Talk:Hindu–Islamic relations/Archive 1

Archive 1

cleanup/sourcing/neutrality issues

"The Indian Hindutva movement sees the Muslims as a "foreign" people bringing in a "foreign" faith into India, while many Pakistani Muslims see the "polytheistic" and "idol-worshiping" Hindus as filthy and abhorrent. "

"Filthy and abhorrent." - someone might want to source this or change the language to something that doesn't resemble a personal blog on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.142.40.224 (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

article reads like a personal essay and is virtually unsourced in most areas. furthermore, there are multiple neutrality problems (i.e. "In Islam, Hinduism found a very different concept of god, truth, violence and civic society than it had encountered earlier.", "The zealous Arab invaders...", "The Jaziya tax was imposed on Hindus for the crime of practicing their religion." - and that's only a sample from the first paragraph.) ITAQALLAH 17:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement with user Itaqallah

I agree that the article does not source well. But islamic and hindu viewpoints are very different. hence the conflict. and India there was jaziya applied to non muslims. 72.93.107.15 (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Islam vs. нinduism

I think the main contention is for earlier muslims to define Hindus as either idolaters or monotheists... it cannot be denied that many temples were destroyed for baring 'idols' Under Islam, what rights would Hindus have? The main room for movement and cooperation I feel was done mainly due to Sufi influence, Akbar and Kabir helped to bridge the gap it wasn't all negative though both weren't exactly muslims...Domsta333 (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Islam & нinduism

In South Asia, ie India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, there have been changes in attitudes and synergistic processes taking place at an acclerating rate.

This may be partly due to the overwhelming desire for more democratic rights for women and the poor. Religion has played a part in both constructs especially in Islam where the poor are recognized and In Hinduism, women are given due respect. So, much of this synergy is as you suggest comes with the intervention of Sufism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.97 (talk) 23:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no comparison between hinduism and islamic empires of india.. Look at history and how many hindus have been killed during invasions. Islamic emperors destroyed thousands of temples, killed innocent people and slaughtered sacred cows for food. There is no similarity between hinduism and islamic empires . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.165.220 (talk) 07:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

South East Asia?

The article talks exclusively about South Asia, but what about the relationship between Islam and Hinduism in South East Asia? The article should mention the history there of the Hindus who converted to Islam and the Hindus who remained Hindu (the Balinese, Tenggerese, Osing, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.121.31.238 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Has had a checkered history?"

WTF. Surely I'm not the only one who notices that that's vehemently inappropriate for an encyclopedia? It's like an essay was being written or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.159.148 (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Elaboration

Hello all, as of today April 10, 2010, I have elaborated the article greatly. Some clean-up is still necessary, as well as inclusion of citations, in which I request your help. Regards, Cygnus_hansa (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted edits that Purva Mimansa is monotheistic

It seems that an anonymous user has misunderstood the Hindu philosophy of Purva Mimansa. It is a polytheistic (sometimes interpreted atheistic) philosophy, NOT monotheistic. The Rigvedic Purusha is not regarded as any Omniscient Omnipotent God in this philosophy. One can read any book on Hindu/Indian philosophy for that. I have hence reverted his/her edits to the previous text. Cygnus_hansa (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem lies with terminology used , its misinterpretations , intentions preconcieved and prejudicial conceptions of the writer.GOD is not ALLAH ,ELOHIEM OR ELOYE etc etc These are semetic conceptions.of a PERSON who was MALOCH ,the king , above the law , his wish or whim are the laws .soveriegne ,the autocratic ,dictatorial, ME AND ME only no body else...God is indogermanic word GOTT never mentioned in TOHRA BIBLE or QURAN it is Indogermanic conception of the SUM OF THE FORCES which keep the Universe in MOTION.RE-Legions are opposite to LEGIONS who were the ruling powers in the middle east i.e Roman Legions.Hinduism is not a ISM it is knowledge based Philosophy.It should not be lumped with religions whose language is history .the language of hinduism is MATHEMETICAL REALITIES, it requires discussions, debates and open fearless delibrations ,it accepts and demnds the deletions or additions and correctios to its theses.the Religions cannot accept that.Hindu philosophy is not dogmatic, belief or faith based it is a KNowldge based GURU guided life serving set of teachings necessary for the survival, safety ,security and maintanece of the social structures needed for in this world.The Physincs LAW OF LAW-PRIORY means every thing pre exists, no creation no destruction Confirms the priciple of RE-INCARNATION or RE CYCLING.Hindu philosophy does not acknowledge LORD ALLAHA HELL hEAVEN OR SATAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroonrooha (talk • contribs) 21:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Scriptures of Islam and Hinduism.

