Wikipedia

Talk:Apostasy in Islam/Archive 5

< Talk:Apostasy in Islam
Latest comment: 2 years ago by WatABR in topic Apostasy (irtidad) is mentioned in the Qur'an
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Violations of POV, PRIMARY, SYNTHESIS, ... policies by user Steeletrap

Latest comment: 8 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

Since the user @Steeletrap: continues in his same behavior, and refuses to cooperate in the talk page, I decided to compile some of the problematic edits he made which were—for the most part—violations of WP policies on POV, PRIMARY, SYNTHESIS ...etc

1. WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:PRIMARY:

In the following edit Steeletrap (talk · contribs) added the following paragraph: (I'm quoting this revised version he made, where he added a poll)

The traditional punishment for apostasy in Islam—a punishment that continues to be supported by the vast majority of Muslims in many Muslim-majority countries[1]—is death, a punishment supported by the following statement of the Prophet Muhammed, recorded in the hadith Bukhari 84:57: "[w]hoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

— —Steeletrap (talk · contribs)

This presented two problems, first it's WP:SYNTHESIS since it synthesizes the results of the 2013 poll by PEW. Secondly he uses WP:PRIMARY content, in this case, a Prophetic hadith narrated in Bukhari's Sahih, and this is, evidently, unacceptable in light of WP:PRIMARY policies.

Yes, if we look at a histogram of the PEW data we present in the article by quartiles (100-76%: 1 country; 75-51%: 5 countries; 50-26%: 2 countries; 25-0%: 12 countries) and note that the highest reported percentage is less than 80%, it's clear that "the vast majority of Muslims in many Muslim-majority countries" is not an accurate summary of their results. Eperoton (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Note: Not only is the overwhelming majority found in a minority of countries, but the poll taken is not of all Muslims but of Muslims who say sharia should be the law of the land, which shaves some percentage off the total. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

2. Removing cited material:

On this edit, Steeletrap (talk · contribs) removed the following sentence: "The kind of apostasy generally deemed to be punishable by the jurists was of the political kind, although there were considerable legal differences of opinion on this matter.", where he stated in the edit summary: (not in cited source), however that's exactly the same wording that we can find the given reference, which is: Asma Afsaruddin (2013), Striving in the Path of God: Jihad and Martyrdom in Islamic Thought, p.242. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199730938.

On this edit, Steeletrap (talk · contribs) removed the following sentence, "These institutions set the standard for what counts as apostasy from Islam so high that before the 11th century practically no judgment of apostasy could be passed.", stating (in the edit summary): "This does not appear in the cited source, which indicates that many executions for apostasy took lace [sic]" However, that's exactly what the source says, which is: "Mirza, editor, Gerhard Bowering ; associate editors, Patricia Crone ...  ; assistant editor, Mahan; et al. (2013). The Princeton encyclopedia of Islamic political thought. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. p. 40. ISBN 0691134847. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)"

This was a mistake on my part (I was referring to the wrong source); the source and the quoted statements should be reinserted, and you may do so at your leisure. Steeletrap (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

On this edit, Steeletrap (talk · contribs) removed the following, "In the years 1985-2006, four individuals were executed by governments for apostasy.", under the guise that "rmv unverified assertion from anonymous source", the source's credibility may be debatable, but under no circumstance it is justifiable to delete it simply because "anonymous source". (Which it isn't)

The NYT source is anonymous--read the link in the diff and see for youreslf--and contradicted by numerous press reports indicating a higher number of executions. Steeletrap (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@Steeletrap: It is an WP:RS. 11:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
@Steeletrap: I agree with CounterTime here. NYT is RS on this subject, and I'm not aware of any policy that would make quoting "An official of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, an advisory body created by Congress" problematic. If other RSs disagree, we need to reflect them all according to WP:DUE, unless one can show that the NYT article reflects a WP:FRINGE view by laying out the available evidence and making an argument based on WP:UNDUE. Eperoton (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

3. Distorting cited material:

On this edit, Steeletrap (talk · contribs) changed the phrasing: "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," to "As of 2016, 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,"

This claim is supported by a number of sources littered throughout the piece. See, for example, the following remark from the Abdul Omar book: "The right to be convinced and to convert from Islam to another religion is held by only a minority of Muslim scholars. 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 committed by a Muslim whose Islam had been affirmed without coercion, as a crime deserving the death penalty." Steeletrap (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@Steeletrap: See Eperoton (talk · contribs) previous comment on that source, secondly in case of conflicting WP:RS one has to follow WP:UNDUE policies, in this case you still haven't provided evidence for your claim that the given sources don't support that assertion, and you said, "I checked the sources and they do not say that.", per WP:BURDEN you should provide quotes 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. 11:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

However he fails at presenting the evidence for his claim that "This is not supported by the sources", see the previous discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apostasy_in_Islam#On_the_recent_edits_by_.40Steeletrap

I agree with Steeletrap that the Abdul Omar book says that the majority of modern Muslim jurists support death penalty for apostasy, but the rest of the statements bolded by CounterTime still need support. I don't have a problem with removing the previous statement "vast majority of Muslim scholars today argue that the death penalty is an inappropriate punishment". It has to be supported by a precise wording ("vast majority"), and it's a matter of straightforward verification whether or not it's present in the sources, which we have to accept per WP:GF. That said, I'm puzzled by Steeletrap's reluctance to respond to requests for more information about the sources, which is standard practice in disputes of this kind. Eperoton (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@Eperoton: I would like some time to find RSs discussing this without any ambiguity, the Omar ref. isn't sufficient alone to make that assertion. 21:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
@CounterTime: I believe one RS is sufficient to source a statement, unless it's WP:EXCEPTIONAL, which this one doesn't seem to be based on the current sourcing. Having more RSs discussing this controversial topic would certainly be helpful, and if they disagree, we'll reflect them too. Eperoton (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

4. Twisting words:

On this edit, Steeletrap (talk · contribs) changed the wording: "However, Muslim jurists from the early period developed legal institutions to circumvent this harsh punishment.", to, "However, Muslim jurists from the early period developed legal institutions to limit the definition of apostasy." However, this isn't the wording made in the given source which is: "Mirza, editor, Gerhard Bowering ; associate editors, Patricia Crone ...  ; assistant editor, Mahan; et al. (2013). The Princeton encyclopedia of Islamic political thought. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. p. 40. ISBN 0691134847. {{cite book}}: |first1= has generic name (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |first1= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)" as anyone can check. This, henceforth, falls under the title of 'twisting and distorting cited content'.

