Talk:Apostasy in Islam/Archive 3

Tags inserted by RLoutfy
The user 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Could you please restore the "Moderate Muslims don't accept the ..." wording? Thanks in advance.
 * No can do. The lede is bloated with repetition. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just the "Moderate Muslims .." wording, if you will. CounterTime (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC) CounterTime (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we have a WP:RS saying this? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Abou El Fadl, Khaled (January 23, 2007). The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists. HarperOne. p. 158. ISBN 978-0061189036. says exactly that (with the same wording). CounterTime (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I will try to put something in. My problem is that the term "moderate Muslim" has become a sarcastic term used by people such as Pamela Geller. When you google "moderate muslims apostasy" you get stuff like this. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking that into account. Your last edit doesn't reflect correctly what is in the Abou El Fadl cite, since he doesn't say that "Prominent moderate muslims scholars ;..etc" reject a punishment for mere apostasy, but that moderate muslims reject it, which is different. 19:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * We have two kinds of muslim scholars saying similar things. Do you know who the "Prominent Muslims scholars" Esposito talks about are?  Do you know if Abou El Fadl has anything to say about Death for Apostasy  being "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"? BoogaLouie (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Did you get my point? 20:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * I think (judging from your last edit) that you didn't check the sources I added. For instance the Abou El Fadl source doesn't say that "[it is] inconsistent with 'no compulsion in religion'". Please check the sources before making other edits. --CounterTime (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add this cite which quotes both Abou el Fadl and Esposito. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Copy-paste from http://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/index.php
Why most of the "Apostasy in the recent past" section just a copy-paste from http://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/index.php ? 11:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * It's a reliable source and can be used without copyright violation. A large amount of www.loc.gov used in wikipedia. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, wasn't sure about whether it constituted a copyright violation. --CounterTime (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

More problems with lede from Pedia Master Mind
Pedia Master Mind has changed the first sentence of the lede to a controversial and ungramatical


 * Apostasy in Islam (ردة riddah or ارتداد irtidād) means reverting back to previous religion after accepting Islam. It is described as if a person converts to Islam and then reverts back to his/her previous religion, then he has done the act of apostasy and shall be punished.

w/the edit summary: ''please don't put false definition from Non-Muslim books, who don't know right meaning. I have put sourced information which is real and correct.) (Earlier edit summary: corrected the meaning of apostasy in ISLAM. in Islam, apostasy and its punishment is not for the person who was born Muslim, but only for those who accepted Islam and then reverted back to their previous religion'')

Pedia Master Mind, wikipedia is made up of information from WP:Reliable Sources. You cannot delete something because the source is not an adherent is not of the same religion (or political persuasion or whatever) they are writing about. The sentences you deleted are carefully sourced and have a consensus of previous editors. Your sentence has no consensus and is ungrammatical. Yet another problem is your source (Bukhari) does not prove your contention that "in Islam, apostasy and its punishment is not for the person who was born Muslim" --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:30, 2 December 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)


 * I completely agree, someone just balanced there random citations to make pass those statements as factual. That section, along with most of the article need a complete rebuilding. --CounterTime (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you mean you do not see "celebrating festivals..." in the cite? I will check again, if you confirm you have tried to verify the cites. I recall reading that when I checked one of the cites a few weeks ago. RLoutfy (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What I mean is someone or some school of fiqh said "A person is an apostate" if they "enter a church or temple, ... celebrat[e] festivals of any non-Muslim religion," etc. There was not a world Islamic conference on sharia where Muslims all agreed on this. So the paragraph should specify who or what school of fiqh, said this, and not say "A person is an apostate" period. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * About "[Does] celebrating festivals of any non-Muslim religion" makes you an apostate?": I was brought up Christian and I still am, and as far as I am concerned a few visits to Hindu Diwali festivals and similar does not constitute apostasy from Christianity. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. Go ahead and revise it. RLoutfy (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)