Talk:Morality in Islam

New section
Couldn't this article be merged with Islamic ethics? Topher385 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually no. Ethics and morality are two different issues. Again, the contents of these two articles are totally different. - Ascetic Rosé   17:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Noticed the above exchange after adding the banners. What exactly is the difference between the scope of these two articles? Eperoton (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge but rename something similar to "Ethics and morality in Islam" Kernosky talk2me! 19:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernosky (talk • contribs)


 * To quote Juan E. Campo, editor of Encyclopedia of Islam


 * Ethics is related more with philosophical consideration (probably whether good or bad) while morality is related more with etiquette and good manners. Thus, the article Morality in Islam does not deal with "philosophical reflection upon moral conduct" but rather deals with the "specific norms or codes of behavior" prescribed in Islam. Apart from this strong point, there are some other points. We often fork article when it grows too long. I see that Islamic ethics is already a fairly long one. The article Morality in Islam has just been created. When contents will be added with the course of time, I assume it will be fairly long itself. Another point is that the article Islamic ethics does not discuss what Morality in Islam is discussing. Their contents are different.


 * I think, for new articles we should take time to see how they grow and get shaped instead of premature action. Thanks others for participation. - Ascetic Rosé   17:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the two articles have different -- and complementary -- content. The question is whether they have different scope. "Ethics" can refer to a branch of philosophy. That one of its meanings. It also has another meaning, which is synonymous with morality (see e.g., Merriam-Webster). The articles Ethics and Morality have different scope because the former is devoted to the philosophical sense of ethics. However, Islamic ethics is not. It covers Islamic perspectives on various aspects of morality, but there's very little about philosophy there. Hence, the current separation of articles seems to be a WP:CONTENTFORK.


 * Don't get me wrong, I think you're doing valuable work here, and I understand your concerns about length. However, if we can't distinguish the scope of the two articles, per WP guidelines we should integrate the content you've created into the already existing article with the same scope, and then spin off detailed articles for any sections that grow too long. Eperoton (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It is true that ethics and morality sometimes overlap. However, this does not bar them from discussing separately. This can be true not only to general ethics and morality but also to Islamic ethics and morality. For example, to say that "the purport of Islamic punishments is not so much to punish the crime a posteriori but to prevent it a priori" is an Islamic ethical approach. Now to say that "Islam encourages its followers to forgive the offender" is an example of Islamic moral teaching.


 * You correctly said that Islamic ethics "covers perspective on various aspects of morality" but does not directly deal with the moral teachings themselves. Here is where the scope for discussing them separately emerges. Yes, Islamic ethics deals with various perspectives on overall issues like Environmentalism, Politics, Medical, Military, Peace and justice, Welfare etc. Here is little scope, as I see, to incorporate the specific code of conduct or mannerism collectively known as morality. They are related and complementary to each other but not homogeneous, just as Quran and hadith are related, complementary, and even homogeneous but are discussed separately. Thus, I don't see WP:CONTENTFORK applies here. Probably you will agree with me that WP guidelines are to guide to us to write better articles, not to make us pedantic.


 * Readers who want to know what the moral teachings of Islam are should know this without losing them in the intricate path of philosophical reflections. Readers' right of ease of access is to be given priority. After all, it is the readers any piece of writing is written for.
 * Hence, merging holds more idealistic that pragmatic value here.


 * It is nice that you thought for the betterment of the article, and I will be happy to get your future cooperation. Thanks. - Ascetic Rosé   17:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's keep the merge banners up for now and see if other editors want to join the discussion. Eperoton (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting that this propoposal was effectively closed with this October 2016 edit. I've therefore removed the template on the other page too. Klbrain (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Sock and biased edit clean-up
User:Swingoswingo, User:XLPeeker99p9, User:Oskimua, and User:Janosik-Ruzalka are all banned Sockpuppets who were involved in disruptive and dishonest editing for which the editor was banned. See Sockpuppet investigations/Swingoswingo/Archive. Also see the editor's non-conformist position which proves the editor is not here to contribute but to spread their propaganda. In this article, one of their disruptive edits was to remove the Quranic verses saying All are WP:PRIMARY sources; but as a fact, these verses were used not as sources, but as texts of the article which is a common practice. They stand on their own, and they do not interpret other content. Thus, it is not a case of WP:PRIMARY. -AsceticRosé 13:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC).

