Talk:Islam and blasphemy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reverting back to older version without giving any justification[edit]

I added more Islamic Traditions and point of view of Hanafi Fiqh, but Mr. Edward321 revert it back to older version, which is obsolete. I asked him to provide the reasons for reverting it back, but no reasons mentioned. مہوش علی (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Comment(s)[edit]

Completely filled with propaganda and islamophobic statements. "in contrast with Christianity..." WHAT THE FUCK? Seriously I'm keeping this deleted until someone (who isn't a racist little fuck) writes a better article on it. Hell, why don't I start to make it my own fucking mission to add to Criticism of Christianity huh? Seriously..I thought Wikipedia was better than this.--Velanthis (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAN YOU RETARDS STOP PUTTING THESE RACIST FUCKING COMMENTS NO HERE. YOUR GETTING YOUR RESOARCES FROM COMPLETELY ISLAMOPHIBIC WEBSITE AND NOBODY IS STOPPING THAT RACIST BIGOT.--Velanthis (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who actually tries to put something racist against Muslims peoples....well I'm gonna keep my ass on this page so if you want to stop me write a better article.--Velanthis (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Velanthis, last time I checked Islam was not a race, but a religion. You cannot use the word 'racist' in this context.

Is it not true that individual Muslims and Islamic governments are responsible to recognize free speech as a human right? Islam itself cannot recognize anything any more than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or Shiia, as it cannot think (it is, in itself, a concept). Shouldn't the article support itself on historic and contemporary views and punishments (or lack thereof) for blasphemy in and out of Islamic countries, possibly with references to sacred and secular texts? That's what a wikipedia article is supposed to look like. Until it does so, you're just trading Islamophobic bias for Islamophilic bias.--catcherintehsty (talk) 08:00, 19 January, 2008 (EST)

The second line of the article says, "The Quran and the hadith do not speak about any worldy punishment for blasphemy." Then in the "Blasphemy against God" section it says, "The Qur'an speaks of punishment in relation to those who make mischief in opposition to God and Muhammad" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SabrebIade (talk • contribs) 01:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Badmouth?[edit]

That translation probably calls for a fact/translation check. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed that ¶ completely (see edit log). Would fact check the Egyptian blasphemy report but presume one of the external links supports. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions and tags[edit]

The entire Article has verses of the Holy quran without their interpretation from any renowned author or muslim jurist. As this is Original research from the creator of the article I am deleting the verses which are without interpretation. Please do not post original research on wikipedia.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC) I have reverted changes to this article per the essay WP:BRD. 94.171.219.68 has removed both references and referenced content without explanation. Some of the references are open to challenge on the ground that some of them come from non-Muslim sources (some are Christian sources). If there were Muslim sources in English which disputed the information presented here, those references would be open to challenge on the ground that they are likely to be sympathetic to Islam. I submit that the inherent, disputatious nature of the subject-matter requires that both Muslim and non-Muslim sources be used. I suggest that references which confute the content of this article be added to the article rather than that content be removed. An editor who removes referenced content without explanation gives the impression that he is removing the information because he wants to suppress it. WP:NOT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT indicate that suppressing information is contrary to Wikipedia's policies.[reply]

99.247.60.143 deleted a link which connects to a document that is about the suppression of free speech. Since blasphemy is about restricting speech, the link is relevant; it should not have been deleted. User: 99.247.60.143 inserted a tag which called for a citation after the article's first sentence. The first sentence is a tautology; that is, what it says is self-evident; blasphemy is irreverent behavior, and the followers of Islam are Muslims. Per WP:FACTS, it is not necessary to cite a source in support of the obvious.

If the article is not factual in some respect, please provide references in English so that editors may verify whether a statement should be corrected or clarified. Editors may say that some of the behaviors listed in this article do not amount to blasphemy. The ambiguous nature of blasphemy obliged me to include all behavior which is forbidden somewhere and that is forbidden for religious reasons rather than to prevent injury or loss.

I have not replaced the tags which come, it seems, from the WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. One tag complains that a "worldwide view" is not represented in the article. There is no explanation of what that view is or why it should be represented here. The documentation for the template says inter alia "editors may remove this tag with alacrity and justified prejudice" if the tagger does not describe what he wants. The other tag asks for "cleanup" but the tagger gives no explanation of what he wants, and he does not explain why he cannot do whatever he wants done. I hope the tagger will be pleased to have in the article again some of the references and content that User: 94.171.219.68 deleted. PYRRHON  talk   17:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serious issues with this entry, complete rewrite needed[edit]

Some of the things listed as "blasphemy" here are based on isolated incidents referenced in news articles. This only means the people in question considered it "blasphemy", not that it is blasphemy according to mainstream scholars from any of the mains schools of fiqh.

Examples: 1. Naming a teddy bear "Muhammed". Yes, in one particularly famous incident in Sudan a woman was charged with blasphemy for this, but does this really mean that it's generally considered blasphemy by most lay Muslims or Muslim scholars? I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the Quran or hadith specifically referring to the naming of teddy bears. Even if naming toys or other inanimate objects Muhammed is generally considered blasphemy, then that's what it should say, not specifically "teddy bears", which is downright silly as I doubt it's an issue that comes up frequently. 2. Desecration of Quran by a Christian touching it. While this is extensively footnoted, two of the four references come from the same source-- a right-wing Christian website, not the most unbiased source one could find, one was an Op-Ed-- and all four footnotes refer to the very same incident in Nigeria. Which only demonstrates that some of the Nigerian Muslims in that particular place at that particular time considered it blasphemous, and I'd hardly consider one incident of an unruly mob beating someone to death over circumstances that remain somewhat unclear to be scholarly evidence of this claim. Sounds more like a bunch of radical Muslim thugs looking for an excuse to beat up a Christian than any sort of proof that such activity is commonly considered to be blasphemy in Islam.

I know some currently atheist ex-Muslims who are critical of Islam, but fair and knowledgeable on the topic. I'll ask them to take a look at it and maybe provide an NPOV and well-sourced/well-informed re-write instead of a pro or anti-Islam propaganda piece with dubious information and sources.--SmashTheGlass (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.-- (1) I already edited the first sentence using the language from the general blasphemy article. Originally blasphemy in Islam was defined as irreverent behavior that "offends a Muslim". What the fuck is that supposed to mean? That if ANY Muslim ANYWHERE on the planet is offended by their personal interpretation of "irreverent behavior" that makes it "blasphemy in Islam"? Ridiculous. (2) Why is there only an article about blasphemy in Islam and not in Christianity (which may not be so big a deal now, but if you look at the first 1500 years or so of Christianity, it is kinda a big deal)? (3) Again, I really think this needs a total rewrite that incorporates some of the topics found elsewhere on Wikipedia regarding Islamic jurisprudence-- making subsections on what is considered blasphemy by the different schools of fiqh would be particularly helpful.--SmashTheGlass (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faults with the article[edit]

There are many subtle and direct misrepresentations of blasphemy in Islam. An overwhelming majority of references have not been taken from viable religious sources or texts and thus most of the information on this page is fallacious in nature. Some quotes from the Koran and Hadith are either intentionally misconstrued, or the editor has failed to understand the historical facts surrounding the relevant verses. It is thus requested that the article be edited and completely rewritten.

Statements made such as 'Naming a teddy bear Muhammad' are completely illogical and there is no substantial theological proof to ascertain whether, for example, 'speculating what Muhammad may do', or 'making a film about the prophet's life' are blasphemous in nature.

Thus it is requested that the page be re-edited, and it is suggested that sources are solely from the Koran and from verifiable Hadith; to ensure the integrity of this article.

Please ensure that any sources you use are not sensationalised news articles or otherwise misconstrued in nature. I have removed some of the fallacious points, nevertheless, it is requested that an individual with an UNBIASED view of Islam rewrites the article to better reflect the position of Islam on blasphemy

Kind Regards.

Deletions[edit]

I have made several deletions in this article regarding points that have not used appropriate citations from religious texts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoenixSF90 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On vandalism[edit]

Please do not vandalize this article.

This article complies with Wikipedia's policies regarding a neutral point of view WP:NPOV, no original research WP:NOR, and verifiability WP:V. The article reports on information and incidents collected from a wide variety of sources from all over the world, and presents those sources in great number. The article does not preach. It is not anti-Islam or pro-Islam. It does not elevate any group of believers above any other. The article does not make judgments about whether an event alleged to be blasphemous would be considered blasphemous by any particular group or by any particular proportion of all Muslims. The article does not take sides in theological or sectarian disputes. The article takes no stand on who is right and who is wrong. It takes no stand on what should or should not be blasphemous. The article tries to be nothing more than a collection of reports and quotations.

If you do not like the references provided, do not delete them. Add better references or add references which challenge the assertion which a report makes. Do not expect the editors at Wikipedia to investigate the reference or to know the motives of the persons involved as participants in an event or as reporters of an event. Do not add your opinions to the article.

If you disagree with what the article says, then provide references in English that agree with you. Editors will make corrections if there are mistakes. On the talk page, mention dead links so that they may be replaced.

Not all the believers in Islam have identical beliefs or practices. According to the article Fiqh, there are four prominent schools of fiqh (Madh'hab) for the Sunni and two schools for the Shia. There are other sects that have beliefs and practices that differ from the Sunni and the Shia. This article is not the place to settle sectarian disputes or to present the views of theologians on what beliefs or practices are best. This article is about incidents alleged to be blasphemy as they are recorded in newspapers and other reports.

