 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
RfC: Contradictory source on Ihsan? edit
Seeming contradiction in principal quoted source, used as a definition, a cause of reader-confusion. Ocarrollcian 20:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Contradiction in source? edit
I do not query the content of the source in the hope of inserting criticism of a sort identical with personal research, but because as a reader I am confused in my understanding of Ihsan because of the source.
The line from Ayoub states:
From the preceding discussion it should be clear that not every Muslim is a man or woman of faith (mu'min), but every person of faith is a muslim.
Lacking though I am the content of the previous discussion, the clauses of the sentence that appear relevant to myself and any other anonymous reader are (metalogical statements indented):
1. "It should be clear that"
- A. "not every Muslim is a man or woman of faith (mu'min)"
2. "but [that]"
- B. "every person of faith is a muslim"
Breaking these down further, one finds the atomic propositions "a man or woman of faith is a mu'min" - which I think it fair to translate into A1 "every person of faith is a mu'min", A2 "not every Muslim is a mu'min" and retain as is B "every person of faith is a muslim". Unless the word "Muslim" in A/A2 is deliberately capitalised and non-italicised to indicate its distinction from "muslim" as in B, then this whole sentence is contradictory. If "Muslim"="muslim" then only two of these three atomic propositions can be true. For example: if A1 & B are true, then A2 cannot be true as it is contradictory.
This produces problems for the reader as: There is an apparent contradiction. However: The apparent contradiction might be intentional (as with holy mysteries such as the Christian Trinity), but this is not declared. Distinction between "Muslim" and "muslim" might be assumed, but is not specified.
Could someone with knowledge of this topic, or (more particularly) the source assist in clarifying? An article that defines a notion with a contradictory quotation harms the reader as, as Wittgenstein wrote, a contradiction describes/illustrates nothing. Ocarrollcian (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Islamiyat edit
Describe the concept of ehsaan in the light of the holy quran 182.187.25.114 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Ihsan edit
I lm Qatar 37.211.26.30 (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)