"The Qurān was not written down by Muhammad nor by his followers during his lifetime, but was preserved by oral tradition, like the Vedas. It was the third Khalifah (Caliph: the Sunni successor to Muhammad) Uthmān ibn Affān who had the Qurān compiled and written down as text. Like the Shrutis, the Qurān is considered as Divine Revelation."

The above description is not correct. In fact the Quran was written down from the day one during the life time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him).Written Quran existed in different pieces. Some on paper, some on animal skin, some on stones etc. and it was in possession of different people in Madinah. Caliph Uthman ibn Affan had it arranged to copy all scattered pieces and compiled them in the shape of one book, which exists today in the same order.

Please make this important correction to the text in order to keep the reputation of your site as one of the best,upto date, and impartial one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.85.217.8 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Scriptures of Islam and Hinduism.

Here is the extract from the article: "The Qurān was not written down by Muhammad nor by his followers during his lifetime, but was preserved by oral tradition, like the Vedas. It was the third Khalifah (Caliph: the Sunni successor to Muhammad) Uthmān ibn Affān who had the Qurān compiled and written down as text. Like the Shrutis, the Qurān is considered as Divine Revelation."

The above description is not correct. In fact the Quran was written down from the day one during the life time of Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him).Written Quran existed in different pieces. Some on paper, some on animal skin, some on stones etc. and it was in possession of different people in Madinah. Caliph Uthman ibn Affan had it arranged to copy all scattered pieces and compiled them in the shape of one book, which exists today in the same order.

In fact what was presrved as an oral traditin was the sayigs of Prophet Muhammad(pece be on him), so that people may not mix the Quran and Sayings.

Please make this important correction to the text in order to keep the reputation of your site as one of the best,upto date, and impartial one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.85.217.8 (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Historical records show that Quran was written in many forms prior to Uthman's Quran. Uthman made changes in the original version and that irked followers and as a result he was slain in very cruel way. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Monotheism and polytheism

Monotheism of Islam and polytheism of pre-Islamic Arabs is different from that of Hindus. In Hindus polytheism covers monotheism in the sense that they have hierarchy of deities and Parameshwar (Allah) is considered as the ultimate power and other deities are working as its assistants in managing the Universe much like managing a Corporation. In this arrangement Parameshwar belongs to monotheistic position and other gods in the polytheistic position. Islam does not understand this corporate system Hindus have accepted while considering their gods. They do not recognizes lower powers and insist for only Parameshwar or Allah. In pre-Islamic Arab religion polytheism had many gods on equal position (similar to Greeks) and they were treated as partners owning the Universe. Mohammad was against this arrangement, had he had any idea of Hindu concept of Polytheism that includes monotheism I consider he would have accepted Hinduism. Pathare Prabhu (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

death penalty for leaving Islam, dawa

Shouldn't it be mentioned that apostates get punished by death in Islamic societies while on the other hand dawa (spreading Islam) is one of the highest goals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.17.150 (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Prophet destroyed idols

how can you people say BHAVISHYA PURANAS AND HINDU SCRIPTURES HAVE PREDICTED THE COMING OF MUHAMMAD,DONT YOU FOOLISH PEOPLE REALIZE HE DESTROYED IDOLS AND PREACHED AGAINAST THEM. why are you trying to create a faLSE UNITY BY FAlsely quoting from scriptures —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.79.150 (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"God's immanence"?