"Muhammad was probably the first in history to talk about the rights and proper treatment of animals."
Putting aside the weasel word 'probably', this statement links to a page with numerous examples that clearly contradict it.

If the two sources really do support the statement as written, I would suggest they be disqualified from use on Wikipedia for being arrant nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.142.74 (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence is problematic. First of all, religions predating the life of Prophet SAW also discuss treatment of animals, particularly Buddhism, and Hinduism that subscribe to ahimsa. The two sources may support this statement, but they are opinion. Although, it may be true that the Prophet was the first to raise such treatment to a legal level, rather than only a moral precept. However, that would require a scholarly comparative legal study, which I am not aware of at this time. For example, Hittite codes mention animals, but generally in the context of property. Treatment of animals in Islam has a hukm shari'i, and mistreatment could be subject to ta'zir punishment by a court, although I have never heard of any modern Sharia courts dealing with the issue, perhaps because the enforcement authorities do not care. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, "Some Muslims hold that Muhammad was probably etc." or just take it out. M. Ali SadiqiMalis61 (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam
Hi,

I came across this promising Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Islam (relating to women's rights) and myself supported the same editorially too. IMO since topic potential is vast many Reliable sources on Google scholar seem to be available hence the article needs more editorial hands for some more update and expansion along with appropriate references.

Pl. do join to update and expansion, your help will be most welcome.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing and reverts
VenusFeuerFalle Wiqi55

Have been trying to rewrite the article and had a couple of editors reverting some of my edits. VenusFeuerFalle reverted Nov 30 with the edit note: ''academyll.org as an independend lecture club, with a pdf on a dialogue can hardly be a reliable source for exploring morals within a religious system. The section should further summarize the article, not make specific references to one source (also, making references to a holy scripture, without backing up its meaning or context by a secondary source runs danger to be considered Original Research) MOS:LEAD WP:OR. THe claim about magic is even wrong, since miracles are also "magic". ''

I am backing off for now. I admit academyll.org isn't the best source; and although my Islamic teacher told us that Islam holds that magic is both real and forbidden, and a Lebanese TV psychic was sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia in 2009 for "sorcery", further research has found sources suggesting some magic is not forbidden in Islam.

I will continue to work on the article. My problem with the article is that it reads more like da‘wah rather than providing much information on Islamic doctrine on morality. The principle and fundamental purpose of Islamic morality is love: love for God and love for God's creatures. sound very appealing to Western nonbelievers, but is this "principle and fundamental purpose" highlighted in Sharia? Tafsir? Does it dominate other sentiments in the Quran and hadith? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all.

Another issue for me is why the lead doesn't give some important background. What is the Islamic word for "morality"? Is there a difference between Akhlaq and morality? (I put the disambiguation note at the top of the two articles but it probably is just a placeholder based on the evolution of the two articles.) Islam already a body of laws that commands and forbid known as sharia. Is there a difference between sharia, and what is moral in Islam? These are some questions the article has to explore IMHO and I hope to do that. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Trimming "Virtues" section
The very long Virtues section is problematic. Some of the virtue subsections seem to be more or less duplicates or at least overlapping (Honesty, Truthfulness, Fulfilment of promise, Sincerity). At least one source used many times (Leaman, Oliver (2006). The Qur'an: An Encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9780415326391) does have entries on the various virtues (FORGIVENESS, SABR), but at least in many places makes no mention of "morality" or ethics, it imply indicates that this is what Muslims should do.

Consequently I'm going to be doing some serious trimming. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Islamic culture
Ethical characteristics Discuss 119.160.116.208 (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Current values of islamic
English speech 103.154.54.41 (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Missing parts of islamic morality
The introduction tries to frame islamic morality into soemthing positive only naming soft values. What about polygamy, child marriages, child sex, child brides, 72 virgins in afterlife, so called "muta", a marriage with a time limit?? 80.131.61.105 (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)