If you do not like the article, write the article you want in your userspace (See Wikipedia:User pages or Wikipedia:Subpages.). Invite readers to look at your version. If readers think it deserves to replace the current article, then your version will replace the current article.

Note that the article has received far fewer than one million complaints (See above.). Muslim editors and non-Muslim editors, including ex-Muslims, have tolerated and defended the article. Those editors will undo your efforts if you spoil the article. Please be constructive in your remarks and in your editing. PYRRHON  talk   01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: On vandalism[edit]

Dear Pyrrhon8,

Thank you for your reply. In order to avoid any misunderstandings, I have added that this article contains instances of events which were considered blasphemous by various sections of Muslim society. I do feel though that in order to better serve an article essentially on religion, there should be a seperate section stipulating the general consensus among Muslims on what counts as blasphemy. This is of course, my personal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoenixSF90 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good source[edit]

This looks like something that should be incorporated, once I've got some time: [1]. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AzureFury, I agree that the source cited by you has content that would enhance this article, but you lack the expertise to make the article better. I will undertake to incorporate that source and perhaps others into the article. Editors, if you know of other sources that comment on the interplay of sacrilege, blasphemy, heresy, and apostasy in Islam, please provide a citation. While I was investigating the source mentioned by AzureFury, I noticed that Abdulla Saeed and Hassan Saeed need some improvement. I will leave that improvement to someone else. PYRRHON  talk   04:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have incorporated into the article the source identified by AzureFury. PYRRHON  talk   20:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Delete[edit]

Crucifixion is not an Islamic punishment please delete from the first line —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.54.25.201 (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did crucifixion became part of Islam? And this line: "stating facts such as: Muhammad's parents were not Muslims (Pakistan)." is COMPLETELY FALSE , I am a Pakistani Muslim and everyone here knows and discusses openly EVEN WITH religious scholars that the parents of Prophet Muhammad pbuh weren't technically Muslims —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.8.137 (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Freeatlastchitchat deleting content[edit]

Dear Freeatlastchitchat, Thank you for your edits and for undoing my revert. I assume good faith. You have deleted two section which have been sourced by both primary and secondary. Since your objection was quoting primary sources without outside interpretation, it makes no sense why you object then. The secondary sources for both sections are:

Saeed, Abdullah; Hassan Saeed (2004). Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam. Burlington VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.

I will revert your changes due to the reasons I have outlined above. Please feel free to discuss this issue further so that others can help improve the article. Thank you. Mbcap (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also add that you said not to put quranic verses without explanation from a renowned scholar. I did not know this was a criteria to include material into the article. My impression is that it needs to be from a secondary source. The sections are referenced via a secondary source and since I did not write this article, I thought the quranic quotation and hadith was referenced and interpreted in the Abdullah Saeed text. I have not read the book but if you have and can not find this to be the case please feel free to remove the quran and hadith quotation but the other text in the two sections have to stay since they are sourced. Also your additions to the article under subheading 'blasphemy against God' before I reverted it was:
There is no mention in the entire Holy Quran about blasphemy. However there is distinct mention that the muslims should not verbally abuse the idols of polytheists.
This is unsourced and could I ask you to not put it in for the 3rd time. However, any edits that are sourced would be welcome. Mbcap (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, and respected Mbcap. First of all, Thanks for assuming good faith. On to the article then.

  • I have multiple Issues with this article. The first is that "Blasphemy" should be translated as "impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.". Because this is the first meaning. I would like to inquire why the fourth meaning, which is outdated and only rarely ever used, has been used here. Without reason this is bizarre.
  • Secondly, the deletion.
I deleted the Quranic verses which were used out of context. If you look closely at the section you will see that
"Saeed, Abdullah; Hassan Saeed (2004). Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam. Burlington VT: Ashgate Publishing Company."
Is not used as a source when the Quranic verse has been quoted.The reference ends before the Quranic verse. Hence the logical interpretation that his book does not contain the verse. The second reason to assume that his book does not contain any mention of Blasphemy is the very name of his book and his biography. The author has always been against punishment of apostasy and he is known to be a jurist who claims that punishments for apostasy and blasphemy are not present in Islam. So why on earth will he condone an act which he has opposed his whole life. Therefore the book has been used out on context here.
  • The Third Issue I have is with the Hadith and the Verse using the Arabic words which signify "PHYSICAL ASSAULT" instead of verbal blasphemy. This should be clear indicator of the fact that the punishment/retaliation is for physical actions. Like an eye for an eye. So using them here is out of context.
  • The Fourth Issue is that the Hadith is not used by any scholar. The source is good, but that only mentions the incident. The incident is of Ka'ab assaulting the muslims and the Prophet, which led to his killing. There is no mention of any blasphemy. Therefore this counts are original research.
  • The Fifth issue is that; when the article itself states that there is no worldly punishment for blasphemy mentioned in Quran and Hadith then there should be no mention of any verse or hadith prescribing punishment. This issue is a minor one. when compared to others.
  • Therefore I am undoing the revert for the following reasons
1)The secondary source does not mention the Quranic verse
2)The secondary source for hadith, only mentions the incident. so using the incident here is original research.
3)The translation of blasphemy used should be the first one not the fourth one.
4)The words used in the Quranic verse and Hadith are for physical assault, so they should not be considered blasphemy.

P.S As I have provided a plethora of solid reasons I will edit the title of this section as well. I hope you don't mind. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Replacement[edit]

The hadith which is mentioned here of the woman throwing garbage is considered weak.However there are genuine and sourced traditions which say that the wife of Abu Lahab threw rotting intestines on the Holy Prophet SAW while he was praying. Also there are traditions that say she used to throw rotting garbage at his doorstep. I propose that we replace this tradition with more reliable tradition. Please give your opinion on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeatlastChitchat (talk • contribs) 08:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going forward with further improvements[edit]

Hello FreeatlastChitchat, good work on the improvements. I agree the entire article needs to be re-written. There is no concept of blasphemy in Islam as such but there are a number of specific situations where Islam has spoken about objectionable behaviour towards the religion itself. For example this quote from Ma'aida which used to be in the article which refers to the muharib:

“The recompense of those who wage war against Allaah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter."

This is talked about by many classical islamic sources. This is not blasphemy but a specific crime within Islam referring to the al-muharib (bandits).

Also in the article there is mention of insulting Mohammad counting as blasphemy. There is no such thing as blasphemy. The classical texts say regarding it is that it constitutes apostasy so I do not know why it is here. There may even be other scholars who disagree with that opinion. Either way it is not defined as blasphemy in Islam. Do we take the definition of blasphemy in islam from orientalists or from islamic theological sources? The latter has not defined or even mentioned the term in my experience.

This is just one statement I have issue with. To be honest, most of the rest of the article are also questionable as to their merit. Can I ask, in wikipedia do we present information in the normative sense because this article is full of stories from around the world that have been attributed to blasphemy. Is their any islamic scholar that acknowledges blasphemy or define it? It would be good to get an expert on the subject to provide input. Mbcap (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, we should request a merge with blasphemy laws. The reason is that blasphemy is defined in a unique way by different Islamic countries, and there is no umbrella definition accepted by all. Therefore we cannot create a "one size fits all" article like other Islamic practices.
If you do not agree then I will work on the edit over new years eve. Let me just clear up something viz a viz the difference between "warring" and "verbal blasphemy".
The Muharib are not verbal blasphemers. They are "warriors" who fight against muslims. The literal meaning is of a warrior. The root of the word is "Ha" , "Ra" , "Ba", which means war. As you are native to English let me quote latin. The word "HaRaBa" equates to the Latin bellum which gains new meanings with new additions, but the basic meaning remains of "Physical" confrontation unless a metaphorical is implied.
Of course anyone can claim that a person who is waging physical war must also be "guilty" of verbal blasphemy but this will be classic over generalization. We must keep this article free of such fallacies.
As to mention of orientalists, I am personally not comfortable with that. The reason is that we should always source definition of religious terms in general and controversial religious terms in particular, from canon. Sourcing the definition of blasphemy to non Islamic authors or anyone who lived after the "golden age" i.e the three centuries after the Prophet SAW will not be good.
Thank you for the input and please give your opinion on the merger for to me it sounds the best way to give information to readers without causing disambiguation. We can talk about it in a separate section if you require some definite reasons for the merger.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FreeatlastChitchat, I am not that knowledgeable in this area so I am a bit hesitant about giving input to the merger discussion. I shall try to give my opinion in the second paragraph. Regarding the word Haraba and its noun Muharib. I only highlighted this to illustrate how misplaced some of the information on the main article is/was. I did not mean to say that someone waging war is guilty of blasphemy but I was saying the opposite. I meant to say that this passage from the Quran is misplaced as it has no relation to blasphemy. I will explain. I am indeed a native english speaker but I study classical Arabic. The definitions of these words if taken literally can be totally different to the actual canonical definition. For example hajj means journey (literally) but the actual definition refers to something else entirely. I agree that Haraba means war in its literal sense but its actual meaning (classical Arabic definition) is ambushing people and exhibiting bandit behavior, aggression, stealing & looting peoples property and terrorizing people etc. Whereas the noun Muharib means a bandit/aggressor. This is like salama which means to accept or submit but if you add meem (m) to the root (salama) it becomes the nourn form (Muslim) meaning the one who submits. But we know Muslim refers to something else, a people that adhere to Islam. Sorry I am getting carried away. So in summary the meaning is from the canon from the golden era and I was highlighting how it is not related to blasphemy but something else entirely.
Moving on to improving the article. I think it needs cleaning up in regards to what constitutes blasphemy in Islam if such a thing exists. If it does exists and there are good sources from Islamic canon then it may be notable enough to warrant its own article which right now exists anyway. Otherwise I agree with you, it may be wise to merge. Mbcap (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see why you thought I was equating war with blasphemy, I said in the first line in this section:
"There is no concept of blasphemy in Islam as such but there are a number of specific situations where Islam has spoken about objectionable behaviour towards the religion itself."
Sorry my friend, did not mean to say that. I was going to write about insulting God, Mohammad or the Quran and the consequences. They are not labelled as blasphemy in Islam but do carry jurisprudential rulings and have consequences. And then I was going to move on to talk about the irrelevant information in the article about haraba. Mbcap (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the statement that if sources are there it should be merged. Right now it appears as if someone just wrote it using google. 94.35% of the article deals with blasphemy laws in various countries but there is already an article for that, so I am strongly in favor of merging. As only 5% of the article deals with the concept, and on top of that the said 5% negates the very title of the article therefore in my honest opinion there should be a merger.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Blasphemy law[edit]