Under the Theology and Concept of God section, there is reference to certain names serving "as a reminder of God's immanence." Immanence implies omnipresence, whereas orthodox Muslim theology holds that God is free from all things and separate from His creation. For reference, here is a hadith used in an article devoted to clarifying this issue:

"I had a slave-girl who used to herd sheep for me. One day I discovered that a wolf had killed one of her sheep, and I'm a man from the children of Adam, I get upset like they get upset, and I slapped her in the face. Then I went to the Prophet who impressed upon me the seriousness of my act. I said, 'O Messenger of Allah, should I not set her free?' He said, 'Bring her to me.' He asked her, 'Where is Allah', She said, 'He is above the heavens.' He said, 'Who am I?' She said, 'You are the Messenger of Allah.' He said, 'Free her, for she is a believer.' (Muslim and Abu Dawud)

I request that the word "immanence" and its implications be removed from the section on Muslim theology, as it is antithetical to orthodox Islam.

source: http://www.missionislam.com/knowledge/whereallah.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainofindustry (talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Prophecies of Mohhammad?!

I have removed this paragraph from the article, that made a hash of scholarly opinion on the topic:

There are Muslim scholars who believe that all the Prophets before Muhammad predicted his coming. Some Muslim as well as Hindu scholars have claimed that Hindu scriptures predict the coming of Muhammad. According to a number of observers, the coming of Mohammad might be predicted in the Prastarga Parvan of the Bhavishya Purana where a Mleccha by the name of Mahāmada is mentioned in a passage of that section. The scripture describes Mahāmada's religion as paisaca(demonic) due to it being devoid of Vedic customs and rituals. However according to some scholars, the mention of Mahāmada in the passage may seem to have been conflated with Mahmud of Ghazni, the ruler of Ghaznavid Empire who invaded India many times. Prophecies of Narashansa are quoted from the Vedas and Kalki Purana, which are authentic scriptures.

No scholar that I know of thinks that the relevant passages in Bhavishya Purana prophesied the coming of Muhammad. The relevant passages (which also mention Queen Victoria, Jesus etc) are known to 19th century creations, and are therefore of great interest to scholars as an example of the Puranic corpus not being closed, and amenable to additions even in tis age. See the writings of Alf Hiltebeitel, A.K. Ramanujana and R.C. Hazra on the topic.

If one wishes to use the concerned passages from Bhavishya Purana to illustrate some Hindu's depiction of Islam in the 19th century that is fine, assuming relevant secondary sources are found on the topic. But claiming these lines to be prophesies of Muhammad in Hindu scriptures should have raised obvious red flags. Abecedare (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

References

poorva mimansa is atheistic !

poorva mimansa is more atheistic than both buddhism and

jainism.

let us see jainism do not entertains concept of god and buddha 

remained his silence both for god and deities. Later buddhist rejected god but not deities, jainism do believes

in deities. But in jainism these deities are not siddhas and can

only bestow material gains. In mahayana even god can be

believed, and in hinyana and even in therveda deities are not

rejected although here not much importance is given. That, in

buddhism deities are symbolic is modern interpretations or

propaganda , a more traditional buddhist believes in the

ontological existence of deities. although deities are not so

important in dhamma. In poorva mimansa, the earliest document we have is [[Sabara

Bhasya]], a commentary on mimansa sutra attributed to rishi

jaimini. Here only, the ontological existence of deities is

refuted when Sabara writes , 'the vedic gods are mere words

and sounds ' and 'there existence is not outside of vedas ' .No

modern propaganda , no atheistic interpretations done as done to

adwaita vedanta. but the earliest resources itself is clear on its

starke athiesm. Later mimansak remains doubtful over deities and

mimansak like Kumarila and Prabhakara wrote extensively to

refute the concept of god but maintained silence over deities. In a nutshell Mimansa was more atheistic in origin over buddhism

and jainism. Today Vedanta is more famous among vedics and

i too find adwaita if i leave buddhism and jainism , more

interesting than Mimansa, not that mimansa is lesser than any

other. (that 2+2=3, no no 2+2=5!)Pratpandey13 (talk)

Personal essay

Looking through the article it reads like a personal essay on the topic, with whole sections without any sources and statements such as, "In order to fully understand ..., it is important to..."; "it is necessary to know ..." etc. Unless someone is willing to overhaul the article top-to-bottom, it may be better off stubbed, or redirected somewhere (any candidate targets?). Abecedare (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced text

@User:Sharif uddin Per WP:V and WP:OR policies, I am deleting unsourced material.

