Talk:Violence in the Quran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Quran and violence)

Purpose of article ?[edit]

Since the material presented here relates to Jihad, it might better fit in there so I don't see the purpose of having a separate article for that. However, if you plan on adding more sections and content here, I would suggest renaming the article to something much more focused such as "Jihad in the Qur'an" or "Qur'an and War". Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article as a spinoff from Islam and violence. There are three articles that are related to each other: Christianity and violence, Judaism and violence and Islam and violence. Islam and violence was getting large and it seemed to me that one way to reduce the size of the article was to remove most of the quotations from the Qur'an (leaving, of course, a few of the more important quotations) and move them somewhere else. I thought about putting them in Jihad but that article is too long (172kb).
There is an article titled Judaism and war and an article titled Bible and violence. The main reason that I chose Qur'an and violence was to parallel Bible and violence.
Also, a more generic title such as Qur'an and violence leaves open the possibility to discuss other forms of violence such as domestic violence which is covered briefly in Christianity and violence. Whether that topic should be in this article or not is an open question.
I suspect that this article is so heavily focused on Jihad and war that renaming it to Qur'an and jihad or Qur'an and war makes sense.
--Richard S (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very important, and in the historical context, and should be expanded. Remember that what is thought now can rapidly change in future. Encyclopedias need to cover articles which are of importance to mankind. The Qur'an is the Holy Book for over I billion people. Wallie (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "Fitnah"[edit]

The meaning of the word Fitnah, as claimed by Scholar Ibn Kathir in his tafsir, is "Shirk".

and also Muhsin Khan clarifies, "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.) (Sura 2:193)ref"

Source: tafsir Ibn kathir (verse 2:193) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baristha (talk • contribs) 08:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing on Quran and violence[edit]

Hi all, the article has a line that's referenced poorly, but I'm a bit out of my league on this topic. The claim is under the "Abrogation" header and states "The earlier suras were revealed to Muhammad in Mecca; the later suras were revealed while he was in Medina" while being referenced to a fairly anti-Islam book. Is this an accurate claim, and is there a better, more neutral source we can use for it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I agree that the source doesn't seem particularly unbiased. Luckily, the sentence in question is pretty unrelated to the actual topic, or at least adds no more information than the linked sentence after it, so I'm comfortable removing the sentence and the citation. MrEdTheTalkingHorseEditor (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Neutrality[edit]

Based on the fact that the article was tagged for discussion of neutrality yet it never happened. I will remove the tag unless someone objects. Ravens freak0624 (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

salam ...i have a big problem from last 2 months ..i got engaged to my fiance 3 months ago but from last 2 months he started disliking me and noe it has come to an end ..i am a muslim women and i cannot think to marry some one else...he hates me now he abuses me bt i still love him...i prayed alot to Allah bt i dont know what is His will ,,,i want my fiance back like the way he was before with me...plz suggest me some Queanic verses which can soften his heart for me which can make him love me again thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.161.135.18 (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you posted a personal message at this page. Actually Wikipedia pages are for article-related discussions, not for personal. Anyway, I know a hadith where Prophet Muhammad SW said the best amongst you is the person who behaves well with his wife. Prophet Muhammad once ordered a man "Keep your wife to yourself, and fear Allah" (Quran, sura Al-Ahzab, ayah 37).-AsceticRosé 03:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I agree entirely. I request that anyone who retags this article discuss it somewhere on this page so that we can improve the article. MrEdTheTalkingHorseEditor (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I am just a user passing through. But I disagree with your reasoning. Just because it wasn't discussed doesn't mean the tag should be dismissed.

The reason that the nuetrality of this article is questionable to me, is that all the sources come from pro-Islamic scholars. I think balancing this with some critics of Islam, or a section including the opposing view, will make the article a little fairer. (Sorry, if I missed something, but after reading the article, my first thought was: "why does this article only show an Islamic response to criticisms?" - Chris

Factual Accuracy[edit]