  1. 94.35% of the article is about blasphemy laws
  2. The rest of the article actually OPPOSES the idea that there is blasphemy punishment in Islam, thereby negating the Title.
  3. The article does not include any sources except one and that source too OPPOSES THE notion that there is punishment for blasphemy in Islam.

Please give your valuable input.

  • Oppose This article specifically about blasphemy in the particular religion (Islam), while Blasphemy law is about the laws of the states, which may or may not have official state religion.Staszek Lem (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Blasphemy law" already has a considerable size and this is about a specific topic. Rupert Loup (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia[edit]

The following text was deleted:

  • watching a film or listening to music (Somalia).[1]

It was deadlink; This is its internet archive.

Please review whether it is correct item; the ref seems to use the term "blasphemy". If you decide it is OK, please keep in mind that the current descrition is imprecise. I would suggest something like:

  • Al-shabaab, Somalia militants which control a major part of the country, maintain that Islam doesn’t allow watching films or listening to music. <ref/ref>

References

  1. ^ "Somali Men Get 40 Lashes For Watching Pornography". Newstime Africa. 1 December 2009. Retrieved 4 December 2009.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Islam and blasphemy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

moderate muslim view missing[edit]

An extremist muslim just shared this wikipedia page to promote hatred and justify killing of those who criticise Islam! On going through this article i realise that the moderate muslim view is missing. The moderate muslims view this issue differently. they dont believe that there should be any punishment on blasphemy. i tried putting verses of Quran that expose the extremist ideology but they were removed! i wonder why it happened? shouldnt the article also reflect the moderate muslims view and not just the view of extremists.How can wikipedia be used as a platform for those promoting violence while not giving the moderates a chance to put forward their view? 5:17 - "In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things." when one looks at this verse it is clear that there is no question of punishments on blasphemy as Quran/prophet do not command killing christians Infact asks to give them protection! please would someone clarify why such a point of view does not deserve to be on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Basitjamal83 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Your edits have been reverted ([2]) because they did not conform to Wikipedia's policies regarding wp:verifiability, specially wp:CIRCULAR and wp:SYNTH. See your user talk page. - DVdm (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of blasphemy[edit]

This section is based mostly upon original research. For example, it claims that an example of blasphemy is "being alone with persons of the opposite sex who are not blood relatives". The source[3] doesn't use the term blasphemy in relation with this. Another example is confusing Islamic laws on fornication with blasphemy.[4] Some of the items are actually blasphemy against Christianity, not Islam.[5] Some sources can not be found. For example this[6] is a dead link and a Google search doesn't yield any results either.

Some of the content, however, should be expanded into prose, like the depictions of Muhammad and the Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case.Bless sins (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verification[edit]

I have not been able to verify the following:

The first executions for blaspheme were "in the hours after Mecca's fall" to the Muslims in 629. Muhammad ordered a number of enemies executed and based on this early jurists postulated that sabb al-Nabi (abuse of the Prophet) was a crime "so heinous that repentance was disallowed and summary execution was required".

I simply searched both of the above quotes, "hours..." and "so heinous..." in both of the sources on Google Books: Heaven on Earth: A Journey Through Shari‘a Law and Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law. Clarification would be appreciated.Bless sins (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I check the sources and fixed the text. It looks like Peters was cited second-hand, from Kadri's footnote. Eperoton (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islam and blasphemy. 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) 08:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islam and blasphemy. 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) 12:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islam and blasphemy. 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) 20:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islam and blasphemy. 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) 17:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of blasphemy 2[edit]

As Bless Sins points out above much of this section seems to based upon news reports, original research and synthesis with the exception of cite:Blasphemy: Islamic Concept". Encyclopedia of Religion. 2. Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson Gale. 2005.

It seems to conflate blasphemy with sin, heresy, religious crimes and many opinions condemned but not necessarily related to blasphemy. The noteworthy instances should be merged with 'Notable cases and debate on blasphemy' while repeating content (like the Teddy bear case) and non noteworthy cases should be removed.39.37.140.34 (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Periodic vandalism[edit]

The page periodically suffers the edits of anonymous IPs that tend to do the following things:

  • Add the sentence "The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy" (when it clearly does)
  • Remove from the page all the quotations from the Quran that explicitly prescribe punishments for blasphemy
  • Remove one or more depictions of Mohammad
  • Restore old versions of the page containing older/reverted vandalism
  • Do other non-constructive edits

--Grufo (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the pictures at all but your recent edits are a downgrade of the article and I am restoring better edits by other users like Eperotron. Why are you deleting the soutce from Saeed and replacing it with OR? It is also included in the very next sentence? And who is deleting material here. Just check the edit I linked in the edit history. What matters here is the RS, not your personal opinions. 119.155.25.15 (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you care about and what you do not care about is completely irrelevant here. Your edit consists of:
- Changing "[Islam's] unique god" into "God" (which god? Zeus? Odin?)
- You keep claiming that "The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy", although it clearly does the opposite and any secondary source is completely irrelevant and necessarily partial (in fact the laws of many countries and several other secondary sources disagree with you).
- You removed the sentence "although the latter are admonishments directed towards a witness of blasphemy rather than the guilty of blasphemy" from the paragraph "Quran", with the clear intention of presenting an admonishment directed towards witnesses of blasphemy as a supposed "milder" and "less violent" attitude of the Quran towards blasphemy. But no, blasphemy is still that thing for which you can get killed according to the Quran.
In general, what you are attempting to do (i.e., soften the actual words of the Quran in the direction of a pacific attitude of the latter towards blasphemy) is both OR and ideological. --Grufo (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grufo the sentence "The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy" seems to be cited, and you can't remove it based on WP:Original research.
Grufo, you said any secondary source is completely irrelevant. Please read WP:V.VR talk 14:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent:
I know quite well WP:V and the Quran is a verifiable source. On the other hand, the sentence “The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy” is simply a false statement that contradicts “The only punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is that they should be murdered, or crucified, or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned”. The Quran specifies very clearly punishments for blasphemy.
Going more into detail with your edits:
- Your revision No. 969802218 removes Raymond Ibrahim from the sources with the motivation that Ibrahim is “not a reliable source”, without giving further explanations. I disagree with you.
- Your revision No. 969802681 removes a quotation from the Quran with the motivation that “[one] can't use Qur'an as a source, you need secondary sources”. I completely disagree. Secondary sources are often in contrast with each other and Wikipedia can definitely use the Quran as a source, especially when this is supported by secondary sources (see, for example, Siraj Khan. "Blasphemy against the Prophet", in Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture).
- Your revision No. 969805258 removes the referenced sentence “A variety of punishments, including death, have been instituted in Islamic jurisprudence that draw their sources from hadith literature”, although this is a fact. The same edit attempts to justify Mohammad's killing of Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf as a simple political protection towards Muslims in a time of war, despite the sources clearly state that the killing happened because of blasphemy (“He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes”).
I am reverting the page. Again. --Grufo (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1)The issue of calling god in Islam as Allah or "unique God" goes against recommendations at MOS:Islam [7]. As per the recommendations followed in Islam related articles, it should be stated as god but with a link to God in Islam.
2)Additionally, the sentence added by Grufo "although the latter are admonishments directed towards a witness of blasphemy rather than the guilty of blasphemy" is not found in Akyol and Saeed. It too should be removed as OR.
3)Chronologically, a discussion of pre-modern Islam should be addressed before modern Islam.
4)On the issue of Saeed, it is as VR states. Grufo is removing secondary sources and replacing it with his own interpretations of a primary source. Please read up on wikipedia's rules of verify-ability not truth [8] and the usage of primary sources. Even as OR, while the Surah is a messanic warning to contemporary opposing pagans and Jews, it doesn't explicitly refer to blasphemy, but in the end what matters is what the RS state.
That about covers my edits. Not going to respond to accusations of vandalism or ideological bias. This is an open and shut case. 119.155.25.15 (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going in order point by point…
1) "Allah" (instead of "God") appears in verbatim English-language quotes from Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translations of the Quran, as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Islam-related_articles#Allah. "Unique god" in an introduction paragraph both presents the Islamic God to the reader (who can perfectly be a polytheist or an atheist) and outlines that denying the Islamic God's uniqueness constitutes blasphemy as well (while this is not exactly the case for Christianity for example – see Trinity). But this is a minor issue. Personally I think that “God” instead of “the religion's unique god” in that point of the page is stylistically inferior.
2) The fact that a sentence is not found in Akyol and Saeed is completely irrelevant when the article does not attribute such sentence to Akyol or Saeed
3) A paragraph must not necessarily follow a chronological order, but must favor readability
4) Quoting the Quran is not interpreting it
--Grufo (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is going nowhere. Some of the things you insist on go against core Wikipedia policies of no OR and reliance on primary sources.
1) As per Islam, denying the Islamic God's connection to the God of the Jews and Christians is equally blasphemous [9] (and within Christianity, Jews were indeed held as blasphemers by some Christians for denying the trinity, but that's a separate issue) and MOS:Islam states that Allah should be written as god unless part of an English language quote. Most translations are also split on the issue as can be seen in the translations above, but I'll follow the MOS.
2) Then just who is it attributed to??? You just came in and dropped that sentence infront of the source. It's OR again.
4) The statement you are putting forward is quite clearly not just a quote. 119.155.25.15 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are making some confusion about primary and secondary sources, and OR, and I can perceive a wish to hide, minimize or reinterpret uncomfortable passages from the Quran. Please see Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources § "Secondary" does not mean "good".
1) I wrote “outlines” not “discusses” – of course a discussion would go more into depth. This does not change the fact that “the religion's unique god” is richer of information than “God”. But again, this is only a minor stylistic feature.
2) It lacks a reference, so it is not attributed to a source. Not every single word needs a source, especially when what is stated is evident.
4) It is a referenced statement that shortens the original quote keeping the same words and with a footnote that contains the full text. This is definitely a quotation (precisely, it is called “indirect quotation”).
--Grufo (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making bold assumptions. Your own editing pattern on this article is far more questionable.
Saeed is a reliable secondary source and his views about the Quranic interpretation are well sourced, as are his views about the hadith in the next sentence, which you seemingly have no objection to. His entire book covers the issue of apostasy and to a lesser extent, blasphemy and what is relevant here is his views which you have removed multiple times.
1) It doesn't seem to be minor when you are the one editwarring over the issue. It contradicts the style found on other Wikipedia articles for both Islam and other religions as well as MOS:Islam.
2) Hence it is OR and goes well beyond reasonable assumptions. What you stated is not evident. Far from it, it contradicts the material in the previous sentence given by Akyol and Saeed which you have corrupted.
4) No the term blasphemy is not found anywhere (whether it is read into the text is a different matter), and more importantly reliable secondary sources that you keep deleting say so.
In short, the version found before Grufo's unproductive edits (which is consistent with [[10]]), should be restored. There are other problematic edits as well, but I'll look into them if I have the time at some point in the future. 119.155.25.15 (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please consider to make an account instead of using an IP address?

