Talk:Apostasy in Islam/Archive 4

Original research by CounterTime/alter-CounterTime
CounterTime, You reverted and added the following back to this article. Can you provide a secondary scholarly source that states the following verse is about Apostasy in Islam?

There are several similar additions by you, CounterTime, but let us take one item at a time, as that may help us focus our discussion and reach consensus without a WP:DRN / WP:ANI process. RLoutfy (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Stop recovering the old version. As I said, check out my references, "Taha Jabir Alalwani (2003), La 'ikraha fi al-din: 'ichkaliyat al-riddah wa al-murtaddin min sadr al-Islam hatta al-yawm, pp.93-94. ISBN 9770909963." links all of them to apostasy in Islam. --CounterTime (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This failed verification. RLoutfy (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Why did it allegedly fail "verification"? --CounterTime (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You added it. You explain. Perhaps you can quote a few sentences that you believe links above verse and others such as verse 88:21-22 you added here to apostasy in Islam. RLoutfy (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't add anything, simply see the reference "Taha Jabir Alalwani (2003), La 'ikraha fi al-din: 'ichkaliyat al-riddah wa al-murtaddin min sadr al-Islam hatta al-yawm, pp.93-94. ISBN 9770909963." which links 10:99 to apostasy in Islam. As for 88:21-22, I already gave the reference "Abou El Fadl, Khaled (January 23, 2007). The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists. HarperOne. pp. 158–159. ISBN 978-0061189036.", so instead of repeating things, go back to the references I added. --CounterTime (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And by the way you still didn't explain how "Taha Jabir Alalwani (2003), La 'ikraha fi al-din: 'ichkaliyat al-riddah wa al-murtaddin min sadr al-Islam hatta al-yawm, pp.93-94. ISBN 9770909963." allegedly "failed verification". --CounterTime (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"La 'ikraha fi al-din: 'ichkaliyat al-riddah" or "اشكالية الردة و المرتدين [...]" is an Arabic publication (see ). By citing it, you are once again doing your own flawed POV translation and interpretation. Failed verification means "it does not verify what you allege it does". Instead of your own flawed translation, you need to provide an acceptable independent scholarly translation. Wikipedia policy on non-English sources requires, in the case of disputes, the party that adds the disputed non-English source to provide a quote and "a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians". RLoutfy (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please show how my translation is POV? (and which translation which in fact I only quoted it since it cited 10:99 with regards to apostasy, which is clear by reading pages 92-95 of the meant book) Can you please show how "my translation is flawed"?! Okay, translations published by reliable sources are preferred over those by Wikipedians, but the book by Dr. Taha Jabir wasn't translated in English. In any case, can you please show how my translation is flawed and POV??! Can you please show how my citations "does not verify what I allege it does"." ??! --CounterTime (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You made many accusations and attacks on me claiming that I make POV translation (see the talk page on jizya, and the talk page on Q.2:256), but you never actually provided your own alternate translation, or even a reason on why my translation was wrong, or biased, or POV, or flawed, ... And whenever I bring an issue you state that allegedly I'm making wrong translations, without any proof whatsoever. I'm waiting for explanations for this kind of frequent undesired and uncivil behavior. --CounterTime (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:TALK, let us use this talk page for improving this article on Apostasy in Islam, and take the discussion and our disputes on other Islam-related articles to their specific talk pages.
 * In the case of "اشكالية الردة و المرتدين [...]" cite you added to this article, you are reading a non-English source and you allege above that it "links all of them to apostasy in Islam". I disagree with your interpretation of that non-English source, but will accept it if you can cite any reliable source that interprets the way you are interpreting "اشكالية الردة و المرتدين [...]" cite. Given our dispute, you must provide a quote and translation of the non-English source. I hope you will cooperate and respect wikipedia policies on citing non-English sources. and  any further suggestions on the above dispute about non-English source(s) added by ? RLoutfy (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that was my question, why do you "disagree with [my] interpretation of that non-English source"??! I'll provide a cite in arabic of that reference + my translation later, I must sleep now. --CounterTime (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

CounterTime, This and other Islam-related wikipedia article talk pages are not a forum. I will wait for you providing the Arabic quote(s) from the cite and a translation that supports your allegation that it "links all of them to apostasy in Islam". RLoutfy (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the WP:NONENG policy, "When quoting a non-English source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations." As this is a potential breach of WP:NOR, if CounterTime provides a translation (as he is obliged to do per this request), I would also want an uninvolved editor who speaks Arabic to verify that the translation is correct. Even where using secondary sources, I like to have at least a couple of other editors who speak whatever language the source is written in to cite check the translation in order to verify that the translation is accurate and correct: and this is a WP:PRIMARY resource. Other Arabic speakers can be found through Category:Wikipedians by language. If it is not translated and cite checked for verification, it can't be used as the WP:BURDEN is on CounterTime to demonstrate that content added by him is legitimate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't talk about Islam or anything related to it, I talked about your accusation that I distorted and misrepresented a source, you need to state why you think I misrepresented the source. Period. --CounterTime (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll start by putting the relevant Arabic text with a commentary on each :
 * 1. Page 91 : He mentions that there are a lot of Qur'anic verses that maintain that religious freedom in its entirety must be saved, and hence apostasy shouldn't be sanctioned.
 * 2. Page 92 He starts mentioning them, and he starts by talking about the verse Q.2:256.
 * 3. Page 93 He mentions many other verses amongst them 88:22.
 * 4. Page 94 He mentions 10:99 in the 6th line.
 * Is this sufficient or should I translate every single page? Or if you want just ask someone who speaks Arabic to confirm what I stated. Also don't forget to tell @RLoutfy to stop making void accusations when he didn't even check or read my sources. Thanks in advance. --CounterTime (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Yours is a good idea, if we can get a "complete" translation, preferably from a secondary scholarly source, or from an uninvolved editor. In my reading, CounterTime is doing original research above. RLoutfy (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You still didn't show either how my translation was flawed as you claimed or how I'm doing original research here. I even took the time to screen-shot the relevant pages from the book, can you find something that supports the claim that "my translation is flawed" or that "it failed verification"? --CounterTime (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum, and not to a place to spend time on "show how my translation was flawed, you have failed to prove it to me". Your alleged translation of the following is not only incomplete, it is incorrect and original research:
 * ولا نجد هذا العدد الكيرمت الآيات السني نزلت في التاكيد على ضرورة المحافظة
 * على حريات الإنسان كلها إلا في القيم العليا كاكوحيد والتركية والعمران وما ارنيط بها
 * من مقاصد شرعنة كالعدل وامنة والمساواة ونحوها. ضد نزل القرآن العظيم بذلك
 * العدد الكيرمن الآيات ؛ ليؤكد على حرية الإنسان خاصة في اختيار ما يعتقده ، وعدم
 * جواز اكراهه على تني أني معتقد ، أو تنعرمغقد اعتقده ءالى سواه ، وعلى توكيد ألن
 * etc
 * As Iryna Harpy explained to you above, you must respect WP:NOR and WP:BURDEN. The best way to do so, is either you provide a reliable cite that does a scholarly translation, or we wait for an uninvolved editor to provide a complete translation. RLoutfy (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You claimed that my translation was flawed, therefore I responded to that, I'm very aware that this isn't a forum and only things related to the article can be discussed. Second, I didn't yet provide an entire translation, only detailing the context of the discussion in pages 91-94, and then concluding that he's talking about verses related to freedom of religion in the context of apostasy, and that 10:99 was cited amongst them (more precisely, in page 94, line 6; see here). As I told she can ask someone who speaks Arabic fluently to confirm what I stated. Thirdly, your "arabic" leaves much to be desired, here are some errors ( in bold and red) in your text:
 * ولا نجد هذا العدد الكبير من الآيات   التي نزلت في التاكيد على ضرورة المحافظة
 * على حريات الإنسان كلها إلا في القيم العليا كالتوحيد  و التزكية  والعمران وما ارنيط بها
 * من مقاصد  شرعية كالعدل و  الحرية  والمساواة ونحوها.  فقد  نزل القرآن <b style="color:red"> العظيم</b>  بذلك
 * العدد <b style="color:red">الكبير  من</b> الآيات ; ليؤكد على حرية الإنسان خاصة في اختيار ما يعتقده ، وعدم
 * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .جواز اكراهه على <b style="color:red">تبني </b> <b style="color:red">أي </b>  معتقد ، أو
 * If you can't even type arabic correctly then how can you claim to be fluent at it?! Then how can you claim to have read my sources?! I'm waiting for explanations!! --CounterTime (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is what I'm talking about, user doesn't even know how to type correctly Arabic, let alone understand it and he always claims that I make wrong translations. This is the type of thing that minimizes the time we put on improving the article.... --CounterTime (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Quran quotes, there are plenty of reliable English language translations of the Quran. These must be used and not the translation of an editor. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the issue the user is bringing up is that he doesn't agree that the arabic source "Taha Jabir Alalwani (2003), La 'ikraha fi al-din: 'ichkaliyat al-riddah wa al-murtaddin min sadr al-Islam hatta al-yawm, pp.93-94. ISBN 9770909963." links the verse 10:99 to the subject of apostasy in Islam... --CounterTime (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we're discussing an interpretation of the Quran written in a foreign language then a neutral third party should do the translation. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I already told to tell one to check if my reading of the pages 91 to 94 isn't POV, or doesn't misrepresent the citation. --CounterTime (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If we decide to retain the content in this article, we need the entire translation by a neutral third party. CounterTime has alleged that the above pages "link all of them to apostasy in Islam". In my reading, they don't, and CounterTime's contested claims are original research. The one mention of apostasy is on page 94, but not in the way CounterTime has interpreted it for this wiki article. I did not type the above, just transferred from a file in a different format to wiki talk page, a process that is not robust. RLoutfy (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I asked you before as to why in your reading they don't link all of them? Why?! My claims aren't original research, as one can verify. As for your claim that you "transferred from a file in a different format to wiki talk page", it doesn't stand as there is no ebook or digital version of the meant book, furthermore you had the entire time to correct it before posting it on the wiki page. So I'm waiting for explanations: If you can't even type arabic correctly then how can you claim to be fluent at it?! Then how can you claim to have read my sources?! Could you also show how it is "not in the way CounterTime has interpreted it for this wiki article"?! --CounterTime (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You continue to make uncivil accusations and forum style misuse of this talk page. Just wait for third party translator. Can you identify a few secondary or any tertiary publication that has cited the opinions in "اشكالية الردة و المرتدين [...]" above?