That's exactly what the cited source says: they were trying to limit the circumstances in which people could be charge with apostasy (and therefore, executed). Steeletrap (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@Steeletrap: That's not an excuse that would allow you to diverge from the wording used in that reference. 11:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

10:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I don't have the energy for a pissing match--the "administrators" on this site are too lazy and incompetent to thoroughly research this (or any) issue. I would just note that OP is attempting to add a demonstrably false claim to the article: That the "vast majority" of today's Muslim scholars oppose death for apostates. Steeletrap (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@Steeletrap: First, please respect people here, calling admins on this site as "too lazy", and "incompetent" violates one of the pillars of WP. Secondly I'm not adding any claim to the article in the sense that you're giving, I'm simply following WP guidelines on BURDEN, in this case you made the claim that the given sources don't support that statement, and you said "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). It would be hardly imaginable that you have easy access to these sources, yet, at the same time, you refuse to provide quotes from them supporting your allegation. Thirdly, you still didn't respond to the twistings, distortions, removal of cited content, ...etc given here. 10:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
I did respond to your allegations. Your second one is correct; but my mistake was due to a simple error, not malice or tendentiousness. The rest are false.
I absolutely stand by everything I said in regards to the claim that the "vast majority of modern scholars" oppose the death penalty for apostasy; I checked the sources and they do not say that. I have added sources to the article that say the opposite. You are living in a politically-correct fantasy world where the clear words of the qur'an and hadith don't matter. Steeletrap (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@Steeletrap: How is the second one a "simple error" when you twisted not only one, or two, but three sources?
This isn't a forum WP:FORUM where you can discuss your claims. This is a talk page about the article. You stated: "I checked the sources and they do not say that.", per WP:BURDEN you should provide quotes 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. It's that simple, yet you still refuse to do that.
By the way what the Qur'an or Hadith say are already covered in the article, e.g. here.
10:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
Both statements were direct quotes from a single source. I was referencing the wrong source; hence I (incorrectly) stated that the quotes weren't in that source. I apologize for the mistake. I wouldn't have been so quick to mistakenly conclude that the statement wasn't in the cited source if this article weren't replete with falsification and lies, motivated by apologetics for Islam. I absolutely stand by my claim that none of the four sources used to cite the false claim--that the "vast majority" of modern scholars oppose the death penalty for apostasy--are supportive of that claim. Steeletrap (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

|}

% Support death for apostasy

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Muslims who "support death for apostasy" and Muslinms who "support sharia" are two independent sub-sets of the whole. Not all people who "support death for apostasy" fall within those who "support sharia". Some people might be against sharia in general, but support death for apostasy. Just like among Christians many are non-practising, but they will observe Easter. Therefore you cannot assume that people who observe Easter all come from within practising Christians. Likewise those who support death for apostasy do not necessarily como from within those who support sharia. The likelihood is great, but it is not necessarily so. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

True, but this can be addressed by using a more precise column name. Eperoton (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Eperon. Thanks for jumping in. After working and reworking this in my mind, I finally saw the light. The note in the text and the column name are confusing, which is what led me astray. So, to keep column 3, we need to reword the text. That column 3 actually represents the number of people who support death penalty for apostasy among those who support sharia, as a percentage of ALL muslims, as opposed to column 2, which represents the % of people who support death penalty for apostasy among ONLY those who support sharia. Let me know what you think. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Gabriel. Both the current version and my earlier proposal seem clear enough to me, but I may have dealt with statistics too much to qualify as a representative reader. Let's see if others have an opinion. Eperoton (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Apostasy in Indonesia??

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This segment is so bias. I know for sure that the author purposely neglects to mention details. It has statements such as "Indonesia ... has laws ... that permits prosecution of people who commit apostasy." and "These laws have been used to arrest and convict apostates in Indonesia, such as ..." The most convincing examples to counter this lie would be the conversions of famous stars (because you can all google them up if you don't believe me) such as Lukman Sardi, Nafa Urbach, Asmirandah, Pinkan Mambo (who converted from Islam to Christianity) and Dewi Lestari (who converted from Islam to Buddhism). If you talk to any Indonesian, they will know all these artists. And their conversions are hot gossip for the media (as well as artists who converted to Islam from another religion). Another good example is Syaifuddin Ibrahim (which you can also look up) who was one of the highest ranking (I think second highest) teacher/organizer of the massive Al-Zaytun Islamic boarding school which hosts 11 thousand students, 3000 thousand employees, 800 teachers, owns 12km2 or almost 3000 acres of land and prepares 5 tons of rice for meals, daily. My future brother-in-law who went there said that it was a shock to EVERYONE in that gigantic boarding school that he converted to Christianity. Look it up! Javanese people (the biggest ethnic group in Indonesia) are the most notable in this regard, because their conversions are common and when asked, they usually say "Well, because my wife is a Muslim" or "My husband is Christian, so I follow him." (But this last one is based on my experience, so you probably won't be able to look that one up..)

The truth is that people freely leave their religion and convert another in Indonesia in whatever direction (mostly between Islam and Christianity). Now, I'm not saying that religious freedom is celebrated in Indonesia to the fullest, because getting permits to build new churches is difficult and religions or sects other than the six officially recognized ones (Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism) are not protected by law, but apostasies here probably happen more than anywhere else. The apostate will probably get disowned by his/her family, but that's with every religion and not limited to Indonesia.