1) It is something that you keep mentioning while I keep saying it is a minor stylistic feature that can be changed (although in my opinion your proposal is stylistically inferior). Your version also adds confusion. Christians, Muslims and Jews have all different sensitivities about what constitutes an insult to their respective god (and the fact that Muslims think that it is the same god we are talking about does not find an agreement with Christians and Jews). For Christians and Jews for example it is considered a sin even just to mention their god in vain.

2) I am sorry, but denying that “When you hear Allah's revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not …” is an admonishment directed towards a witness of blasphemy (i.e., someone “who hears”) is not only ideological, but ridiculous as well.

4) So much ado for showing that it was not a quotation, and now the point is whether the quotation talks about blasphemy or not? According to scholars historically it has been always been considered by Muslims as a passage that talks about blasphemy. See footnotes under Islam and blasphemy § Quran. The fact that you, as an individual, think that that passage might talk about something else (what, out of curiosity?) does not change its historical usage. By the way, does the sentence “When you hear Allah's revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not …” explicitly talk about blasphemy?

Please stop labeling your revert edits as “Undid unproductive edits” or other childish stuff. There is clearly a strong divergence of opinions here, with you trying to bypass the Quran with secondary sources. Until an agreement is found here (in the talk page) I would suggest that we stop wasting time by reverting each other's edits. --Grufo (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grufo the Qur'an is a WP:PRIMARY source and you can't interpret it yourself. WP:V requires us to use reliable secondary sources and that's what the IP did and I did too. Your reverts that removed content sources to secondary sources and insert your personal interpretation of the Qur'an is against policy. And if you revert too much, you might be blocked.VR talk 20:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raymond Ibrahim is definitely not a reliable source, and is a rather extremist source. If anyone disagrees they can take it to WP:RSN. The source has no place in this article.VR talk 20:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) "My" proposal is merely the longstanding one that is consistent with WP, rather than a questionably more aesthetic one. The only reason I referred to blasphemy above is due to the fact is that you brought it up in the comments before stating "denying the Islamic God's uniqueness constitutes blasphemy". The uniqueness here is meant in the metaphysical sense, not an exclusionary one, so I believe you're misrepresenting the Islamic position here.
2) The point is that it is OR not found in any source. Present a source for it or it is to be removed. That's all there is to it. My point about it being found nowhere was in response to the issue of "waging war against Allah" verse. If the article was named "Islam and waging war against Allah" I would agree with you, but unfortunately it is not. Whats important is that you refrain from contradicting Akyol and Saeed when they are reliable sources. One could further argue that the fact that you can "rejoin" blasphemers once they cease (enter into some other discourse), does indeed indicate that there is no punishment for them according to this verse, but this is OR too, and I wouldn't add it without a source.
4) This sensitivity was captured in my first compromise edit where I stated that:
"The Quran prescribes no explicit punishment for blasphemy though some verses of the Quran are sometimes cited in support of it"
Do you know what explicit means (as I said whether it is read into the text is a different matter, it's what scholars do, but as noted by RSs, no punishment is explicitly mentioned). And your presented text is indeed more than just a mere quote. It's one that makes important changes to the text which is where interpretation comes in.
After the first edit, I realized that you had infact bulldozed the previous version so I went in favor of restoration of material instead. Plus, please do not obfuscate the matter here. The "revalation mocks" verse and "waging war" verse are quite clearly different, and you're not fooling anybody with your bait and switch discussions involving the two verses. Neither the former nor the latter explicitly refers to a "punishment for blasphemy' and the RS say so.
"bypass the Quran with secondary sources"
Comments like these really take the cake. Forgive me for relying on reliable secondary sources rather than your unsourced personal interpretations of the Quran which you believe to be obvious, but are in fact, in contradiction to the before-mentioned RS which you constantly remove.
You should really take up your own final advice about reverts. Though your fourth revert was just out of the timeframe, a case could be made that you have violated the 3RR. The onus is on you for the inclusion of this material that you altered not too long ago. This can be verified by the edit history as well as here [[11]]. 119.155.25.15 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent:
The Quran is definitely a primary source, and so must it be. I invite you as well to read the same page I suggested the IP address to read. As for Raymond Ibrahim, being critical of Islam does not make him an unreliable source. Personally I am not a fan of conservative folk like Ibrahim, but your statement remains your personal opinion and Ibrahim is definitely a reliable scholar.
I wouldn't be so childish with ominous private messages. I don't know who the IP address is, but if you and the IP address are the same person your edits consist only in reverting old versions of the page and have been way more numerous than mine in the last days, since my only job so far has been that of limiting the damage.
@IP address (possibly a.k.a. @Vice regent:)
1) Your wish to write “God” seems motivated by the ideological desire to present the Islamic God as the same god of Christianity and Judaism, and this is in line with the Islamic interpretation of God. Since I am atheist and I do not care which god you are talking about (definitely not mine since I do not have one), my wish to write “the religion's unique god” is only due to stylistic reasons and clarity. But if you are really so convinced that writing “God” is clearer than “the religion's unique god” (are you, really?), go on and change it.
2) “Present a source for it or it is to be removed”: It has already been explained to you that it is an evident statement that does not need a source, because it has the simple purpose of avoiding false dilemma fallacy by disambiguating the apparent contradiction with the previous, more violent, quotation from the Quran. And it does so by showing that the two quotations evidently have two different recipients. Furthermore your sentence “One could further argue that the fact that you can "rejoin" blasphemers once they cease (enter into some other discourse), does indeed indicate that there is no punishment for them according to this verse, but this is OR too, and I wouldn't add it without a source” is a complete non-sense and your own interpretation of something the article does not talk about.
4) What is explicit? Is a particular word needed or a paraphrase will do? There is at least a passage in the Quran that says that you must be killed or mutilated or imprisoned if you do a certain thing. What is that certain thing? We know for sure that most scholars affirm that that certain thing in that passage is blasphemy. Do you know any other reliable source that says that that passage talks about something else?
Further issues:
- “unsourced personal interpretations” Which ones?
The same point about the reverts that I said to Vice regent applies to you as well, especially if you and Vice regent are the same person. --Grufo (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ONUS is on you to show that Raymond Ibrahim is a reliable source. and WP:PRIMARY says Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. So you must provide a secondary source for the interpretation of the Qur'an. Finally, you're making WP:Personal attacks against me. Please stop or I'll report you.VR talk 22:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: I see some rage here. I wish I had personally attacked you, but unfortunately I didn't and I can't. A secondary source has been added to the page out of exhaustion. Please, do report me though. --Grufo (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to view that link, could you please provide the quote? VR talk 00:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) "Unique God of Islam" sounds absolutely atrocious Grufo as would any other absurd but technically true categorization like "Supreme Diety" of Islam. god is god and yes we can question the technical definition of the word (what is "God" in Hinduism?), the fact is that my edit is far closer to how the standard of the definition operates.
2) What matters is what Saeed and Akyol are talking about. GOD (or should I say unique God of Islam), Do I have to present the source that you try so hard to corrupt with OR? Forgive the long quote:

