Talk:Apostasy in Islam

Tags

I have removed the article header tags. If there is a specific problem, please explain what the problem, preferably with cites of reliable scholarship. Let us together identify and address issues with this article. RLoutfy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that the deliberate use of WP:NPOV citations in the article, which makes it unbalances and unscholarly. See the other comments in the talk page; Thanks. --CounterTime (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: What do you mean "deliberate use of WP:NPOV citations"? NPOV does not mean, "I don't like what the scholar is saying so it is NPOV", it only means that all non-fringe and scholarly sides must be summarized. For further help on what NPOV means, try wikipedia's teahouse. RLoutfy (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy What I stated didn't imply -in the least- that NPOV was equivalent to "I don't like what the scholar is saying so it is NPOV". Please read the other comments in the talk page that outline the issues. --CounterTime (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

So what do you mean by "deliberate use of WP:NPOV citations"? The other authors have accepted the consensus and gone. You must explain your concerns in your words, by taking one cite at a time. RLoutfy (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy As far as I'm concerned, when viewed with regards to your edit war on the article on Q.2:256 is that your version of "Apostasy ..." suppresses the other verses that are related to Q.2:256 despite the citations that link them, as well as providing a biased vision of abrogation with regards to Q.2:256, for instance "Peters and Vries, in contrast, explain that the Quranic verse 2:256 was traditionally interpreted in a different way, considered abrogated (suspended and overruled) by later verses of Quran such as 9:5 by many historic Islamic scholars." However as pointed in the Q.2:256 article, the overwhelming majority of premodern scholars considered it to be non-abrogated, see the cites in the meant article. "Some modern scholars state that this verse's abrogation by historical Muslim jurists may have been flawed." Here you make it do as if the current interpretation was different from the classical one, when it isn't the case. There are other problems with the article, and a very significant one, such as the fact that it doesn't explain that there are two types of apostasy: minor (nonpunishable) and major (punishable).--CounterTime (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You state, "overwhelming majority of premodern scholars considered it to be non-abrogated". Do give a reliable cite with page number? RLoutfy (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I cited every famous premodern scholars as well as other sources that say that '2:256 abrogated' isn't the mainstream Muslim opinion, including for instance: Richard Curtis (2010), Reasonable Perspectives on Religion, p.204. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0739141892. Quote: "While the pope, following many anti-Islam propagandists, seemingly argues that the oft-cited Qur'anic dictum "no compulsion in religion" was abrogated by subsequent revelations, this is not the mainstream Muslim interpretation. Indeed, the pope made a major scholarly blunder when he claimed that the "no compulsion in religion" verse was revealed during the Meccan period, "when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat." In fact, it was revealed during the later Medinan period--the same period as the verses that authorize armed struggle against the Meccan enemies of the nascent Muslim community in Medina, that is, "when Muhammad was in a position of strength, not weakness."" (emphasis added)

The meant premodern scholars are:

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimma, pp.21-22.

Al-Tabari, Jāmi` al-bayān `an ta'wīl āy al-Qur'ān 4, Dar Hajar, 2001, p.553.

Abi 'Ubayd, Kitab al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh, p.282.

Al-Jaṣṣās, Aḥkām al-Qur'ān 2, p.168.

Makki bin Abi Talib, al-Idah li Nasikh al-Qur'an wa Mansukhih, p. 194.

Abu Ja'far al-Nahhas, al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh fi al-Quran al-Karim, p.259.

Ibn Jizziy. at-Tasheel. p. 135.

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, Al-Itqān fi ‘Ulum Al-Qur’an 2. p.22-24.

See the other cites in the article on Q.2:256. --CounterTime (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Again, as I said don't cite primary sources, and don't do your own translations or interpretation, because your translations are wrong. Since we disagree on translations, it is you who must provide a secondary source that does the translation (@NeilN: what is wikipedia policy in situations where editors disagree on non-English cite translations?). The "this is not the mainstream Muslim interpretation." does not mean "overwhelming majority of premodern scholars considered it to be non-abrogated". You need to provide a cite that says the latter as you alleged. Further, remember Richard Curtis claim in a book published by Lexington Books does not mean other views by established scholars in books published by Oxford University Press etc must be discarded. For NPOV, we must summarize various sides. RLoutfy (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Loutfy Those aren't primary sources. "and don't do your own translations or interpretation, because your translations are wrong." Could you please cite passages from all the following books:

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimma, pp.21-22.

Al-Tabari, Jāmi` al-bayān `an ta'wīl āy al-Qur'ān 4, Dar Hajar, 2001, p.553.

Abi 'Ubayd, Kitab al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh, p.282.

Al-Jaṣṣās, Aḥkām al-Qur'ān 2, p.168.

Makki bin Abi Talib, al-Idah li Nasikh al-Qur'an wa Mansukhih, p. 194.

Abu Ja'far al-Nahhas, al-Nasikh wa al-Mansukh fi al-Quran al-Karim, p.259.

Ibn Jizziy. at-Tasheel. p. 135.

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, Al-Itqān fi ‘Ulum Al-Qur’an 2. p.22-24.

in which I provide each time a "wrong" translation?

"Since we disagree on translations"

Which translation do we disagree with?

"The "this is not the mainstream Muslim interpretation." does not mean "overwhelming majority of premodern scholars considered it to be non-abrogated"."

As I stated: "I cited every famous premodern scholars as well as other sources that say that '2:256 abrogated' isn't the mainstream Muslim opinion", the statement overwhelming majority of premodern scholars considered to be non-abrogated is found in the references to the works of these same scholars I mentioned above, (Al-Tabari, Abi 'Ubayd, Al-Jassass, Makki bin Abi Talib, Al-Nahhass, Ibn Jizziy, Suyuti, ... see the article on Q.2:256), as well as things like "Muslim scholars have established the abrogated verses and this verse is not among them" (ref: Muhammad S. Al-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law, US American Trust Publications, 1993, p.51.)

"Further, remember Richard Curtis claim in a book published by Lexington Books does not mean other views by established scholars in books published by Oxford University Press etc must be discarded."

