Talk:Qisas

merge request

Qisas and Diyya are two sides of the same idea. Qisas is the idea of exact retribution (eye for an eye) and diyya is the idea of compensation instead of exact retribution. both articles contain much of the same material and might therefore benefit from merging. Misheu 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I retract the request. Misheu 15:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Pan Am 103

A reference to Pan Am 103 and IR655 has been placed on this page. I defy the CIA to remove it.Tarannon103 (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugger the CIA, that's completely unprovable (the Iranians knew in advance how many victims there would be, did they?), factually incorrect (324 Iranians died in a crash where 290 people died in total, according to Iran Air Flight 655, which supposedly matches some subset of the 270 total people who died in the Lockerbie crash according to Pan_Am_Flight_103#Victims), uses a citation from a random blog rather than a decent source, and is apparently added for the sole purpose of being in incredibly poor taste. Removed (by a non-US national). Feel free to put it back if you can find Wikipedia standard sources for your claim. --82.72.123.240 (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Qisas, Muslims and non-Muslims

@KahnJohn27: You left the edit comment, "The source is actually stating that Maliki, Hanafi and Hanafi schools don't apply Qisas in case a Muslim kills a non-Muslim." Please note that the article read, "(Qisas applies when) a Muslim kills another Muslim; and, when a non-Muslim kills a Muslim." You are confusing that with "Muslim killing a non-Muslim." I have, after checking the source again, and adding another reliable cite, reinstated and reworded the text. RLoutfy (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: But you later removed it yourself. The article now only reads if a Muslim kills another Muslim. You removed the part of Qisas applying in case of a non-Muslim killing a Muslim yourself later on. I still appreciate your edits however. I wasn't able to properly understand the text of the sources earlier. Thanks for helping out. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Check sources before reaching any conclusion. The source I removed didn't even talked about Musta'mins. The Yohann Frieddmann only mentions about Hanafi school's opinion in case of Musta'mins who do not have permanent protection under Dar al-Islam and may take up arms when they go back to their homeland. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: See page 129, paragraph 4 of Peters and Bearman for starts - it says, "killing is lawful when the victim has no protection (muhdar al-dam) - that is harbi or apostate". How is this not relevant cite? On Friedmann, you are likely referring to pages 44-45 where al-Sarakhsi's opinion is summarized. Do you have additional support for your generalizing the al-Sarakhsi view to all Hanafi scholars? Other Hanafi scholars use the "a Muslim is not to be killed for killing an [non-dhimmi] unbeliever" rationale. For NPOV, either all rationales should be included in the article, or it should be silent about the reasons given by different Hanafi scholars, as it is sidetracking the article's focus on Qisas. RLoutfy (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Pg no 44 of Friedmann's book specifically says "The Hanafis therefore do not extend this protection to infidels who aren't dhimmis". Also Friedmann isn't taking this from al-Sharafi. So your claim of it being al-Sharafi's opinion is not valid when the source itself is talking about all Hanafis. Page no 129 of "The Ashgate Search" is unfortunately not available for preview on Google Books. We can't add a source unless it is verifiable and visible to the general public even if you are right. The only legal way to know whether you are right will only probably only be to buy the book and then read it. So your source is unverifiable and thus must be removed unless it is verifiable (legally ofcourse). Not only that the word Musta'min or any of the related terms never showed up in the search results so I don't think it is in the book. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: Please stop creating your own rules for wikipedia. WP:V states that sources must be verifiable, which does not mean "it must be visible to general public in google preview". Verifiable reliable source includes anything in a good library and all scholarly publications that one must pay to access/read. Yes, go to a library or buy the book. Or, show me a wikipedia policy or guideline page which states, ""WP:V means the content must be visible to the general public in google preview". Meanwhile, I suggest you do not remove cites in future that "google preview" does not show you; instead, assume good faith, consider WP:SOURCEACCESS and someone may be able to help you with reliable sources that "google preview" doesn't display.

FYI, in some cases, google preview does not display pages or search-match that are blocked from view. On Friedmann, read again. The context and footnotes make it obvious that it is al-Sarakhsi views. Are you able to read pages 45-50, or is it blocked in google preview for you? Different views are summarized on page 45 onwards. RLoutfy (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: Yes I did read the Friedmann source carefully. The text of Hanafi not applying the same principle to Musta'min is mentioned in page no 44. It wasn't talking about al-Sarakshi's views nor did it even use al-Sarakshi as a source.

About "Ashmore Research" a source must be proven. Page no 129 won't be available until you buy the book. If we are to go by your rules then anyone can enter anything by simply just citing a book. Even if nothing such is given in the book one can simply add it saying it is sourced. And unless you can prove otherwise you won't be able to say otherwise. Google Books does not contain every book and what if the source you're searching for isn't present? In case you have the book, know the text does not match the source and acting upon it you remove the source, the person will simply put them back saying they're sourced and tell you to prove otherwise which you can't. In case you don't have the book you obviously aren't just going to buy the book just for it. Unless you present an evidence no matter how many claims you make, the court isn't going to rule in your favor. If a complainant doesn't have any evidence, then the court can't call the accused guilty. Unless there's a proof, one can't claim he's correct no matter wherever or for whatever he's claiming. You must verify your sources. Use common sense. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 KahnJohn27 On Friedmann, see footnotes 165 and 166, on page 44. Both are al-Sarakshi. It is in that discussion that dar al-harb is discussed. Regardless, I will not revert you based on Friedmann, given the insignificance and our different interpretation of page 44.