Wikipedia verifiability policy: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

Wikipedia original research policy: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.

This article has had WP:V and WP:OR tags challenging the content for a long time. If you wish to restore material, you must provide inline citations. Reverting and edit warring without adding cites for unsourced material is not constructive. If you believe otherwise, please explain. Latifa Raafat (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Latifa Raafat, I think lead is very much neutral though there are not much sources. But there are linked pages all scriptures mentioned. Sometimes sources are not needed for facts when we link proper pages in writing because that linked pages itself have sources. For example you can read lead section of Barack Obama, you will not find single source mentioned in long lead. There are many such pages. --Human3015 talk • 03:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Human3015 The lead should follow WP:LEAD guidelines. On the main article, other wikipedia articles cannot be this article's source, per WP:RS. We can work on the lead after the main article complies with wikipedia's core content policies, and addresses the numerous old tags and the comments of @Abecedare: above. Latifa Raafat (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Latifa Raafat, well your recent edits are good, we can add more to "difference between Hinduism and Islam" also we can create one new section about "Similarities between Hinduism and Islam".--Human3015 talk • 04:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Latifa rafaat, your recent edits are better than before, so now i have no objection but remember, the writing style should be neutral and friendly. I also agree with human3015, a section named similarities should be started, and to be written with friendly consensus, i think the new section will be appriciated by all other editors of the article. Sharif uddin (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed islam-watch.org sourced content because it is not WP:RS. Sorry, Latifa Raafat (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Latifa Raafat, why you removed sourced matter regarding similarities between Islam and Hinduism.?? We can get better source. You can add tag of "better source needed" instead of removing it.--Human3015 talk • 14:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Only WP:RS is acceptable. Blogs and such sources are unacceptable for WP:V. I removed the buddhamind.info reference because it is also not WP:RS (and it was about Buddhism). Sorry, you need to do better. The Tawaf reference was okay this time, so I did not remove it. Latifa Raafat (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Human3015 I wait for your explanation on why you think buddhamind.info is WP:RS, and where it mentions "7 circumambulation in Hinduism"? On a different point, you added a reference named "Bowker" to the Mecca circumambulation sentence, but it is not defined. Please fix it. Latifa Raafat (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Latifa Raafat I will give you better source, thanks for adding tags. It also well known fact that hindus performs 7 rounds around fire during marriage. I will give source for that too. Thank you. --Human3015 talk • 17:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I will give you time to add a reliable source stating, "7 circumambulations inside a Hindu temple is typical/usual". Please don't mix Islamic Tawaf during Hajj pilgrimage with Hindu wedding rituals around fire. Latifa Raafat (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your version was saying hindus performs only one round around temple butread this "Times of India" article where they talk about they do multiple rounds again and again. So it is obviously not one round. And marriage is also religious ceremony, Hindus follow religious traditions during Marriage where they consider fire as Agni god.(actually every religion follows religious tradition in marriages). And How your given sources are reliable and our given are always unreliable?? And I don't have any personal POV regarding any issue, I'm Atheist. --Human3015 talk • 19:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum, read WP:TPG. You should provide a source that states "Hindus do seven circumambulations in a temple". A blog or PN Oak essay or newspaper opinion article that mentions multiple rounds during wedding etc is not acceptable source, because it does not mean "seven rounds inside a Hindu temple". To derive "seven" from an unreliable source stating "multiple" is WP:OR. I have removed the blogs and other unreliable sources. Don't add them back, unless you are prepared to explain on this talk page why the blog is reliable, or on dispute resolution boards of wikipedia. Latifa Raafat (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

