Talk:IslamQA.info

Controversial Fatwas section

@Shanghaienne: Why have you re-introduced this section and how was the deletion of the section 'malicious'? That section is just a list of fatwas some user(s) have found personally controversial. The references provided are links to the fatwas on the islamqa.info website (i.e., primary sources). No reliable secondary sources have been cited to back up the claims of controversy. One source cited to back up a claim is a blog, but blogs are not considered reliable sources according to Wikipedia, and the use of the ibitimes.co.uk story is WP:SYNTHESIS.

As per WP:PRIMARY: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." These requirements are not fulfilled by that section. It is therefore original research. —Human10.0 (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: As I said in one edit summ.: "just because no secondary sources are provided doesn't mean it should be removed", here the secondary sources should be about describing each fatwa as being "controversial", this however does not mean that the statement of each fatwa should be deleted. 22:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: First of all, thanks for finally engaging on the talk page (for the record, I would like to mention that this conversation is taking place after I successfully sought page protection for the IslamQA.info wiki page because people kept ignoring my requests to have a discussion on the talk page before re-adding a section composed entirely of WP:OR on said wiki page).

To summarise: The section in question was titled "Controversial Fatwas and Extremist Religious Beliefs" and contained summarisations of cherry-picked fatwas accessible on the IslamQA.info website. But there were no non-primary sources in the entire section that described the listed fatwas as "controversial." It was just a list of fatwas some user(s) and/or IPs had found personally troubling. Since there was no proof that the fatwas were actually controversial, the entire section was original research (OR). As per WP:VERIFY: "Wikipedia does not publish original research." Wikipedia:No original research states: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source [...] To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, 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." None of the citations provided in the 'Controversial fatwas' section gave direct support for claims of controversy being presented. There was not even reasonable expectation that any of the claims of controversy in the section were supported by a published, reliable source. As I have shown, Wikipedia does not publish OR so the material had to be deleted. Also notice how the "Controversy in Saudi Arabia" section of the wiki page was left intact because it is backed up by non-primary sources. —Human10.0 (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: There's something called WP:BURDEN, this, doesn't fall only on the one who added those sources, but also, the one who wants to delete them, amongst whom you are. So just because there are no secondary or tertiary sources doesn't mean it should be deleted. Rather, one can say that we should add tags in descriptions, thereof, of the fatwas being "controversial", which is itself a label to avoid, WP:LABEL.

As such the information proposed shouldn't be deleted, rather, citation needed tags should be made there.

19:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: By citing WP:BURDEN, you have convinced me even more that the OR section should not be re-added (and should be swiftly deleted if it is ever re-added) until reliable non-primary sources are cited to support it. WP:BURDEN clearly states: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed [this is precisely what I did] and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source" [this is precisely what I expect].

You have misunderstood WP:BURDEN: nowhere does it even remotely imply that one has to prove the non-existence of controversy before deletion, rather it says one has to prove the existence of controversy before inclusion (i.e., the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that so-and-so fatwas are controversial). I do not know why you are still stating that "just because there are no secondary or tertiary sources doesn't mean [the OR section] should be deleted" when I have quoted Wikipedia policies according to which the lack of "secondary or tertiary sources" is reason enough to delete the OR section. Further, WP:BURDEN encourages us to add the [citation needed] tag only if we think that reliable sources directly supporting the material exist but as I have stated before, there is "not even reasonable expectation that any of the claims of controversy in the section [are] supported by a published, reliable source."

Long story short: If you want to restore the OR section, find reliable non-primary sources that directly support all the claims being made in it. Until then there is no good reason to include it on the IslamQA.info wiki page. —Human10.0 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: Well I think there's yet a small chance of such a source being existent, and I think that, subsequently, we shouldn't delete the material and leave tags. 18:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Have you found any existent sources yet that state so-and-so fatwas are controversial? If not, we are under no obligation to re-add the original research based just on the unsupported assumption that "there's yet a small chance of such a source being existent." —Human10.0 (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: Just because I didn't find a RS for a certain claim in an article doesn't mean I should immediately delete it. And moreover, you're the one who made the claim that quote-unquote "there is "not even reasonable expectation that any of the claims of controversy in the section [are] supported by a published, reliable source."", the WP:BURDEN falls on you. 19:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Just because someone made an unsourced claim in an article doesn't mean we should keep it either. You should not be making unsourced claims on Wikipedia in the first place. Please find reliable sources to support claims before adding them to this encyclopedia. Also, I did not make a "claim" myself, I made a denial of a claim which has no evidence of being true (i.e., denial of the claim that there is reasonable expectation of claims of controversy being supported by a published, reliable source). Regarding burden of proof, I do not think you comprehend the concept: the burden of proof lies on the person making a claim, not on the person denying it in light of lack of evidence. One cannot ask for counter evidence without giving any evidence in the first place. The burden of proof lies on you to show that reliable sources exist that prove that there is controversy regarding the fatwas in the OR section. You yourself have expressed that the chances of finding such sources are "small" (or in other words, the chances of not finding any sources are large/more probable) so I hope you understand how it would be unreasonable to add original research to the wiki page when the probability of it being proven true are so bleak. —Human10.0 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: No, we will simply label it by and tell him to show his sources, or if we find contrary RSs that display a different opinion, we may then be justified by deleting that unsourced claim with the new sourced one. But in any case the WP:BURDEN falls on both of us, instead of wasting more time on talk let's look concentrate that time for looking up sources. Thanks. 20:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

@CounterTime: Let's see if your way works out. I'm willing to wait one week for users to find reliable sources to back up the claims made in the "controversial fatwas"/OR section. After that period I will remove original research that does not have reliable sources as citations. —Human10.0 (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Human10.0: Adding more time would be preferable. 21:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Sorry CounterTime but the "This article relies too much on references to primary sources" banner has been up since July 2015 and all of the references to primary sources are in the "Controversial fatwas"/OR section so it seems the section has been without reliable non-primary sources for a very long time already. If the fatwas are truly controversial, finding reliable sources that state so should not be difficult. —Human10.0 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Still not getting why we can't keep those fatwas. They are controversial, just by looking at them you can tell they're not sane people. These fatwas are the direct words of Muhammed Al Munajjid. I don't see "original research" for other things, so why can't we have it for those fatwas? TelusFielder (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't we keep the fatwas? Because no secondary sources were presented to back up the claims that the fatwas are 'controversial.' Non-primary reliable sources are necessary to back up claims before the claims are added to Wikipedia. If you want to add 'so-and-so fatwas are controversial' on this article, find non-primary reliable sources first that corroborate each claim of controversy. Not sure what you mean by the last line. —Human10.0 (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

dePOVing

Have removed controversial parts of the fatwa section and reinstated it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Have found several Secondary sources, i.e. news articles, which mention Islamqa fatwas or opinions. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Muhammad Al-Munajjid

The subject is basically known only for what he states in his website. The two are basically one and the same article. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagee. He supervises, oversees, and certifies the fatwas issued on the website which is one of the top three websites on Islam in the world. There are plenty of citations that refer to him alone without refering to his website.Patapsco913 (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - they are not synonymous, nor is he the only editor of the website. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Halal or harram

Assalaamu alaykum is halal to eat cat meat in islam? Harold Basfar Abdurrasheed (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Harold Basfar Abdurrasheed: No it is not.

37.111.216.65 (talk)