Just because a book was published in the OUP doesn't mean each view it states is true and every book published elsewhere should be wrong, remember I cited the works of premodern scholars (Al-Tabari, Abi 'Ubayd, Al-Jassass, Makki bin Abi Talib, Al-Nahhass, Ibn Jizziy, Suyuti, ... see the article on Q.2:256) who all confirm the thesis. --CounterTime (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(perhaps off-topic) Not that I am by any means an expert on medieval islamic apostasy so I post a naive question: shouldn't the work of premodern scholars go into a section of "History of apostasy in Islam" unless of course that's where the information already is? It could be interesting to illumunate the contrast between the contemporary views of historic apostasy with how that same era is viewed by modern scholars if there are differences. AadaamS (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime, Those non-English sources are primary, and the few I checked have been mistranslated by you to push your POV. Can you replace your "alleged translation and interpretation of primary sources by premodern scholars" with secondary WP:HISTRS sources for history of Muslim scholar views on Apostasy? This is a well studied topic, with a lot of recent scholarship, and finding recent WP:RS shouldn't be difficult for you. RLoutfy (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: "...the few I checked have been mistranslated by you to push your POV" Can you show how I mistranslated them? (Note: You still didn't show how I mistranslated sources in another article, see here) Note to the reader, the user @RLoutfy has been engaged in distortions of sources, misquotes, and similar things in another relevant article (the one on the verse Q.2:256) see here and here. -unsigned comment by CounterTime

Translations of contentious material should ideally come from secondary sources. Are there any? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: The problem is that translations of such works (like the tafsir of Al-Tabari, etc...) don't exist for the current moment. --CounterTime (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Original research by CounterTime/alter-CounterTime

CounterTime, You reverted and added the following back to this article. Can you provide a secondary scholarly source that states the following verse is about Apostasy in Islam?

And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers?

— Quran 10:99

There are several similar additions by you, CounterTime, but let us take one item at a time, as that may help us focus our discussion and reach consensus without a WP:DRN / WP:ANI process. RLoutfy (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop recovering the old version. As I said, check out my references, "Taha Jabir Alalwani (2003), La 'ikraha fi al-din: 'ichkaliyat al-riddah wa al-murtaddin min sadr al-Islam hatta al-yawm, pp.93-94. ISBN 9770909963." links all of them to apostasy in Islam. --CounterTime (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: This failed verification. RLoutfy (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Why did it allegedly fail "verification"? --CounterTime (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: You added it. You explain. Perhaps you can quote a few sentences that you believe links above verse and others such as verse 88:21-22 you added here to apostasy in Islam. RLoutfy (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I didn't add anything, simply see the reference "Taha Jabir Alalwani (2003), La 'ikraha fi al-din: 'ichkaliyat al-riddah wa al-murtaddin min sadr al-Islam hatta al-yawm, pp.93-94. ISBN 9770909963." which links 10:99 to apostasy in Islam. As for 88:21-22, I already gave the reference "Abou El Fadl, Khaled (January 23, 2007). The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists. HarperOne. pp. 158–159. ISBN 978-0061189036.", so instead of repeating things, go back to the references I added. --CounterTime (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: And by the way you still didn't explain how "Taha Jabir Alalwani (2003), La 'ikraha fi al-din: 'ichkaliyat al-riddah wa al-murtaddin min sadr al-Islam hatta al-yawm, pp.93-94. ISBN 9770909963." allegedly "failed verification". --CounterTime (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: "La 'ikraha fi al-din: 'ichkaliyat al-riddah" or "اشكالية الردة و المرتدين [...]" is an Arabic publication (see OCLC 863087832). By citing it, you are once again doing your own flawed POV translation and interpretation. Failed verification means "it does not verify what you allege it does". Instead of your own flawed translation, you need to provide an acceptable independent scholarly translation. Wikipedia policy on non-English sources requires, in the case of disputes, the party that adds the disputed non-English source to provide a quote and "a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians". RLoutfy (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Can you please show how my translation is POV? (and which translation which in fact I only quoted it since it cited 10:99 with regards to apostasy, which is clear by reading pages 92-95 of the meant book) Can you please show how "my translation is flawed"?! Okay, translations published by reliable sources are preferred over those by Wikipedians, but the book by Dr. Taha Jabir wasn't translated in English. In any case, can you please show how my translation is flawed and POV??! Can you please show how my citations "does not verify what I allege it does"." ??! --CounterTime (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: You made many accusations and attacks on me claiming that I make POV translation (see the talk page on jizya, and the talk page on Q.2:256), but you never actually provided your own alternate translation, or even a reason on why my translation was wrong, or biased, or POV, or flawed, ... And whenever I bring an issue you state that allegedly I'm making wrong translations, without any proof whatsoever. I'm waiting for explanations for this kind of frequent undesired and uncivil behavior. --CounterTime (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, let us use this talk page for improving this article on Apostasy in Islam, and take the discussion and our disputes on other Islam-related articles to their specific talk pages.

In the case of "اشكالية الردة و المرتدين [...]" cite you added to this article, you are reading a non-English source and you allege above that it "links all of them to apostasy in Islam". I disagree with your interpretation of that non-English source, but will accept it if you can cite any reliable source that interprets the way you are interpreting "اشكالية الردة و المرتدين [...]" cite. Given our dispute, you must provide a quote and translation of the non-English source. I hope you will cooperate and respect wikipedia policies on citing non-English sources. @NeilN: and @Iryna Harpy: any further suggestions on the above dispute about non-English source(s) added by CounterTime? RLoutfy (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Well that was my question, why do you "disagree with [my] interpretation of that non-English source"??! I'll provide a cite in arabic of that reference + my translation later, I must sleep now. --CounterTime (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

CounterTime, This and other Islam-related wikipedia article talk pages are not a forum. I will wait for you providing the Arabic quote(s) from the cite and a translation that supports your allegation that it "links all of them to apostasy in Islam". RLoutfy (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@RLoutfy and CounterTime: Per the WP:NONENG policy, "When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations." As this is a potential breach of WP:NOR, if CounterTime provides a translation (as he is obliged to do per this request), I would also want an uninvolved editor who speaks Arabic to verify that the translation is correct. Even where using secondary sources, I like to have at least a couple of other editors who speak whatever language the source is written in to cite check the translation in order to verify that the translation is accurate and correct: and this is a WP:PRIMARY resource. Other Arabic speakers can be found through Category:Wikipedians by language. If it is not translated and cite checked for verification, it can't be used as the WP:BURDEN is on CounterTime to demonstrate that content added by him is legitimate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I didn't talk about Islam or anything related to it, I talked about your accusation that I distorted and misrepresented a source, you need to state why you think I misrepresented the source. Period. --CounterTime (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Okay, I'll start by putting the relevant Arabic text with a commentary on each :

1. Page 91 : He mentions that there are a lot of Qur'anic verses that maintain that religious freedom in its entirety must be saved, and hence apostasy shouldn't be sanctioned.

