Talk:Islam and Sikhism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Religion / Interfaith (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Interfaith work group (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Sikhism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Islam (Rated Start-class)
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 



To User:Sisu55[edit]

Hello User:Sisu55. I am new user here. I already told you that I changed the content to as it is in the sources which already are there in the article. The content from before which you have reveted to is not as it is given in the sources and is even incomplete at place. Whatever I added was from the sources itself. Yet you keep claiming it is unsourced. All of iIt was sourced, that's why I added it in the first place. Please try reading the sources. Basically you're removing sourced content yourself that I have added.

About your other part of me removing sourced content, this concerns the section "Jizya", only on that you're right. I removed it because it is historically inaccurate. Though you are right, that sourced content should not be removed atleast not without a proper reason.

But you have removed my sourced content too. I will only add back my sourced content this time. If it's ok with you then shall I add back the sourced content that you removed? And please remember, the sources already exist. SiddharthSunny (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC) SiddharthSunny (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


Welcome and thanks for participating on talk page. Yes please add your sourced content, with clear and proper attribution to the source and the page number. Appreciate your understanding. Sisu55 (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand User:Sisu55. The sources and the page numbers are already there in the article. I just changed and added to match the text of the article to the sources. SiddharthSunny (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

SiddharthSunny edits[edit]

@SiddharthSunny: I am reverting your edits as they read like personal opinions and are not supported by the sources. Let us discuss these one by one. Please identify WP:RS with support for your edits? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I do not understand how you claim they are blogs or personal opinons without having read the sources. You are bluntly edit-warring now and even removing sourced content. Please add back the content yourself or I shall report you. SiddharthSunny (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@SiddharthSunny: Quit threatening, go ahead, report me. See WP:TPNO. I have checked the sources, and your edits read like personal opinions and are not supported by the sources. They are WP:WWIN. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch They are no threats. And neither what I added was a personal opinion. They were sourced. Now please add it back instead of deleting them. SiddharthSunny (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@SiddharthSunny: Read my comment above again. If you don't understand it, try getting help at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Welcome to wikipedia, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch I'm new but that does not mean I am stupid. You surely never have checked the sources. It's you who needs to check them yourself, not me who needs to help you know what's written in them. Add back all my sourced edits now please and stop your edit-war. SiddharthSunny (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources for my edits[edit]

As per Sarah's comments, I'll provide which edits of mine were sourced along with sources. After this, the edits have to be added back when they are proved to be sourced. If still she prevents them from being added back, then I shall have no choice but to complaint her for edit-war and removal of my content that too despite being sourced. Here's the list and the sources.:

1.) As per Hadith, Islam does not allow apostasy however the Quran allows freedom of religion.

This is sourced from The Oxford Dictionary of Islam's page 22.

2.) Islam itself allows for freedom of religion

Again it from the same source as above.

3.) Apostasy, that is abandonment of Islam by a Muslim and conversion another religion or atheism, is a religious crime in Islam punishable with death as per the Hadiths. However scholars argue that there is no punishment for apostasy as Surah 2:256 of Quran allows freedom of religion.

Again it is from the same source as no. 1.

4.) Muslim men, as well as women, must dress modestly according to the Quran. According to the Quran, a woman should draw their veils (clothes) over bosoms. Some Islamic scholars state that the Hadiths require covering of the body except face and hands.

This was sourced from Islam: It's Law and Society's page 78.

5.) The relation between Sikhs and the Muslim rulers of Malerkotla State remained largely coordial and tolerant. In 1705, Sahibzada Fateh Singh and Sahibzada Zorawar Singh, the young sons of Guru Gobind Singh were ordered to be bricked alive by Wazir Khan. The Nawab of Malerkotla, Sher Mohammed Khan lodged a protest against the punishment of the two children and said it was against Islam. Wazir Khan nevertheless had them buried alive after which the Nawab walked out of court in protest. Guru Gobind Singh, upon learning about the Nawab's deeds, is said to have blessed the house of the Nawab, declaring that its "roots shall remain forever green." During the 1947 riots, Malerkotla State was the only one where not even a single incident of violence occured.

I sourced this from two news articles Malerkotla has Guru’s blessings and A people's gratitude.

All of the above were sourced. Now will you please add them back or let me add them back Sarah Welch? SiddharthSunny (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @SiddharthSunny: You allege,

1.) As per Hadith, Islam does not allow apostasy however the Quran allows freedom of religion. is sourced from page 22 of The Oxford Dictionary of Islam's page 22.
Here is what page 22, column 1 actually states, "Hadith reports introduce the teaching that the renunciation of Islam is punishable by beheading, burning, crucifixion or banishment. Some traditions allow an apostate to repent. Islamic legal codes agree on the death penalty (traditionally by the sword) for an adult male in full possession of his faculties who has renounced Islam voluntarily." This cannot be summarized in a manner you suggest in #1.

I will add this and the 2:257 part, with a summary from Muslim scholars that contest that 2:257 applies to apostasy. On dress, the current section is well sourced, and after reading page 78 of your source, I am puzzled why you want to change. On rest, commercial websites are not WP:RS; we must rely on mainstream scholarly reliable sources; if you find a better source, we can include it. @Sikh-history: Any relevant sources we should consider? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Here's what page 22 of Oxford Dictionary of Islam actually says:
Hadith reports introduce the teaching that the renunciation of Islam is punishable by beheading, burning, crucifixion or banishment. Some traditions allow an apostate to repent. Islamic legal codes agree on the death penalty (traditionally by the sword) for an adult male in full possession of his faculties who has renounced Islam voluntarily. Thus apostasy was included among crimes for which there were punishments believed to be divinely mandated (hadd pl. hudud "offenses"). Some schools of law allow imprisonment instead of death for apostate women. The schools vary on the question of whether or not an apostate may be allowed, encouraged or discouraged to repent, as well as on the status of an apostate's property after death or banishment, but they agree that the marriage of an apostate is void. Based on the Quranoc prohibition of coercion in matters of religion (2:257), many modern thinkers argue for capital punishment against apostasy, and the legislation is rarely invoked today." Therefore my wording was right.
Page 78 of Islam: It's Law and Society nowhere mentions that "Islam encourages gender segregation in public, and Muslim men and women do not usually mix in public places such as mosques. These restrictions are part of 'Adab'." This is why I removed these lines from the article.
Also news articles are a reliable sources, and they aren't forbidden from being used. Scholarly sources are preferred in such articles but not always necessary. Since you have been proven wrong, I am adding the edits back myself. Any edit-warring without discussion and you'll be complained straight away. And this is no threat. SiddharthSunny (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@ SiddharthSunny: The source for "gender segregation..." is Richard Martin, not the book you found. Have you looked at Martin? See WP:AGF. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch Yes I looked at that too, when I removed it for the first time days ago. And even Martin nowhere says the same thing. Amd I had warned you not to edit-war. I'm going to report you, you clearly have no respect for the rules and I can't repeat the same behaviour like you. SiddharthSunny (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @SiddharthSunny: You have edit warred in this article. Your claims "I can't repeat the same behaviour like you" is absurd. On Martin source, we don't remove content with source, but use "page needed" or other appropriate tags, giving other editors some time to provide the missing information. We must assume good faith. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)