The article goes on to say "These laws have been used to arrest and convict apostates in Indonesia, such as the case of 30-year old Alexander Aan..." First of all, as I said before, leaving Islam for another religion is maybe disliked by the Muslims but it's accepted as reality, but this is not the case with leaving Islam for no other religion at all. It's still hard for many Indonesians to understand or accept the fact that there are people who have no religion or refuse to select one. Secondly, as far as I know, he is the only atheist arrested for atheism because his arrest was so controversial and heavily covered by the media and I never heard any other case before him or after him. And it wasn't his disbelief in God that got him arrested, it was his insulting/slandering of Islam and God and spreading the idea of atheism which doesn't belong into any of the six officially recognized religions which caused unrest among Indonesians and which finally led to his arrest. Had he kept quiet about his apostasy and and not try to convert others to atheism and especially not slander Muslims so openly, then he wouldn't have attracted so much attention to lead to his arrest. Historically, Indonesia had a troubled past with communism (to which atheism was associated) which shaped the country's policies to persecute communists and force everyone to select either one of the officially recognized religions. Belief in a religion is a part of the country's philosophical foundation and built into the constitution. Living with Alexander Aan the way he was would mean a major change to all of this. So if you knew the context of Alexander's case, then you would understand that his arrest is based on political, national and historical reasons and not religious. I feel like the segment on Indonesia should be erased altogether or at least further explanation should be given such as the examples of all the famous people who converted from Islam to Christianity to improve the integrity of this whole article. KaluQ84 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

What you don't think the author is trying to purposely portray Islam in a bad light? Indonesia's blasphemy laws apply to all religion (including Christianity), but the article neglect to mention this and gave the impression it applies to Islam only. Zzsignup (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

apostasy by non-state actors

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Recent article in BBC news:
"Two suicide attacks claimed by so-called Islamic State (IS) have killed at least 30 people in and around the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, officials say. The first attack targeted a commercial area in the mainly Shia district of Jadidah, to the east, leaving 19 dead. A second bomb hit an army checkpoint in Taji, north of the capital, killing 11 people, including soldiers. The Sunni jihadist group has frequently attacked security targets and Shia Muslims, whom it considers apostates."

In the Apostasy in the recent past section, there are maybe two dozen countries listed but not Iraq, and the section seems to be exclusively about the laws of the state concerning apostasy and the application of those laws. Should there be a section on people who have been killed (or perhaps otherwise punished) for alleged apostasy by actors other than dully constituted state officials? (Yes, Daesh considers itself a state but most people and all countries do not.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

MoghBaba (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Apostasy in Islam. 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:

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

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) 13:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahmadi addition

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You've taken a step in the right direction by adding citations. However, the sources you cited are primary sources in Wikipedia terminology. According to the WP:NOR policy, we cannot interpret primary sources ourselves (see WP:PRIMARY). You need to cite a modern text that includes a statement with the same meaning as the one you want to add ("Ahmadis reject this label because etc"). Eperoton (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Apostasy in Islam. 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:

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

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) 21:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Apostasy in Islam. 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:

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) 01:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Scriptural References

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Added two examples (Quran 4:89 and Quran 9:11-12) following the format of other examples. They are relevant because it's asserted that "Qur'anic verses refer, whether explicitly or implicitly, to the need to force an apostate to return to Islam or to kill him if he refuses to do so". These two examples give a better opportunity for readers to judge for themselves whether that is true. (Being a rank amateur at Wiki-editing, I found that the format of linking to the Quran would only link one verse successfully, so I linked as Quran 9:11 - Quran 9:12. If someone knows a tidier way of doing this, maybe they could help out? Tsuchan (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: regarding the auto-link references to the Quran, does anybody else think a different source may give more clarity? for example, http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=4&verse=89 presents the reader with Arabic plus seven popular English translations of each verse. I found the auto-linked references pretty difficult to navigate.

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Apostasy in Islam. 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:

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) 11:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested quotations on the Mejri/Beji case

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

User:Mavriksfan11 requested six quotations for the subsection about the Tunisian ex-Muslim atheists Ghazi Beji and Jabeur Mejri. I based myself on Dutch and French sources, as English sources on the case were limited. Per WP:NONENG, I will provide the original quotes here, with an English translation.

1."He [Mejri] also claimed that his friend Beji had authored an antireligious book, The Illusion of Islam, in Arabic. Upon learning he, too, was sought by the police, Beji fled the country and reached Greece."

  • Source text: Eildert Mulder (20 April 2012). "Je leven niet zeker zonder geloof". Trouw (in Dutch).. Note that in Dutch, the name 'Beji' is transliterated as 'Badji'.
  • Dutch original (part 1): "Badji's collega's dachten dat hij behalve godloochenaar ook homo was, een tweede reden om zijn bestaan te vergallen. Tijdens de revalidatie van een operatie aan zijn knie, schreef hij in het Arabisch zijn boek: 'De illusie van de islam'."
  • English translation (part 1): "Beji's colleagues thought that he, besides [being an] atheist [lit. 'God denier'] was homosexual, too; a second reason to embitter his existence. When he was recovering from an operation on his knee, he wrote his book in Arabic: 'The Illusion of Islam'."
  • Dutch original (part 2): "Badji informeerde op 9 maart bij de rechtbank naar zijn vriend en ontdekte daar dat ook hijzelf verdachte was. Eerst vluchtte hij naar Libië, een ongelukkige keuze omdat juist daar de islamisten machtig zijn sinds de ondergang van Kadafi. In Algerije deed hij een wonderlijke ervaring op bij een VN-kantoor, waar ze hem niet hielpen maar juist uitscholden vanwege zijn atheïstische ideeën. Hij vluchtte vervolgens naar Turkije, zwom een grensrivier over en bereikte op die manier Griekenland."
  • English translation (part 2): "Beji asked about his friend at the court on 9 March, and there he discovered he himself was a suspect as well. First, he fled to Libya, an unfortunate choice because exactly there the Islamists are powerful since the fall of Gadaffi. In Algeria, he had an extraordinary experience at a UN office, where they didn't help him but instead reviled him for his atheistic ideas. Next, he fled to Turkey, swam across the border river and thus reached Greece."

2."he [Beji] obtained political asylum in France on 12 June 2013."

  • Source text: Assiya Hamza (14 June 2013). "Condamné pour blasphème en Tunisie, Ghazi Beji obtient l'asile politique en France". France 24 (in French).
  • French original: "Ghazi Beji, un jeune Tunisien condamné par contumace le 25 mars 2012 à sept ans de prison pour blasphème après la publication de caricatures du prophète Mahomet sur les réseaux sociaux, a décroché le précieux sésame délivré par l’Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides (Ofpra), le 12 juin."
  • English translation: "Ghazi Beji, a young Tunisian condemned for disobedience on 25 March 2012 to 7 years in prison for blasphemy after the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad on social media, has won the precious gateway awarded by the French Office of Protection of Refugees and Expats (Ofpra), on 12 June."