2. Page 92 He starts mentioning them, and he starts by talking about the verse Q.2:256.

3. Page 93 He mentions many other verses amongst them 88:22.

4. Page 94 He mentions 10:99 in the 6th line.

Is this sufficient or should I translate every single page? Or if you want just ask someone who speaks Arabic to confirm what I stated. Also don't forget to tell @RLoutfy to stop making void accusations when he didn't even check or read my sources. Thanks in advance. --CounterTime (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Yours is a good idea, if we can get a "complete" translation, preferably from a secondary scholarly source, or from an uninvolved editor. In my reading, CounterTime is doing original research above. RLoutfy (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: You still didn't show either how my translation was flawed as you claimed or how I'm doing original research here. I even took the time to screen-shot the relevant pages from the book, can you find something that supports the claim that "my translation is flawed" or that "it failed verification"? --CounterTime (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: This is not a forum, and not to a place to spend time on "show how my translation was flawed, you have failed to prove it to me". Your alleged translation of the following is not only incomplete, it is incorrect and original research:

ولا نجد هذا العدد الكيرمت الآيات السني نزلت في التاكيد على ضرورة المحافظة

على حريات الإنسان كلها إلا في القيم العليا كاكوحيد والتركية والعمران وما ارنيط بها

من مقاصد شرعنة كالعدل وامنة والمساواة ونحوها. ضد نزل القرآن العظيم بذلك

العدد الكيرمن الآيات ؛ ليؤكد على حرية الإنسان خاصة في اختيار ما يعتقده ، وعدم

جواز اكراهه على تني أني معتقد ، أو تنعرمغقد اعتقده ءالى سواه ، وعلى توكيد ألن

etc

As Iryna Harpy explained to you above, you must respect WP:NOR and WP:BURDEN. The best way to do so, is either you provide a reliable cite that does a scholarly translation, or we wait for an uninvolved editor to provide a complete translation. RLoutfy (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: You claimed that my translation was flawed, therefore I responded to that, I'm very aware that this isn't a forum and only things related to the article can be discussed. Second, I didn't yet provide an entire translation, only detailing the context of the discussion in pages 91-94, and then concluding that he's talking about verses related to freedom of religion in the context of apostasy, and that 10:99 was cited amongst them (more precisely, in page 94, line 6; see here). As I told @Iryna Harpy: she can ask someone who speaks Arabic fluently to confirm what I stated. Thirdly, your "arabic" leaves much to be desired, here are some errors ( in bold and red) in your text:

ولا نجد هذا العدد الكبير من الآيات التي نزلت في التاكيد على ضرورة المحافظة

على حريات الإنسان كلها إلا في القيم العليا كالتوحيد و التزكية والعمران وما ارنيط بها

من مقاصد شرعية كالعدل و الحرية والمساواة ونحوها. فقد نزل القرآن العظيم بذلك

العدد الكبير من الآيات ; ليؤكد على حرية الإنسان خاصة في اختيار ما يعتقده ، وعدم

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .جواز اكراهه على تبني أي معتقد ، أو

If you can't even type arabic correctly then how can you claim to be fluent at it?! Then how can you claim to have read my sources?! I'm waiting for explanations!! --CounterTime (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: This is what I'm talking about, user @RLoutfy: doesn't even know how to type correctly Arabic, let alone understand it and he always claims that I make wrong translations. This is the type of thing that minimizes the time we put on improving the article.... --CounterTime (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Quran quotes, there are plenty of reliable English language translations of the Quran. These must be used and not the translation of an editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: It seems to me that the issue the user @RLoutfy: is bringing up is that he doesn't agree that the arabic source "Taha Jabir Alalwani (2003), La 'ikraha fi al-din: 'ichkaliyat al-riddah wa al-murtaddin min sadr al-Islam hatta al-yawm, pp.93-94. ISBN 9770909963." links the verse 10:99 to the subject of apostasy in Islam... --CounterTime (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If we're discussing an interpretation of the Quran written in a foreign language then a neutral third party should do the translation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks, I already told @Iryna Harpy: to tell one to check if my reading of the pages 91 to 94 isn't POV, or doesn't misrepresent the citation. --CounterTime (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If we decide to retain the content in this article, we need the entire translation by a neutral third party. CounterTime has alleged that the above pages "link all of them to apostasy in Islam". In my reading, they don't, and CounterTime's contested claims are original research. The one mention of apostasy is on page 94, but not in the way CounterTime has interpreted it for this wiki article. I did not type the above, just transferred from a file in a different format to wiki talk page, a process that is not robust. RLoutfy (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I asked you before as to why in your reading they don't link all of them? Why?! My claims aren't original research, as one can verify. As for your claim that you "transferred from a file in a different format to wiki talk page", it doesn't stand as there is no ebook or digital version of the meant book, furthermore you had the entire time to correct it before posting it on the wiki page. So I'm waiting for explanations: If you can't even type arabic correctly then how can you claim to be fluent at it?! Then how can you claim to have read my sources?! Could you also show how it is "not in the way CounterTime has interpreted it for this wiki article"?! --CounterTime (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: You continue to make uncivil accusations and forum style misuse of this talk page. Just wait for third party translator. Can you identify a few secondary or any tertiary publication that has cited the opinions in "اشكالية الردة و المرتدين [...]" above?