if opinions in a WP:PRIMARY article by some writer has never or rarely ever been cited in the scholarship of a topic, does that raise WP:FRINGE concerns? RLoutfy (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * First the meant source isn't WP:PRIMARY. Second I'm not making any "accusations" (please read WP:ACCUSE concerning that). Third I'm waiting for explanations concerning the following:! If you can't even type arabic correctly then how can you claim to be fluent at it?! Then how can you claim to have read my sources?! Could you also show how it is "not in the way CounterTime has interpreted it for this wiki article"?! I wont reply to any further request until you make sound explanations about those concerns. Thanks. --CounterTime (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ,, , , , , , , , Can you please confirm that all what I stated above is indeed correct? (this is 'summarized' in the box below)  Thanks in advance! --CounterTime (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We need a complete translation of pages 91, 92, 93 and 94, to help build a faithful summary without WP:OR, and per WP:NOENG policy. The goal here is not to confirm or deny CounterTime's interpretation, but to meet the WP:BURDEN and help improve this article. Best regards, RLoutfy (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You stated "in the case of "اشكالية الردة و المرتدين [... " cite you added to this article, you are reading a non-English source and you allege above that it "links all of them to apostasy in Islam". I disagree with your interpretation of that non-English source,"] and also, "By citing it, you are once again doing your own flawed POV translation and interpretation. Failed verification means "it does not verify what you allege it does". Instead of your own flawed translation," The point here is that just a simple reading of 91-4 would confirm my point, as per the request. No need to translate all the other pages. --CounterTime (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There's an English version of the meant book as translated from original arabic by Nancy Roberts, I've added it as a ref. Taha Jabir Alalwani (2011), Apostasy in Islam: A Historical and Scriptural Analysis, pp.35-39. International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). ISBN 1565643631., so the issue is now closed right? (But you'll still have to answer the other objections) I'll delete the tags then/ --CounterTime (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for finally providing the complete translation by Nancy Roberts. Her translation confirms my concerns. This translation on pp. 35-39 is about compelling non-Muslims to Islam, which is not same as apostasy in Islam. The latter is a situation where a Muslim abandons Islam and how Islamic texts treat this behavior. You are doing WP:OR when you interpret the former to mean latter, when the cite doesn't do so. For example,

p. 35, last two lines, "the freedom to choose what we will believe, and the impermissibility of compelling anyone to adopt a particular belief"

p. 37, 3rd to 5th lines, "Being a Muslim himself, he said to the Prophet, "Shall I not compel them to embrace Islam? Neither of them will accept any religion but Christianity?"

p. 37 last paragraph to p.38 first, discusses compelling non-Muslims (Jews) to convert to Islam.

p. 39, discusses compulsion and imposition of beliefs on non-Muslims again.

The Nancy Roberts translation then moves on to apostasy, and actually states the following on apostasy in Islam, at p. 39-40. I will accept a summary of the following (and paragraphs that follow), after rewording to avoid WP:COPYVIO issues, into this article,


 * Quote - "A distinction might be drawn between the Quranic attitude toward continuing in original unbelief, that is unbelief of someone who has never had faith, and its attitude toward the unbelief of someone who abandons faith for unbelief after having believed. Such a distinction acknowledges the freedom that the Quran accords to the person who is still in a state of original belief, while denying the same freedom to someone who abandons faith after having believed. - p. 39-40, Nancy Roberts translation of Taha Jabir Alalwani, Apostasy in Islam: A Historical and Scriptural Analysis

Before we discuss p. 39-40 further, please provide one or more quote(s) from p.35-39 Roberts's translation, where you believe there is the support for the text you have been adding on apostasy in Islam? and why isn't your addition not WP:OR? RLoutfy (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Chapter 2: The Qur'anic description of Apostasy, and pp.35-39 fall in that chapter, so the context of the discussion IS apostasy. Furthermore pp.34-35 belong to the subchapter titled "Religious Freedom as a Chief Intent of Islamic Law" see page 34 where one finds, "In affirmation of this message, and in order to liberate people fully, many Qur'anic verses were revealed in support, defense and protection of this freedom, which is the essence of our humanity....." then it continues in page 35: "The types of freedom upon which the Qur'an places the highest value, which it guarantees to human beings and which it enjoins us to preserve, are the freedom of belief and the freedom of expression.... Numerous Qur'anic verses stress the necessity of preserving human freedoms ... The Qur'an thus stresses human freedom, particularly the freedom to choose what we will believe, and the impermissibility of compelling anyone to adopt a particular belief or to replace one belief with another." (Note here the use of anyone, you try to make a distinction between a non-Muslim and an apostate when both of them are non-Muslims, an apostate is someone who rejected his faith.) Then pp.35-36 are under the subchapter "The Occasion and Meaning of the Verse: "There Shall Be No Coercion in Matters of Faith". Clearly, Taha continues by mentioning the (quoting him) "Numerous Qur'anic verses stress the necessity of preserving human freedoms". And if you read pp.38-39 it will be clear to you that he's talking about such verses: "The Qur'an affirms that it is the Creator alone who may judge those who call upon entities other than Him. Hence He states, "... he who invokes, side by side with God any other deity [ - a deity] for whose existence he has no evidence - shall but find his reckoning with his Sustainer: [and] verily, such deniers of the truth will never attain to a happy state!" (23:117). At the same time, He addresses the Messenger of God, saying, "And so exhort them: thy task is only to exhort; thou canst not compel them to believe" (88:21-22); "...thou canst by no means force them [to believe]. Yet nonetheless, remind, through this Qur'an, all such as may fear My warning" (50:45); and, "...thy duty is no more than to deliver the message; and the reckoning is Ours" (13:40) Many Qur'anic verses make clear to the Prophet that compulsion and the imposition of beliefs on others are of no use whatsoever, and that had God Almighty known that faith could be brought about trhough compulsion, He would have commanded His messengers to force people to believe and surreder themselves to Him: "Yet if God had so willer, they would not have ascribed divinity to aught beside Him; hence, We have not made thee their keeper, and neither art thou responsible for their conduct" (6:107); "And [thus it is:] had thy Sustainer so willed, all those who live on earth would surely have attained to faith, all of them; dost thou, then, think that thou couldst compel people to believe?" (10:99) God thus makes clear that the matter of doctine and belief cannot be subjected to any kind of coercion, even if such coercion is motivated by the believer's concern for the one being called to faith and the desire to deliver him from error." (in bold are the verses that we're cited in the article) You then cite pp.39-40 yet you forget that just after he states: "All of these verses, and many others besides, affirm that the person who commits apostasy is threatened with punishment in the afterlife. However, as explicit as all of these verses are, not one of them makes any mention of a legally prescribed, earthly punishment for apostasy, be it execution or anything less drastic. " and to confirm my point that quoting the verses that talk about freedom of belief is connected to the issue the other continues (pp.40-41) "The reason for this is that the authority of the Qur'an is an authority of amelioration and mercy which affirms religious freedom and the need to protect and preserve it. It is an authority which affirms that faith and unbelief are matters of the heart between the servant and his Lord and that the penalty for unbelief and apostasy after one has believed is one that takes effect in the life to come, jurisdiction over which belongs to God alone." Now can  please confirm what I just said to close this issue? Thanks in advance. CounterTime (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you are arguing. But you are doing original research, because Roberts' translation does not conclude what you are, and actually states the opposite. The section is part of the book titled Apostasy in Islam, but the context of that section is to contrast the freedoms to non-Muslims versus freedoms to Muslims, which are different in Taha Jabir Alalwani's view. Wikipedia summarizes interpretation and conclusions that are in the cite, but does not allow interpretations or WP:OR. The relevant conclusion in Roberts' translation is on p. 39-40 in what I quoted above, "Quran denies the same freedom to someone who abandons faith after having believed". I welcome a faithful summary of Taha Jabir Alalwani's view on pp. 39-40 in this article. There is no way I will accept your WP:OR above in this article. I invite you to drop this OR given what is in the Roberts' translation, or you are welcome to take this to WP:DRN, where I will join you. RLoutfy (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing WP:OR, since all I'm stating is contained in the book, indeed a simple cite of the page in which the verse Q.10:99 is stated would suffice. My explanation of the other pages is only to confirm that what I'm saying is true, and to show the context. You again state pp.39-40 but you forgot what I stated: that after what you quoted it says "All of these verses, and many others besides, affirm that the person who commits apostasy is threatened with punishment in the afterlife. However, as explicit as all of these verses are, not one of them makes any mention of a legally prescribed, earthly punishment for apostasy, be it execution or anything less drastic. " and in (pp.40-41) "The reason for this is that the authority of the Qur'an is an authority of amelioration and mercy which affirms religious freedom and the need to protect and preserve it. It is an authority which affirms that faith and unbelief are matters of the heart between the servant and his Lord and that the penalty for unbelief and apostasy after one has believed is one that takes effect in the life to come, jurisdiction over which belongs to God alone." I invite you to reread the passages I mentioned. Thanks in advance. --CounterTime (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The "punishment in afterlife" is in Taha Jabir Alalwani, and it was in the version of article before your first edit, citing Ali Gomaa. If you want to cite Alalwani as well, I am fine with that. That is not our dispute. Our dispute is whether Alalwani, as translated by Roberts, supports what you have alleged for many days now, that Alalwani links "all Quranic verses (in disputed section) to apostasy in Islam" (see here). It doesn't, and I suggest we delete your addition/restored text in the disputed section. According to Roberts' translation, those verses are about freedom of religion for non-Muslims, in Alalwani's opinion; and they are not about apostasy in Islam that is freedom of to leave Islam religion for Muslims. RLoutfy (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't show anything. Besides that, I didn't even talk about the "apo. punished only in afterlife" claim, and I'm not bringing in Gomaa or something. Let me remind you that Taha's main project in the book is to offer a discussion of apostasy through the lenses of the teachings of the Qur'an, and I quote him (p.6.) "The aim of this study is to provide a model for the type of revision by means of which one can place Islamic tradition under the authority of the Qur'an, thereby bringing it into full conformity with Qur'anic teachings." The mere fact that he stated 2:256, 88:21-22, 10:99...etc in his study is sufficient to establish that he linked those verses to apostasy. In fact, as I've shown before these verses are connected to religious freedom and to apostasy, according to the translation by Roberts of Alalwani's work. However, you're still persisting and ignoring what I have shown and you're misrepresenting and twisting Alalwani's claim based on a decontextualized quote on p.39 while you ignore that he says in p.40 "These verses [in reference to your quote of p.39, see for instances the verses quoted in p.40] should be taken together with the others of relevance which have already been mentioned. [i.e. those mentioned earlier in p.34-39.]" This establishes that the verses he quoted earlier are related to apostasy. See also for instance what he says in p.43. : "The principles and epistemic methodology of the Qur'an clearly specify the unqualified nature of religious freedom. The Qur'an hedges this freedom about with safeguards and guarantees in no fewer than two hundred verses, and states clearly that the punishment to be meted out to the unbeliever or the apostate is one that will take effect in the afterlife. Moreover, as we have stated, one could not expect the Sunnah to conflict with what we find in the Qur'an, especially in the view of the fact that this matter is mentioned not in one or two verses, but in approximately two hundred of its definitive verse, all of which unanimously affirm religious freedom." See my previous discussion here, and here. Thanks in advance. CounterTime (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please excuse me as I haven't had the patience to read the entire section above but I hope I can answer a question raised in the section. I can vouch that according to Reza Aslan see here:
 * "Ibn Taymiyya argued that the idea of killing nonbelievers who refused to convert to Islam -- the foundation of the classical doctrine of jihad -- not only defied the example of Muhammad but also violated one of the most important principles in the Quran: that
 * there can be no compulsion in religion (2:256)
 * The truth is from your Lord, believe it if you like, or do not (18:29)
 * Can you compel people to believe against their will? (10:100)
 * To you your religion; to me mine (109:6) (p.85 Aslan, Reza, No God But God : The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, by Reza Aslan, Random House, 2005 --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up another source. However it doesn't seem that the source you quoted links the mentioned verses to apostasy, which is the thing that requests, it merely links the verses Q.2:256, Q.18:29, Q.10:100, Q.109:6 with the subject of qital (fighting). It would rather fit in the Jihad article. For a basic overview of the conflict, please see here and here. Cheers! CounterTime (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake. Should have read more carefully. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have read the relevant pages from Roberts' translation again. You are misreading it, and doing flawed WP:OR. The text clearly differentiates between "freedom of religion for non-Muslims in Alalwani's opinion" and "no freedom of religion for Muslims, that is apostasy, again in Alalwani's opinion". You are trying to argue the opposite, when the quote I provided above is self-explanatory. You unnecessarily repeat the "afterlife" argument, which I have already agreed with. I remind you once again that the afterlife punishment view is already summarized in this article and I welcome the addition of Alalwani's cite there. But, as Alalwani acknowledges, religious freedom for non-Muslims in his opinion is not same as apostasy rights for Muslims again in his opinion. Your WP:OR is unacceptable, and I invite you to delete your OR, or provide a cite that explains the link of mentioned verses to apostasy by Muslims from Islam (not possible religious freedom granted to non-Muslims). RLoutfy (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Your claim that Alalwani makes such a distinction doesn't stand, as it is based on a decontextualized reading of p.39, here's what he really says (and, unlike you, I'm quoting everything he said so that the careful reader may confirm by himself my claims): He cites many verses from the Qur'an on religious freedom such as Q.10:99. (p.39) Then he states: "From the foregoing it will be clear that religious freedom is hedged about by all the Qur'anic guarantees needed to render it an absolute, unbounded freedom to choose one's beliefs, and that the right to pass judgment on such matters belongs to God alone." Then a new subchapter with the title "Original Unbelief Vs. Unbelief After Embracing Islam", he says then: "A distinction might be drawn between the Qur'anic attitude toward continuing in 'original unbelief', that, the unbelief of someone who has never had faith, and its attitude toward the unbelief of someone who abandons faith for unbelief after having believed. Such a distinction acknowledges the freedom that the Qur'an accords to the person who is still in a state of original unbelief, while denying the same freedom to someone who abandons faith after having believed." He then precises what that freedom really means, pay strong attention to what follows "God declares, "But whoever chooses to deny the [evidence of the] truth, instead of believing in it, has already strayed from the right path" (2:108); and, "Out of their selfish envy, many among the followers of earlier revelation would like to bring you back to denying the truth after you have attained to faith - [even] after the truth has become clear unto them. Nonetheless, forgive and forbear, until God shall make manifest His will: behold, God has the power to will anything" (2:109); and, "[Your enemies] will not cease to fight against you till they turn you away from your faith, if they can. But if any of you should turn away from his faith and dies as a denier of the truth - these it is whose works will go for nought in this world and in the life to come; and these it is who are destined for the fire, therein to abide" (2:217). In a similar vein God declares: How would God bestow His guidance upon people who have resolved to deny the truth after having attained to faith, and having borne witness that this Apostle is true, and [after] all evidence of the truth has come unto them? For God does not guide such evildoing folk. Their requital shall be rejection by God, and by the angels, and by all [righteous] men. In this state shall they abide; [and] neither will their suffering be lightened, nor will they be granted respite. But excepted shall be they that afterwards repent and put themselves to right; for, behold, God is Much-Forgiving, a Dispenser of grace. Verily, as for those who are bent on denying the truth after having attained to faith, and then grow [even more stubborn] in their refusal to acknowledge the truth, their repentance shall not be accepted. (3:86-90) These verses [in reference to your quote of p.39, see for instances the verses quoted in p.40] should be taken together with the others of relevance which have already been mentioned. [i.e. those mentioned earlier in p.34-39.] All of these verses, and many others besides, affirm that the person who commits apostasy is threatened with punishment in the afterlife. However, as explicit as all of these verses are, not one of them makes any mention of a legally prescribed, earthly punishment for apostasy, be it execution or anything less drastic. The reason for this is that the authority of the Qur'an is an authority of amelioration and mercy which affirms religious freedom and the need to protect and preserve it. It is an authority which affirms that faith and unbelief are matters of the heart between the servant and his Lord and that the penalty for unbelief and apostasy after one has believed is one that takes effect in the life to come, jurisdiction over which belongs to God alone." (emphasis added) One last thing, your reading of that decontextualized passage would contradict much of the book, where he argues that based on the Qur'an, and the fact that the Sunnah can't contradict the Qur'an, there is no punishment for mere apostasy. Citations confirming that have been already given on my part. Could you please confirm or not what I just stated? CounterTime (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Original research by CounterTime/alter-CounterTime (part 2)

 * A user asked me to try to settle this argument.
 * If the above Arabic text is from the Qur`an, please which surah and verses?, so I can check with an Arabic original.
 * I am not an Arabic speaker. I know some Arabic grammar, and enough Arabic words to be useful on holidays on the Red Sea, but not enough to decide on Islamic religious matters. I am British and Christian. The contradiction described in "Ibn Taymiyya argued ..." has been around for centuries, and I see no way to settle it quickly now. It is best to merely write for example "Some say XXXX; some say YYYY; there is a long-standing contradiction here." Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm very happy that someone finally decided to try to solve this dispute. My reading of the arabic text can be summarized below, if true then that would basically solve the dispute
 * To remind you, the user argues that the present citation doesn't link the verse Q.10:99 with apostasy. --CounterTime (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To remind you, the user argues that the present citation doesn't link the verse Q.10:99 with apostasy. --CounterTime (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I like your suggestion. CounterTime is alleging that verses 18:29, 88:21-22, 11:28 are about apostasy in Islam. Neither these verses use the Arabic word for apostasy, nor the cite CounterTime discusses above support that either. They do link it to "freedom of religion" for non-Muslims, which CounterTime is interpreting with original research as "freedom for apostasy for Muslims". These are not the same. In fact, the cite states the opposite. Roberts' translation of Alalwani, for instance, states,
 * Quote - "A distinction might be drawn between the Quranic attitude toward continuing in original unbelief, that is unbelief of someone who has never had faith, and its attitude toward the unbelief of someone who abandons faith for unbelief after having believed. Such a distinction acknowledges the freedom that the Quran accords to the person who is still in a state of original belief, while denying the same freedom to someone who abandons faith after having believed. - p. 39-40, Nancy Roberts translation of Taha Jabir Alalwani, Apostasy in Islam: A Historical and Scriptural Analysis (2011)
 * I welcome "Some say XXXX, same say YYYY..." with cites, if CounterTime or someone can provide cites for XXXX and YYYY and etc. Thanks for the intervention, RLoutfy (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have already discussed naive reading of a decontextualized paragraph on pp.39-40 (which would contradict much of the book) in two points:
 * Your claim that Alalwani makes such a distinction doesn't stand, as it is based on a decontextualized reading of p.39, here's what he really says (and, unlike you, I'm quoting everything he said so that the careful reader may confirm by himself my claims): He cites many verses from the Qur'an on religious freedom such as Q.10:99. (p.39) Then he states: "From the foregoing it will be clear that religious freedom is hedged about by all the Qur'anic guarantees needed to render it an absolute, unbounded freedom to choose one's beliefs, and that the right to pass judgment on such matters belongs to God alone." Then a new subchapter with the title "Original Unbelief Vs. Unbelief After Embracing Islam", he says then: "A distinction might be drawn between the Qur'anic attitude toward continuing in 'original unbelief', that, the unbelief of someone who has never had faith, and its attitude toward the unbelief of someone who abandons faith for unbelief after having believed. Such a distinction acknowledges the freedom that the Qur'an accords to the person who is still in a state of original unbelief, while denying the same freedom to someone who abandons faith after having believed." He then precises what that freedom really means, pay strong attention to what follows "God declares, "But whoever chooses to deny the [evidence of the] truth, instead of believing in it, has already strayed from the right path" (2:108); and, "Out of their selfish envy, many among the followers of earlier revelation would like to bring you back to denying the truth after you have attained to faith - [even] after the truth has become clear unto them. Nonetheless, forgive and forbear, until God shall make manifest His will: behold, God has the power to will anything" (2:109); and, "[Your enemies] will not cease to fight against you till they turn you away from your faith, if they can. But if any of you should turn away from his faith and dies as a denier of the truth - these it is whose works will go for nought in this world and in the life to come; and these it is who are destined for the fire, therein to abide" (2:217). In a similar vein God declares: How would God bestow His guidance upon people who have resolved to deny the truth after having attained to faith, and having borne witness that this Apostle is true, and [after] all evidence of the truth has come unto them? For God does not guide such evildoing folk. Their requital shall be rejection by God, and by the angels, and by all [righteous] men. In this state shall they abide; [and] neither will their suffering be lightened, nor will they be granted respite. But excepted shall be they that afterwards repent and put themselves to right; for, behold, God is Much-Forgiving, a Dispenser of grace. Verily, as for those who are bent on denying the truth after having attained to faith, and then grow [even more stubborn] in their refusal to acknowledge the truth, their repentance shall not be accepted. (3:86-90) These verses [in reference to your quote of p.39, see for instances the verses quoted in p.40] should be taken together with the others of relevance which have already been mentioned. [i.e. those mentioned earlier in p.34-39.] All of these verses, and many others besides, affirm that the person who commits apostasy is threatened with punishment in the afterlife. However, as explicit as all of these verses are, not one of them makes any mention of a legally prescribed, earthly punishment for apostasy, be it execution or anything less drastic. The reason for this is that the authority of the Qur'an is an authority of amelioration and mercy which affirms religious freedom and the need to protect and preserve it. It is an authority which affirms that faith and unbelief are matters of the heart between the servant and his Lord and that the penalty for unbelief and apostasy after one has believed is one that takes effect in the life to come, jurisdiction over which belongs to God alone." (emphasis added) One last thing, your reading of that decontextualized passage would contradict much of the book, where he argues that based on the Qur'an, and the fact that the Sunnah can't contradict the Qur'an, there is no punishment for mere apostasy. Citations confirming that have been already given on my part.
 * Actually there's a slight error in the translation. The arabic version mentions on p.94 the following: "And a group of people (qawm) may distinguish between the Qur'anic attitude toward continuing in 'original unbelief', ..." The translator forgot to translate the arabic word qawm.
 * Anyway, look at the evidence I presented and judge by yourself
 * Thanks in advance.
 * CounterTime (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , Per WP:OR, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The cite, that is Roberts' translation of Alalwani confirms that Alalwani contextually and directly makes and implies the opposite conclusion, rather than what CounterTime's is trying to argue with OR. The other concerns I have are WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE guidelines. There is no need to give prominence to those Quranic verses that do not explicitly mention apostasy, and when the mainstream secondary and tertiary publications do not list those verses in their discussion of apostasy in Islam. RLoutfy (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "The cite, that is Roberts' translation of Alalwani confirms that Alalwani contextually and directly makes and implies the opposite conclusion, rather than what CounterTime's is trying to argue with OR." No, it doesn't. You're misquoting him as I showed; "There is no need to give prominence to those Quranic verses that do not explicitly mention apostasy" It's not me who said it, it's Dr. al-Alwani. And furthermore how could he say that These verses [in reference to your quote of p.39, see for instances the verses quoted in p.40] should be taken together with the others of relevance which have already been mentioned. [i.e. those mentioned earlier in p.34-39.] and before state in p.39 that these verses don't give the freedom to apostates are restricted to non-muslim non-apostates? How could he state that the Qur'an denies freedom to apostates and then claim that apostates are to be punished only in the hereafter? I've found the anomaly here which is that there's a slight error in the translation. The arabic version mentions on p.94 the following: "And a group of people (qawm) may distinguish between the Qur'anic attitude toward continuing in 'original unbelief', ..." The translator forgot to translate the arabic word qawm.
 * Let's leave it to to judge. I'm also pinging  since he knows arabic, he can help us here. Could you please confirm or not that what I stated below is indeed correct? (which is  a summary of my position)
 * 10:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * 10:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * ,, IMHO I am in agreement with RLoutfy on this issue. Found CounterTime's explanation confusing and not refuting the quite clear and specific quote of the statement of Nancy Roberts translation of Taha Jabir Alalwani. I would also say that it behooves wikipedia to use Tafsir and other secondary sources in interpreting the Quran  -- there being plenty of scholars doing plenty of interpreting of the Quran over the centuries.  As much as any text WP:OR in interpreting the Quran is fraught with peril, what with Naskh (tafsir), hadith explanations, and  many issues. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I respect your point of view, but I invite you to reconsider it. Did you check the original arabic version? Did you check Page 91, Page 92, Page 93, Page 94, Page 94 (cont.), Page 95 of the original arabic? Do you realize that the translator committed a flaw when the arabic version mentions on p.94 the following: "And a group of people (qawm) may distinguish between the Qur'anic attitude toward continuing in 'original unbelief', ..." The translator forgot to translate the arabic word qawm? Do you realize that if RLouty's reading were supposed to be correct, then that would contradict Alalwani's entire book? (c.f. the example I gave previously) 18:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * ,, Are you sure the qawm does not refer to the people who are "continuing in 'original unbelief'" rather than people who are "distinguishing between the Qur'anic attitude toward continuing in 'original unbelief',"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * الكفر الأصلي والكفر بعد الإسلام

وقد يفق قوم بىن موقف القرآن الكريم من الاستمرار على كفر أصلي لم يتحول صاحبة عنة وبىن التحول من الإيمان إلى الكفر (My attempt at typing out the first part of the text for translation.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC) <BR>Another issue: Once we start correcting professional translators used by publishers ... we need serious experts. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all you made mistakes when typing the text, here's my correction: (errors in bold)
 * وقد يفرق قوم بين موقف القرآن الكريم من الاستمرار على كفر أصلي لم يتحول صاحبه عنه  و بين التحول من الإيمان إلى الكفر
 * Do you really know arabic? You really sound off like when he made tons of mistakes while alleging at the same time that he's fluent at arabic.
 * Anyway, Here's the literal translation:
 * وقد يفرق قوم: And a certain group of people (qawm) distinguish
 * بين موقف القرآن الكريم من الاستمرار : Between the attitude of the Noble Qur'an towards continuing
 * على كفر أصلي : in original disbelief (kufr asliy)
 * لم يتحول صاحبه عنه : i.e. [the disbelief] of someone which has never changed (i.e. was always in that state)
 * و بين التحول من الإيمان إلى الكفر: And between the transformation from belief to disbelief.
 * "Are you sure the qawm does not refer to the people who are "continuing in original unbelief"" No, no, no. He states (literal translation) And a certain group of people  (qawm) distinguish between ..;" He's referring to those who claim that there's a distinction between the Qur'anic attitude towards original kufr v.s. kufr after islam. And then he goes on to debunk them on page 95.
 * It's not that we're correcting publishers, it's that quoting a decontextualized paragraph and making it look do as if the author is saying X, when the whole book says not X, is simply cherrypicking. See WP:CHERRYPICKING.
 * 19:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * What I said was it was an "attempt at typing out the first part of the text for translation". I would never say I was anywhere close to fluent in Arabic or had much experience or knowledge about (obviously) using arabic keyboards.
 * But here is the problem: It's not that we're correcting publishers, it's that quoting a decontextualized paragraph and making it look do as if the author is saying X, when the whole book says not X, is simply cherrypicking. See WP:CHERRYPICKING.
 * We are not correcting publishers? If not, we are correcting the translator upon who the publisher is basing the accuracy of what they've published. If we decide that translation is decontextualized i.e. wrong or at best misleading, we need more evidence than your translation. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I already provided more evidence for that other than my translation, see all the other things I wrote, including for instance this: (but all you have to do is to read p.34-40 of the Roberts' abridged translation of the arabic work)


 * (1)*Your claim that Alalwani makes such a distinction doesn't stand, as it is based on a decontextualized reading of p.39, here's what he really says (and, unlike you, I'm quoting everything he said so that the careful reader may confirm by himself my claims): He cites many verses from the Qur'an on religious freedom such as Q.10:99. (p.39) Then he states: "From the foregoing it will be clear that religious freedom is hedged about by all the Qur'anic guarantees needed to render it an absolute, unbounded freedom to choose one's beliefs, and that the right to pass judgment on such matters belongs to God alone." Then a new subchapter with the title "Original Unbelief Vs. Unbelief After Embracing Islam", he says then: "A distinction might be drawn between the Qur'anic attitude toward continuing in 'original unbelief', that, the unbelief of someone who has never had faith, and its attitude toward the unbelief of someone who abandons faith for unbelief after having believed. Such a distinction acknowledges the freedom that the Qur'an accords to the person who is still in a state of original unbelief, while denying the same freedom to someone who abandons faith after having believed." He then precises what that freedom really means, pay strong attention to what follows "God declares, "But whoever chooses to deny the [evidence of the] truth, instead of believing in it, has already strayed from the right path" (2:108); and, "Out of their selfish envy, many among the followers of earlier revelation would like to bring you back to denying the truth after you have attained to faith - [even] after the truth has become clear unto them. Nonetheless, forgive and forbear, until God shall make manifest His will: behold, God has the power to will anything" (2:109); and, "[Your enemies] will not cease to fight against you till they turn you away from your faith, if they can. But if any of you should turn away from his faith and dies as a denier of the truth - these it is whose works will go for nought in this world and in the life to come; and these it is who are destined for the fire, therein to abide" (2:217). In a similar vein God declares: How would God bestow His guidance upon people who have resolved to deny the truth after having attained to faith, and having borne witness that this Apostle is true, and [after] all evidence of the truth has come unto them? For God does not guide such evildoing folk. Their requital shall be rejection by God, and by the angels, and by all [righteous] men. In this state shall they abide; [and] neither will their suffering be lightened, nor will they be granted respite. But excepted shall be they that afterwards repent and put themselves to right; for, behold, God is Much-Forgiving, a Dispenser of grace. Verily, as for those who are bent on denying the truth after having attained to faith, and then grow [even more stubborn] in their refusal to acknowledge the truth, their repentance shall not be accepted. (3:86-90) These verses [in reference to your quote of p.39, see for instances the verses quoted in p.40] should be taken together with the others of relevance which have already been mentioned. [i.e. those mentioned earlier in p.34-39.] All of these verses, and many others besides, affirm that the person who commits apostasy is threatened with punishment in the afterlife. However, as explicit as all of these verses are, not one of them makes any mention of a legally prescribed, earthly punishment for apostasy, be it execution or anything less drastic. The reason for this is that the authority of the Qur'an is an authority of amelioration and mercy which affirms religious freedom and the need to protect and preserve it. It is an authority which affirms that faith and unbelief are matters of the heart between the servant and his Lord and that the penalty for unbelief and apostasy after one has believed is one that takes effect in the life to come, jurisdiction over which belongs to God alone." (emphasis added) One last thing, your reading of that decontextualized passage would contradict much of the book, where he argues that based on the Qur'an, and the fact that the Sunnah can't contradict the Qur'an, there is no punishment for mere apostasy. Citations confirming that have been already given on my part.
 * (2)*You didn't show anything. Besides that, I didn't even talk about the "apo. punished only in afterlife" claim, and I'm not bringing in Gomaa or something. Let me remind you that Taha's main project in the book is to offer a discussion of apostasy through the lenses of the teachings of the Qur'an, and I quote him (p.6.) "The aim of this study is to provide a model for the type of revision by means of which one can place Islamic tradition under the authority of the Qur'an, thereby bringing it into full conformity with Qur'anic teachings." The mere fact that he stated 2:256, 88:21-22, 10:99...etc in his study is sufficient to establish that he linked those verses to apostasy. In fact, as I've shown before these verses are connected to religious freedom and to apostasy, according to the translation by Roberts of Alalwani's work. However, you're still persisting and ignoring what I have shown and you're misrepresenting and twisting Alalwani's claim based on a decontextualized quote on p.39 while you ignore that he says in p.40 "These verses [in reference to your quote of p.39, see for instances the verses quoted in p.40] should be taken together with the others of relevance which have already been mentioned. [i.e. those mentioned earlier in p.34-39.]" This establishes that the verses he quoted earlier are related to apostasy. See also for instance what he says in p.43. : "The principles and epistemic methodology of the Qur'an clearly specify the unqualified nature of religious freedom. The Qur'an hedges this freedom about with safeguards and guarantees in no fewer than two hundred verses, and states clearly that the punishment to be meted out to the unbeliever or the apostate is one that will take effect in the afterlife. Moreover, as we have stated, one could not expect the Sunnah to conflict with what we find in the Qur'an, especially in the view of the fact that this matter is mentioned not in one or two verses, but in approximately two hundred of its definitive verse, all of which unanimously affirm religious freedom." See my previous discussion here, and here.

---
 * You don't have to read all of that, and since you don't know arabic just leave an editor who knows it to deal with the issue.
 * So in résumé, we'll ask people who know arabic:, , could you please check this below?
 * Thanks in advance.
 * 22:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * 22:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I have verified the sources you've provided and can attest that your assessment is indeed correct - the arabic text is clear and leaves very little room for misinterpretation. Reeves.ca (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your check up. Now we only need 's judgment to end this dispute; 23:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * , could you clarify your evaluation a little? Am I right that we have 2 slightly different translations, with differences in <b style="color:red">red</b>:
 * Nancy Roberts translation of Taha Jabir Alalwani - "<b style="color:red">A distinction might be drawn</b> between the Quranic attitude toward continuing in original unbelief, that is unbelief of someone who has never had faith, and its attitude toward the unbelief of someone who abandons faith for unbelief after having believed. Such a distinction acknowledges the freedom that the Quran accords to the person who is still in a state of original belief, while denying the same freedom to someone who abandons faith after having believed. - p. 39-40, Nancy Roberts translation of Taha Jabir Alalwani, Apostasy in Islam: A Historical and Scriptural Analysis (2011)


 * CounterTime revision of Nancy Roberts - <b style="color:red">"And a group of people (qawm) may distinguish</b> between the Quranic attitude toward continuing in original unbelief, that is unbelief of someone who has never had faith, and its attitude toward the unbelief of someone who abandons faith for unbelief after having believed. Such a distinction acknowledges the freedom that the Quran accords to the person who is still in a state of original belief, while denying the same freedom to someone who abandons faith after having believed. - p. 39-40, Nancy Roberts translation of Taha Jabir Alalwani, Apostasy in Islam: A Historical and Scriptural Analysis (2011)
 * ...and you Reeves.ca find the second translation "clear" and leaving "very little room for misinterpretation"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The word "قوم" (Qawm) is a key specifier. Qawm means "a group", "a tribe", "a nation", or "a people" - its removal would alter the meaning of the sentence to a more generalized statement.  Had the sentence been: "...وقد يفرق بين موقف" (notice the omission of the word Qawm) then Roberts translation would be correct. However, the sentence is: "...وقد يفرق قوم بين موقف" making CounterTime's translation more accurate. Regards, Reeves.ca (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Original research by CounterTime/alter-CounterTime (part 3)

 * This argument has reached 221 Kbytes here, without settling the dispute, not counting what is on other pages. If this argument is about what to put on some Wikipedia page, write "Some people say XXXX, and some people say YYYY." or similar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It all boils down to a small detail on a specific source in arabic and its translation. (So we can't use the "Some people say X, and some people say Y". This dispute would end if you could please check whether the following is correct or if it distorts the source
 * 23:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * If the disputed text is http://i.imgur.com/Z4Ewn1b.png, I can recognise the Arabic word "q-w-m" (qawm) near the start of the first line (wqd yfrq qwm byn mwqf al-qur'ān ...). (In that text, are the fully vowelled parts quoted from the Qur'an?) It could be that Nancy Roberts's translation in the start treated "qawm ..." as "any or all people [believe thus]". and CounterTime's revision was more literal and treated "qawm" = "a group of people, some group of people" (rather than "al-qawm" as "the people or nation") as if to say "some believe thus and some people believe otherwise". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The disputed text is indeed the end of Page 94. The main dispute is whether the meant source links the Qur'anic verse 10:99 to apostasy.
 * Yes, the fully vowelled parts are from the Qur'an, between these brackets : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/La_bracket.png/120px-La_bracket.png and https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/Ra_bracket.png/120px-Ra_bracket.png
 * If "qawm" meant in that context "all people" then he wouldn't go on and claim in the next that mere apostasy is only punishable in the hereafter.
 * To build consensus I'll ask, , , , , , , , , , , does qawm here ("...وقد يفرق قوم بين موقف") mean "all people"?
 * 01:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * I concur with and your assessment. Neither the OR by CounterTime is acceptable, nor does implying "all (Islamic) scholars accept only XXXX" view meet our npov policy. I will accept "Some people say XXXX, and some people say YYYY" language. RLoutfy (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, you are the one doing WP:OR by extracting another view that contradicts the whole book. If this isn't original research, then I don't know what it could possibly be. The "Some people say X, and some people say Y" isn't possible here since we're dealing with only one source. Wait, to build consensus, until the above pinged wikipedians decide on what qawm refers to. 00:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * For an expression involving "qawm" to mean "all people" it should be phrased as "jami' al-aqwam" (all groups) or "yara ay qawm" (Any group views). 00:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

CounterTime, I am not going to repeat my explanation, and quotes such as from Nancy Roberts' translation, that I provided in recent weeks to show your OR. You are now disagreeing with Anthony Appleyard, BoogaLouie and I. It is time for you to cooperate, and accept a compromise. This has gone on for too long. RLoutfy (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, I have already argued that you misquoted Nancy's translation, such that what you tried to derive from it contradicted the whole book. Look at what -- a native speaker of arabic I should mention -- stated: "I have verified the sources you've provided and can attest that your assessment is indeed correct - the arabic text is clear and leaves very little room for misinterpretation". As for  and  they didn't give a final word.
 * Since the very first thing I cited was the Arabic version, and since you stated that it failed "verification", could you please show or demonstrate how the arabic source doesn't support my assertion? (so that we could move forward, and understand where the conflict may be) 00:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * See the Nancy Roberts' quote I provided above already. RLoutfy (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the translation, I'm talking about your very first claim that the arabic source doesn't support my assertion (when you stated that it failed "verification"). So could you please show or demonstrate how the arabic source doesn't support my assertion? (so that we could move forward, and understand where the conflict may be) Thanks. 20:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * To build consensus I'll ask, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , does qawm here ("...وقد يفرق قوم بين موقف") mean "all people"?
 * 13:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * I heard of this concept in the Quran, but cannot tell with confidence it precise meaning. Sorry.GreyShark (dibra) 14:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you tell that based on this context? Thanks in advance. 15:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Sorry my friend, i'm not a native Arabic speaker and here you need an expert.GreyShark (dibra) 15:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, no problem. Thanks for your input. :) 15:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * CounterTime: I asked an Arabic speaker, the answer was "No" it does not mean all people. Mhhossein (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for confirming my stance, hopefully other people can add their input so as to build a consensus to end up this dispute. Thanks again. -16:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Wow, this looks like a serious discussion. I won't even begin to delve into that as I lack the proper context, but regarding the question asked: my understand of qawm is that it doesn't necessitate all people. Take that for what it is: just one person's opinion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting in your opinion. Any other person who wants to give his own input is welcome, we remind you that the dispute is whether the word qawm in here ("...وقد يفرق قوم بين موقف") mean "all people"?
 * 17:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Comment on Alalwani requested by CounterTime
CounterTime has asked me to comment on interpretation of an Arabic text discussed on this page without reading the discussion and then report the result here. Here it is:




 * The author's basic position on punishment for apostasy is clear enough. Though on the first page he doesn't mention apostasy and speaks in generalities, on the last page he's very emphatic that he interprets the Quran as threatening only punishment in the afterlife (3iqaab uxrawi) without a provision for punishment of this world (3uquuba dunyawiya) for apostasy. Could you give me the exact wording of the disputed statement about 10:99? "Linking" is a rather vague term. He quotes this verse in support of his general position about the Quranic view of religious freedom, but he cites different verses (and alludes to others without specifying them) to argue against the view that Quranic assertions of religious freedom apply only to "original disbelief" (kufr asli) and not to apostasy. Does that sound right? Eperoton (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You can read more of our exchange here and a little bit more at the end of this section. Eperoton (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging some individuals involved in the dispute and/or its resolution:, ,.
 * It should be mentioned at the outset that is knowledgeable in arabic.
 * 00:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * In the interest of disclosure, I'm neither a native speaker nor an expert, but I can generally understand this kind of texts without difficulty. Eperoton (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Apostasy in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080529031635/http://www.islamonline.net:80/servlet/Satellite?c=ArticleA_C&cid=1173695096768&pagename=Zone-Arabic-Daawa%2FDWALayout to http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=ArticleA_C&cid=1173695096768&pagename=Zone-Arabic-Daawa/DWALayout

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 01:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

POV/Disputed tags
, the Template:POV guideline instructs to remove this tag if the discussion has become dormant or if it's unclear what the issue is. If you believe some of the disputed issues are still outstanding, please summarize them here for the benefit of other editors, so the tag isn't being used as a "badge of shame". The Template:Disputed tag is also meant to refer to specific statements. We can then update the tags to point to this section. Eperoton (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, I think the main problem of this article is that it gives a static definition of apostasy. However apostasy as understood by scholars in the premodern period (before the coming of nation states) was different from the apostasy as understood by current scholars. The article also fails to mention critical elements like that in the premodern period the Muslim ruler didn't care about what one believed and only cared about what one did in the public. As such the distinction between a "majority who considers apostasy to be punishable by death" and a "minority" seems to mislead the reader (as in the Opposition to execution subsection), rather there should be an emphasis on how the concept of apostasy changed over time. And here is a passage from the article that illustrates another of its problems:
 * Hanafite scholar Shaykhzadeh[61] details a considerable number of sayings or acts considered to imply unbelief and thus qualifying someone as a murtadd from Islam. These include: [...] to translate the Quran into another language, [...] to celebrate Persian New Year Nowruz, to pay respect to a non-Muslim, etc.
 * If you feel something is not clear please ask. Thanks. --CounterTime (talk) 11:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I have similar concerns about a number of articles. Since this sounds like an issue of overall presentation rather than accuracy of individual statements, can we keep just the POV tag? Eperoton (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But I feel that these POV issues translate into factual accuracy issues, as I explained, just see the passage I quoted for instance. CounterTime (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

On the recent edits by @Steeletrap
made some recent edits on this current article, including {1} & {2}, in which he made some bold claims. For instance, he accused me—contrary to wikipedia policies on WP:ACCUSE—that I was quote-unquote "lying". Per WP:BURDEN, we ask the user to provide proof that the sources given didn't mention that the majority of modern scholars don't consider mere apostasy as punishable by death, and that no further edits would be made until we come to a consensus in this talk page. 18:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * I have just asked Steeletrap to join this discussion and to refrain from accusatory language. Regarding the content that is disputed here, I'd like to say a few things. The first edit you linked to is indeed supported by the source that Steeletrap provided; I would have no problem with the edit, were it not for the fact that it made this article self-contradictory. It appears that the sourced statement that was subsequently changed in the second linked edit claims exactly the opposite. If this is a plain conflict between sources, we will have to determine the weight of the sources and figure out how to reconcile this in the article. However, first I'd like to be able to verify, or have someone else verify that the sources directly after "is an inappropriate punishment" do indeed support the previous version, since this is what Steeletrap has disputed. Only the final source seems to be available online, and I haven't been able to find anything in there that supports it, though I haven't read it all. It would be useful, if you have access to these sources, to provide the exact quote that supports the claim. I must confess that I find it hard to believe, and contrary to what I've read elsewhere, that the vast majority of Muslims scholars reject the death penalty for apostasy. - Lindert (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, his initial edit just incorporated a piece of text—characterized by a random fashion—into the beginning of the article, whereas the issue of whether or not the majority of scholars were redundant to the idea of punishing apostates is only discussed a bit later on in the lede, more precisely near the end. So why would he go about introducing such fragmented and friable changes without any type of consensus? Secondly, that's not what the sources, or even what I claimed, I stated "didn't mention that the majority of modern scholars don't consider mere apostasy as punishable by death" (not that modern was made in italic). Furthermore I should add that it's that made that claim—in addition to his accusation towards me quote-unquote "lying"—so the WP:BURDEN falls on him. Also,  continues in his edit warring, and refuses to participate in the talk page.
 * 20:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * The point is that Steeletrap did indeed provide a source for the added material. The book states "This view of religious freedom is however not shared by the vast majority of Muslim scholars both past as well as present. Most classical and modern Muslim jurists regard apostasy (riddah), defined by them as an act of rejection of faith commited by a Muslim whose Islam had been affirmed without coercion, as a crime deserving the death penalty." So in this respect, Steeletrap's position is supported by evidence, and the burden of proof is satisfied. What I'd like to find out is whether the other cited sources do indeed contradict the above quote. If you have access to the cited works, it would be very helpful if you could identify which exact statements therein serve to support such an opposite claim. As for a supposed refusal to discuss, let's give Steeletrap some more time to respond before jumping to conclusions. - Lindert (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the cited books and articles support the fantastical assertion that--contrary to the large majority of the world's Muslims, who do support death for apostates, according to extensive polling on the matter--the "vast majority" of scholars oppose the death penalty for apostates. I know this because I work at a university, and was able to peruse the books/articles inn the library this morning. Whoever originally inserted those articles is thereby exposed as a liar. Steeletrap (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition: Tariq Ramadan, one of the few scholars who opposes the death penalty for apostates and (1) takes Sharia seriously and (2) isn't a PC, postmodern Westerner, concedes that his is a minority position. Steeletrap (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't state that additions didn't met WP:RS conditions, rather that such additions are purely "fragmented and friable", as you admit yourself, "[his initial edit] made this article [sic] self-contradictory". My second point is that he stated in his second edit (in which he only changed text, as follows: "the six major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and most scholars therein, continue to hold hold the traditional view that the death penalty for apostasy is required by the two primary sources of Sharia - the Quran and the Hadiths. However, many Muslim scholars today, particularly Western Muslims, argue that the death penalty is an inappropriate punishment" the initial text was "As of 2016, some contemporary Muslim scholars hold the traditional view that the death penalty for apostasy is required by the two primary sources of Sharia - the Quran and the Hadiths. However, the vast majority of Muslim scholars today argue that the death penalty is an inappropriate punishment,", I'll ask  whether this violates WP:NPOV) that, "You're lying--none of the sources you cite support the claim that the "vast majority" of scholars oppose capital punishment". So basically he states that the sources don't support the claim, well let him provide a proof per WP:BURDEN from the given sources, and also in this case  adds (or should I say twists) text without giving any source whatsoever. 21:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * (1) "I know this because I work at a university, and was able to peruse the books/articles inn the library this morning" so please provide quotes from these sources that support your claim. (2) I ask you to apologize for saying that I was "lying" when I was simply putting at work WP:BURDEN policies.
 * Nothing in the sources ever addresses what percentage of Muslim scholars support capital punishment for apostates, so I cannot provide a quote. You bear the burden of proof to provide a quote, because you are trying to insert a claim in the article; I'm just trying to delete that claim because it is unsupported. (The opposite claim, which I have added, is plainly supported by RS.) Steeletrap (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I ask you to provide qutoes from these sources where they talk about how much/many (either in a qualitative (a lot, most, overwhelming, ...etc) or quantifiable (percentage, ..etc) sense) to verify that claim. Simply asserting that isn't enough to make a valid proof for your allegation. "to insert a claim in the article;" NO, the claim was already present in the article with those particular sources for months actually! (after long heated conversations in the talk page, see the archive) Until you came yourself to challenge that, and you inserted therein things that aren't even mentioned in these sources such as "the six major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and most scholars therein, continue to hold hold the traditional view that the death penalty for apostasy is required by the two primary sources of Sharia - the Quran and the Hadiths.".


 * Hi, everyone. I couple of observations:


 * According to the source provided by, the "vast majority of Muslim scholars both past as well as present" don't support "the right to be convinced and to convert from of Islam". That's not the same as supporting the death penalty for apostasy, and the quantifier used by the source for the latter is "most classical and modern Muslim jurists". So, the phrasing supported by the source would be "most" rather than "the overwhelming majority".
 * Since is the only one who has access to some of the sources cited for the other disputed assertion, it would indeed be very helpful to put some quotes in the refs with the exact wording they use. It would prevent the wording from "drifting" again in the future, as sometimes happens with contested statements with offline sourcing. Eperoton (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, and yes, it should be most or a majority (not vast/overwhelming majority) based on that source. However the problem with providing quotes is that, according to Steeletrap the cited sources do not address the disputed assertion at all. I found that the third reference is available online here, and indeed on page 348-349 I found nothing but a discussion of Al-Shafi‘i and a bit about medieval Muslim thought. Nowhere does it actually address what we're talking about here (which is how many modern Muslim scholars support death for apostasy). I can't quote what isn't there, that's the problem. As you already pointed out, this discrepancy is probably due to "drifting", but it could in fact mean that all of these sources turn out to be irrelevant. - Lindert (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Addition: I looked at the page history, and it appears that the five disputed sources originally supported the claim "... while others argue that the death penalty is an inappropriate punishment." (see e.g. ) I can see that these sources support that, but that is a far cry from "the vast majority of Muslim scholars today argue that the death penalty is an inappropriate punishment.", as the article read before Steeletrap's edits. - Lindert (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case the citation should be removed, and possibly moved to an appropriate place in the article. We don't have to have exact quotes, but it would be helpful to know what quantifier (some, many, etc) is used by the references that do discuss the subject. If they only discuss or reflect views of particular individuals, we can list their names. In any case, it would be a valuable service. There are few things more frustrating on WP than dubious statements with reliable but inaccessible sources. Eperoton (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Who originally added the (false) statement that the 'vast majority of scholars' oppose killing apostates? Whoever did that was a committed liar deranged by political correctness; surely his deliberate misrepresentation of sources is enough to get him booted out of the project? Steeletrap (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In any case, you alleged earlier that "I know this because I work at a university, and was able to peruse the books/articles inn the library this morning", can you please quote from each of these given sources what supports your assertion that they don't claim that the vast majority of modern scholars don't support that punishment for mere apostasy? (so that we know you're not lying either)
 * 23:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Please stop edit warring and participate in the talk page. 10:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * This isn't a "debate or "discussion." You are unsupported by the cited sources; that's plainly in violation of WP:V and other policies. Regardless whether you can develop a "consensus" for your falsification of the sources--and you have utterly failed to do so--you cannot add them to the article. Steeletrap (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The burden falls on the one making the claim, in this case, you're the one who stated that the sources don't contain that since "I know this because I work at a university, and was able to peruse the books/articles inn the library this morning", can you please quote from each of these given sources what supports your assertion that they don't claim that the vast majority of modern scholars don't support that punishment for mere apostasy? (so that we know you're not lying either)
 * 10:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Apostasy in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120127200542/http://compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=breaking&lang=en&length=long&idelement=5470 to http://compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=breaking&lang=en&length=long&idelement=5470

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 03:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)