My version, which you reverted, was not saying "only one round". It was saying "usually once,[1] sometimes thrice clockwise.[2]" I welcome your version if it is supported by WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but not WP:QUESTIONABLE. Latifa Raafat (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The website of ISCKON I provided is reliable, they have cited from "hindu scriptures" regarding number of rounds.(Latifa Raafat, do leave edit summaries even if you edit talk pages, summary is also lacking to your some of edits to this article). --Human3015 talk • 20:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that isckondesiretree.info website meets the following guideline from WP:RS page (abridged),

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Beware of sources which sound reliable but don't have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. - WP:QUESTIONABLE

Anyone can write a blog of personal opinions claiming verse of this or that Hindu or Islamic scripture says or means this or that. That could be right or wrong, but blogs and random websites are certainly questionable. I am also concerned that Hare Krishna (ISCKON) is not mainstream Hinduism, though one of its many sects; does that raise WP:FRINGE concerns? In any case, blogs and random websites with unknown editorial oversight are not acceptable. Why don't you cite something from a book published by a reputable publisher, or from a peer reviewed magazine or a journal, or other WP:RS. If that 21 or whatever is true, you should be able to find mainstream reliable sources such as books, etc. Latifa Raafat (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You have quoted many things regarding Islam from "Quran" which is holy book of Muslims, you didn't confirmed that these things are really written in Quran but you relied on online versions of Quran(which can be false) or commentary on Quran by others(which can be false). Same way ISCKON website quoted from "Skand Purana" which is one of holy book of Hindus, I can give you some other sites quoting from Skand purana regarding "rounds around temple". ISKCON is one of reliable hindu organisation. George Harrison of all time famous band The Beatles was follower of ISCKON. So you can't say that claim of ISCKON(which they quoted from holy book) is not reliable.--Human3015 talk • 22:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No I didn't directly "quote many things regarding Islam from Quran", I have provided secondary reliable sources for everything I have added. I have no concern with ISKCON, and believe their sources should be considered. I have concern about the isckondesiretree.info website and whether it has editorial oversight to qualify as WP:RS. It feels like a blog with someone's personal opinion. I am asking you for a second source and a better source. Latifa Raafat (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You are keep on talking about "reliable" source. You will not see The New York Times or Washington Post discussing about how many rounds does a hindu performs around a temple. All we can find is religious websites, and there are several religious website who are quoting from Skanda Purana about "1-21" claim. Though BBC has several articles regarding Hindu philosophy still no one gives importance to "number of rounds", they just mention about "rounds". I think we should not give so much importance to this issue, no has objection over "hindus performs rounds", question is only about "number of rounds" and we have given big range of "1-21".--Human3015 talk • 22:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Latifa Raafat:, here we are discussing on very minor issue of "number of rounds" but main issue should be your other major edits. I find your edits inclined towards "defaming" Islam and glorifying "Hinduism" and it lacks NPOV. You are trying to prove that how Islam is "outdated" while Hinduism is "liberal" and "forward". --Human3015 talk • 23:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Our content dispute started because you inserted "7 rounds" with this edit. I am fine with "hindus circumambulate in temples one or more times", because two book sources I added and one source you added to this article state so. I am not fine with websites that do not meet editorial oversight expected by wikipedia, as explained above. Religious websites that meet wiki's editorial oversight requirement are fine. Religious websites that do not meet wiki's editorial oversight requirement are not acceptable. Note, wikipedia's non-negotiable policy is to "insist on reliable cites in the article" (WP:V, WP:RS).