@NeilN: if opinions in a WP:PRIMARY article by some writer has never or rarely ever been cited in the scholarship of a topic, does that raise WP:FRINGE concerns? RLoutfy (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: First the meant source isn't WP:PRIMARY. Second I'm not making any "accusations" (please read WP:ACCUSE concerning that). Third I'm waiting for explanations concerning the following:! If you can't even type arabic correctly then how can you claim to be fluent at it?! Then how can you claim to have read my sources?! Could you also show how it is "not in the way CounterTime has interpreted it for this wiki article"?! I wont reply to any further request until you make sound explanations about those concerns. Thanks. --CounterTime (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo:, @Aboluay:, @JohnChrysostom:, @ⵓⵛⵛⴻⵏ:, @Mamdu:, @Rehman:, @Greyshark09:, @Toothswung:, @Qoan:, @Mhhossein: Can you please confirm that all what I stated above is indeed correct? (this is 'summarized' in the box below)

1. Page 91 : He mentions that there are a lot of Qur'anic verses that maintain that religious freedom in its entirety must be saved, and hence apostasy shouldn't be sanctioned. 2. Page 92 He starts mentioning them, and he starts by talking about the verse Q.2:256. 3. Page 93 He mentions many other verses amongst them 88:22. 4. Page 94 He mentions 10:99 in the 6th line.

— CounterTime

Thanks in advance! --CounterTime (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We need a complete translation of pages 91, 92, 93 and 94, to help build a faithful summary without WP:OR, and per WP:NOENG policy. The goal here is not to confirm or deny CounterTime's interpretation, but to meet the WP:BURDEN and help improve this article. Best regards, RLoutfy (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: You stated "in the case of "اشكالية الردة و المرتدين [...]" cite you added to this article, you are reading a non-English source and you allege above that it "links all of them to apostasy in Islam". I disagree with your interpretation of that non-English source," and also, "By citing it, you are once again doing your own flawed POV translation and interpretation. Failed verification means "it does not verify what you allege it does". Instead of your own flawed translation," The point here is that just a simple reading of 91-4 would confirm my point, as per the request. No need to translate all the other pages. --CounterTime (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: There's an English version of the meant book as translated from original arabic by Nancy Roberts, I've added it as a ref. Taha Jabir Alalwani (2011), Apostasy in Islam: A Historical and Scriptural Analysis, pp.35-39. International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). ISBN 1565643631., so the issue is now closed right? (But you'll still have to answer the other objections) I'll delete the tags then/ --CounterTime (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Thank you for finally providing the complete translation by Nancy Roberts. Her translation confirms my concerns. This translation on pp. 35-39 is about compelling non-Muslims to Islam, which is not same as apostasy in Islam. The latter is a situation where a Muslim abandons Islam and how Islamic texts treat this behavior. You are doing WP:OR when you interpret the former to mean latter, when the cite doesn't do so. For example,

p. 35, last two lines, "the freedom to choose what we will believe, and the impermissibility of compelling anyone to adopt a particular belief"

p. 37, 3rd to 5th lines, "Being a Muslim himself, he said to the Prophet, "Shall I not compel them to embrace Islam? Neither of them will accept any religion but Christianity?"

p. 37 last paragraph to p.38 first, discusses compelling non-Muslims (Jews) to convert to Islam.

p. 39, discusses compulsion and imposition of beliefs on non-Muslims again.

The Nancy Roberts translation then moves on to apostasy, and actually states the following on apostasy in Islam, at p. 39-40. I will accept a summary of the following (and paragraphs that follow), after rewording to avoid WP:COPYVIO issues, into this article,

Quote - "A distinction might be drawn between the Quranic attitude toward continuing in original unbelief, that is unbelief of someone who has never had faith, and its attitude toward the unbelief of someone who abandons faith for unbelief after having believed. Such a distinction acknowledges the freedom that the Quran accords to the person who is still in a state of original belief, while denying the same freedom to someone who abandons faith after having believed. - p. 39-40, Nancy Roberts translation of Taha Jabir Alalwani, Apostasy in Islam: A Historical and Scriptural Analysis

