Talk:Taqiyya

message: This material  had been added and removed five times. The last two additions dropped the external YouTube link  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.  According to whom?  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  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)
replies: text: Please discuss here before reinserting. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary debate edit war 

message: The content below appears in the article twice:
: 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)
thread_title:  Repeated content? 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles
Koreangauteng (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , 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. .--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Some issues with current Wiki Quran articles