This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
Please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and note the following guideline: "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article."
This material [1] had been added and removed five times. The last two additions dropped the external YouTube link [2] but there are definitely still problems with the material. "For those in the West, taqiyya is used to..." is sourced to various Quran verses. It does not explain what "For those in the West" means, and I'm sure the Quran verses don't make any such distinction. This is confusing and poorly sourced. Quran verses themselves do not support any statement about contemporary interpretation of taqiyya, in the West or elsewhere.
The rest of the paragraph is completely unsourced and appears to be OR/opinion. Deception is also permitted when it is a white lie. According to whom? Considering all of this, it may be that technically Islamic scholars are correct to try to say that the use of taqiyya is an inaccurate and inflationary use of the word, but Raymond Ibrahim is correct in his consideration of taqiyya by his definition. is full of weasel wording ("may be", "technically", "try to", "by his definition") and ends with the editor's opinion stated as fact. It's not clear who is responsible for It is a complicated subject that is counter intuitive to those with Western values. Is this an unsourced claim about what Raymond Ibrahim says, or is this editorializing by the Wikipedia editor? Meters (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic scholars claim that taqiyya is only permissible under duress, and that the inflationary use of the term qualifies as "a staple of right-wing Islamophobia in North America" (Mohammad Fadel 2013), or "Taqiyya libel against Muslims"[16] while their critics accuse them of practicing "taqiyya about taqiyya" (Raymond Ibrahim, 2014).
Maybe we should remove one occurrence of it? Ahyangyi (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some issues with current Wiki Quran articles[edit]
Koreangauteng, I am not going to reply there for that polemic post. I find it inappropriate that you are referencing my religion and my native language and my country and that I love prophet Muhammad peace be upon him as a reason for conflict of interest, these things are none of your business. You ignore the real argument. You are adding unreliable non-expert sources. Like sources from self-publishing companies or Christian apologist source from a non-acadamic publisher, and who is not an expert in Islam. Or using primary sources etc. File:Wikipedia scale of justice3.jpgYou seem to be trying to create WP:FALSEBALANCE.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if I should continue replying to your polemic post but the fact that I am a Muslim makes it more reasonable and essential to edit in that area and to fight Islamophobia propaganda. For example, see my work in multi-million dollars-funded Islamophobic organizations such as Jihad Watch or Gatestone Institute. I, because I am a Muslim, should work these articles and expose their anti-Muslim bias. And imagine that, these organizations get paid millions of dollars to spread anti-Muslim propaganda and yet I along with other editors come and expose them in Wikipedia, one of the most visited websites on the internet, and I get my Wifi connection from my neighbors and eat popcorns for the whole day. Do you see how essential is my presence in these articles?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