Before we discuss p. 39-40 further, please provide one or more quote(s) from p.35-39 Roberts's translation, where you believe there is the support for the text you have been adding on apostasy in Islam? and why isn't your addition not WP:OR? RLoutfy (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Chapter 2: The Qur'anic description of Apostasy, and pp.35-39 fall in that chapter, so the context of the discussion IS apostasy. Furthermore pp.34-35 belong to the subchapter titled "Religious Freedom as a Chief Intent of Islamic Law" see page 34 where one finds, "In affirmation of this message, and in order to liberate people fully, many Qur'anic verses were revealed in support, defense and protection of this freedom, which is the essence of our humanity....." then it continues in page 35: "The types of freedom upon which the Qur'an places the highest value, which it guarantees to human beings and which it enjoins us to preserve, are the freedom of belief and the freedom of expression.... Numerous Qur'anic verses stress the necessity of preserving human freedoms ... The Qur'an thus stresses human freedom, particularly the freedom to choose what we will believe, and the impermissibility of compelling anyone to adopt a particular belief or to replace one belief with another." (Note here the use of anyone, you try to make a distinction between a non-Muslim and an apostate when both of them are non-Muslims, an apostate is someone who rejected his faith.) Then pp.35-36 are under the subchapter "The Occasion and Meaning of the Verse: "There Shall Be No Coercion in Matters of Faith". Clearly, Taha continues by mentioning the (quoting him) "Numerous Qur'anic verses stress the necessity of preserving human freedoms". And if you read pp.38-39 it will be clear to you that he's talking about such verses: "The Qur'an affirms that it is the Creator alone who may judge those who call upon entities other than Him. Hence He states, "... he who invokes, side by side with God any other deity [ - a deity] for whose existence he has no evidence - shall but find his reckoning with his Sustainer: [and] verily, such deniers of the truth will never attain to a happy state!" (23:117). At the same time, He addresses the Messenger of God, saying, "And so exhort them: thy task is only to exhort; thou canst not compel them to believe" (88:21-22); "...thou canst by no means force them [to believe]. Yet nonetheless, remind, through this Qur'an, all such as may fear My warning" (50:45); and, "...thy duty is no more than to deliver the message; and the reckoning is Ours" (13:40) Many Qur'anic verses make clear to the Prophet that compulsion and the imposition of beliefs on others are of no use whatsoever, and that had God Almighty known that faith could be brought about trhough compulsion, He would have commanded His messengers to force people to believe and surreder themselves to Him: "Yet if God had so willer, they would not have ascribed divinity to aught beside Him; hence, We have not made thee their keeper, and neither art thou responsible for their conduct" (6:107); "And [thus it is:] had thy Sustainer so willed, all those who live on earth would surely have attained to faith, all of them; dost thou, then, think that thou couldst compel people to believe?" (10:99) God thus makes clear that the matter of doctine and belief cannot be subjected to any kind of coercion, even if such coercion is motivated by the believer's concern for the one being called to faith and the desire to deliver him from error." (in bold are the verses that we're cited in the article) You then cite pp.39-40 yet you forget that just after he states: "All of these verses, and many others besides, affirm that the person who commits apostasy is threatened with punishment in the afterlife. However, as explicit as all of these verses are, not one of them makes any mention of a legally prescribed, earthly punishment for apostasy, be it execution or anything less drastic. " and to confirm my point that quoting the verses that talk about freedom of belief is connected to the issue the other continues (pp.40-41) "The reason for this is that the authority of the Qur'an is an authority of amelioration and mercy which affirms religious freedom and the need to protect and preserve it. It is an authority which affirms that faith and unbelief are matters of the heart between the servant and his Lord and that the penalty for unbelief and apostasy after one has believed is one that takes effect in the life to come, jurisdiction over which belongs to God alone." Now can @Iryna Harpy: please confirm what I just said to close this issue? Thanks in advance. CounterTime (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: I understand what you are arguing. But you are doing original research, because Roberts' translation does not conclude what you are, and actually states the opposite. The section is part of the book titled Apostasy in Islam, but the context of that section is to contrast the freedoms to non-Muslims versus freedoms to Muslims, which are different in Taha Jabir Alalwani's view. Wikipedia summarizes interpretation and conclusions that are in the cite, but does not allow interpretations or WP:OR. The relevant conclusion in Roberts' translation is on p. 39-40 in what I quoted above, "Quran denies the same freedom to someone who abandons faith after having believed". I welcome a faithful summary of Taha Jabir Alalwani's view on pp. 39-40 in this article. There is no way I will accept your WP:OR above in this article. I invite you to drop this OR given what is in the Roberts' translation, or you are welcome to take this to WP:DRN, where I will join you. RLoutfy (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I'm not doing WP:OR, since all I'm stating is contained in the book, indeed a simple cite of the page in which the verse Q.10:99 is stated would suffice. My explanation of the other pages is only to confirm that what I'm saying is true, and to show the context. You again state pp.39-40 but you forgot what I stated: that after what you quoted it says "All of these verses, and many others besides, affirm that the person who commits apostasy is threatened with punishment in the afterlife. However, as explicit as all of these verses are, not one of them makes any mention of a legally prescribed, earthly punishment for apostasy, be it execution or anything less drastic. " and in (pp.40-41) "The reason for this is that the authority of the Qur'an is an authority of amelioration and mercy which affirms religious freedom and the need to protect and preserve it. It is an authority which affirms that faith and unbelief are matters of the heart between the servant and his Lord and that the penalty for unbelief and apostasy after one has believed is one that takes effect in the life to come, jurisdiction over which belongs to God alone." I invite you to reread the passages I mentioned. Thanks in advance. --CounterTime (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: The "punishment in afterlife" is in Taha Jabir Alalwani, and it was in the version of article before your first edit, citing Ali Gomaa. If you want to cite Alalwani as well, I am fine with that. That is not our dispute. Our dispute is whether Alalwani, as translated by Roberts, supports what you have alleged for many days now, that Alalwani links "all Quranic verses (in disputed section) to apostasy in Islam" (see here). It doesn't, and I suggest we delete your addition/restored text in the disputed section. According to Roberts' translation, those verses are about freedom of religion for non-Muslims, in Alalwani's opinion; and they are not about apostasy in Islam that is freedom of to leave Islam religion for Muslims. RLoutfy (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: You didn't show anything. Besides that, I didn't even talk about the "apo. punished only in afterlife" claim, and I'm not bringing in Gomaa or something. Let me remind you that Taha's main project in the book is to offer a discussion of apostasy through the lenses of the teachings of the Qur'an, and I quote him (p.6.) "The aim of this study is to provide a model for the type of revision by means of which one can place Islamic tradition under the authority of the Qur'an, thereby bringing it into full conformity with Qur'anic teachings." The mere fact that he stated 2:256, 88:21-22, 10:99...etc in his study is sufficient to establish that he linked those verses to apostasy. In fact, as I've shown before these verses are connected to religious freedom and to apostasy, according to the translation by Roberts of Alalwani's work. However, you're still persisting and ignoring what I have shown and you're misrepresenting and twisting Alalwani's claim based on a decontextualized quote on p.39 while you ignore that he says in p.40 "These verses [in reference to your quote of p.39, see for instances the verses quoted in p.40] should be taken together with the others of relevance which have already been mentioned. [i.e. those mentioned earlier in p.34-39.]" This establishes that the verses he quoted earlier are related to apostasy. See also for instance what he says in p.43. : "The principles and epistemic methodology of the Qur'an clearly specify the unqualified nature of religious freedom. The Qur'an hedges this freedom about with safeguards and guarantees in no fewer than two hundred verses, and states clearly that the punishment to be meted out to the unbeliever or the apostate is one that will take effect in the afterlife. Moreover, as we have stated, one could not expect the Sunnah to conflict with what we find in the Qur'an, especially in the view of the fact that this matter is mentioned not in one or two verses, but in approximately two hundred of its definitive verse, all of which unanimously affirm religious freedom." See my previous discussion here, and here. Thanks in advance. CounterTime (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy and CounterTime: Please excuse me as I haven't had the patience to read the entire section above but I hope I can answer a question raised in the section. I can vouch that according to Reza Aslan see here:

"Ibn Taymiyya argued that the idea of killing nonbelievers who refused to convert to Islam -- the foundation of the classical doctrine of jihad -- not only defied the example of Muhammad but also violated one of the most important principles in the Quran: that

• there can be no compulsion in religion (2:256)
• The truth is from your Lord, believe it if you like, or do not (18:29)
• Can you compel people to believe against their will? (10:100)
• To you your religion; to me mine (109:6) (p.85 Aslan, Reza, No God But God : The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, by Reza Aslan, Random House, 2005 --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: Thanks for bringing up another source. However it doesn't seem that the source you quoted links the mentioned verses to apostasy, which is the thing that @RLoutfy: requests, it merely links the verses Q.2:256, Q.18:29, Q.10:100, Q.109:6 with the subject of qital (fighting). It would rather fit in the Jihad article. For a basic overview of the conflict, please see here and here. Cheers! CounterTime (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: My mistake. Should have read more carefully. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: I have read the relevant pages from Roberts' translation again. You are misreading it, and doing flawed WP:OR. The text clearly differentiates between "freedom of religion for non-Muslims in Alalwani's opinion" and "no freedom of religion for Muslims, that is apostasy, again in Alalwani's opinion". You are trying to argue the opposite, when the quote I provided above is self-explanatory. You unnecessarily repeat the "afterlife" argument, which I have already agreed with. I remind you once again that the afterlife punishment view is already summarized in this article and I welcome the addition of Alalwani's cite there. But, as Alalwani acknowledges, religious freedom for non-Muslims in his opinion is not same as apostasy rights for Muslims again in his opinion. Your WP:OR is unacceptable, and I invite you to delete your OR, or provide a cite that explains the link of mentioned verses to apostasy by Muslims from Islam (not possible religious freedom granted to non-Muslims). RLoutfy (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• @CounterTime, RLoutfy, and BoogaLouie: A user asked me to try to settle this argument.

  • If the above Arabic text is from the Qur`an, please which surah and verses?, so I can check with an Arabic original.
  • I am not an Arabic speaker. I know some Arabic grammar, and enough Arabic words to be useful on holidays on the Red Sea, but not enough to decide on Islamic religious matters. I am British and Christian. The contradiction described in "Ibn Taymiyya argued ..." has been around for centuries, and I see no way to settle it quickly now. It is best to merely write for example "Some say XXXX; some say YYYY; there is a long-standing contradiction here." Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by CounterTime, Adding back nonspecific tags

@CounterTime: You are edit warring now, adding back nonspecific tags as you did here. Why are you adding these tags back with your reverts? RLoutfy (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy I will try to remove them, since you specified some sources, sorry for that, it's because I couldn't revert your edit automatically, and hence I had to return to manually return to an older version. Sorry again. --CounterTime (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Yet still many things are still nonspecific enough to verify, e.g. "deviates from approved Islamic tenets (ilhad), or if he or she commits a blasphemy such as treating a copy of the Qurʾan with disrespect. ref="Rahman, S. A. (2006), Punishment of apostasy in Islam, Institute of Islamic Culture, ISBN 983-9541-49-8"" where not even a page is mentioned.

@CounterTime: I added specific page numbers for many. Add all those back, which you reverted inappropriately. When page number is missing, don't use nonspecific tag, add "page needed" tag when page number is missing. Nonspecific tags should not be used for page number. Some editors specify many pages, which in good faith must be assumed to be verifying the context and the content – both are important for WP:V. RLoutfy (talk) 10:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Okay, I'll start using the page needed tag when something doesn't mention a page, however many still have unspecified cites. You only specified some, and so the nonspecific tags still apply to the other ones unless you specify them. (I'm talking about cites around a specific claim, which needs only to bring at most 3-4 pages.) You talk about good faith, but you actually were caught using multiple pages as an excuse to distort citations, see here and here --CounterTime (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Quit your personal attacks. Your uncivil behavior is getting tiresome. Join me in focusing on constructive collaboration. There is no 3-4 page rule in cites. Editors should provide any number of pages that verify the context and the summary provided. In most cases just 1 or 2 pages suffice, but in some the discussion may be on 10 or 30 pages, and the same cite may be used multiple times within this article (or others). RLoutfy (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Those aren't personal attacks, they are only remarks concerning some of your misquotes. I know that there's no 3-4 rule in cites, but when one cites for example "Madjma' al-anhur, Volume 1, p. 629-637, by Shaykhzadeh." for the claim "Other Fiqhs such as Hanifi and Shafi'i schools of jurisprudence also disagree on whether ridiculing (Islamic) scholars is an act of apostasy." that seems a lot, do you agree? --CounterTime (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Please provide history diffs with your allegations. The diff should show, whatever you accuse me of, that it was I who added the text for the first time. It will help make things easier to research and respond to. You can start with this latest Madjma' al-anhur accusation of yours. RLoutfy (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: No, no, no, I didn't claim that it was you who added that, I only gave an example to show my point which is: "Many cites in the article aren't specific enough, and one should specify them". So it was only an example, not an accusation or something. --CounterTime (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Ok. Thanks for clarifying that you are not trying to accuse me of things I did not do. That would be WP:UNCIVIL. Now, lets get back to improving this article. Go ahead, add back all the specific page numbers I added across various sections, and some WP:OVERCITE I removed, in my last edit. RLoutfy (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Done. --CounterTime (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Tags reinserted by CounterTime

