he will be, in the afterlife, a loser” (q 3:84-5). Consequently the Qurʾān recognizes the existence of virtue and even religious virtue among Peoples of the Book: “…Of the People of the Book, there is an established people reciting the signs of God at the time of night prostrating themselves. They have faith in God and the last day and they command the good and forbid the reprehensible and hasten to good deeds (al-khayrāt); these are among the righteous (al-ṣāliḥīn). And whatever good they do, they will not be rejected” (q 3:113-4). In other words, the Qurʾān assumes a moral universe shared with the other Peoples of the Book.

Christians and Jews, then, are not a demonized Other, the anti-thesis of Muslims, but they belong to the same religious genus. Yet, because of their theological errors, and, more importantly, due to their animus against Islam (cf. q 5:82 for the anti-Jewish and anti-“associator” polemic), the Muslims are enjoined not to take them as friends: “O you who are faithful! Do not take the Jews and Christians as friends. They are each other's protégés (awliyāʾ). Who has taken one of them as a protégé — he is one of them. God does not guide a wrong-doing people” (q 5:51; the whole anti-People of the Book polemic can be found at q 5:41-82; see also q 3:118; 4:144). Furthermore, their theology leads them to moral error (q 5:62-3).

Indeed, it is the claim of the scriptuaries that moral norms do not apply to other than their own moral communities that brings God's condemnation: “…And among [the People of the Book] are those who if you entrust them with a dīnār, do not return it to you unless you insist upon it; this is because they say ‘We have no duty toward the gentiles They say of God a falsehood, which they know” (q 3:75). Only a single verse enjoins struggle against People of the Book (this, contrary to Vajda in ei 2, i, 264): “Fight those who do not believe in God nor the last day and do not forbid that which God and his messengers have forbidden and who are not religious with the religion of truth from among those given the scripture until they give a reward [for being spared] while they are ignominious” (q 9:29; for this translation, see Bravmann, Ancient Arab background). In sum, the boundaries of religious identity are irreducible in the qurʾānic understanding and crucially shape the ethical conduct of Muslims toward one another and towards others. A norm of moral conduct that transcends communal boundaries is, however, equally a part of the qurʾānic message.

Sefringle, are you okay if we summerize this? --Aminz 01:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the summary before I make a decision.--Sefringle 03:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, how's this summary?

Since Muslims are a single group, relations with Christians and Jews are shaped by the fact that they are non-muslims. The distinction between Muslims and non-Muslim People of the Book is fundamental to qur'anic behavioral norms but a common ethical monotheism of the members of these traditions seems to underlie more superficial distinctions. The qur'an recognizes the existence people of the book, and assumes a moral universe shared with them, thus recognizing the virtue of their religions. ([Quran 3:84-5], [Quran 3:113-114]) Christians and Jews thus are not the enemies of Islam, since they share many beliefs. But since the Islam considers itself to be superior to other religions, muslims are enjoined not to befriend the people of the book ([Quran 5:82]) as muslims believegod does not guide non-believers. ([Quran 3:118], [Quran 4:144], [Quran 5:51], [Quran 5:62-63]) The moral norms do not apply to those who disbelieve. ([Quran 3:75]) And one verse commands muslims to fight the people of the book ([Quran 9:29])

--Sefringle 21:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my suggestion. I have tried to summerize all points.

The Qur'anic norms of behavior towards Christians and Jews are shaped by the fact that they are Non-Muslims but a common ethical monotheism of the members of these traditions seems to underlie more superficial distinctions (e.g. see [Quran 3:84]). The Qur'an assumes a moral universe shared with the people of the book, thus recognizing the virtue of their religions (see [Quran 3:84-5], [Quran 3:113-114]). Christians and Jews thus are not the enemies of Islam, since they share the same religious genus. But the Qur'an enjoins Muslims not to befriend the People of the Book because of what it sees as their theological errors and, more importantly, their animus against Islam([Quran 5:82]); the Qur'an claims that some among the Jews do not apply the same moral norms to the Gentiles as they apply to themselves ([Quran 3:75]). Only one verse commands Muslims to fight those of the People of the Book who do neither believe in God nor in the last day until they are brought low and pay the jizya tax, ([Quran 9:29]). In sum both the boundaries of religious identity and a norm of moral conduct that transcends communal boundaries are equally part of the Qur'anic message.