Given the nature of the article, the only real factual inaccuracy that could occur would be a misquote of the Quran. Since no one has discussed anything like this on the talk page and since a misquote of the Quran would likely be caught quickly regardless, I'm going to assume that the tag was meant in the spirit of the already present lack of neutrality tag. Accordingly, I'm going to delete the factual inaccuracy tag and focus on establishing neutrality in the article. MrEdTheTalkingHorseEditor (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CounterTime please discuss here which are the POV web links and why. Rupert Loup (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CounterTime Sorry I meant in the summary "not to "warn" reders."
@Rupert loup: Here are some of those web links (not necessarily POV) http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~khaleel/, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/who-are-the-moderate-musl_b_15841.html, http://www.aaiil.org/text/books/others/sadrdin/quranwar/quranwar.shtml, ...etc and those are only in the lede. Instead, the article should contain citations from reliable academic publications, as well as peer reviewed papers, instead of random sites or journal articles. --CounterTime (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:LEAD the lead should be summarize all the body of the article with appropriate weight. I think that statements who represent the different article's points of view should have more than one source. About the Ahmadiyya sources that are in the lead and in the article, they only represent the point of view of its community and this should be stated in the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupert Loup: Yeah, but the point remains that the article should contain citations from reliable academic publications, as well as peer reviewed papers, instead of random sites or journal articles. CounterTime (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Harris is a philosopher and an acknowledged critic of religion, Dr. Khaleel Mohammed is a scholar and Maulana Sadr-ud-Din its a notable figure in the Ahmadiyya movement. I think that the sources are fine and they have valid points of view to be in the article but they alone don't not encompass the entire it. Rupert Loup (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupert loup: I didn't object to the status of the authors you quoted, what I objected to was the reliability of the sources, (here websites), and keeping in mind that citations from reliable academic publications, as well as peer reviewed papers are preferred over random sites or journal articles. 17:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)[reply]
One is from a University and the Huffington Post is generaly consider a reliable source. I don't know about the Ahmadiyya web. If you have doubts about the reliability of the sources try to ask here. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupert loup: No, you didn't understand my concerns. There are literally hundreds of reliable academic publications and peer reviewed papers on this subject, there must be an emphasis (in what concerns citations) on them, and not on news and sites. (even do they may be reliable) 18:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)[reply]
If you have other sources you could add them, the more the better. But all the notable point of view should be here, included the New atheist and Ahmadiyya point of views, with the apropiate weight of course. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupert loup: You're again making basic misunderstandings on what I actually claimed. I didn't say that one shouldn't add Ahmadiyya point of views or something like it, that would have been a clear-cut violation of WP:POV policies. What I actually said was that, for the article to be reliable, one should cite the hundreds of reliable academic publications and peer reviewed papers on this subject, there must be an emphasis (in what concerns citations) on them instead of news and sites. CounterTime (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When my butts of war dispersed[edit]

This phrase, When my butts of war dispersed, was in the article. What does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaronR (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DaronR: I reckon this was caused by someone editing with a "cloud-to-butt extension" active. :) Corrected --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 22:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was User:MrEdTheTalkingHorseEditor, here. I think they're no longer active. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 22:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt Muhammad lead a VERY VIOLENT life???[edit]

I stumbled upon this text, and it seemed deliberately misleading. Muhammad was certainly NOT a peaceful person. He was a military conqueror.

"""Nissim Rejwan asserts that, "violence and cruelty are not in the spirit of the Quran, nor are they found in the life of the Prophet, nor in the lives of saintly Muslims""" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.183.73 (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is attributed to a person's opinion. If you have sources expressing contrary opinions from middle purple, feel free to add them. See WP:RS and WP:OPINION EvergreenFir (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on sources. Nissim Rejwan is a source. It is a fact that Rejwan has said this. If you would like to suggest a way to present this fact differently, go ahead, but I suggest looking at the whole article holistically. --BurritoBazooka Talk Contribs 22:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Mohammad did not lead a life of violence and any amount of research would tell you that. Secondly, as BurritoBazooka said, the opinion of Rejwan. モハメッド一二三 (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Replacing unsourced POV with sourced content[edit]

Section Violence in the Quran#At-Tawba 5, third paragraph about Zakir Naik, curently begins with the follwoing unsourced POV:
"Popular Indian revivalist Muslim preacher Zakir Naik also emphasizes the context of the verse."

What is popular is infamous for another. This unsourced POV above has been replaced with the following well-sourced multi-citation statement:

'"Radical Islamic[1][2][3] Salafist[4][5]-Wahhabist[6][2][7][8][9] televangelist currently banned in India, Bangladesh, Canada and the United Kingdom,[10][11][12] Indian revivalist preacher Zakir Naik also emphasizes the context of the verse."