Please respect talk page guidelines and wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. This article has had WP:V and WP:OR tags challenging the content, some since 2010, some since 2014. I welcome your comments on a specific source or a specific summary, but please avoid statements such as "you are trying to prove..." on this talk page. I intend to add more NPOV content on differences, similarities, etc. with WP:RS cites, in the coming weeks. You are welcome to do so as well. Latifa Raafat (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Latifa Raafat:, you can't keep on WP:ACCUSE anyone when you are out of points. Your edits are clearly against particular religion. In reality both religions have some drawbacks but you are mainly focused on one religion. While mentioning drawbacks of Hindu religion you repeatedly used wording like "It was/is bad but now it is changed", but while criticizing Islam you used wording like "It was/is bad" without using further "but". You used "but" after writing anything good about Islam, like, "It is/was good but nowdays...". You kindly read WP:NPOV. --Human3015 talk • 03:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't find any "It was/is bad but now it is changed" either for Hinduism or for Islam that I added. Care to elaborate with specifics? Which section, which paragraph, with a diff that I added it? What is your proposed correction with WP:RS cites? Latifa Raafat (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Lack of Neutrality.

"Apostasy, that is abandonment of Islam by a Muslim and conversion to another religion or atheism, is a religious crime in Islam punishable with death."

"Jizya was a reminder of subordination of a non-Muslim under Muslims, and created a financial and political incentive to convert to Islam."

"Scholars such as Sarakhsi interpreted Islamic scriptures to suggest that the proper reason to wage war, jihad, on unbelievers, was the disbelief in Islam by non-Muslims."

The sources may be correct however mentioning only one opinion is against WP:NPOV. --HakimPhilo (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC) I also support that, these claims are not neutral. They should be rewriten. Sharif uddin (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Slavery in hinduism

There is no mention of 'Jeeta'. This was very wide spread, where the person and his progeny were supposed to serve the owner. ex: Karnataka had this and it was banned later. There are lots of movies made on this practice. This was very horrible practice. Please mention this. Dore kannada movie is based on this practice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.102.79 (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Perspective Bias

The passages are clearly written by a (well-intentioned) Muslim or other that does not have a clear understanding of Hinduism, the History of Islam's spread to India or it's continuing impact on the philosophy of India. it is quite abjectly quiet of Islam's role in creating conflict with Hindus. It would seem that the purpose of this article is to mainly paint a rosy picture of Islam by associating it with the "other brown person" religion without having a significant objective understanding of either.207.251.43.98 (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)J. Raj Bali

One sided presentation of religious violence -Nopt NPOV

This section only discusses the role that Hindus have had in executing violence against Muslims. This section does nothing to address the role Muslims have had in creating the environment and context for retaliation. The earlier passages clearly state that violence in hinduism is considered apt in self-defense or retaliation, but this passage only serves to scapegoat Hindus. Hindu-Muslim conflict is at least a thousand years old and in all fair perspective was started by the Muslims (Ghazni) after a history of semi-peaceful trade relations.

This entire article does nothing but serve an islamic propagandists purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.251.43.98 (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Factual errors? Islamic views on slavery, etc.

Having browsed this article while carrying out some background reading, it seems obvious that input is required to ensure factual NPOV. A definitive statement such as "The Quran and the Hadiths never permit the institution of slavery in Islam" stands out like a sore thumb vs. the article on Islamic views on slavery, for example. Harami2000 (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted two IP edits on this very subject. They appeared, on the face of it, to be NPOV mass removal of sourced content. If there is general disagreement on this I will self-revert and discuss. TimothyJosephWood 13:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

I feel like several sections give an unbalanced treatment of the issues. Some examples:

On blasphemy and apostasy:

- The Koranic verse (5:33) cited as mandating punishment for blasphemy talks about military agression and the crime of "fasad", which is the things that are above and beyond murder (aggravated murder, murderous armed robbery, terrorism, genocide, etc.). It does not talk about blasphemy. (See the notes in the Study Qur'an by Seyyed Hossein Nasr)

- In classical Islamic thought blasphemy as a punishable offense is only applicable to Muslims and not others (because non-Muslim beliefs tend to already be blasphemous by Muslim standards, yet Islamic law explicitly allows non-Muslims to practice their religion. At least according to the Hanafi madhab, the historically dominant school of thought in India https://shaykhatabekshukurov.com/2016/03/10/islamic-blasphemy-laws-and-the-strange-case-of-mumtaz-qadiri-part-1/)

- Open discussion and criticism of doctrinal views are a huge part of the Islamic tradition. It is well accepted that the differences of opinion between the various schools of thought should be respected.