BTW, as far as I know, other scholars disagree with the author on the issue of befriending the People of the Book. --Aminz 02:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

suggestions for improvment

[edit]

My first suggestion is to remove the word "only" where it is refering to verse 9:29. After that, I would suggest restoring/summarizing the part about god not guiding the nonbelievers. It seems the origional quote gives an entire paragraph to this. It seems important.--Sefringle 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we remove "only"? The source says:"Only a single verse enjoins struggle against People of the Book" --Aminz 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As we know, surah 9 was the last one Muhammad delivered. The "only" is therefore misleading, since the later the surah, the more important it is, because it negates anything earlier which it contradicts. So this verse is in effect part of the final word on fighting others. Arrow740 04:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"As we know, surah 9 was the last one Muhammad delivered." That's wrong. I don't know where Spencer has got this heresy. Sura 9 dates back before the conquest of Mecca as it is clear from its context. Sura 5 was revealed later: verse 5:3 for example reads: "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion” (Quran 5:3)"--Aminz 04:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was the last revealed in full according to Bukhari. Arrow740 04:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Revealed in full" probably meaning all at the same time. What does it have to with your argument? --Aminz 05:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a citation for that?--Sefringle 04:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Qur'an Translation: Discourse, Testure and Exegesis By Hussein 'Abdul-Raof, p.65, Routledge Taylor and Francis group -Aminz 05:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does he say? Arrow740 08:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And why do we care what he says? Arrow740 08:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "After that, I would suggest restoring/summarizing the part about god not guiding the nonbelievers." would you please copy/paste the original sentence from source here? Thanks --Aminz 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POV--Sefringle 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have another verse? Hmmm I saw the paranthesis. --Aminz 03:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Kathir says that the surah was revealed after the battle of Tabuk. Your source is a revisionist. Arrow740 08:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of speech

[edit]

I would like to add this paragraph to begin the section titled "freedom of Speech":

There is no freedom of speech with regard to Islam itself. To speak out against Islam is to commit apostasy which is punishable by death. This is one of the main reasons that Islam is nearly impossible to reform/change because just starting a dialog about Islam can be a death sentence. The absolute prohibition against the questioning of Islam is also applied to anyone outside of Islam. There are many examples of people (Muslim and non-Muslim) that have been issued a fatwa of death for speaking about Islam. Two of the most famous are Salman Rushdie and Theo van Gogh (film director). Any Muslim is allowed to kill such apostates in cold blood and any Muslim that dies trying is considered a martyr such as Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh who died trying to kill Salman Rushdie.

I thought I would post it here first in the case that it causes an uproar. Any comments? Bluetd (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed passage needs to be rewritten with Wikipedia:Neutrality, Wikipedia:Verification, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources in mind. ITAQALLAH 17:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your feedback, ITAQALLAH. I made the changes and posted it. I would have posted it here first but the refs didn't work here. Bluetd (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the feedback was sufficiently implemented. We can't use other Wikipedia articles as sources. We can't use unreliable sources like "muslimhope.com" for information of any source. We also can't misinterpret sources talking in a specific context and then make sweeping generalisations from them. Hence, the content doesn't comply with Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verification, or Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I also believe the prose violates Wikipedia:Neutrality. On that basis I have removed the passage. ITAQALLAH 18:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I had another go. Thanks for the good feedback. My sources and POV should be in line with standards now. Bluetd (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the passage again and it is still problematic. You can't use a search result to make generalised claims. See WP:NOR. Statements must be specifically verified and attributed. If a source doesn't say it, then it's not legitimate to insert. The prose too is rather unencyclopedic. Regarding your second sentence, it fails WP:NPOV - it states the personal opinion of the US ambassador as fact ("criminalizing freedom of expression") and actually misrepresents the source as a whole. As for the last sentence, again you are inserting your own opinionated claims which are unsupported by the source and stating them as fact. There's also an issue with taking examples in specific countries and presenting them as if they are representative of Islam. Please find sources discussing freedom of speech in Islam itself, not the status of freedom of speech in Muslim countries today (as that isn't within the scope of this article). Regards, ITAQALLAH 22:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am stating now for the record that we have a dispute. Please refer to this document Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In the first section it says that you should not just delete a passage that you disagree with but edit it instead. I expect you to undo your deletion of my text and we can then work together to edit it into an agreeable form. I am looking forward to working with you on this. Bluetd (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the passage violates core Wikipedia content policies (and it does in this instance), then it really has no place on Wikipedia. I would much prefer you proposed a version on this talk page which we could first agree to, before inserting it into the article. ITAQALLAH 23:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, the references don't show up on the talk page and they are part of what you didn't like. Please follow the dispute guidelines. Bluetd (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted it below so we can discuss and develop it. ITAQALLAH 00:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed passage

Amnesty International has many warnings on its website against exercising freedom of speech with regard to Islam itself in Islamic countries for you may be attacked and killed by angry mobs or arrested by the government under Islamic blasphemy laws and then subjected to harsh punishments which include torture and the death penalty. [1] Islamic countries have moved to criminalize freedom of expression in a UN amendment which passed on March 28, 2008. [2] Slovenia's ambassador Andrej Logar, stated that the UN council’s focus is shifting from protection of free speech to limiting it because of this amendment. [3] In Pakistan, their Islamic blasphemy law carries a mandatory death penalty and contributes to violence and oppression. [4]

References
  1. ^ [ http://www.amnesty.org/en/ai_search?keywords=blasphemy&op=Search&form_id=search_theme_form&form_token=06b25ba525a8f153dcc8d4451a648c11 Amnesty International]
  2. ^ [ http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_FREE_SPEECH?SITE=VAWAY&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Associated Press]
  3. ^ [ http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5ixrH1UJlUfSL9f_oOmiupBt32mmw Canadian Press]
  4. ^ Amnesty International: Amnesty International
Comments

Obviously, references 1 and 2 aren't pertinent here and probably just reflect some ref tags used earlier in this page. I've explained above why the content does not meet core policies. I also think it doesn't really belong in this article, which is about ethical guidelines in Islamic thought, and not the status of human rights in modern day states. ITAQALLAH 00:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, references 1 and 2 are ones I found. #1 shows just how many different Islamic countries have active blasphemy laws. Would you rather I just list each one as its own reference? I thought it would be better to just show the list because there are so many of them. They show that most if not all Islamic countries have laws on the books make it a death sentence to use free speech about Islam and that these laws are based on Islamic ethics. #2 shows what happens when Islamic ethics are applied to international law and is from one of the preferred by Wikipedia sources, Associated Press. These two sources are not about blasphemy in general but about blasphemy with regard only to Islam. Bluetd (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually referring to two other references that were appearing in the references list above (the Ghamidi and Encyclopedia of Ethics ones).
Secondly, you are interpreting the amnesty.org search result for yourself. None of what you assert is itself explicitly asserted by the sources, it's your own interpretation of them - which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The AP report mentions discussing the opinion of one US ambassador, and certainly doesn't state it as fact. As said before, please find sources talking about Islam itself, and not sources talking about Muslim countries. You need to read through Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verification. ITAQALLAH 01:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
US ambassador may be a reliable source on US politics but certainly not a reliable source on Islam. --Be happy!! (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see a US ambassador? I only see one from Slovenia and he is commenting on the direction Islam is taking the UN, not on Islam. Bluetd (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I commented based on Itaqallah's comment who said that the AP report discusses the opinion of a US ambassador :) --Be happy!! (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the US ambassador's opinion in the AP article that you used as a basis for the second citation, which isn't appropriate. The Slovenian ambassador says absolutely nothing about "the direction Islam is taking the UN," that's your spin on what he said. This is not how we build articles. The policies linked above offer sufficient clarification. ITAQALLAH 02:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the basis of the article is that Islamist countries have criminalized free speech based on Islamic ethics. Bluetd (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's your own speculative deduction from the source, and entirely unverified. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for one's personal views. ITAQALLAH 16:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a great reference I found, what does everyone think about it? Bluetd (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC) http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1023[reply]

It's an opinion piece, in a seemingly unreliable source, written by someone who probably has his PhD in something other than Islamic studies (if you can show what his PhD is in, that would be useful). ITAQALLAH 16:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the Canada Free Press unreliable? Also, they are siting the Koran as reference, are you saying those things are not in the Koran? Bluetd (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability is to be proven using the criteria specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources (not assumed until disproven). Canada Free Press appears to be a non-mainstream conservative press; I see no accountability or reputation for accuracy from the source either. The source is further unreliable due to the additional points mentioned above. ITAQALLAH 20:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, they are siting the Koran as reference, are you saying those things are not in the Koran?" That is indeed a very good point. However, Qur'an can be easily taken out of context, as with many other scriptures. For example, part of the Muslim creed is "There is no god but Allah". One could take this out of context and say 'Islam says "There is no god..." therefore Muslims are atheists.' Of course such a conclusion would be ridiculous. This is ofcourse an oversimplified example. For more complex examples, we need reliable sources to quote the Koran.Bless sins (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got a book from Amazon.com titled "23 Years : A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad" by Ali Dashti. Is this book good enough to use as a reference? Bluetd (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Ali Dashti was more a polemicist than a qualified scholar. ITAQALLAH 18:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to his wiki, he studied Islamic theology and history in two madrasases to the point that he could have become a cleric. He sounds very qualified to me. What qualification does he lack? This book has been read by millions and reviewed by thousands. Bluetd (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wiki article is unsourced. I'd like to see what formal, recognised qualifications he has - not what he could have had. Traditional/Islamic qualifications (if he even has any) are still a topic of dispute on Wikipedia; we prefer academic, peer-reviewed, reliably published sources. ITAQALLAH 15:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His book states the same qualifications. I have searched the internet and not found anyone disputing his qualifications but you. I don't find it hard to believe he attended madrasases. Bluetd (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and human rights

[edit]

Could someone find quotations from the qur'an or, at least, from the hadiths instead of "mere" jurisprudence and doctrine? I mean there are many tendencies in Islam (Shias and sunnis, differences between sunnis madhhabs, etc.), so you can't say that some scholars represent the whole Umma. Mitch1981 (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some scholars represent a substantial part of the umma. For example, Imam Abu Hanifa would represent the majority of Sunnis (almost of half of the umma). Nevertheless, your request to have hadith and Qur'an quotes is legitimate.Bless sins (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very few groups follow simply Qur'an and hadith, since ethics as practiced isn't deduced from these raw texts even for the Athari, but a rigorous scholastic process taking the entirety of Islamic revelation and sunnah into perspective. --Enzuru 06:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion

[edit]

I noticed this article was deleted in August 2010 without any proposal or discussion.

I understand that much of the article was written by Jagged85, and cleanup is proceding.

According to Wikipedia:Jagged_85_cleanup, anyone cleaning up is required to "Assess whether the current text satisfies relevant policies such as WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV". Mass blanking demonstrates no such assessment was made.

Furthermore Jagged85 isn't the only one that contributed to this article. I remember having contributed to it as well, as have many other editors. Blanking the article article nullifies our contributions.Bless sins (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not to say that there aren't problems with this article. I see many that draw conclusions that the source hasn't. I'm working on fixing them, and would appreciate help, not hindrance.Bless sins (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im glad you want to save it. For a good outline see Jewish ethics (for a bad outline see Christian ethics). Keep up the good work. J8079s (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ismail's comment on this article

[edit]

Dr. Ismail has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


please also quote the original sources of knowledge from al -Quran and al-hadith


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Ismail has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : Possumah, Bayu Taufiq & Ismail, Abdul Ghafar & Shahida, Shahimi, 2012. "Bringing Work Back In Islamic Ethic," MPRA Paper 41351, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 07 Feb 2012.

ExpertIdeas (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Islamic ethics. 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 09:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islamic ethics. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indirect indirect indirect citation

[edit]

The following cites McAuliffe to support the idea that Eickelman wrote that Bellah suggested an interpretation. This is a little extreme in terms of indirect citation. Is there any way of finding the Eickelman source, or at least the Bellah source? 

Dale Eickelman writes that Bellah suggests "the early Islamic community placed a particular value on individuals, as opposed to collective or group responsibility."[1]  Clean Copytalk 12:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McAuliffe (2005) vol. 5, pp. 66-76. "Social Sciences and the Qur’an"

Hope to redo article

[edit]

Rewriting it with some of the criticisms made on this page in mind, such as adding a comparison of Islamic ethical systems with other religions.

Just made a massive deletion of Jagged 85 edits

[edit]

−36,258‎ bytes gone. From his edits from October and December 2008. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Louis P. Boog: I've had a further go at stripping out copyvios, dubious website sources and the like and restructured it into something slightly more resembling a digestible article. Just thought I'd let you know in case another helping hand was all the motivation you needed to have another crack at the whip. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_ethics&oldid=1213954158"