3. "after several human rights groups campaigned for his release under the slogan "Free Jabeur".

  • Source text 1: Karim Ben Said (11 March 2014). "Jabeur Mejri: "En Tunisie, les affamés se mangent entre eux"". L'Express (in French).
  • French original: "Heureusement, les visites fréquentes des associations de défense des droits de l'Homme m'ont certainement épargné des violences et des représailles lors de mon incarcération."
  • English translation: "Fortunately, the frequent visits of the human rights associations have certainly spared me violence and reprisals during my incarceration."
  • Source text 2: "Tunisie: Grâcié par la présidence, Jabeur Mejri a été libéré". HuffPost Maghreb (in French). 15 October 2014.
  • French original: "En 2012, des ONG de défense des droits de l'Homme considérait M. Mejri comme le premier prisonnier politique tunisien de l'après-révolution"
  • English translation: "In 2012, human rights defending NGOs considered M. Mejri the first post-revolution Tunisian political prisoner"

4. "When Mejri wanted to accept Sweden's invitation to move there"

  • L'Express: "La Suède m'a proposé son accueil, afin que je puisse poursuivre mes études. J'ai accepté. Je ne me vois plus vivre dans ce pays qui souffre d'énormément de maux dont le plus grave est l'hypocrisie."

5. "(who started bullying him as soon as they found out he was an atheist)"

  • L'Express: "d'attaques de la part des salariés de la compagnie dés que ceux-ci ont découvert qu'il était athée. " On ne veut plus monter avec lui dans le même train, disaient ils. On a peur que le convoi déraille à cause de ce mécréant ". Ils en sont arrivés à porter un brassard rouge en guise de protestation."

6. "he was again imprisoned for several months, however, after being accused of embezzling money from his former job by his ex-colleagues" (...) "a rumour spread by his former friend Beji (who felt betrayed by Mejri because he had outed him as an atheist)"

  • L'Express: "Vous êtes aussi mis en cause dans une affaire de détournement de 1700 dinars (600 euros) de la compagnie des chemins de fer tunisiens, de quoi s'agit-il?

- Cette affaire est totalement absurde. (...) Ghazi, furieux contre moi, a colporté la rumeur selon laquelle j'aurais volé une somme 1700 dinars (600 euros). Ces 1700 dinars étaient effectivement introuvables, mais relevaient du guichet des abonnements dans lequel je n'ai jamais travaillé."

Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work here, it is helpful. Can you place these English quotations in the references themselves, so that readers can read the quotes as they go through the article? Also I want to point out that some of what is written here on Wikipedia does not actually correspond to the quotations you listed here. For example, in #3 "several human rights groups campaigned for his release under the slogan 'Free Jabeur'" is written here on Wikipedia but the quotes you have translated do not mention any human rights groups campaigning for his release or even the slogan "Free Jabeur". I have removed that citation and left a tag for "citation needed" on that part. Mavriksfan11 (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, glad you appreciate my work. No, I don't think it's necessary to include those quotes. Actually, I've provided 2 quotes that mention human rights organisations, and Source text #2 has the tags 'jabeur mejri libre', and 'free jabeur' and has embedded 50 cartoons about the Jabeur Mejri case, many of which explicitly feature the slogan 'Free Jabeur' or 'Liberez Jabeur' or something similar in English or French. I've restored the reference. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright information Nano GoleSorkh

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) publishes a lot of its audiovisual material through Nano GoleSorkh (Persian) or Bread and Roses TV (English), which is the CEMB's weekly bilingual television programme and YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/BreadandRosesTV/. This includes videos filmed at the Secular Conference and material made for One Law For All. All material published on the Nano GoleSorkh YouTube channel is free for reuse under a Creative Commons BY licence (unless stated otherwise). Maryam Namazie, president of the CEMB, One Law For All, co-host of Nano GoleSorkh and main organiser of the Secular Conference, confirmed this to me in an email yesterday in response to claims made by User:Mavriksfan11 on 30 October 2017 whilst editing this article on Apostasy in Islam) that videos from the Nano GoleSorkh channel (or the Atheism TV channel) uploaded here on Commons were violating the Secular Conference's copyright (they aren't): 

Hi [Nederlandse Leeuw,]
All the CEMB, Secular Conf[erence], One Law For All videos are filmed by or for us [Nano GoleSorkh] so we have copyright. Also our videos are free for all to use/distribute so it is a false claim. Youtube itself removes anything that violates copyright so it is just a bogus claim to raise doubts. (...) Maryam

I will restore all videos from Nano GoleSorkh.
Furthermore, if someone really thinks someone's copyright has been violated because one or more files were illegally uploaded to Commons, the right course of action is to complain on Commons and perhaps submit the media files at hand for deletion. Removing the content from a single article on one single language edition of Wikipedia (English in this case) does not reverse the copyvio, because the file(s) still exist(s) on Commons. The content is not to be removed from any Wikipedia unless and until it is deleted on Commons, which will automatically remove the content – but not the HTML – from all Wikipedias. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not as good at editing Wikipedia as many of you are. Can you prove that this is true, that these channels have the right to publish these videos? Saying that someone emailed you is not a proof of any kind. As for not knowing the proper procedures to remove these videos, that is my mistake. I will keep it in mind next time. The videos raised flags for me for several reasons: 1) Obviously filmed as part of a different organization than the YouTube channel yet the copyright claim here on Wikipedia is attributed to the YouTube channel, not that organization. 2) These videos are plastered all over this article (in the way someone trying to monetize copyrighted content is likely to do). It doesn't make editorial sense to have nearly every speech from a 2017 conference of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain viewable in this article, but it makes lots of sense if you are trying to make money by claiming CC copyright on content which does not have it. I hope you understand where I come from, and I'm glad you've taken the efforts to try to clear this up. I also want to add that this kind of videos (lectures) are specifically mentioned under Wikipedia guidelines as the kinds of videos which one should be wary of accepting, due to copyright concerns. See here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Video Mavriksfan11 (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I can prove it. http://www.secularconference.com/sponsors/ states: "Bread and Roses TV is responsible for filming and disseminating conference videos." and that it is one of the Secular Conference's sponsors. Actually, if you want to monetise YouTube videos, you have to distribute them under a Standard YouTube licence, which these videos don't have. Moreover, anyone who watches video copies via Commons instead of YouTube itself, does so for free. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I have not looked into the copyright status of the disputed content, but it is worth nothing that Youtube itself removes anything that violates copyright so it is just a bogus claim to raise doubts is not true. YouTube removes copyright violations that have been claimed, but it doesn't go actively looking for them. It is certainly plausible that something could slip through the protection. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Apostasy in Islam. 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:

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) 10:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

apostacy

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Apostacy in Islam is the development of other religions that is not the Islamic religion and varies with the age of Islam. Since all muslims believe that Islam is the personal religion of Man's creator who is called God throughout history, any sending by God of his messenger results in apostacy if the Islamic religion of the Prophet is not adhered to strictly untill another prophet appears. Since all Prophets adhere to Islam, any other way of life that is taken by Mankind that is not Islam is apostacy and leads to the sending of God of another Messenger untill an appointed time called the day of Judgement. The notion is that Man should remain a Muslim untill the appointed time otherwise without the Islamic religion God declares an age of Apostacy. Sheikhabdisalahdaar (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article suffers quite a bit from WP:UNDUE. There's a very large focus on a few recent converts from Islam, eg. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and not nearly enough focus on the Islamic tradition on apostasy, on historical attitudes etc. Compare this to Apostasy in Christianity where a lot more focus is given on different theological perspectives on apostasy. Much of the contemporary material here is covered anyway in other articles about individual countries (e.g. Human rights in Iran, Human rights in Saudi Arabia, etc).VR talk 16:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Iran 1988 executions

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There doesn't appear to be evidence that the 1988 executions in Iran were due to allegations of apostasy. In fact, according to the Telegraph the fatwa against them reads "those who are in prisons throughout the country and remain steadfast in their support for the Monafeqin (Mojahedin) are waging war on God and are condemned to execution." That seems more like assassination of political prisoners. Hence it wouldn't belong in this article.VR talk 16:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

What is this matter about Atheists has been declared as terorists?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recently I came to know a spine chilling news that atheists are being considered as terrorists in Arab. Whats the matter? And such a serious matter should be immediately entered in Wikipedia. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html 2405:204:4313:D858:9C42:A500:6274:3CED (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting input and expansion support

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,

I am just in process of initiating encyclopedic article Draft:Ex-Muslims. Please do have a look. If topic interests you then do contribute towards expansion of the Draft:Ex-Muslims.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Attempted cleanup

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Because this is controversial subject and a large article there is a tendency for drive by edits that eventually lead to duplicate text, bloated rambling paragraphs, etc. I am attempting to clean up and improve the article. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Secularised understanding of apostasy

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I fear this article is too embedded within a secularised worldview, built upon a Eurocentric understanding of "apostasy" (with its particular genealogy in Europe, related to the monopoly on power exercised by the Catholic church), that essentialises what it means to be "a Muslim".

As such, it fails to acknowledge that one engaging in kufr is usually only considered a murtid if they turn back against what they had previously believed. In other words, if one never understood a particular injunction in a particular way, then they cannot really be considered to engage in irtidad. Or else, they are being judged according to one jurist's subjective standards, when to another they are totally innocent.

Further to this, if one is born to a Muslim family, this does not make them a Muslim (hence the secularised understanding). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.168.195 (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"if one is born to a Muslim family, this does not make them a Muslim"
They why do some Muslims indicate that all children are born Muslim, including those from non-Muslim families? A Muslim friend of mine referred to herself as a "revert Muslim" because she converted to Islam, even though she was originally not a Muslim. https://dalehusband.com/2011/02/15/revert-muslims/Dale Husband (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Too big?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Article is now 366,436 bytes. Was wondering if it ought to be divided into two with the by country being the second article. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That is a very wise suggestion, Louis! I've actually been thinking about that for some time as I've been expanding that section a lot in the past few years, and it gradually sort of grew out of hand. I saw you and others have also done very valuable contributions to it, for which I thank you heartily. But indeed as you say, it had gotten too large for comfortable navigation per WP:LENGTH, so splitting off the By country section is the right thing to do. I've just done so here: Apostasy in Islam by country. Any future country-specific information can be added there, with relevant notable practical examples, while this article remains general - and more theoretical/philosophical - in nature. Let's see if we can fill more lacunae of this phenomenon that deserve attention. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much for doing the work. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings,

This is basically continuation of first round of discussion which took place previously @ Talk:Islamic literature and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)

Present Wikipedia tendency

An average tendency on Wikipedia seems to be of transforming word Muslim into Islam or Islamic wherever possible without visiting nuanced aspects. As a small example title Islamic feminism is nuanced and correct since it specifically refers to theory of Islam. But is it correct to redirect title Muslim women to Women in Islam those who are not exposed to nuances might think so. Some might take refuge to fallacy of Appeal to popularity, but nuanced view suggests otherwise. Pl. do read on below given copy pasted discussion from Talk:Islamic literature

Here comes concept of normative.

  • Quick google search of term Normative gives definition as "...establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behaviour...."

Is present lack of nuanced approach, risks throwing in and enforcing a sided normative. All Islamic art can be called Muslim art, but whether all Muslim art can be called Islamic art. For example recently one Saira Khan recently openly declared of not being practicing Muslim, and still we can not list her in List of former Muslims so formally remains a Muslim at the most one can categories them in Cultural Muslim; take one more point, there can be former Muslim who reverts to Islam is it easy to classify their art Muslim or Islamic ? Or take example of M.F. Husain many of his drawings are of living things so whether it is safe to classify his art Muslim or Islamic ? :File:Khamseh Nizami 001.jpg is included in article Islamic Art how far it can be called Islamic Art or is it safer to call it Muslim art?

Those Wikipedians who do have lesser familiarity with Muslims or Islam usually tend to take position I/We don't have understanding on the topic, pl. go over to WP talk:WikiProject Islam, even when topic is critical of Islam that is categorized Islamic project pl. go over to WP talk:WikiProject Islam. Doesn't it risks throwing in and enforcing a sided normative?