On Peters and Bearman, once again, quit lecturing and quit making your own rules here. Here is what WP:SOURCEACCESS in WP:V says,

Policy: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access."

Please respect wikipedia policies. RLoutfy (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: The footnotes cite multiple views, not just of al-Sarakshi. Footnote no 166 itself says these views are attributed to Abu Hanifa himself, the founder of Hanafi school. Not only that views of Marghinani and Quduri are also mentioned in the sources and not just al-Sarakshi. You should have read carefully. Not only that even footnote no 165 contains views of multiple scholars. This proves my statements completely right and you have been labelling them incorrect without carefully examining the source. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 KahnJohn27 Okay. We are interpreting Friedmann's p. 44-45 differently. Friedmann states "According to al-Sarakhsi...." on p. 44 line 20, and notes in footnote 166 the different view of al-Shabi right after attributing it to Abu Hanifa. You alleged in your comment at 23:19-15 February, "It wasn't talking about al-Sarakshi's views nor did it even use al-Sarakshi as a source." Now, you accept that it is "multiple views, not just of al-Sarakhsi." Either way, the article is better now than it was before. I appreciate your comments. Our primary dispute is elsewhere. Our dispute is "your deleting reliable sources." Just don't. Please respect wikipedia policies, such as one quoted above. RLoutfy (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Qisas and honor crimes

The section doesn't even the word "honor crime" anywhere. It only mentions Qisas isn't applicable if a parent or grandparent kills their children. The section should talk about honor crimes only or the Qisas not being applicable should be linked with honor crimes using sources. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Read 3rd para. RLoutfy (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I'm talking about any kind of Islamic ruling or Sharia ruling on honor crimes. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Please restate your concern in light of the cited sources. RLoutfy (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: I meant the section isn't talking anything about what Islam says of honor crimes. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@RLoutfy: The section only says that due to Sharia not punishing parents for killing their children, it has been alleged that Sharia encourages honor crimes. It isn't talking anything about what Quran, hadith or any kind of sharia law says of honor crimes. That's what my comments meant. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Qisas and blasphemy

This section includes two hadiths, can anyone verify their authenticity? 20:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Disambiguation support request

While working on article Islamic advice literature I realized that word 'Qisas' is appearing in different meaning at Qisas Al-Anbiya it comes as story/anecdote telling (alternative spelling Kissa). And in article named Qisas seems to come as revenge. Need support in creating proper disambiguation page and links so reader do not end up in unexpected pages.

Of course article Islamic advice literature too needs support in update and expansion since lot of scholarly references are available in books and google scholar too.

Thanks in advance and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Qisas, Harbis or Dhimmi?

There should be more primary sources concerning the ahadith and Fiqhi issues related to the Qisas on Muslims in the Case of non Muslims and the differentiation between someone who is and isn’t under the protection of the state (Dhimmi). A good place to start is Fath ul-Bari 6517 93.112.194.126 (talk) 07:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Context for verse

Peace be upon you, I have a question: I edited a section to provide context for a verse, and that was not accepted. Why is that? I provided a source for the quotation, and anyone can go check it if they want. The context is very important so the reader could understand the meaning of it. Leaving it without context means that it is likely people misinterpret it, and I do not see the mistake in providing a view from authetic Islamic sources. Anwar Jihad (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because you deleted a valid cited secondary source without any explanation of why, and you replaced it with a long quotation cited to a primary source. Secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

What's the difference between a primary source and a secondary source? Would giving a different source for the same quotation give it more credibility? Thanks! Anwar Jihad (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, would saying that a source is incorrect because it disagrees with authentic islamic sources, which are definietly more correct in terms in explaining Islamic matters count as an explanation? Anwar Jihad (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, last one! After I replaced the pervious writing, it was put back. Then why was mine removed? The verse is now left without any context or explanation. Anwar Jihad (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources for an explanation of sources. The context was already in the text you removed. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Please, someone explain this.

My changes in this article keep getting reverted, even though I have modified it several times to the recommendations of those editing. Can someone please explain why this is? I have left the different view in it's place, and added another one. Is there no place for contrasting opinions on Wikipedia? This is very annoying, and may I add, a little disrespectful, as I do not see why my opinion on what needs to be added or not is any less than any other user's. Anwar Jihad (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

You are now editorializing, making assertions in Wikipedia's narrative voice as if it was fact, such as "People often misinterpret this verse...", "This view fails to acknowledge..." etc. This isn't the neutral writing we expect from an encyclopedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

So if I write: 'the main islamic view is...' would it then be left there? Plus, why is there an issue with adding a critique of different view? Is the point not to illustrate different opinions? If the issue is only with the tone and specific wording, I will fix it, but I don't think different views need to be taken out. Anwar Jihad (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, sayig "the main Islamic view" is declaring an unsubstantiated fact. Why is this the main view? Who says it is?

Also, see WP:UNDUE. We don't give equal weight to minority viewpoints, if that's the case here. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. Therefore I do not think the view of Qasas being on a social equality basis should be included at all. Anwar Jihad (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)