"What is described here is a clearly peaceful form of disapproval: Muslims are not supposed to be part of a discourse that mocks Islam, but all they have to do is stay away from it. Even then, the withdrawal should last only until the discourse changes into something inoffensive. Once mockery ends, dialogue can restart. (We should note that this verse is from a chapter of the Qur’an that was

revealed in the “Medinan” phase. In other words, it reflects a time when Muslims had political and military power. So its nonviolent character can’t be explained, and explained away, as resulting from necessity.) A few other Qur’anic verses, too, order similar acts of nonviolent disapproval in the face of blasphemous talk. “When you see those who enter into false discourses about Our communications,”

one of them commands the Prophet, “withdraw from them until they enter into some other discourse.” 32 Another verse describes Muslims as quite nonconfrontational: “When they hear idle talk they turn aside from it and say: We shall have our deeds and you shall have your deeds; peace be on you, we do not desire the ignorant.” "

(Islam without Extremes - A Muslim Case for Liberty, pg 280)

Saeed says the exact same non-sense. And PLEASE stop engaging in OR and stick with the sources. Any editor is well within his right to remove OR and no amount of pseudo-intellectual claptrap is going to convince anyone otherwise.
Also will you please read page 61 of "Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture" that you just quoted. Can I add that material? It sounds pretty crucial to omit. Your late justifications are not convincing in the slightest since, even Saraj has his equivocations about the verses (note: "seem to warrant"). Moreover, what's the excuse for removing Saeed? You've only dug yourself a bigger hole by presenting that source. On the whole it clearly goes against your POV and, on the whole, vouches for the idea that the Quran and the hadith do not prescribe any penalty for blasphemy and includes nuanced discussions that you probably didn't even bother to read. You may find the claims Siraj makes apologetic but it's the RS you presented....
4) Yes, note that Saeed's clarification on the hadith in the next sentence states that "However, it has been argued that the death penalty applies only to cases where there is treason involved that may seriously harm the Muslim community, especially during times of war". So too with the Kaab Ashraf issue. You may find it apologetic but it's the RS that matter. Similar claims are made for this verse as well. I've not contested scholarly interpretations (and yes there is divergence), only what this verse explicitly says, and no it does not explicitly refer to blasphemy (nor to imprisonment actually, which is also disputed among scholars). What the heck does waging war even mean explicitly?
“unsourced personal interpretations” Both of the content on the two disputed verses. You just went on a triade on point 2 again....
P.S I am not V.R. I called for Eperton [12] but apparently V.R, who like me, frequents his talkpage came instead. And spewing accusations of vandalism and ideological bias while contravening basic WP is bound to generate some rage. 119.155.25.15 (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IP address (I repeat my invitation to create a Wikipedia account):
1) “Islam's unique god” might sound atrocious to you, but does not necessarily sound atrocious to everyone. It is perfectly possible to say in English “A comparison between Islam's unique god and Ancient Greece' pantheon”.
2) That's fantastic. Your first argument was that mine was not a quotation. After I showed you that it was a quotation your argument became that the quotation does not talk about blasphemy. Now that we both agree that the quotation talks about blasphemy (or at least Akyol agrees) your argument (via Akyol) has become that that passage was just “a temporary phase” that applied only to that time when Muslims were at war and were allowed to kill for blasphemy (although the Quran does not talk about phases). Mohammad should have better warned people that his words shouldn't be taken too seriously…
Your recent edits are quite crap and you have misunderstood page 61 (it is not Siraj Khan that states that only Mohammad could kill for blasphemy, Siraj Khan only reports that some traditional jurisprudence has interpreted that passage as such). I will try to find an edit that tries to include the different views in a more acceptable way… --Grufo (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent:
I cannot copy-and-paste from Google Books. The following is an excerpt I transcribed by re-typing it, but it is a whole article and you will have to find it on your own if you want to read more:

So although the verb sabb is not used in the Qur'an in the sense of insult or injury against Mohammad personally, there is nevertheless reference to a “penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and [who] strive after [causing] corruption in the land” (jaza'u lladhina yuharibuna allaha wa yas'awna fi al-ardi fasada) (Q 5:33), being “execution, or crucifixion or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land” followed by a heavy punishment in the hereafter. It is notable that many Qur'an commentators and jurist have used this verse to justify blasphemy laws and to punish blasphemers, interpreting blasphemy within the definition of waging war.

— Siraj Khan. "Blasphemy against the Prophet", in Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture (editors: Coeli Fitzpatrick and Adam Hani Walker). ISBN 978-1610691772, p. 60
--Grufo (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above quote is a far cry from what you inserted: "The Quran prescribes either prison or mutilation or death for those guilty of blasphemy." I'm going to put in what the source says and do so neutrally.VR talk 02:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a growing consensus that you are inserting OR which is not allowed on wikipedia.
)1 Unique God adds nothing and contradicts the style of other articles as well as MOS. I can't find such a title anywhere. Yet another example of OR.
)2 Saees, Akyol and Siraj say different things (the previous comment was from Siraj who says it was a temporary phase, the one before that from Akyol who says what he says in the quote I gave and does not imply any such phase at all, both of whom I attributed properly) and we need to represent what they, not you ,believe and not criticize them unless said criticism is found in RS. And Siraj Khan concludes his discussion with with the views I mentioned which he quite clearly endorses. In any case Eperoteon's edits are a marked improvement and we can work from there. 119.155.25.15 (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The “growing consensus” are the users that you have invoked via private messages, and still you are the only one who accuses me if inserting OR in the article.
1) As I already said, do as you wish
2) You keep not getting what I say or do
--Grufo (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

I have given a full discussion of the Qur'an verses by the sources. I have given details in the body, but kept the lead as a summary.VR talk 03:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello-- previously involved editor responding to a ping. It looks like the upshot of the recent activity have been edits that are based on additional non-primary RSs and heed WP:PRIMARY. I also agree with avoiding Raymond Ibrahim's works, which are not reliable either based on his own credentials or his publishers. That's great.
The one change I'm going to revert to a long-standing form is the ordering of material in the lead. It should reflect the organization of the article itself -- scripture, traditional religious interpretations, then history in chronological order. This is also the ordering I recall seeing in RSs. I don't see any rationale for starting the lead with modern state laws. Eperoton (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eperotron, look forward to further edits from you as well. User Grufo doesn't seem to understand that we need to rely on secondary sources. Yes the material contradicts itself at times (Akyol vs Saeed for example who have slightly different interpretations, both of who's views Grufo has tried to remove) but we need to represent them faithfully and not rely on OR.119.155.25.15 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IP address: I have not removed Saeed, I have removed a Wikipedia sentence that used Saeed as support reference (and the sentence was: "The Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy"). And the reason why I did that is that the sentence was and is false, since the matter is in the best scenario debated (as Vice regent seems to think), and in the worst scenario (and according to several modern laws) the exact opposite of what that sentence states.
@Vice regent: What you don't seem to understand is that a primary source in a philological context is way more valuable than secondary sources, especially when the topic is what the primary source contains, and secondary sources are in disagreement with each other. Furthermore you seem to be led by an ideological bias too, since your recent edits reveal that you are allergic even to labeling as “violent” a verse that prescribes mutilation, despite the fact that, while the reason whereby the mutilation is prescribed might be debated, the consensus on the fact that we are talking about mutilating human beings is unanimous.
--Grufo (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grufo you have the wrong idea about policy. WP:RSPRIMARY says that Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. Secondary sources are more important that primary sources.VR talk 22:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking out of context at this point. But maybe a fictional example will do, since the bias when we talk about the Quran seems insurmountable. Imagine you have two manuscripts A and B that contain two nearly-identical versions of an imaginary diary of Julius Caesar. And imagine that manuscript A states "I have seen with my eyes that Germans and Gauls have flying machines" while manuscript B states "I have seen with my eyes that Germans and Etruscans have flying machines". Imagine that your question is whether Germans had flying machines. Both manuscripts agree that Germans had flying machines, so no problem… Except that our imaginary Caesar's diary is a primary source in a context where you would need a secondary source, so no, it would definitely not be a reliable source. But imagine instead that your focus is on whether Caesar stated that Germans had flying machines (not whether Germans actually had flying machines): in this case the primary source (if authentic) will be your most valuable source. And this is exactly Wikipedia policy.
So, going back to the point, whether according to Islam you must actually be mutilated when you "wage war against Allah" requires the opinion of the entire Islamic community (secondary sources), but whether the Quran states that you must be mutilated if you "wage war against Allah", requires only a philologically acceptable edition of the Quran, and only that (primary source).
By the way, the fact that a philological edition of the Quran is a primary source and not instead a secondary source would be another debate for another time. --Grufo (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grufo. You're starting to lose ground on almost all your points and will have to compromise. As I pointed out before imprisonment which you added, is nowhere in the text, it's banishment instead and yes some scholars interpret banishment as imprisonment, but it's something that has to be read into the text which only reliable secondary sources can do for us on Wikipedia. Likewise it's debatable whether crucifiction or the equivalent of being quartered [13] constitutes mutilation. Siraj Khan mentions neither terms and even puts emphasis on the next repentance verse which hasn't been added yet.
These harsh penalties were fairly standard for high treason in the classical era. If you want to argue that mere blasphemy constitutes high treason, you're in luck because there are indeed some scholars who endorse this position. However, there are other scholars and commentators who argue against them (arguing that this verse does not refer to blasphemy, and hence no punishment for it either, you can create a separate article for waging war against Allah). We need to represent both positions adequately. Either way it's not explicit. If I'm not mistaken almost everyone whos been cited whether it's Saeed, Akyol, Siraj, Zakaria, etc, all belong to the latter camp. On the other hand, Raymond Ibrahim most likely belongs to the former camp but you've seen the judgement on him above.
Also Grufo you said that Saeed's sentence "is false". What do you mean by that? Have you checked Saeed's source and found out that he's being misquoted or just personally disagree with him? If it's the latter then I'm afraid that we do not have the liberty to disagree with reliable secondary sources. I'm having a little trouble locating this specific book of his but I've been through some of Saeed's material and it certainly does seem like something he would argue for. Here's a quote from one of his abstracts (about apostasy rather than blasphemy but both topics are ofcourse interrelated):