Scholarship highlighting this issue

1) According to [1] Muslim is purely someone who practices Islam and Islamic is anything influenced by Islam or produced by Muslims.
2.1) According to M.M. Knight, when one does not speak for real Islam (i.e.'an abstracted ideal' that floats above, Muslim, human cultures but speaks for 'lived traditions') it is preferable to use the term Muslim instead of the term Islam or Islamic.[2]
2.2) M.M. Knight further says,terms 'Islam/ Islamic' imposes claim of normativity, which is distinct with lived experiences hence need not be conflated.[3] (My emphasis)

Question of Grammar

One copyeditor user Dakinijones points out his difficulties @ Talk:Islamic literature, he says:

...According to [2] Muslim is purely someone who practices Islam and Islamic is anything influenced by Islam or produced by Muslims. So I’ve done some of the (requested via women’s rights article) copyediting on that basis. Please correct my ignorances with sources if wrong. Thanks!...

Similar points of grammar have been discussed @ Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous) similar to [3] their point is architecture, music, art, thought are not humans so saying Muslim architecture, Muslim music, Muslim art, Muslim thought, should be avoided.

Since personally I am more concerned with normative I am okay with Muslim architecture, Muslim music, Muslim art, Muslim thought since those are more inclusive terms in spite issues of grammar inaccuracies, but terms are understandable to human mind; my human brain can very well understand those terms as 'architecture/ music/ art/ thought created by Muslims.'


Nuanced differences and other Wikipedia articles

Please see below given table.

List of articles With Word Muslim or Islam in title
Muslim Islam Comment
Muslim dietary laws This needs to be Islamic dietary laws ?
Apostasy in Islam Article Former Muslim of Ex Muslim needs to exist separately because title Apostasy in Islam has Islamic normative that atheists don't share?
Islamic culture Needs to be Muslim culture?
Islamic literature Needs to be Muslim literature?

Islamic Golden Age

Needs to be Muslim Golden Age ?
Women in Islam Need to be Muslim women?
Islamophobia Need to be Anti Muslim Sentiment?
  • Would term Muslim culture represent cultural diversity among Muslim communities over time and places reflect better than monolithic representation in term "Islamic culture"?
  • Can we draw a parallel, In between Your point differentiating between "Women in Islam" and "Muslim women" and Apostasy in Islam and Former muslims being both valid, and have entirely different normative directions?

I am very well aware of grammar related points of Maproom & Louis P. Boog maintained by them and others @ Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous) and not too keen to break grammar related rules but want other readers also to be aware of issues involved for wider consultations. Bookku (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/#how-should-sharia-be-applied
  2. ^ Knight, Michael Muhammad (2016-05-24). Magic In Islam. Penguin. p. 24. ISBN 978-1-101-98349-2.
  3. ^ Knight, Michael Muhammad (2016-05-24). Magic In Islam. Penguin. p. 24. ISBN 978-1-101-98349-2.

Research paper comparing apostasy to espionage

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Found this from a person associated w the University of Ilorin https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3547030 WhisperToMe (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you know about the person? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Split or Merge ?

Latest comment: 2 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not merge. Snuish (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Greetings,

To understand nuanced context better, please do visit previous discussion Talk:Apostasy in Islam#Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?.

We do have an article title Ex-Muslim which presently redirects to List of ex-Muslim organisations where as article title Former muslims gets redirected to List of former Muslims.

Article Apostasy in Islam too deals with the topic but title's primary perspective is religious, where as Ex-Muslims & Former muslims titles present atheist perspective; Talk:Apostasy in Islam#Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ? explains normative difference with some refs etc.

Now we have developed a new draft article Draft:Ex-Muslims (Now in main space @ Ex-Muslims, primarily intends to take space of titles Ex-Muslim & Former muslims. Draft:Ex-Muslims ((Now Ex-Muslims)'s present content built up is largely different from present article Apostasy in Islam. Prima facie if we move Ex-Muslims to take over titles titles Ex-Muslim & Former muslims, some content forking can take place from present Apostasy in Islam.

Though content and perspective built up is very different still some may ask for merging then Apostasy in Islam will easily overflow taking following size stats into account.

  • KB size info: Article size of Apostasy in Islam seems to be around 181 kb net Characters KB seem to be around 48 kb Where as Draft:Ex-Muslims total KB seems to be around 72 kb but Characters size is around 43 kb

If community does not want to allot titles Ex-Muslim / Ex-Muslims & Former muslims to the Draft:Ex-Muslims then more name options are discussed @ Ex-Muslims#Next ?

  • Is there any example of separate perspective carrying articles on Wikipedia ? If I am not mistaken Abortion debate has separate Pro choice, pro life articles plus a combined article. And there may be some more such examples.

So here we have four following optional propositions which Wikipedia community needs to decide

As of now I am using split head note template @ Apostasy in Islam to have more inputs, (Another user has re-listed this discussion topic with merge template on 27 June, pl. see below). Just help me out if any better head note templates can be placed @ Apostasy in Islam and also head note templates for List of ex-Muslim organisations and List of former Muslims to invite users in this discussion.

Talk:Apostasy in Islam#Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ? and give your inputs for better option from above 4.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