- Punishment for apostasy is historically accepted many Muslim jurists, but rejected by classical Hanafis (the largest school of thought) as well as by Muslim modernists. Their ground for doing so is very strong: that religious coercion is repeatedly forbidden by the Quran (10:99, 2:256), and that the logic used by mediaeval jurists on this issue (i.e. that leaving Islam deserves a punishment because it necessarily implies joining the ennemies of Muslims and committing treason) is clearly not tenable. The majority of population in most Muslim countries today does agree with the Quranic endorsement of freedom of religion.

- Conversely, the Ramayana (Book VII) endorses capital punishment for people simply for violating the bounds of their caste. It's not that most Hindus necessarily understand it that way, but if this mandates capital punishment, then if someone were to take a critical look at the full Hindu tradition's views on the comparatively much worse offenses like blasphemy or apostasy (i.e. leaving the caste system altogether), are we sure that we are not going to find at least some scholars who advocated harsh punishments? Has the whole Hindu tradition always unanimously defended freedom of religion or is there rather a historical spectrum of opinion?

On animal slaughter:

- The halal slaughter ritual (which is the identical to kosher) is presented as being uncontroversially very cruel. Actually a quick search shows that this is very debatable. Some sources defend the idea that the halal/kosher way was one of the most humane ways of slaughter possible prior to modern technology. The different views on this should be better reflected in the article.

- The Muslim prohibition on eating animals killed by accidents or natural causes is again portrayed as evidence of senseless Muslim cruelty. Actually, the prohibition is on eating carion and animals who died of unknown causes and exists for hygienic reasons.

Other:

- Jizya/Dhimma is also given a thoroughly negative portrayal when actually are more nuanced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi - It is claimed that Hinduism has no such concept at all - so Hindu states did not impose any taxes on their non-Hindu citizens? Are we serious!? Source? - Slavery in Islam is also given an unbalanced negative treatment.

Basically, I feel that the differences between the religions are often exaggerated. Both religious traditions are far from monolithic, they are vast and ancient and therefore are almost always going to display a spectrum of opinions on various issues, ranging from reasonable views to not-so-nice views. The spectrum in both cases should be better represented; it is facile and subjective to take one stereotypical view and paint the whole of Hinduism or of Islam with it, ignoring the diversity that exists within each. These are just some suggestions for the editors, Thank you! 183.89.26.214 (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hindu–Islamic relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516075059/http://www.indianexpress.com/story/12109.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/story/12109.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

History / Age / Timeframe

I've removed an addition of:

Hinduism is older than Islam religion.

but scanning through the article it seems age/timeframe/history is not really addressed in this article. Is that by design? Shenme (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Food-related conflicts

What do you think about the Food-related conflicts-section? Just like other parts of the article, it seems to be biased. It gives a short primary source, and when it gives a brief and incomplete overview regarding (alledged) food-prohibitations. Rules for slaughters follow and are compared to Hinduism, which alledgedly would have no such sacrifices. Since Hinduism compresses different religious attitutes, it might be true for some, but other sects such as Brahmanism indeed sacrified animals. I suspect a bias towards Islam, especially, since it starts with "bloody sacrifies" towards Islam and only afterthat tries to give a brief and incomplete introuction to prohibitations. As I stated, as far as I know, that Hinduism does not have animal slaughters is wrong, and there is no citation given for " tends to be vegetarian". Only the part, that it does not violate cows is sourced (that implies, that veganism is not essential part of Hindu culture, otherwise it would not be necessary to be mentioned here) Furthe, Muslims for example, as strange it may seems to be, regard the Halal slaughter as less painfull and "fastes" method, so the comparation in the following section, with no reliable scholary source, is biased. Brahmins also oppose(d) eating pork, another similarity, that could be drived from syncretism, is not mentioned here. To sum up, I suspect biased writing towards Islam here (especially the third paragraph), incomplete information regarding Islamic food-prohibitions and inaccurate telling from Hindu-attitutes towards sacrifices.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Hindu–Islamic relations