a surface reading of some of the verses of the Qur’an and of hadith texts could lead to the conclusion that anyone who turns away from the faith should be punished in this world. Close reading, however, reveals that there is no temporal punishment specified in the Qur’an. The Prophet did not take it on himself to punish people for this offence. His mission was to persuade, not coerce, people into professing Islam.

39.37.181.43 (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IP address (I assume you are always the same person):
“imprisonment which you added, is nowhere in the text”
I would never alter a quotation. I don't understand what's the sense of lying in a place like Wikipedia, where everything is publicly visible… The Quran's text is “The only punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is that they should be murdered, or crucified, or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned”.
“it's debatable whether crucifiction or the equivalent of being quartered”
Cutting your hands and feet is undoubtedly mutilation according to the meaning of “mutilation” in the English language.
“These harsh penalties were fairly standard for high treason in the classical era”
The Quranic verse does not talk about eras, nor does the Wikipedia article.
“If you want to argue that mere blasphemy constitutes high treason”
Neither the Quranic verse nor my interventions on the Wikipedia article talk about treason. So no, I don't care whether “mere blasphemy constitutes high treason” or not.
“You said that Saeed's sentence "is false". What do you mean by that?”
Again, I did not say that Saeed's sentence is false, I said that that Wikipedia sentence that used Saeed as support reference is false. Even if we are talking about two identical sentences, try to understand the subtle difference.
--Grufo (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see Shakir is an extremely small exception to the rule. He should probably be replaced with more agreed upon translations. [[14]]. If I'm not mistaken, you are the one who chose the text and translation to add no? And no replacing waging war with blasphemy is indeed altering text. In any case, the fact is that your initial edit "The Quran prescribes either prison or mutilation or death for those guilty of blasphemy.[1]" is nowhere near acceptable. I think even you'll agree to this by now.
The Quranic verses themselves may not talk about eras or high treason but the RS who cover it do, especially when discussing the context of Blasphemy in Islam, which is what the entire article is about. For example in the case of the hadith:

others argue that the death penalty applies only to cases where perpetrator commits treasonous crimes, especially during times of war.

Similar comments can be found for the Quran including in Siraj's text (I can't quote from his work but I would if I could) and others as well. You seem to be obsessed with (what you believe) the Quran says and are quite eager to ignore almost every single RS that is thrown your way. What you care about doesn't really matter, and yes your edits do indeed constitute OR by any definition of the word, when you claim that the Quran prescribes XYZ for something it doesn't explicitly mention and what RS say that it doesn't explicitly mention...
Saeed's sentence is quite faithful to what he claims and I've seen similar claims attributed to him all over the internet including articles on Wikipedia before your intervention. You seem to disagree with him (and others as well: remember Zakaria) saying it is "false" when it is indeed what he says. He's a progressive Muslim scholar [[15]] along with another Saeed. What do you think he's claiming? If you disagree with him, I see no reason to consider the comments of a Wikipedia editor more reliable or verifiable, than an Islamic scholar. I'm a little strapped for time but in the near future I'm going to get my hands on his exact book and double-check all of his quotes. Besides why is this the only statement that you find "false" and have continuously deleted or changed (along with similar statements from other authors like Akyol) from amongst Saeeds half a dozen citations including in the next sentence?
39.37.181.43 (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“replacing waging war with blasphemy is indeed altering text”
First of all, I only followed how tradition has interpreted that verse (including your beloved Akyol), so I did not replace anything, I only followed a long tradition. Second, the verse dear to you that talks about “hearing Allah's revelations disbelieved in and mocked at” – and that Saeed considers as a verse that talks about blasphemy – does not talk about blasphemy more than “waging war against Allah and His Messenger” does.
“The Quranic verses themselves may not talk about eras or high treason but the RS who cover it do”
Islamic secondary sources talk about Islam. About the Quran instead speaks only the Quran itself and philologists, possibly non-Muslim ones (see conflict of interest). Or to say it in different words, an Islamic source can be at the same time reliable about Islam and non-reliable about the Quran. Same goes with Christians/Jewish and the Bible.
“You seem to disagree with him”
I do not disagree nor agree with him, I only think he is not more reliable than secondary sources that state the exact opposite, and for sure when any secondary source is in contradiction with the primary source (the Quran) about the primary source itself, the secondary source looses (see my example above).
“He's a progressive Muslim scholar along with another Saeed”
I am happy for him and I am progressive and left wing too, and I hope all Muslims are peaceful. But whether another thing (i.e. the Quran) is violent or not has nothing to do with him or even with Muslims. The Bible is maybe as violent as the Quran or more (although violence in the Bible tends to be about people that God punished in the past, while violence in the Quran tends to be about people that you have to kill in the future), and yet most Christians and Jewish are very peaceful people.
“Besides why is this the only statement that you find "false" and have continuously deleted or changed from amongst Saeeds half a dozen citations including in the next sentence?”
I don't remember what else I changed, but we can discuss about every single edit of mine if you want. I have nothing against Saeed, I am only against wrong/partial/ideological assertions.
--Grufo (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let you have the final say in the matter as long as you refrain from edit-warring as you are now doing. I'll just point out that you only provided a single source for your claims well into your fifth revert and even that was found to be a "far-cry" from what the source says. Your equivocations regarding mention of and punishment of blasphemy aren't fooling anybody either (Akyol does not consider the waging war verse to be about blasphemy and Saeed only mentions it to argue against the idea that the Quran mandates any punishment). Now, you're not incorrect that the "hearing revalations" mocked doesn't necessary imply blasphemy either (although its clearly closer than waging war) but it would be incredibly dishonest of me to put this in the lead instead of attributing anybody:
"The Quran prescribes not sit with blasphemers, until they enter into some other discourse, when Muslims hear God's revelations mocked" (Quran 4:140)
See the problem here? This would be simply unacceptable. Saeed's sourced statement should appear instead and I see no reason why part of his statement should be removed based on an unsourced POV that you are trying to push here.
As for the Bible your parenthetical claims are debatable too including by non-Muslim scholars like Patricia Crone see: [[16]] and it's interpretations but this is beside the point.
By now your claims of ideological bias and now conflict-of-interest only betray your own motives here and I won't respond to your OR about the Quran any more or how you think your primary sourced interpretations are more reliable than secondary sources or your spurious distinction between Quranic and Islamic scholarship. Every source here discusses both Islam and the Quran. Infact punishment for blasphemy and apostasy comes mainly from interpretations of the hadith rather than the Quran so I don't see why you're obsessed with a verse from the latter. If you think you are a better scholar by all means have your views published in reliable academic journals and books, but until then I'll maintain Saeed, Akyol, Zakaria and every other author you can casually dismiss as being wrong/partial/ideological/etc (are they morons?) is right and not going to lose out on Wikipedia. This is how WP works. 39.37.181.43 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IP address (my invitation to create a Wikipedia account is still open):

“I'll let you have …”

This is not your space (as it is not mine), so nobody is “letting” other users (or anonymous IP addresses like you).

“as you refrain from edit-warring as you are now doing”

You keep accusing me of edit-warring although I am the one who opened a discussion. And I am not refraining from edit-warring because you are “letting” me have whatever, I am not edit-warring because I never did.