After two users suggested Draft:Ex-Muslims has been moved to title Ex-Muslims Bookku (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I suggest merging Ex-Muslims to Apostasy in Islam. On the talk page of Ex-Muslims, you wrote that "And encyclopedia need to cover Muslim as well as ex-Muslim perspectives and this particular article attempts to cover primarily ex-Muslim perspective." The statement conveys an intent to create a prohibited POVFORK. The content and style of Ex-Muslims as it is currently written reflect that intent. Some of the sections, such as those citing the four academic studies, contain quite valuable information and can certainly be presented on Apostasy in Islam (if they are not already), although they may need to be written in a more neutral manner. Other sections, such as "Support Requirements" are written in a manner to advance an argument and definitely need to be written more neutrally.
Other material seems to be included almost indiscriminately and is not of much value, such as the fact that Faith Freedom International is included in the appendix of a book, something that has certainly not been found noteworthy by a secondary source and certainly not connected by any secondary source to the apparent subject of this article, the "sociological perspectives of ex-Muslims." I suggest merging valuable material to this article. The rest should be discarded and Ex-Muslims should be redirected here. Snuish (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
1) The new article Ex-Muslims is discussed & very thoughtfully developed by more than one editor.
2) Above discussion by User:Snuish2 seems has not taken into account previous discussion topic on this talk page Talk:Apostasy in Islam#Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ? which is supposed to affect any selection of the title.
3) While we continue to be open for discussion, as discussed since beginning I and some other users too support separate article. While there is separate article for Criticism of Islam still we do have an article catering to anti Muslim sentiment in the contested title of Islamophobia. In a sense Concept and implication of Apostasy in Islam amounts to part of orthodox Anti Ex-Muslim phobia So why not split or completely merge Apostasy in Islam into title Ex-Muslims is not clear from above merger proposal argument.
4) Our remaining true to the sourced content which are mostly guided by academic literature on the topic effectively blunts our (editor's) individual PoVs if any and true to that line the new article moved on to cover distinct area of encyclopedic information sociological perspectives which was uncovered area in Apostasy in Islam. Apostasy in Islam covers distinct scope i.e. general description of the religious and legal meaning and implications. So it is not clear enough how it can be categorised as fork.
5) We have included criticism of Ex-Muslims perspective in special section Ex-Muslims#Mutual criticism, as and when more criticism becomes available in sources we (we plus all Wikipedians) will happily include the same wherever appropriate. So question over neutrality is neither cited with any sort of detail or if any one feels we have not understood well then can very well explain.
6) Two journists Aki Muthali & Tufail Ahmad which I did included while are critical of conservative bigotry they are known for criticism bigotry of all sides so I considered them as credible enough.
7) As of now we have included direct perspective only one Ex-Muslim i.e. Ali A. Rizvi the rest as acknowledged even by above critic is article is largely guided by academic perspective and balanced one.
8) It's not clear why User:Snuish2 wishes to do away Sizable and well sourced part of article taking note of Ex-Muslims#Challenges and movements, when Ex-Muslim movements and their perspectives are a reality of the contemporary world.
I am not too hard and fast, whichever direction wikipedia community decides no issues but I wish we have a longer duration discussion rather than too quick decision since already Apostasy in Islam has grown long enough and it will be not too long it will need to split again if we decide to merge for managing byte length of the article. splitting is always bit difficult than merging just don't be in haste of merging.
Thanks & regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
I have glanced at the previous discussions on the talk page of Ex-Muslims. What I don't understand is why the scope of Apostasy in Islam cannot be expanded to include useful information from Ex-Muslims. Snuish (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Though asking same question again, for what has been answered in detail, sounds bit rhetorical to me.
Wikipedians want agree with academically pointed out nuanced differentiation or not is different matter, but I have very well discussed two academics namely Simon Cotee and M.M. Knight who seem to point out the similar differentiation in terminologies discussed in detail @ Talk:Ex-Muslims#Need of the article & Talk:Apostasy in Islam#Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?
Simon Cotee says, "...instead of asking 'what is the punishment of apostasy in Islam, I ask, 'What challenges and difficulties apostates encounter in leaving Islam....in other words focus is on lived realities of apostates and how they subjectively make sense of their situation and the world in which they live...."
  • So in brief term: 'Apostasy in Islam' discusses implication, terms 'Former Muslims' or 'Ex-Muslims' we discuss lived experiences and sociological process.
M.M. Knignt is much clearer, "...when one does not speak for real Islam (i.e.'an abstracted ideal' that floats above, Muslim, human cultures but speaks for 'lived traditions') it is preferable to use the term Muslim instead of the term Islam or Islamic.[1]...M.M. Knight further says,terms 'Islam/ Islamic' imposes claim of normativity, which is distinct with lived experiences hence need not be conflated.[2]
(Ex-Muslims strive to strongly refute normative imposition of Islamic My emphasis)
  • So I humbly resubmit in brief term: 'Apostasy in Islam' discusses implication, terms 'Former Muslims' or 'Ex-Muslims' we discuss lived experiences and sociological process.
Then pl. reread entire discussion since more points are discussed already so I do not repeat more, now it is for Wikipedians to decide.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Knight, Michael Muhammad (2016-05-24). Magic In Islam. Penguin. p. 24. ISBN 978-1-101-98349-2.
  2. ^ Knight, Michael Muhammad (2016-05-24). Magic In Islam. Penguin. p. 24. ISBN 978-1-101-98349-2.
My question is why can't the scope of the Apostasy in Islam article be expanded to include the experiences of Ex-Muslims? There's nothing in the title of the "Apostasy in Islam" article to suggest that it could not do so. The argument that you've provided from Michael Knight is irrelevant here -- his book has nothing to do with apostasy in Islam. He's discussing whether "Islamic magic" is an appropriate label:

If there is really a thing in the world that we can name “magic” with any coherence, can there be Islamic magic? What would make magic Islamic or un-Islamic—are there different types of magic that can differ from each other in their relationships to Islam? As I am not a theologian or jurist arguing over Islam’s true position on magic, I cannot assume any distinction between Islam as a lived tradition on the ground and “Islam” as an abstracted ideal that floats above human cultures. If we have no access to Islam apart from what human beings do with it, then an idea or practice becomes “Islamic” through people identifying it as such, or the term “Islamic” imposes an unnecessary claim of normativity on our materials. Personally, I’d rather call things “Muslim” than “Islamic,” valuing the human actors over their possible foundations in real Islam, because I do not speak for real Islam. For similar reasons, by imposing normative judgments on our material, concepts such as “orthodoxy,” “heterodoxy,” and “syncretism” do more harm than good. These terms operate like magical spells in their own right, employing the power of language to manipulate and reconfigure reality. I’m going to leave them here and keep moving.