@CounterTime: Tags must be explained. Since you have re-inserted three tags with this revert, please identify the sections with specific details that explain the need for the "weasel, factual accuracy, and neutrality" tags. Since you are a recently registered account, you may find WP:OVERTAG and WP:DETAG helpful. If you can, do provide cites of reliable publications that support your concerns. RLoutfy (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: The tags were added by previous users, who outlined issues with this article in the talk page, go read them, as I told you earlier. (See the archive) --CounterTime (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Those editors are gone. I have read the archive and comments, and the tags are no longer justified. The tags will be removed per WP:DETAG, because the discussion is inactive. If you restore them back, you must explain the issues in your words. Restoring them back without explanation is disruption. RLoutfy (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: They are gone but their points are still valid, the article didn't have a dramatic change since their last contributions, and I doubt you even read their objections in the archive. --CounterTime (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@CounterTime: Please provide the link to specific archive section(s) that discuss the tags dated from July 2015 and after, and then provide some specifics so we can work on clearing up any issues in the article. To help you, here is the link to Archive 2. RLoutfy (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: You already stated "I have read the archive and comments," there's no point in reiterating what they and I told. --CounterTime (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

CounterTime, you write "what I told" above, please provide a diff link to the section where you explained the tags? Or a diff link where someone else did. @NeilN:, @Iryna Harpy: Do you see anything in Archive 2 for July 2015 or after hat tags? CounterTime's evasion, despite repeated requests, seems disruptive. Isn't CounterTime supposed to provide specifics and explanation for the tags? RLoutfy (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: For example HakimPhilo mentions the NPOV tag in the archive, concerning what I told here it is in the very top of this talk page: here. --CounterTime (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The tags added in October seem unnecessary. The POV tag is redundant and the "expert needed" tag is generally used for highly technical topics. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. I will remove those tags. @CounterTime: I don't see the HakimPhilo's section with specifics. Please provide a link to the section you are reading or edit history diffs of HakimPhilo. Based on your comments here, it seems your issues are with a particular section. Are you okay if we move the tag to that specific section? If not, please identify specific issues with each section of this article. Similarly, please link the post-July 2015 section that discusses "weasel, factual accuracy" tags. RLoutfy (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I'm not having issues with one specific section but with the article as a whole. I already referred you to where you can find HakimPhilo's comments and the other concerns. --CounterTime (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the section you apparently see. Do provide at least one WP:DIFF link. RLoutfy (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Which section are you talking about? --CounterTime (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

All. Please provide a WP:DIFF link. RLoutfy (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Yes, but which section are you talking about? --CounterTime (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the explanation of the three tags in any section the post-July 2015 history of this talk page. You need to provide a diff, or shall we try DRN. RLoutfy (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's the relevant section of the talk page where I talked about them. Please read it. --CounterTime (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Tags inserted by RLoutfy

The user @RLoutfy: inserted quiet unexpectedly some tags in the "Opposition to execution" and "Qur'an" subsections. I've removed them until the meant user explains why he added them. Thanks. --CounterTime (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The dispute is that you are mistranslating Arabic language sources, and doing original research on non-mainstream opinions in non-English sources introducing undue and NPOV issues. Specifics can be found in this section. Till we find a scholarly translation or uninvolved third party translations for every non-English source you have added to this article, please do not remove those tags. RLoutfy (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: The problem is that you can't even type correctly arabic, yet you claim to have read my arabic sources; Secondly you never showed how I was mistranslating the meant source. And thirdly you haven't shown how it is a 'non-mainstream opinion', if you have any objections to the three points that I oultined then please reply here. In the meantime the tags wont remain until you replied (or even attempted to reply) to the 3 objections that I cited. --CounterTime (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Instead of continued edit wars and other uncivil behavior, let us try to find ways to resolve our disputes. Will you accept an uninvolved third party translator willing to translate the pages of all the non-English cites you have added to this article, as suggested by admin NeilN and editor Iryna Harpy, a suggestion I accept as a way to resolve this dispute? Alternatively, you can provide a WP:RS cite with the translation. As I have explained above, I am concerned about your original research, amongst other things, where you are leveraging little known, non-mainstream primary opinions in non-English publications, creating neutrality issues. Wikipedia needs to rely on NPOV summary of mainstream, widely accepted views in preferably recent WP:RS. RLoutfy (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Stop evading and ignoring charges and start addressing them. As I told you, I'll accept that until you show: how you can't even type correctly arabic, yet you claim to have read my arabic sources; Secondly you never showed how I was mistranslating the meant source. And thirdly you haven't shown how it is a 'little known non-mainstream opinion', if you have any objections to the three points that I outlined then please reply here. In the meantime the tags wont remain until you replied (or even attempted to reply) to the 3 objections that I cited. --CounterTime (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

CounterTime, The 'little known non-mainstream opinion' means that no scholars, or nearly none, have cited that opinion. Wikipedia articles are best when they summarize widely held views and different major viewpoints in an NPOV view, and weigh whether an opinion is WP:DUE. You can prove that each non-English source you are adding is mainstream or well received content, by presenting one or more scholarly cites that refer to your non-English source (Read WP:BURDEN for why you need to do this for non-English cites you are adding).

You, CounterTime, write, "Stop evading and ignoring charges and start addressing them". This talk page is not the proper venue for that, DRN or ANI is. Once again, given you are a few weeks old new account, this or other wikipedia article pages are not a forum, and I will not dedicate time to explain what is wrong with your translation - as translation and interpretation of non-English sources is contested in many different fields of scholarship. I have read your source, and am concerned about the POV original research by you. We need a neutral third party's "complete translation of quoted non-English pages". So far, you have not provided the complete translation, as is required per WP:NOENG guidelines. I will welcome a WP:DRN process, since we have tried to resolve our dispute with non-English sources, and are making no progress anymore. Meanwhile, do not edit war on this issue or on tags, as multiple editors/admins have warned you about WP:3RR now. It is disruptive to this article. RLoutfy (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: How did you come to the conclusion that "no scholars, or nearly none, have cited that opinion"? Did you look at every arabic book and you didn't find that opinion cited? As I see it here this is just an allegation.

You can look at for example الإسلام يُسائل الحداثة، عالم الكتب الحديث، إربد، الأردن (2013). where the meant book is cited.