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hindu–Islamic relations's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "james122":

• From God in Hinduism: Lochtefeld, James G. (2002). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism. Vol. 1. The Rosen Publishing Group. p. 122. ISBN 978-0823931798.
• From Advaita Vedanta: James Lochtefeld, Brahman, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 1: A–M, Rosen Publishing. ISBN 978-0823931798, page 122

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

My Lord, this seems to be your citation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Bias in the article on Hindu-Muslim Relations.

This article is written entirely from the Muslim point of view and distorts the history it purports to relate. It should be removed and replaced with a more balanced and better informed article, preferably by an academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.83.251 (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree. You need to be more specific about what bias you see. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I do not think there is a bias in the information provided. This is because no opinions are used, and all the information used is factual. Vedika mehta (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC) 9 November 2019

Relations!

This article is supposed to be about the relations between Hindu(ism?) and Islam. But most of it just regurgitates what each religion believes in, without focusing on relations.

To give one prominent example, there is this drumbeat about Islam being "monotheistic", but did the monotheism of Islam ever affect the relations between Hindus and Muslims? Never as far as I know. On the other hand, Hinduism being (at least partially) polytheistic does affect the relations. So, the article is barking up the wrong tree. Moreover, just saying that Hinduism is polytheistic and Islam is monotheistic doesn't address the "relations" aspect. What difference it makes in practice is the key. } On other hand, idolatory, which is a much bigger bugbear in the relations between the two religions is not mentioned at all in this article.

The majority of the article goes off in the same vein into pointless tangents. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. I believe that though the article does a fine job of describing the similarities and differences between the two religions, it does not provide sufficient examples that examine the relationship between the two religions. More information on the relationship between both religions should be added. Vedika mehta (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC) [User:Vedika Mehta] 9 November 2019

Vedika mehta, thank you for agreeing. But I am afraid I have only criticism to offer for your recent addition. I see three fundamental problems with it: (1) you are focused exclusively on conflict whereas "relations" should be broader, including accommodation, cooperation and exchanges as well as rivalry or competition (2) you are talking about Hindu-Muslim relations (a social problem) whereas the article is about Hindu-Islamic relations (a religious problem) (3) you are exclusively focused on the British colonial period, whereas Hindus and Muslims existed long before the colonial rule.

• For the broader relations aspects, please see Gier, Nicholas F. (2014), The Origins of Religious Violence: An Asian Perspective, Lexington Books, ISBN 978-0-7391-9223-8
• The second issue is more subtle. "Hindu" and "Muslim" are identities, not only religions. And these identities were inherently political from the beginning because the Muslims came to North India as invaders. Of course, not all Muslims in India are invaders, but many of them are nevertheless connected with political power in some form. For example, the Babri Masjid conflict is a political conflict. Hindus believe that a Muslim ruler demolished a temple and built a mosque in its place. So, ordinary Muslims who might go to pray there symbolise that past political hegemony. By the way, you seem to have ignored the fact, until the British came, both Hindus and Muslims used to pray in the mosque [1]. (You would need to find out what Ajay Varghese has to say about that.) As far as religious conflict goes the main points of tension seem to be Muslim opposition to idolatory and caste system, and the Hindu opposition to cow slaughter. We need to cover those aspects.
• As to to third issue, Nicholas Gier can help broaden from the British period. For the British period itself, you need to see Pandey, Gyanendra (1992), The Construction of Communalism in Colonial North India, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195630106. I find Ajay Varghese's blog post quite inadequate. For instance, he points out that the Sultan of Mangalore used to keep the frictions in check. So, why were the British unable to do the same thing? Even if one gives the concession to the British that they did not instigate conflict, they were certainly unable to mediate the conflicts effectively, which eventually ended in the colossal conflict of the Partition. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)