Snuish (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
This sounds me rhetorical again :)
1) I have not discussed single scholar but I discussed 2 scholars, Simon Cotee discusses in direct context of Ex-Muslims
2) Irrespective of Knights' original context, how relevant part of his argument can be deduced irrelevant in this discussion is beyond my logical comprehension and understanding so I quote relevant part of Knight again and other users take call on the subject. (IMHO No point we keep repeating same points rhetorically again and again)
M.M. Knignt is much clearer, "...when one does not speak for real Islam (i.e.'an abstracted ideal' that floats above, Muslim, human cultures but speaks for 'lived traditions') it is preferable to use the term Muslim instead of the term Islam or Islamic.[1]...M.M. Knight further says,terms 'Islam/ Islamic' imposes claim of normativity, which is distinct with lived experiences hence need not be conflated.[2]
(Ex-Muslims strive to strongly refute normative imposition of Islamic My emphasis)
  • So I humbly resubmit in brief term: 'Apostasy in Islam' discusses implication, terms 'Former Muslims' or 'Ex-Muslims' we discuss lived experiences and sociological process.
Then pl. reread entire discussion since more points are discussed already so I do not repeat more, now it is for Wikipedians to decide.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you've cited two scholars. I'm not sure how Cotee's sentence helps you here; he's clarifying the scope of his research. Why does that mean these two articles should be separate? And M. Knight's concerns regarding imposing claims of normativity don't apply here. Again, he's discussing why "Islamic" isn't necessarily an appropriate label for "Islamic magic." Snuish (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
IMHO just & appropriate application of one's own mind, a little, can bring little humanity to humans and help counter systemic biases, whether to apply mind justly or not I leave to Wikipedian conscience and consensus.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure what Wikipedia's systemic biases have to do with this discussion. Snuish (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
It is sick
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 02:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
You are switching between arguments here and it makes this very difficult to follow. I don't think that has anything to do with Wikipedia's systemic bias. Regarding "imposed normativity," the Apostasy in Islam article does not advance the argument that any sort of punishment is appropriate so I don't understand how that article negatively implicates Ex-Muslims. The article merely describes the various opinions jurists. Snuish (talk) 03:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Just a quick comment from an uninvolved editor. I don’t have an opinion on the split/merge issue… but when I first read the title “Ex-Muslims”, I expected to see a list of notable people who were formerly Muslim. I was surprised to find that the article wasn’t a list, and is about something else. So… if consensus ends up being that we should have separate articles, please think up a better title for this one. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, You will find discussion as started on 27 May 2021 was open on this point, I am not sure the user who re-started 27 June discussion is flexible enough. But any other users want to contemplate and discuss this aspect personally I have no issues.
Rather first we wrote article keeping broadly in mind uncovered but distinct areas, and article grew on it's own as references became available as being open minded I had included couple of alternative article names for consideration taking distinctness of article in mind @ Talk:Ex-Muslims#Next ? like 'Process and Movement of leaving Islam'; 'Ex-Muslim thought, life and activism'; 'Sociological approaches to leaving Islam' but up til now I have not seen any specific interest in these titles since may be those users who worked and interacted up til now like other users prefer to shortened titles, in fact other option of title Former Muslim too is available like wise alternatively singular title Ex-Muslim can be given to new article plural title Ex-Muslims can be redirected to present List of former Muslims if Wikipedians so wish.
Some how Wikipedians many times follow un-encyclopedic title culture, but My personal perception has been Lists and disambiguation pages are co-incidental hence should not occupy plain article titles. plain article names should be prioritized for encyclopedic articles since encyclopedic writing is prime form and work of encyclopedias.
Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Knight, Michael Muhammad (2016-05-24). Magic In Islam. Penguin. p. 24. ISBN 978-1-101-98349-2.
  2. ^ Knight, Michael Muhammad (2016-05-24). Magic In Islam. Penguin. p. 24. ISBN 978-1-101-98349-2.
  • Oppose merge The articles are about different topics. This article (apostasy) is about Islamic views on leaving the faith. The other article (Ex-Muslims) is about what happens to people after they leave. You can verify that these topics are distinct by search Apostasy in Islam versus Ex-Muslims on Google Scholar and noting that the results cover different topics. (t · c) buidhe 02:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
The articles are about different topics because editors have chosen the scope of the articles. Editors can also change the scope of the articles so that they're covered by one article. A lot of the Google scholar results for Ex-Muslims also show up in the Apostasy search results. Snuish (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Editors don't generally "choose" the scope of the article: that's determined by the reliable sourcing on the topic. (t · c) buidhe 04:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Though, in this case, isn't it obvious that editors have chosen the scope given the significant overlap in sources, the italicized descriptions (inserted and written by editors) at the top of each article, and the fact that an article regarding apostasy wouldn't necessarily preclude discussion of apostates' experiences? Snuish (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: Ex-Muslims is about the perspective of ex-Muslims themselves; apostasy in Islam is about the perspective of Islam. As for the title, I could change it to "Ex-Muslim" as the article should be singular, just like Ex-Mormon. The majority of the sources used in Ex-Muslims are only slimly about Apostasy in Islam to explain why leaving the religion is difficult, etc. Wretchskull (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: buidhe and Wretchskull already made the essential arguments against merging, but I'll add a bit. These are somewhat overlapping, but clearly different topics. A merger wouldn't do much good, certainly not to the 'Ex-Muslims' article. 'Apostasy in Islam' is very legal and theological in its approach, it also covers falsely accused apostates who aren't actually ex-Muslims, and it mostly lets Muslims (especially Islamic theologians, scholars and clerics) talk about what should happen to purported apostates). 'Ex-Muslims' is about real apostates and lets them talk (or the scholars who studied them), and takes a sociological and psychological perspective. Wikipedia is replete with articles which take the perspective of a certain group of people on a certain topic, or approach that topic from the angle of a certain discipline: 'X views of Y' or 'X aspects of Y', e.g. Christian views on sin and Islamic views on sin, or Legal aspects of file sharing. What we've got here is more or less 'Islamic/legal views/aspects of apostasy in Islam' on the one hand and 'Ex-Muslims' views on apostasy in Islam / Social/psychological aspects of apostasy in Islam' on the other. They are topics in their own right, and they are justified in having separate articles. Lastly, Wretchskull could be right that the title should be singular instead of plural, I don't mind either option. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another verse

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Include Sahih Al-Bukhari 6922? Egon20 (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Apostasy (irtidad) is mentioned in the Qur'an

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Under the Etymology section, the following is mentioned: "Apostasy is called irtidād (which means relapse or regress) or ridda in Islamic literature—the terms do not appear in the Quran." The bolded text is false. Irtidad is mentioned in Qur'an 2:217 [4]. The word for "renounce" in this verse is "yartadid" يَرْتَدِدْ which is the present tense masculine verb of "irtidad". I removed the bolded part from that sentence. WatABR (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apostasy_in_Islam/Archive_5&oldid=1136526288"