2404:E800:E61E:452:BCD2:9EED:BA2D:5931 (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also removing the unsourced following statement that it legitimizing this unacceptable statement by having it requoted on multiple other websites which copied it from this wikipedia article. This has been there for long, needs to go s no one added any citation, let alone reliable verifiable respectable unbiased citation. Re-add only if it is reliably-sourced.
He then asks "In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security?"[citation needed]

2404:E800:E61E:452:BCD2:9EED:BA2D:5931 (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in my edit summary, simply stating that someone "emphasizes the context of the verse" without any specifics conveys nothing of substance about the subject of this article, so there's no point of keeping anything of that statement here. You would have saved yourselves some effort by simply removing it. Eperoton (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hope, Christopher. "Home secretary Theresa May bans radical preacher Zakir Naik from entering UK". The Daily Telegraph. 18 June 2010. Retrieved 7 August 2011. Archived 7 August 2011 at WebCite 7 August 2011.
  2. ^ a b Stephen Schwartz (27 March 2015). "Zakir Naik, Radical Islamist Video Evangelist". The Huffington Post.
  3. ^ BBC News (11 July 2016). "Bangladesh to ban Islamic TV channel, Peace TV". Retrieved 15 July 2016.
  4. ^ Swami, Praveen (2011). "Islamist terrorism in India". In Warikoo, Kulbhushan (ed.). Religion and Security in South and Central Asia. London, England: Taylor & Francis. p. 61. ISBN 9780415575904. To examine this infrastructure, it is useful to consider the case of Zakir Naik, perhaps the most influential Salafi ideologue in India.
  5. ^ "Wahabi versus Sufi: social media debates". The Times of India.
  6. ^ Daniyal, Shoaib (10 March 2015). "Why a Saudi award for televangelist Zakir Naik is bad news for India's Muslims". Retrieved 2013-12-03.
  7. ^ M. Hasan; Sweta Ramanujan-Dixit (November 9, 2008). "Why do Muslims hate Dr Zakir Naik?". Hindustan Times.
  8. ^ "Why Muslims protested against Zakir Naik at the IICC in Delhi". Moneylife. 19 January 2015.
  9. ^ "Zakir Naik, who said Muslims can have sex with female slaves, gets Saudi Arabia's highest honour". India Today. 3 March 2015. Retrieved 24 January 2016.
  10. ^ Livemint (7 July 2016). "Zakir Naik's colourful, controversial past". Retrieved 16 July 2016.
  11. ^ Huffington Post (7 July 2016). "10 Times Zakir Naik Proved That He Promoted Anything But Peace". Retrieved 16 July 2016.
  12. ^ NDTV (15 July 2016). "Foreign Media On Zakir Naik, 'Doctor-Turned-Firebrand Preacher'". Retrieved 16 July 2016.

This article doesn't reflect the extent of Islam's violence through the verses[edit]

That is, statistically, in the whole Quran the number of violent verses w.r.t. the number of positive verses.

Moreover, the article doesn't contain a comprehensive list of all the violent verses. An absence of a comprehensive list is highly objectionable.

Hope that this list is posted on the article faithfully.

Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons with the Bible section non-neutral[edit]

The section cherry-picks two authors and does not go into detail. In fact, with the first article quoted, there is a divergence of view between the two interviewed.--Guiletheme (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A random user wrote down his own opinion in this section, I undid this. What the user wrote down can be seen here (19th May 2020)

If you know of any reputable source arguing that the Quran is worse than the Bible, there's no one stopping you from inserting it yourself. — 2804:7F7:DC80:D784:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the poster above is me. — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article is about Violence in the Quran, I think this section is out of place on this article entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.114.12 (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and violence[edit]

It is not clear what this article might add that is not already covered by Islam and violence. This article should be merged with that one.VR talk 19:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and the Qu'ran are very different things and merit separate articles. GPinkerton (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