You're evading charges that are related to this article, such as claiming to have read my references when you couldn't even write arabic properly. We're not making progress because you're always making false accusations, such as that I made a POV translations, when you didn't even read my sources (since you can't even write arabic properly). See here. --CounterTime (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Here are some further citations of that book: فقه الجهاد: دراسة مقارنة لأحكامه وفلسفته في ضوء القرآن والسنة - Volume 2 by Yusuf al-Qaradawi

الإسلام: الدولة والمواطنة : نحو خطاب إسلامي ديمقراطي مدني By مركز القدس للدراسات السياسية page 117 footnote number 11

طروس من تراث الإسلام by خيون، رشيد

--CounterTime (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Which page # of al-Qaradawi? In the second non-English cite, I disagree that it is establishing the contested opinion as significant or mainstream view of Islamic scholars. Therefore we need an uninvolved third party translation for page 117 as explained to you by NeilN and Iryna Harpy, or you can identify any English language publication that discusses or at least cites "the contested opinion and that non-English book". RLoutfy (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Use the search function in the link posted therein to know which page of al-Qaradawi's monumental work fiqh al-jihad it is stated. Why do you think that in the second cite it is establishing the contested opinion of the current Muslim scholarly tradition? Could you please quote which part supports your view? Furthermore, you're only straying from the topic which is your claim that the book by Prof. Jabir la ikraha fi aldin isn't cited. --CounterTime (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

CounterTime, you have been adding page needed and nonspecific tags, but now refusing to respect the same request when demanded of you. The WP:BURDEN for providing the page number is yours. Don't use double standards, where rules apply on others, and don't apply on you when we are together trying to improve this article. I wrote above, "The 'little known non-mainstream opinion' means that no scholars, or nearly none, have cited that opinion." Focus on the apostasy opinion, not any mention of the book. You need to provide full cite details, including page #s, which can help verify that the opinion in the non-English cite you find is not WP:FRINGE or "no one, or nearly no one has cited that opinion" and that the opinion is WP:DUE for this article. RLoutfy (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I didn't add those Arabic sources in the article, all I'm saying is that all the sources I cited contained (at least once) a citation of the book by Prof. Jabir la ikraha fi aldin [as you can verify via google books] to answer your allegation that "The 'little known non-mainstream opinion' means that no scholars, or nearly none, have cited that opinion.". For whether or not Jabir's book contains a reference to apostasy when discussing verses such as 10:99 see the relevant section in the talk page. Thanks. --CounterTime (talk) 10:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Problems in lede

Until recently this was the second paragraph in the lede:

Ahmet Albayrak writes in The Qur'an: An Encyclopedia that regarding apostasy as a wrongdoing is not a sign of intolerance of other religions, and is not aimed at one’s freedom to choose a religion or to leave Islam and embrace another faith, but that on the contrary, it is more correct to say that the punishment is enforced as a safety precaution when warranted if apostasy becomes a mechanism of public disobedience and disorder (fitna).

before the basic introductory material explaining what Apostasy in Islam is, its importance, etc.:

The definition of apostasy from Islam and its appropriate punishment are controversial, and they vary among Islamic scholars. In Islam’s history, the vast majority of scholars have held that apostasy in Islam is a crime punishable with the death penalty, typically after a waiting period to allow the apostate time to repent and return to Islam.

Some contemporary Muslim scholars also hold the traditional view that the death penalty for apostasy is required by the two primary sources of Sharia - the Quran and the Hadiths - while others argue that the death penalty is an inappropriate punishment. A majority considers apostasy in Islam to be some form of religious crime, although a minority does not.

Under current laws in Islamic countries, the actual punishment for the apostate (or murtadd مرتد) ranges from execution to prison term to no punishment. Islamic nations with sharia courts use civil code to void the Muslim apostate’s marriage and deny child custody rights, as well as his or her inheritance rights for apostasy. Twenty-three Muslim-majority countries, as of 2013, additionally covered apostasy in Islam through their criminal laws.

According to critics, punishment for apostasy in Islam is a violation of universal human rights, and an issue of freedom of faith and conscience. However moderate Muslims do not accept the death penalty for apostasy, positing that it is inconsistent with the Qur'an. Prominent Muslim scholars maintain that the Islamic law on apostasy, which prescribes the death penalty, was not based on the Quran but was an effort in early Islam to prevent and punish the equivalent of desertion or treason at a time when the community faced enemies who threatened its unity, safety, and security.

Apostasy in Islam includes in its scope not only former Muslims who have renounced Islam to join another religion or become non-religious, but Muslims who have questioned or denied any "fundamental tenet or creed" of Islam such as the divinity of God, prophethood of Muhammad, or who have mocked God, or worshipped one or more idols. The term has also been used for people of religions that trace their origins to Islam, such as the Bahá'ís in Iran. Apostasy in Islam does not include acts against Islam or conversion to another religion that is involuntary, forced or done as concealment out of fear of persecution or during war (Taqiyya or Kitman).

I don't think it takes too much imagination to see it refers to a defense of punishments for murtadd, but it comes before the reader even know what the punishment or punishments are.
When I tried to move the paragraph down, later in the lede, my edit was almost immediately reverted by CounterTime, with the edit summary ( ... he makes an important clarifying point, that should be emphasized in the beginning) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: The revert was an error on my part, I wasn't attentive enough to the specific contextual place of the meant paragraph. Sorry for that inconvenience. CounterTime (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

problems in definition section

The following paragraph appears in the What constitutes apostasy in Islam section:

A person is considered apostate if he or she converts from Islam to another religion. A person is an apostate even if he or she believes in most of Islam, but verbally or in writing denies of one or more principles or precepts of Islam. For example, doubting the existence of Allah, entering a church or temple, making offerings to and worshiping a symbol of Christ, an idol or stupa or any image of God, celebrating festivals of any non-Muslim religion, helping to build a church or temple, confessing a belief in the rebirth or reincarnation of God, showing disrespect to the Qur'an or Islam's Prophet, are all individually sufficient evidence of apostasy.

"celebrating festivals of any non-Muslim religion" makes you an apostate? Isn't this a little bit of a blanket statement??? After all the lede says:
"The definition of apostasy from Islam and its appropriate punishment are controversial, and they vary among Islamic scholars"--BoogaLouie (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC)