Talk:Islam and Jainism

Untitled
This should be deleted OR seriosly addressed. This article does not mention how badly Jain Kingdoms were harmed by islam. Eg Qutub minar in Delhi sits on a ruin of 23 jain temples.

Sannu Ki (talk) 05:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this article is just awful and content-free. I'd propose a vote for deletion, but maybe someone can make something out of it? 02:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted a complete rewrite to create a stub (based on the external link in the previous version of the article). This is part of my attempted tidy up of the Jainism and Xism articles. Since I am now proposing deletion of the Judaims and Christianity articles, and the preservation of the Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism articles I am droppring the proposal to merge this into a genral Jainism and world religions article. Cje 10:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that with the writer from FEB 10th 2006, that this article be deleted. Alternatively It can be expanded to fill the full scope and add nuance to the view. EG The Qutub Minar is an old Jain Temple complex( you can just see that that if you visit the place) The Jain Kingdom was Ravaged, and significant component of the jains moved south and southwest from delhi. Chreader (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have again started working on it. Please allow some time for significant progress.--Ns (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

POV
The word "invaders" in the article's title of "Muslim invaders and Jain institutions" is not NPOV. It is a POV. The Muslims have been charged with the duty & given the right to deliver God's guidance to the World by God's prevailing Qoraanic revelation: "You (Muslims) are the best of the nation which was brought forward (by God) for the people (of the world): you command the people by the virtue (of justice, equality & truth emanating from God's only true & approved Religion of Islam) & stop (them) from the vice (of injustice & oppression emanating from {misdirection of the power by the worshiping of the non-God {all besides God have not created anything: so no right to rule or legislate: if all besides God even gotten together "cannot create a fly"(Q:__:__) by} whimsical legislation (with power wrongly usurped taking wrong advantage of the God's granting of the principle of freedom-of-action granted to humanity by God so they of their own free accord qualify for His Paradise) based on power created {for free} by God by creating this Earth {& populating it & dividing it 2/3rd in ocean & 1/3rd in land in 6 continents}so created need & supply, value, commerce, resources, ability to create technology & control land & thus direct & control human life-of-test on Earth) & you believe in Alllah {the only real & true God & Creator of  all}" (Q:__:__). to guide the people of the World to the correct worship of God {so they can qualify for God's Eternal Reward: His Paradise in the Hereafter} & to build & populate God's Earth with the God's rule ( or Sharia) emanating from the charge & right of vicegerency of Earth given by God to Adam at his creation (Q:2:30). so if Muslims have to run a campaign to 'crack the shell of egg of the usurping forces to reach to the yolk of the oppressed & tyrannized people' to deliver God's message & justice to liberate them from the oppression & tyranny: they are 'liberators' & not whimsical 'invaders' for worldy gain like others as suggested:  their such act is only for God's sake & as a part of God's worship & in God's land & within God's rule: the Creator & Owner of the Earth & everything in it. So they are not usurpers like others but 'Sharers of the Best - the guidance from God, of God & to God which has come to them - with the World & the Humanity' acting on the Prophetic Hadeeth: "By Alllah, does not believe any of you, until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself {ie. the best}" & in this Hadith the Prophet does not qualify the word 'brother' with Islam so it extends to the brotherhood of the humanity of Adam, & the 'Returners of the usurped rule to it's rightful owner: the God': "And His Claim is the True {Claim}(Q:13{Raad}:14}& "And His Example {is} the Highest {of the Example}"(Q:__:__). It is a legal & Earth-owner -approved action. Similarly the statement in the aforesaid article; "Islam's impact on Jain and Buddhist in India has been far worse than for the majority Hindu." is absolutely untrue, biased, unsubstantiated & POV. ILAKNA (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sam Harris
Harris is just comparing Islam and Jainism to illustrate his point that Islam is worse than other religions. This section isn't informative and it just seems very strange to devote so much space to one non-expert polemicist in an alleged encyclopedia article.Prezbo (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because you dont agree with Sam Harris does not mean that you delete the entire section. That this section is not informative is your pwn personal POV. Sam Harris gives an important comparison between Jainism and Islam. Hence this section is required.--Anish (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Imagine, like, an Encyclopedia Britannica article including a section like this and you can see how strange it is. It's giving undue weight to Harris's views.  What's important about it?Prezbo (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "What Encyclopedia Britannica would do" is not the criteria on Wikipedia. As long as it is referenced and verifiable there should not be any problem. This article is about comparative religions. While there are myriad comparisions of Islam with other religions, very few comparisons on Islam and Jainism are available. Even deleting that does not make sense.--Anish (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no question of undue weightage to Sam Harris. If you know of another author who has compared Islam and Jainism then we can also put it up. Sam Harris and Letter to a Christian Nation are consirered important enough to have their own full length articles.--Anish (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I can't articulate a more specific objection but I think if you asked a few people about this most would find it embarrassing and unencyclopedic. This section has been deleted by at least three people at this point.  It's totally appropriate to compare Wikipedia to other, better encyclopedias in thinking about what belongs here.  Maybe like one sentence on Harris' views would be appropriate. The paucity of good commentary on a subject isn't a great argument for including shallow and polemical content.  Imagine if the only content you could find comparing Islam and Jainism was a partisan of one religion bashing the other.  This isn't that far off from that--Harris hates Islam and is using Jainism as a more-or-less random point of comparison.  He uses Buddhism for the same purpose in the same interview.Prezbo (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because you are deleting with different IP's does not mean that 3 different people have deleted this article. Who stopped others from discussing this point in talk page and arriving at a consensus? Let me reiteriate, EB is not the standard for Wiki, it has its own policies and guidelines. Paucity of sources is again not the reason for deleteing the sources that exist. Quite apparently Sam Harris is neither a Jain nor pro-Jainism; he is an atheist and is giving valid arguments. You are now indulging in value judgement of Sam Harris, that he hates Islam..... and just because of your judgement, this section cannot be deleted.--Anish (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean me, [User:Koavf], and whoever that IP is. Sam Harris obviously does hate Islam, or to use less emotional language, is strongly opposed to it; do you really deny this and want me to provide examples? It's inappropriate to treat someone whose purpose is basically polemical rather than scholarly as an authority.Prezbo (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted about this at the NPOV noticeboard. If the people who respond from there agree with you then I'll drop it.Prezbo (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is a good way to settle this impasse. We will wait for few more comments and then go the consensus way. The options available with us are:


 * To keep it as it is
 * To remove this section toally
 * As a compromise remove this section, but mention Sam Harris' view.
 * --Anish (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that it would be possible to find scholarly sources which compare and contrast islam and jainism, those, I imagine would be welcomed by all. But I am not convinced that the article warrants a section on An Outsider's Comparison of Jain and Islamic Fundamentalism. Unomi (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I beleive we will need very strong reasons to remove this quote with adheres Wikipedia policy. I have replied to you below. Thanks for your participation and assistance in achiveing consensus.--Anish (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved party
I must admit that I too find this lengthy and coatracky quote inappropriate. Sam Harris seems to have general issues with religion, ones which I myself find compelling, but this quote is inappropriate anywhere outside discussions of Sam Harris or his books. The quote is not born of scholarship, it is born of a general polemical debate. If we don't have higher quality sources on the matter then we probably shouldn't mention it at all, offhand I would wager that higher quality sources can be found. Unomi (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. My reply is as follows.
 * this quote is inappropriate anywhere outside discussions of Sam Harris or his books - If that be the case, we will never be able to quote anything anywhere. All quotes of a book to be restricted to the article of the author or the book itself. I dont think this is correct.
 * The quote is not born of scholarship, it is born of a general polemical debate - Maybe, maybe not. Polemical debates are generally scholarly in nature. It is difficult to prove or disprove your statement. Hence I dont fully agree with it.
 * I dont know about quality but this quote adheres to the Wikipedia guidelines of reliability, verifiablity and NPOV.
 * --Anish (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, I will try to address them in turn.
 * this quote is inappropriate anywhere outside discussions of Sam Harris or his books - If that be the case, we will never be able to quote anything anywhere. All quotes of a book to be restricted to the article of the author or the book itself. I dont think this is correct.
 * I was referring to this particular quote, not all quotes in general as I am sure you are aware. Unomi (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. You cannot have different standards for different articles. --Anish (talk)
 * I was not applying different standards, I would never dream of quoting Rush Limbaugh on an article on Liberalism in the United States. It is simply not what wikipedia is about. Unomi (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I would, if it is pertinent. There is no finality in wikipedia.--Anish (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The quote is not born of scholarship, it is born of a general polemical debate - Maybe, maybe not. Polemical debates are generally scholarly in nature. It is difficult to prove or disprove your statement. Hence I dont fully agree with it.
 * The reason that this particular quote is inappropriate is because of the polemic nature of it. Please refer to Sam_Harris_(author) and note that his stance has been characterized as one where He rejects arguments that suggest such behavior is a result of extremist Muslims, not mainstream ones. and Harris maintains that the West is at war with "precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature of the hadith.". This is problematic for a few reasons, note that in his quote that you want to use he states the fundamentals of Islam are problematic, he makes no real distinction between Islamic fundamentalism and mainstream, if you will, Islam. This would impair his ability to make scholarly comparisons between Jain and Islamic fundamentalism, I think you would agree. His statements are made for effect, not, at least noticeably, based on scholarship. Unomi (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I myself differentiate between mainstream Islam and extremist Islam. That is why it has been specifically mentioned as Sam Harris' view in quotes. To make it NPOV. If I put in article of Mumbai :"Mumbai is the greatest city". Then it is POV. But if I put: "According to Sachin Tendulkar, Mumbai is the greatest city" then it is NPOV. --Anish (talk)
 * No, that does not make the inclusion of it NPOV, we seem to agree that the basis of his statement is flawed. We cannot, in good conscience, then allow it to stand, imagine what would happen if we quote a random racist on the merits of the Indian people, fully attributed of course, do you think that should be allowed in an article of India? Unomi (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think your premise is flawed if you call Sam Harris a random racist. If someone is discussing on merits of Indian people, it may merit a mention in a particular relevant artile.--Anish (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont know about quality but this quote adheres to the Wikipedia guidelines of reliability, verifiablity and NPOV.
 * Reliability, I don't think there are very many at all who hold Sam Harris to be a reliable source of information on either Jainism or Islam. He may have said these things, but frankly, why should we care? Is he a notable scholar on the matter? Unomi (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifiability, true.
 * NPOV, if we are not able to find better sources than a popularist Atheist on the subject of Jain and Islamic Fundamentalism then perhaps we should draw the conclusion that the subject is WP:FRINGE to the extent that it merits no mention. As for the conclusion that Islamic fundamentalism inevitably lead to being surrounded by suicidal terrorists or by a civilization that widely condones their actions. is not one that I would feel comfortable declaring NPOV. Unomi (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have explained above why it is NPOV. Fundamentalism itself may be Fringe...discussion about fundamentalism itself is hardly fringe, it is a mainstream event.--Anish (talk)
 * I hope that I have shown why it is not NPOV. His thoughts on the matter are insignificant, really. We already agree that his premise is flawed. Unomi (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that Harris view are insignificant. They are much debated no doubt, you may either agree or disagree but I cannot agree on insignificant part.--Anish (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about your rationale for using this quote, but if it is to display the virtues of the 5 ethical principles, then I fear it may be self-defeating. I realize that some of my reasoning could be called out, but I hope that you can agree with my conclusion. Unomi (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of Anekantavada, I am trying to appreciate your comments. :) I will reply to your comments soon.--Anish (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I find this: A rise of Jain fundamentalism would endanger no one. In fact, the uncontrollable spread of Jainism throughout the world would improve our situation immensely. We would loose more of our crops to pests, perhaps (observant Jains generally will not kill anything, including insects) by itself to be both interesting and a nice addition to any article on Jainism. The problem is with the very strongly negative sentence that follows. Such a strong statement would have to be, to my mind, sourced to a stronger authority than Sam Harris. Unomi (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we will go on debating. We can agree to disagree. I was hoping more persons would join this debate. Now to break this logjam, what exactly do you suggest? Can we agree on some compromise somewhere?--Anish (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, here is someone from outside. (Full disclosure: I'm an atheist raised as a Christian, with a Buddhist brother, some knowledge about Islam and practically no knowledge of Jain except for a vague idea that it is a relatively good one when compared with others.) Unomi left a completely neutrally worded message at the content noticeboard. Because it was the content noticeboard and not a more specific one I was completely open as to which aspect he wanted feedback on. I came to the article, read the section, and immediately thought: Serious POV problem. I don't know who this Sam Harris is, but regardless of his authority he is getting way too much weight here. The entire section must be removed. I will now fix the link at the content noticeboard in the hope that even more editors find their way here and give their opinion, whatever it is. Hans Adler 08:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yet another uninvolved perspective here. It seems to me that the subject matter of this article is the historical relations between Islam and Jainism in Central Asia and Persia. This is a matter of history. The opinion of Sam Harris, a bestselling American author and neuroscientist, on the relative virtues to his society of Islam and of Jainism is not pertinent to the history of Islamic/Jain relations. Moreover, Harris's opinions are not a piece of historical scholarship. They are the opinions of an educated, intelligent, and successful writer -- but they are just that: opinions. As such, they don't belong here. --71.146.7.39 (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is not about simply historical relations, but is about comparative religions. Anyway, I think the consensus is building in favour of removing or giving lesser weight to Sam Harris. We will wait for one more day and make changes to the article.--Anish (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like everyone other than you is in favor of removing this entirely, so I'm going to do that now.Prezbo (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that you are not concerned about consensus...but simply deleting this section. The consensus was removing POV from it not deleting it. Read the discussion above.--Anish (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Everyone in the debate above says that the section should be deleted: Unomi, Hans Adler, that IP editor.Prezbo (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Read clearly. Unomi has a problem with POV of equating mainstream Islam with Fundamentalistc Islam. Which I agreed and hence I have deleted that part. The part now left has no POV. You do not have any reason to delete it and are harping on consenseus (of which you took no part because you could not articulate more specific objections as per your admission). The Anon IP is confused with historical relations to which I have replied. Hans Adler was concerned with too much weightage to Sam Harris. Now, with my deletion of POV, that weightage has gone. Rather than you and me arguing on what consensus was reached, I suggest let Unomi either clarify or make the changes.--Anish (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So basically you're arguing that consensus may have been in favor of deleting the section, but the people who wanted to do that were nevertheless wrong--you're trying to re-argue the entire thing. The IP's opinion isn't in dispute. Hans Adler says that "The entire section must be removed." Unomi can speak for himself, but in the meantime there are three people in favor of deleting this section wholesale (me, Hans Adler, the IP), possibly two but more likely one (you) in favor of keeping some part of it. Even if Unomi does agree with you you're still outvoted.Prezbo (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well Wikipedia is not about voting or outvoting. Arriving at consensus means a minimum solution acceptable to all. SeeWP:PRACTICAL. The quality of the argument and rationale holds more weight than number of votes. There are no winners or losers. Quality matters. I have successfully defended my position but decided to compromise on account of Unomi's constructive comments.--Anish (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, this solution is acceptable to you and maybe Unomi, but not to the three other editors involved. "It's not a vote" is a somewhat reasonable approach to take in AfDs when someone who wasn't part of the argument can come in and judge who has the best argument, but for you to just declare that consensus is on your side because you've "successfully defended your position" is farcical.  You haven't convinced anyone.Prezbo (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough: In my opinion the remaining material about Sam Harris may be acceptable. I have no idea; it really depends on how notable he is and how qualified he is to speak about this. But a separate section just for this statement gives it way too much weight unless it sparked a huge debate or something. And the section title makes it non-neutral. The section as a whole is clearly tailored to give the impression that outsiders generally consider Janism to be superior to Islam. That may well be, but then it needs to be properly sourced, not insinuated. Hans Adler 20:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, maybe no one is as fanatical about this as me but it still seems like consensus is not in favor of retaining this section. I asked Unomi for clarification on his talk page and he responded there so people can read that.  Substantively the current version still suffers from the problems identified above of treating a polemicist as a respected source and giving undue weight to his views.Prezbo (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What are your feelings on this, Anish? You basically suggested above that you would abide by whatever the consensus opinion was ("We will wait for few more comments and then go the consensus way.").Prezbo (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with Hans Adler, what I said earlier was with regards to articles on Jainism itself, I still hold that Harris is a poor source for this article. Unomi (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Prezbo, I made the changes that I felt made the article NPOV with inputs from all quarters. I think that was the main issue when you put it up on NPOV board. I think that issue was addressed. As far as sourcing is concerned I feel that I have followed Wikipedia guidelines. But still, if you feel fanatical about Sam Harris (ironically we are discussing fundamentalism) you go ahead. Anyway, I have decided to keep away from this article for some time. I will try to source more data on this particular topic....but I am a little busy as of now.--Anish (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible sources
Jainism: an Indian religion of salvation - Contains a chapter on its relationship to Islam.

Facets of Jainology: selected research papers on Jain society, religion, and ..

Makers of modern Indian religion in the late nineteenth century

India before Europe

There aren't alot of sources it seems, but there are some. I don't know to what extent they deal with the aspect of fundamentalism per se. Unomi (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will consider it.--Anish (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)