This edit by Grufo adds original research. By adding 9:29 to a list that starts with "The Quran emphasizes the supremacy of Islam as well as Islam's messenger (Muhammad)", Grufo is pushing the POV that Qur'an 9:29 asserts such supremacy, while providing no secondary sources. It is WP:OR to interpret the Qur'an in this way. In fact the entire section Violence_in_the_Quran#Supremacy_of_Islam should be deleted as it is WP:OR. VR talk 16:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quotation is hardly ever OR. By the way, there are three Quranic quotations in the paragraph: how is the one I that have inserted more OR than the other two? --Grufo (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.
Do you agree that we can remove the entire section Violence_in_the_Quran#Supremacy_of_Islam? VR talk 20:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree, because I don't see a valid motivation for it. --Grufo (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP:OR because no reliable, secondary sources have been provided that 9:29, 9:33 and 58:20 "emphasize the supremacy of Islam".VR talk 20:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added secondary sources. Topic closed. --Grufo (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you added is not a reliable, secondary source. You have been warned against using pre-modern Quran interpretations before. In any case, please provide below the exact quotes where the source says "The Quran emphasizes the supremacy of Islam as well as Islam's messenger (Muhammad)".VR talk 21:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, classical Quranic commentators are definitely reliable sources. Second, nobody ever “warned” me about using classical Quranic interpretations, but rather user Eperoton invited that “[we all remain] cautious about using pre-modern Islamic interpreters” – and I have remained cautious indeed. Third, there are no double quotes in that sentence, so there is no need to find an exact match, and the classic Quranic commentators paraphrase that exact meaning in several forms. Fourth, if you really insist I can also add the modern commentators. --Grufo (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats you added Maududi, maybe add Syed Qutb while you're at it. You either did not get Eperotons comment at all (about the "the wide range of interpretations") or are deliberately being obstinate. And please add sources when you first add text rather than looking for add hoc justifications of your OR later. 39.37.135.0 (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, please provide quotations below showing the classical commentators say what you think they are saying.VR talk 22:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Grufo added a source here, but the quote used doesn't actually say anything about violence. Can Grufo provide the quote from that source that shows the verse is relevant to violence?VR talk 22:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this citation is incomplete. It needs to refer to a page number.VR talk 22:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once, again, Grufo I looked through all the sources/quotes at Violence_in_the_Quran#Supremacy_of_Islam and found every single one of them to be WP:Original Research interpretation of sources. If you disagree, please provide the quotes from the sources below. You provided a quote from "Abul A'la Maududi, Tafhim al-Quran", but that quote says absolutely nothing about violence.VR talk 18:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent, I think you are a bit exaggerating now, don't you think? How can a primary source (the Quran) accompanied by secondary sources (classic Quranic commentators), which are mediated by a tertiary source (quranx.com) be OR? The paragraph is about supremacy of Islam, and the quotations comply with the topic. --Grufo (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel the quotations comply with the topic, then paste them below and show me exactly where they talk about violence. I've said this at least four times now. VR talk 19:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Esposito[edit]

Grufo removed the following source and the content sourced to it:

  • John Esposito (2015). "Islam and Political Violence". Religions (6): 1067-1081.

The author is professor at Georgetown University and the journal Religions says its peer-reviewed. Can Grufo explain what issue there is with this source? VR talk 01:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NB that the journal cited above is classified as "borderline source which often (but not always) fails higher sourcing requirements". GPinkerton (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting that from?VR talk 20:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Headbomb/unreliable GPinkerton (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, pay attention to the big disclaimer at the top of WP:UPSD. The issue here is that this is a journal from MDPI, which is a legit-but-dodgy publisher. So Religions, is not necessarily a great source. But it's also not necessarily a bad one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Shourie[edit]

Hard to see why a trained economist and journalist by practice, who has affiliations with islamphobic Hindu organisations, should be privileged with his opinion on this section. Including a noted scholar in this field would be far more objective. 86.5.136.198 (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@86.5.136.198: You're POV pushing. Wikipedia does not take into account the other opinions of people when quoting. You talk about an opinion right? What difference does it make if they're a "scholar"? -- Python Drink (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More problematic is the inclusion of the personal opinions of non-experts based solely on their own published works (a primary source for their opinions). Iskandar323 (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article has a typo[edit]

s/Volence/Violence/

I don't know how to fix that. Editors? 77.137.68.54 (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and fixed the typo in the title. To request a move, you can go to WP:RM (in this case, since its a technical error, WP:RMTR specifically) and ask there. To move a page yourself, you need to be at least autoconfirmed. Aidan9382 (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove all quotes not from Quran.[edit]

Discussion of later sayings and later history is irrelevant to the topic. Burressd (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Violence_in_the_Quran&oldid=1206580028"