“I'll just point out that you only provided a single source”

Do you really want that I fill the article with all the ancient and modern sources that believe that that verse must be considered as a verse that talks about blasphemy? According to Abbas the verse is directed towards “those who disbelieve in Allah and His messenger”, according to the two Jalals the verse is directed towards who “fights against Muslims”, according to Kathir it “includes disbelief”, etc. etc.

“I see no reason why part of his statement should be removed”

Because the sentence “the Quran admonishes blasphemy, but does not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy” contradicts the community of individuals (the majority of the population in several Islamic countries) and scholars that think that it does.

“As for the Bible your parenthetical claims are debatable too including by non-Muslim scholars like Patricia Crone see: [[17]] and it's interpretations”

I did not understand one single word of what you just said.

“your claims of ideological bias and now conflict-of-interest only betray your own motives”

I do have more than an ideological bias too probably. I am human. I probably tend to think that most religions are crap and that Mohammad and most folks of the Old Testament were mentally ill people, but I really believe that this does not automatically apply to people who believe today, who can perfectly be (and in most cases are) respectable and good people, who were just born in a religious place and remained attached to their rituals or have low education. I also believe that the Quran does not belong to the Muslims, as well as the Bible does not belong to the Christians and the Jewish, but that also anti-Islamic and anti-Christian people can have a respectable say on the topic. Finally, I believe that blasphemy laws should be abolished everywhere.

“obsessed with a verse from the latter”

I am far from obsessed with a Quranic verse. But I don't want that anyone pushes his ideology on Wikipedia and I love the truth. From what I can see in you and Vice Regent there is some sort of unspoken fear that if other Muslims read Wikipedia and discover that a Quranic verse has happily been interpreted in the past and and today by scholars as "kill the blasphemers" they might end up following the prescription. But if this is your motivation, it is not a noble or honest one.

“your spurious distinction between Quranic and Islamic scholarship”

My distinction is far from spurious, you can be a philologist and study the Quran without being Islamic or having any faith at all (and Islam itself is not a unique community and there are profound divisions). Furthermore the Quran can exist also without Islam, as we have many texts from ancient religions (sometimes very beautiful ones) without followers.

--Grufo (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Going back to Saeed, he says (page 28) Evidence for punishment for blasphemy appears to be based on certain reported incidents in the lifetime of the Prophet, there being no clear Qur’anic instruction on the matter. When the Qur’an uses the term sabb, it only commands Muslims not to revile the deities of non-Muslims lest they revile Allah. There is no reference to a temporal punishment in that context. This much can be verified from the Qur'an itself - no verse in the Quran prescribes any punishment for sabb, the only verse on sabb prescribes no earthly punishment, let alone mutilation, death etc.VR talk 18:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This edit by Grufo is unacceptable for two reasons:
    • It is not directly talking about blasphemy, and it is WP:SYNTH to make that connection.
    • Neither of the sources is saying what Grufo wants them to say. Grufo wrote According to Abbas the verse is directed towards “those who disbelieve in Allah and His messenger, but the source actually says:

      (The only reward) requital (of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger) of those who disbelieve in Allah and His messenger (and strive after corruption in the land) and engage in sin in the land, i.e. by wrongfully killing others and taking their properties (will be that they will be killed)

    • Grufo also wrote according to Kathir it “includes disbelief”. Again Ibn Kathir says something different

      `Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways.

      In both cases, the tafsir actually conjoin disbelief to violent crimes. If one reads Ibn kathir a bit further, he makes that crystal clear:

      He who takes up arms in Muslim land and spreads fear in the fairways and is captured, the Muslim Leader has the choice to either have him killed, crucified or cut off his hands and feet.

      VR talk 00:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent:
I had hoped that you were honest, but unfortunately I must surrender to the evidence. After the report given by Siraj Khan about the traditional jurisprudence, we are now checking the old sources with our own eyes to see how the they really interpret “Waging war against Allah and His Messenger”. Let's see…
The Quranic sentence “those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land” is translated by Ibn Abbas as: “those who disbelieve in Allah … and engage in sin in the land …”. Therefore “waging war against Allah and His Messenger” is interpreted as “those who disbelieve in Allah” (while “making mischief in the land” is interpreted as “engaging in sin in the land”).
Ibn Kathir clearly states that “‘Wage war’ mentioned here … includes disbelief, [includes] blocking roads and [includes] spreading fear in the fairways”
And finally Tafsir al-Jalalayn reads “those who fight against God and His Messenger, by fighting against Muslims”
It is the Quran itself that names two crimes, not the commentators. If you want to know what Ibn Abbas actually thought about blasphemy there is a direct quotation by him under Islam and blasphemy § Traditional jurisprudence. Edit reverted. Again. --Grufo (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you are selectively quoting. Both Ibn Abbas and Ibn Kathir say something much longer, I provided the quotes above. In any case you're making WP:SYNTH, as neither seems to be talking about blasphemy. It is quite a stretch to assume any "disbelief" is necessarily "blasphemy".
I do notice you've once against started edit-warring.VR talk 02:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“Once again you are selectively quoting”: Of course I am selectively quoting. I am selecting the interpretations of “waging war against Allah and His Messanger”. For no commentator any other part of the verse can be interpreted as blasphemy.
“I do notice you've once against started edit-warring”: I had left a long discussion in the talk page before adding some respectable references to the article, also to answer to the IP address who had requested for them. At that point you have started a revert war with no real motivations. --Grufo (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grufo, I think your concern about Saeed's interpretation being the only one reflected in the article was valid; it's just that the way you went about addressing it wasn't in line with WP policies. WP:PRIMARY is particularly relevant to the Quran, given the wide range of interpretations this text has given rise to. If you believe that a secondary source makes an incorrect statement about the Quran, it shouldn't be hard to find another secondary RS that makes a statement that agrees with your take, and then we can consider how these different perspectives should be reflected in the article according to WP:NPOV. In fact, we should not even be seeking out sources based on a desired viewpoint, but consulting them without biasing the sample and reflect what we see. That's the only way to achieve proportional representation of viewpoints required by WP:NPOV.
Let's also be cautious about using pre-modern Islamic interpreters. This literature is extremely voluminous and contradictory, and we should leave it to professionals and RSs to make generalizations about it. Eperoton (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eperoton: Thank you. I agree in general with your comment and I agree that it is a hot topic. But exactly because of that, I think that the Quran itself and tertiary sources (like Siraj Khan, who reports what secondary sources have done during history) in this context should be preferred to secondary sources, which are always unavoidably partial – since the interpretation of the Quran is still considered by Muslims as doctrinal. So I would basically avoid secondary sources when possible, and rely as much as possible on primary sources and tertiary sources, which show the different interpretations (secondary sources) only indirectly and based on due weight and relative influence. Choosing secondary sources without bias I think is basically impossible here. --Grufo (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grufo: As WP:TERTIARY states, tertiary sources can help establishing due weight for different interpretations found in secondary sources, but avoiding secondary sources or including interpretive statements about a primary source would be a violation of policy. Eperoton (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Qur'an|[Quran 5:33–34]

Quote needed[edit]

I would like the quote for the statement,

Hanafi...If a non-Muslim commits blasphemy, his punishment must be a tazir (discretionary, can be death, arrest, caning, etc.)

I looked at one of the sources cited "The Case of Hamza Kashgari: Examining Apostasy, Heresy, And Blasphemy Under Sharia" and did not find this there. It also seems to contradict Imam Abu Hanifa's opinion that a non-Muslim is not to be killed for blasphemy. Please provide the quote for this.VR talk 11:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day cartoons[edit]

This edit by Iskandar323 removed a satirical cartoon from the page. Their edit summary was:

Deleting non-notable, self-published work that is an example of WP:GRATUITOUS, i.e.: Wikipedia is not censored, but equally it "does not give special favor to offensive content", which should only be used "if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." There is already a non-gratuitous alternative.

However,

  • A satire cartoon from a campaign that aims to raise awareness abut murder threats against who criticizes Islam (Everybody Draw Mohammed Day) is not WP:GRATUITOUS, but relevant, as the article talks about that
  • A single critical cartoon does not constitute enough material for saying that Wikipedia gives any “special favor to offensive content”

