Talk:Hindu–Islamic relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

NPOV[edit]

I feel like several sections give an unbalanced treatment of the issues. Some examples:

On blasphemy and apostasy:

- The Koranic verse (5:33) cited as mandating punishment for blasphemy talks about military agression and the crime of "fasad", which is the things that are above and beyond murder (aggravated murder, murderous armed robbery, terrorism, genocide, etc.). It does not talk about blasphemy. (See the notes in the Study Qur'an by Seyyed Hossein Nasr)

- In classical Islamic thought blasphemy as a punishable offense is only applicable to Muslims and not others (because non-Muslim beliefs tend to already be blasphemous by Muslim standards, yet Islamic law explicitly allows non-Muslims to practice their religion. At least according to the Hanafi madhab, the historically dominant school of thought in India https://shaykhatabekshukurov.com/2016/03/10/islamic-blasphemy-laws-and-the-strange-case-of-mumtaz-qadiri-part-1/)

- Open discussion and criticism of doctrinal views are a huge part of the Islamic tradition. It is well accepted that the differences of opinion between the various schools of thought should be respected.

- Punishment for apostasy is historically accepted many Muslim jurists, but rejected by classical Hanafis (the largest school of thought) as well as by Muslim modernists. Their ground for doing so is very strong: that religious coercion is repeatedly forbidden by the Quran (10:99, 2:256), and that the logic used by mediaeval jurists on this issue (i.e. that leaving Islam deserves a punishment because it necessarily implies joining the ennemies of Muslims and committing treason) is clearly not tenable. The majority of population in most Muslim countries today does agree with the Quranic endorsement of freedom of religion.

- Conversely, the Ramayana (Book VII) endorses capital punishment for people simply for violating the bounds of their caste. It's not that most Hindus necessarily understand it that way, but if this mandates capital punishment, then if someone were to take a critical look at the full Hindu tradition's views on the comparatively much worse offenses like blasphemy or apostasy (i.e. leaving the caste system altogether), are we sure that we are not going to find at least some scholars who advocated harsh punishments? Has the whole Hindu tradition always unanimously defended freedom of religion or is there rather a historical spectrum of opinion?


On animal slaughter:

- The halal slaughter ritual (which is the identical to kosher) is presented as being uncontroversially very cruel. Actually a quick search shows that this is very debatable. Some sources defend the idea that the halal/kosher way was one of the most humane ways of slaughter possible prior to modern technology. The different views on this should be better reflected in the article.

- The Muslim prohibition on eating animals killed by accidents or natural causes is again portrayed as evidence of senseless Muslim cruelty. Actually, the prohibition is on eating carion and animals who died of unknown causes and exists for hygienic reasons.


Other:

- Jizya/Dhimma is also given a thoroughly negative portrayal when actually are more nuanced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi - It is claimed that Hinduism has no such concept at all - so Hindu states did not impose any taxes on their non-Hindu citizens? Are we serious!? Source? - Slavery in Islam is also given an unbalanced negative treatment.

Basically, I feel that the differences between the religions are often exaggerated. Both religious traditions are far from monolithic, they are vast and ancient and therefore are almost always going to display a spectrum of opinions on various issues, ranging from reasonable views to not-so-nice views. The spectrum in both cases should be better represented; it is facile and subjective to take one stereotypical view and paint the whole of Hinduism or of Islam with it, ignoring the diversity that exists within each. These are just some suggestions for the editors, Thank you! 183.89.26.214 (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hindu–Islamic relations. 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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) 05:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)