Talk:Shirk (Islam)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Shirk (idolatry))
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Islam (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.202.95 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 


Does anyone have any citations or support for the statement "Islamic theologians have thought hard about the implications of monotheism".....what are the implications that other needs to consider? OneVoice 20:08, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It was something my comparative religion professor said back in college: that Muslim theologians had carefully thought out the logical implications of monotheism, and addressed the various categories of worship that was to be exclusively directed to God, and gone into detail about what each of them implied. Most of the other material here is from my old class notes as well. Not sure if I still have the text. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:15, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It would be good to have the material or not have the statement...otherwise we have an unexplained statement which leaves the reader wondering what concepts, ideas, etc. are not being described. ;( OneVoice 02:21, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have attempted to reword this to state the point slightly more neutrally. You may wish also to review this site: http://www.muhajabah.com/tawhid.htm , which at least seems to confirm my notes on this. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:06, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the pointer...I'll see if we can incorporate some of the material here. The rewrite also reads much better. The prior version may have been correct...just need some examples..."too much" science education (observe measure all those verbs)

I felt the discussion of shirk was tendencious; the particular tendency being one I associate with the neo-Wahabbis. Without being upfront about the matter it made several attempts identify veneration of the prophet and saints with "shirk". So I rewrote it. 64.85.224.52 17:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) Kleinecke

vandalism[edit]

Hello, A vandal was messing with the page. I'm not sure I removed all the garbage and saved all the good stuff. Please, someone look it over. Mikereichold 09:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mike,
Is Shirk Al koboor under the subtitle "Shirk In al-'Ibadah (Worship)" some sort of vandalism? I did a web search and couldn't seem to find anything on it (other than on websites which seem uselessly to repeat wikipedia articles), however I couldnt' find anything on it. Although I don't know enough to say positively that it is vandalism, the placement of it as a title without any explanation of the title seem to suggest it. Daniel De Mol (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Theology[edit]

Can someone fix the theology section? it's unclear and includes some sentence fragments, especially at the end. -- Awiseman 20:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Agnosticism[edit]

The reasoning by which atheism is considered shirk seems clear enough, but it is not clear from the article how that reasoning is to be applied to agnosticism. In particular which of strong agnosticism, mild agnosticism, apathetic agnosticism, model agnosticism, agnostic theism, agnostic atheism, and ignosticism is considered shirk, and what is the appropriate reasoning in each case? (No need to go into these types individually if all constitute shirk.) --Vaughan Pratt 19:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral POV[edit]

Some sections of this article including (& not limited to) Shirk_(polytheism)#Shirk_by_Association dont seem to be on neutral POV. Hence i added the neutrality tag. Please discuss. -- Đõc §aмέέЯ  00:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

it's just a problem of attribution. "some Muslims" doesn't cut it. Strictly, we should remove all unattributed statements in this article. dab (𒁳) 14:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doc Sameer,
Has this issue been resolved to your satisfaction? If not can you please give further information on which branches of Islam have had their views over or unrepresented to assist in background research to improve the article further? Please provide more info on suggested improvements if neccessary. Daniel De Mol (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

'Shyrk' & Not 'Shirk'[edit]

In transliterating the arabic word, meaning 'associating partners with God', the word 'shirk' will be unknowingly wrongly pronounced & misunderstood by an Englishman as "shark' meaning 'to evade the performance of an obligation'as in standard English.Ilaila (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ilaila,
Since English is a language which follows precedents and not a language of logic, unless you can convince international Islamic scholars to change their convention, we are stuck with the shirk spelling. However, there is a way of getting the pronunciation correct, and it is by adding in a pronunciation to the article using the International Phonetic Alphabet, for example shirk (joining partners with God) is probably pronounced ʃɜrk, whilst shark (a large carnivorous fish), would be pronounced ʃark. Daniel De Mol (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
People are aware that similar words are discerned by the context of the text. There are many such words is any language. In fact, the thought of mistaking it with "to shirk (as in to shirk responsibility)" has never crossed my mind -- until just now. It certainly would never be confused with "shark." Danwaggoner (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Shirk and Non-Muslims[edit]

Does it apply? Especially in regards to polytheists.Domsta333 (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Domsta, according to the Qur'an it does, therefore it is relevant to include it in the shirk (Islam) article. Daniel De Mol (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would point out though that the Trinity is not shirk. It doesn't say there are multiple gods; only one with a number of parts. We Catholics also don't worship objects themselves; only the prophets etc. that they are about (for example we worship Mary and make statues of her but it's her and not the statues that we worship). We also don't worship anyone as much as we worship God or assign him properties that he doesn't have. To do these things would be considered heretical by Catholicism as well; a mortal sin. We also don't believe that God looks human and I presume we just draw him that way for the sake of simplicity. Someone who isn't a Muslim can't believe in the concept of shirk as it is a Muslim idea. If a Christian believed in this idea as opposed to the asking of saints for help he would not be a true Christian and if he isn't a true Christian can he really be saved according to this part of the Koran? "[5:69] Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the converts, and the Christians; any of them who (1) believe in GOD and (2) believe in the Last Day, and (3) lead a righteous life, have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve." 86.45.140.38 (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Overview[edit]

Others than God[edit]

In the definintion the words "consider anyone god" will be changed to "consider anyone or thing god" in order to make clearer that making non human entities god is also shirk. Daniel De Mol (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

References[edit]

Quotes and citations will be slowly moved to the references section. Daniel De Mol (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Definition[edit]

Qur'an[edit]

"Another form of shirk is to consider the Lord as people and monks" will be changed to "Another form of shirk is to take scholars of religion, monks, divines or religious lawyers as Lord/(s) in practice by following their doctrines, and/or by following their rulings on what is lawful when it is at variance to the law or doctrines prescribed by God's revelation"
The reason for this is that 9:31 mainly applies to the Jews and Christians, none of whom so far as I know consider the Lord to be people and monks in theory which the former wording seems to imply.
Citations will also be added to the Yusuf Ali commentary, and multiple translations of the Qur'an for 9:31. Daniel De Mol (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

by ibrahim hassan haji  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.232.201 (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 

We certainly don't consider the Lord to be people. 86.45.140.38 (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Shirk[edit]

Lesser Shirk[edit]

Swearing by other than Allah[edit]

This section previously had a title at the same level as "Lesser Shirk", however it seems to be only a form of lesser shirk, and only in the view of (Wahabbi) Salafis, so it is being moved to a sentence within Lesser shirk, and attributed to the Salafis. Daniel De Mol (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. Nobody calls themselves “Wahhabi”. Al-Wahhab (The Bestower) is one of The Beautiful Names of Allah. It is not befitting to use it in an insulting way as the term “Wahhabi” is used.
  2. In a hadeeth graded hasan by Al-Tirmdhi and saheeh by Al-Hakim, Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (ra) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “Whoever swears by other than Allah has committed an act of kufr or shirk.”
  3. The noble companion of the Prophet (saw), Ibn Mas'ood (ra) said: "That I should swear by Allah upon a lie is more preferable to me than that I should swear by another upon the truth." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.106.71 (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Magic and Fortune-telling[edit]

The article probably needs to say about shirks like magic, sorcery, fortune-telling, astrology, etc.
Also, aren't these considered Shrikh also: God having child, parent, family, etc
Verycuriousboy (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Taghut[edit]

This has been tagged for merging Taghut into this article since December 2010. Personally, I feel that these two articles are now long enough separately that this is unnecessary, but I am no expert on these subjects. What do other editors think? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)