--Grufo (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grufo: Read my edit comment. I was quite explicit. As per WP:GRATUITOUS, offensive content should only be used: "if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." There is already another Everybody Draw Mohammed Day picture on the page [18] that would be considered offensive (if my understanding is correct) by many Muslims. There is simply no need for a second, even more offensive one. It does nothing to make the page more "informative, relevant, or accurate". If you think the second image should stay, in defiance of WP:GRATUITOUS, explain why we need both. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Offensive against whom? It is totally arbitrary what you consider offensive. A strict Muslim will consider equally offensive every single depiction of Mohammad present in the page. Given the noble value of the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day campaign, which is that of avoiding murder threats to whoever wants to criticize, or even insult, whatever religion they want (n.b.: religion, not followers of a religion), and the fact that in many Muslim-majority countries it generated one of the most massive internet censorship campaigns ever, I would say that there is nothing WP:GRATUITOUS about it. --Grufo (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of gratuitous, how many hardcore images do you find at pornography? Zero. We don't just spam articles with shocking images even when tonnes are available.VR talk 19:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I am personally speaking only to a very specific guideline, WP:GRATUITOUS, in which the use of offensive content can be justified to illustrate a specific point. The question of whether pictures from Everybody Draw Mohammed Day are WP:DUE constitutes a somewhat separate content-based discussion that is besides the point, or at least besides my point, which is only about why two images are required when one would suffice. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: You cannot compare it to pornography: pornography does not ask for a change of attitude towards what is considered taboo (it actually loves taboos and being the exception). You should compare the cartoons to active awareness campaigns for the liberation of nudity / sexual customs / morality / etc. --Grufo (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is plain to see which of the two images is more offensive, to Muslim or non-Muslim. Please justify the use of both. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the one who has to justify how people decided to paint Mohammed within the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, but I do believe that including cartoons from the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is definitely related to the article and thus WP:DUE. You two are literally a tiny tip of an iceberg of people who would get offended by whatever. The same arguments that you raise could be raised about literally anything. A non-Muslim will feel indifferent to that cartoon, and a Muslim should just feel happy that they will not be the ones that will go to hell for painting that cartoon, as they are not the ones who painted it, they know that faith cannot be coerced, and they should know that the ones who fight for freedom will fight also for everyone's freedom to express their faith, including Muslims, so it is not a painting against them. There is no exception for this case. The fact that you consider this image more offensive is related to how you perceive things, and that cartoon campaign will be offensive for most Muslims – maybe this attitude is exactly what the campaign asks people to change in their relationship with faith? A person could consider the use of words (as this particular image does) inherently less offensive than a grotesque depiction of Mohammed, or the other way around. That said, I will stop here, I have made quite clear my dissent against the removal of satirical cartoons from this page. --Grufo (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grufo: Look, it doesn't matter what you personally think is is due, or who you think may or may not be offended, or to what degree. What matters is how you justify the retention of this image with respect to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In reality, if I were to allow myself to be drawn into a discussion about WP:DUE, I would note that these pictures are relevant only as examples for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, which itself is only discussed in the article in a single, currently unsourced sentence. I could ask why any images at all are due to illustrate a single, unsourced sentence. If you would like to discuss WP:DUE, then I would suggest you start by addressing this. However, as to my more specific question, which I asked in explicit reference to the WP:GRATUITOUS guidelines, please can you explain why not one, but two [19][20], examples of offensive content are required to illustrate the single, unsourced sentence on Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, and exactly how the omission of the latter example, which involves not just a satirical image, but unambiguous and unnecessary insults (and features a website advertisement), makes the article "less informative, relevant, or accurate", and why the first example is not already a "suitable alternative". Iskandar323 (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to be “drawn into a discussion about WP:DUE” with you and Vice regent, not again. I have already expressed my dissent, and in my little I think that the fact that Wikipedia shows these cartoons might give a small contribution against death threats. These cartoons get regularly removed from the article by anonymous IPs with WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit summaries. You might continue this discussion with the other editors who disagree with you, if you wish (I hope I will not miss anyone):
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day cartoons removal attempts in the last year
Cartoons removed Cartoons restored Restored by
17:46, 14 November 2021 18:33, 14 November 2021 Grufo
14:30, 4 October 2021 14:31, 4 October 2021 Grim23
14:27, 4 October 2021 14:27, 4 October 2021 Serols
14:23, 4 October 2021 14:25, 4 October 2021 Serols
14:16, 4 October 2021 14:19, 4 October 2021 Some1
14:07, 4 October 2021 14:10, 4 October 2021 Grim23
10:28, 28 September 2021 15:43, 28 September 2021 Some1
21:10, 8 April 2021 21:12, 8 April 2021 Nearlyevil665
11:53, 10 December 2020 03:29, 16 December 2020 Eperoton
--Grufo (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grufo: I have specifically explained how I did not remove this image on the basis of WP:DUE, but WP:GRATUITOUS, and asked you to explain your rejection of my adherence to the guidelines. Either address my points on this directly or kindly self-revert. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't work like this. You don't ask editors to justify their actions on the territory that you decide when your actions are the ones under scrutiny – the page was in a stable state before your intervention, with several editors who actively kept it in that state. I have already said why I think that cartoons from a noticeable campaign against blasphemy laws are WP:DUE in a page about blasphemy, I don't find anything WP:GRATUITOUS in showing WP:DUE material, and personally if I have to choose between not offending someone and potentially saving lives I choose the second. You have all the answers from me. That said, I find way more offensive (to the intelligence of the reader) adding a picture of Roxelana – an exceptionally powerful slave – as representative example of sexual slavery, like you did in Sexual slavery in Islam, than showing a childish painting that criticizes a guy who died more than thousand years ago – and the point of that campaign is exactly that as long as you are free to do whatever you want with your religion you should not get offended by what other people do with your religion (which by the way is not yours, as everyone can interpret a religion as they wish). Now, could you please address how your removal does not constitute a textbox example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as you are literally repeating as only argument “It's offensive to my religion”? --Grufo (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grufo: WP:GRATUITOUS is a guideline; it is not the word "gratuitous". Read the guideline, and then please respond in the terms of the guideline, a subsection of WP:PROFANE that outlines when offensive material is and is not permitted. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
then please respond in the terms of the guideline: As you wish. Here is my answer in Wikipedia policy language (emphasis mine):

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.

— WP:NOTCENSORED

Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive.

— WP:NOTCENSORED

Per the Wikipedia:Image use policy, the only reason for including any image in any article is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter"

— WP:GRATUITOUS
Finally there is the principle of “least astonishment” mentioned in WP:GRATUITOUS, but it is hard to predict what “the conventional expectations” are for readers of a page about blasphemy – strictly speaking the page should not show any picture of Mohammed if it wanted to be conventional (at the cost of its content). --Grufo (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you've agreed to return to the technical discussion at hand. So, Q1) what are these pictures illustrating? A1) A depiction of a prophet, which is considered blasphemous to some. Q2) What could serve as an example of this? A2) Any depiction showing the prophet. -- Now, as per WP:GRATUITOUS, we are called on to only use offensive content when "no equally suitable alternative is available", and as per MOS:OMIMG, we should: "Avoid images that contain irrelevant or extraneous elements that might seem offensive or harassing to readers". We already have an initial image that serves to provide a depiction [21], so an alternative is available, while the image I attempted to remove [22] clearly contains elements that are "irrelevant or extraneous" to the purpose of depiction, including a list of insults and unsubstantiated accusations from an unreliable source, as well as a written-out url for the website "Faithfreedom.org", which is both WP:PROMOTION and ties it, specifically, to a highly polarized platform [23] created by Ali Sina, who has been described as "virulently anti-Islamic". Iskandar323 (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mon choix mon ami Please address the above points regarding WP principles. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GimliDotNet: Yes, WP:GRATUITOUS is just a guideline, not a policy. It is also one of only three points I have made regarding the problems with this image. I would love to see anybody explain to me how this image is educational within an encyclopedic setting when all it does is regurgitate hate from an anti-Islam website [24], which it also promotes with a url. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you scrub that last comment before I raise a WP:ANI case for WP:NPA GimliDotNet (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you like. I have removed the part that I assume you were objecting to. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course… How could nobody realize earlier that the largest mass protest against Islamic blasphemy laws in the 21th century was WP:UNDUE in the Islam and blasphemy article… Blasphemy death threats do not affect only the “Muslim world”; it could well be irrelevant there, although even there it wasn't. --Grufo (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are the sources that call it "the largest mass protest against Islamic blasphemy laws in the 21th century"? VR talk 19:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Grufo: If you have time to respond to Vice Regent, perhaps you could address my question as to why an exception should be made in this instance for the use of a more offensive image, when an alternative image is already available and present that illustrates the exact same topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a significant image that illustrates the subject well. Not offensive in the slightest to rational people who reject medieval make believe.--Mon choix mon ami (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You response appears to have be more based on personal beliefs than policy. What is a "significant image"? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Iskandar323 and Vice regent have said above. This image seems to be a non-notable and self-published work. It doesn't even appear at the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day article. --Skilfingar (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will start a campaign for forbidding people to quote the policy randomly when all the mean is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. All drawings from the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day campaign are “self-published works”. It's kind of the sense of “E-VERY-BO-DY draw…”. --Grufo (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just like to point out WP:GRATUITOUS is not policy and therefore cannot be used to hammer through changes that are still being discussed. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning "Imprisonment of Abdul Kahar Ahmad" blasphemy example[edit]

This example in the article is based on a single source, which is a typical Associated Press stub article consisting of just four paragraphs. It mention the subject's name once and asserts that he is a "sect leader", but clearly not one notable enough to be named in an article. We know no specifics of the alleged blasphemy nor details of the case, and "Abdul Kahar Ahmad" is not an SEO friendly name. Does not seem particularly notable. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and per WP:NOTNEWS we shouldn't give focus to anything that happens in the news.VR talk 00:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs[edit]

  • Heini Í Skorini & Torben Bech Dyrberg (2022) Framing Blasphemy as a crime: the curious similarities between the secular left and the organization of Islamic cooperation, Journal of Political Ideologies, DOI: 10.1080/13569317.2022.2040878
  • Abedinifard, Mostafa. "1: Ridicule in the Qur’an: The Missing Link in Islamic Humour Studies". Muslims and Humour. Bristol, UK: Bristol University Press, 2022. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781529214697.ch001 .


Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refs[edit]

Bookku (talk) 07:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islam_and_blasphemy&oldid=1207747268"