Talk:Adam in Islam

message: The VAST MAJORITY of Muslims do not accept Tabari's hadith as authentic, ESPECIALLY due to the so called "satanic verses". I will then delete his section. It's like putting a fairytale section on the Christianity page. --71.102.116.218 (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting the controversial Tabari section

message: The problem should be obvious in that it's a complete quoting of nine long blocks of Qur'anic text, each prefaced with "Allah the Almighty says" and no secondary sources or even proper citation of the primary sources. I'm basically going to hide the section while I work on fixing it, as the whole thing is patently unencyclopedic. If I could get help with the following it would be extremely helpful;
* Cleaning up the POV tone
* Properly dealing with/citing the primary sources and trimming it down to an appropriate amount of quotation
* Finding and citing reliable secondary sources on the subject.
I will, of course, also be working on this, but as I don't know personally of good secondary sources on this myself that's the thing I'll need the most help with. I encourage discussion on it here if anyone has any objection. Peter Deer (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Peter! I placed Quranic references from a secondary source website, owned by University of Southern California, USA. It is a reliable source because it is a respected and trusted university where people share unambiguous thoughts or whatever. The section now looks short and to the point. Thanks! Farjad0322 (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam in the Qur'an 

message: There have been several other instances where figures relevant to multiple religious perspectives, particularly Prophets, have been successfully consolidated in their own main article (in this case that would be Adam) and considering how trimmed down this particular page has gotten I recommend that it be merged with the main article and this section be fleshed-out to accommodate. Peter Deer (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is where I reply again to ping everyone with this on their watchlist. I'm really trying not to step on any toes by doing this ("Be bold, Peter!" "Shut it, you.") Peter Deer (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Might as well. This one isn't too large. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Main Article 

message: I reverted this edit by  for two reasons:
# He used the wrong template.  He used  when he probably meant to use .  If it were just this error, I would have just fixed it.
# The claim in the edit summary, , seems to be contradicted by this translation, which reads in part 
For what it's worth, the reference provided by Hicham Toumi, which is the Sahih International translation, reads 
Given #2, I thought the safest thing to do was revert the change until it could be discussed.  Disclaimer:  I am neither a Muslim, nor an expert on the Koran or Islam, nor a reader or speaker of Arabic.  I would defer anything that requires such expertise to editors who have it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I reverted an edit related to the creation story 

message: The reference and content both are reliable and have been subject of research studies. For example, Sayyid Mumtaz Ali and ‘Huquq un-Niswan’: An Advocate of Women's Rights in Islam in the Late Nineteenth Century, by Gail Minault and Published online by Cambridge University Press. I do not understand why the IP is edit warring and calling this "reliable source" as "propaganda source". They are definitely here for POV pushing.  ─  The Aafī (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I already discussed matter on your talk page:
The view of a single author Sayyid Mumtaz Ali who never conducted any relevant or accurate research regarding the matter rather than sitting hope and writing his own opinion cannot be reliable. Many such people claim many things, like mr Rajnish used to claim to be God, that doesnt make his claims accurate and so arent accepted by wiki policies. You cannot claim that Adam wasnt first just by his claim, it is mentioned in Quran and by many reliable WP:RS than Azraeil took soils from Earth and Adam was created by God first, and Indian scholar claiming something he never did research on after 10,000s of years is invalid. No other WP:RS gives such baseless argument that Eve was created before Adam either. This is pure feminist propaganda! Please cite only reliable established WP:RS. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

text: the title of the book makes it evident it is not neutral, but a one sided view not accepted main stream. There are countless scholars like these who gave countless "opinions", that do not fit WP:RS. We should move forward adding reliable and main stream sources, the fact that "Shura9999" was created today just to add back your unreliable source is highly suspicious". 43.245.121.219 (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are any other source regarding this claim except that unreliable book, I will accept it. But there is NON. This is just a one sided feminist pov push, feminism is never neutral, only main stream sources are WP:RS, the claim of a single book cannot be a WP:RS, there are countless books that claim many things, like some claim Adam was a primate [1], we cannot add millions of different views all over the world nor should we, we only add what is main stream and that is WP:RS. Your source doesn't fit that and is exclusively based on a single "south asian" non global view. We should stick to main stream and WP:RS and if you want create a new article "conspiracy theories regarding Adam", and add that unreliable source there. Since the article is not regarding conspiracy theories and is about the mainstream Adam, only mainstream accepted WP:RS belongs there. End. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content from [[Sayyid Mumtaz Ali]]'s book 

message: I believe the source is reliable and as added in the article meets WP:RSOPINION and it was not added in violation of WP:NPOV and other relevant policies. So requesting other experienced editors to participate in this discussion. A part of discussion may be found at User talk:TheAafi#Do not add incorrect views. The whole statement removed by the IP is:   Should the statement be include per WP:RSOPINION or not? Thank you.  ─  The Aafī (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mentioned as a opinion of "him" with a reliable source. Saying that he never conducted any research is nothing but childish. He has himself been subject of various research papers including the one by Gail Minault. You may try raising the issue on the talk page. Feminist propaganda? Please see WP:NPOV. Thank you!  ─  The Aafī (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 1000s of scholars all over the world that have different opinions, only established WP:RS should use. If you want to add the opinion of just 1 out of millions of scholars that ever lived why not add the views of millions of Islamic scholars that have had varying opinions over the year. Please use only what is established in the main stream. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Things like , and assumptions like  definitely speak that "you are here for POV pushing". We go with neutral point of view and calling a "reliable source" as unreliable and propaganda source is proof of your POV pushing.  ─  The Aafī (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The view of a single scholar isn't reliable, and like I said millions of scholars over 1000s of years gave millions of different opinions. That which is accepted by mainstream is WP:RS, you are just following the views of a single scholar whom you are disciple to, whose views are not main stream. This is not neutral. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Again and again' you are saying same thing. Views that aren't acceptable to you because you don't like them, and call them as "feminist propaganda", don't become unreliable. You are also not assuming good faith even after I warned you.  - this? If you disagree with certain content in any Wikipedia article, rather than removing/edit warring/being bad with fellow editors, the best is to discuss the issue on article's talk where a consensus would take place between multiple editors that whether the content can be kept or not. Edit warring and attacking is not a solution. POV pushing definitely not!  ─  The Aafī (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Aafī You are the one trying to do pov push of a single scholar that is not accepted anywhere else also the fact that "Shura9999" was created today just to add back your unreliable source is highly suspicious. Find any other source regarding this claim except that unreliable book, I will accept it. This is just a one sided feminist pov push, feminism is never neutral, only main stream sources are WP:RS, the claim of a single book cannot be a WP:RS, there are countless books that claim many things, like some claim Adam was a primate , we cannot add millions of different views all over the world nor should we, we only add what is main stream and that is WP:RS. Your source doesn't fit that and is exclusively based on a single "south asian" non global view. We should stick to main stream and WP:RS and if you want create a new article "conspiracy theories regarding Adam", and add that unreliable source there. Since the article is not regarding conspiracy theories and is about the mainstream Adam, only mainstream accepted WP:RS belongs there. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You have already missed the thing. Do you even know "fact" and "opinion" are two different things? In the WP:RS, there are guidelines like WP:RSOPINION.  I hope that you would stop this childish behavior. In your edit you have malformed the entire infobox in article. If I would have been pushing POV, I would've reverted your edits again and again, but I just reverted your edits two times. Moreover, the article is in my watchlist like many others.  reverted your edits before me and you're wrong in saying that they did it to re-add my content, remember that you malformed the infobox as well, there are numerous reasons for that revert. Anyways, if you are suspicious, try your part at WP:SPI which I guess would be closed as "vandalism".  ─  The Aafī (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So we both agree what is main stream and established WP:RS can be added. if there was a single other source other than that unreliable book it could be considered, but there is non, and all established mainstream and WP:RS says Adam came first, a single conspiracy theory book means nothing and there are countless other scholars who gave countless theories (like the Adam = primate example), they do not belong to the main stream article "Adam in Islam" but I suggest you to create a new article "Conspiracy Theories Relating to Adam in Islam" and add the unaccepted conspiracy theory there, goodbye but keep in mind if you re add the unreliable source in the main article I will remove it keeping in mind WP:RS. Take care. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

text: I've already told you that it is a reliable book written by a known scholar, and a subject to research articles, and thus important work on the subject. Just because you disagree with the opinion (not fact) it doesn't become "conspiracy theory".  ─  The Aafī (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope it is feminist and can't be considered neutral and reliable is that which is accepted main stream. you cannot even find a single other source that shares the same view as this or calls it a reliable source. It is "not recognized as reliable" anywhere. Unreliable, dismissed.. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, you are doing hocus-pocus with fact and opinion. I would've removed it myself it was added as a fact, since it is added as opinion, and meets WP:RSOPINION, there's no way out to object its inclusion. Take some time and distinguish "fact" and "opinion". Unreliable? Author and book being subject of a research paper published by University of Cambridge Press are "unreliable". Wow! Just because you differ with a reliable opinion, it doesn't become unreliable or non-neutral. You may see articles with Criticism sections? Most of criticism is non-neutral (but it is included in the article in a neutral way, does that become unreliable? No, never. But if such things are added as facts, and not opinions - I would be first one to object their inclusion on the Wikipedia. But the opinion statement of Sayyid Mumtaz Ali is added as "opinion" hence meets WP:RSOPINION, and is from a reliable book as I said above.  ─  The Aafī (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For the last time I repeat countless scholars gave countless opinions, it is not possible nor necessary to include them all, what should just be included is opinions accepted by mainstream, and also you fail to provide a single source other than that one which shares the same opinion making it a totally unreliable source failing WP:V. It cannot be considered a reliable source just because you say so, it fails WP:RS guidelines, it is a feminist book and violates neutrality, no other source support Sayyid Mumtaz Alis book. If there are any other source beside this book that do, provide it, but they do not. This alone among many other factors shows "It is not recognized as reliable" anywhere. As there are no other source supporting the views other than this non mainstream unreliable source, this does not deserve inclusion as it is unreliable. Hope you understand now. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Cambridge University Press Publishers they never claimed they exclusively publish reliable sources, they also publish fairy tales among other things. Regardless not a single source besides this book shares the opinion and countless scholars published many opinions, that do not make them eligible for entry. "It is not recognized as reliable." Thus this book fails WP:RS guildiness, lacks neutrality and cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. I am done explaining now and will just revert if you add it back. Take care. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

text: It is mentioned as a opinion of "him" with a reliable source. Saying that he never conducted any research is nothing but childish. He has himself been subject of various research papers including the one by Gail Minault. You may try raising the issue on the talk page. Feminist propaganda? Please see WP:NPOV. Thank you!  ─  The Aafī (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 1000s of scholars all over the world that have different opinions, only established WP:RS should use. If you want to add the opinion of just 1 out of millions of scholars that ever lived why not add the views of millions of Islamic scholars that have had varying opinions over the year. Please use only what is established in the main stream. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Things like , and assumptions like  definitely speak that "you are here for POV pushing". We go with neutral point of view and calling a "reliable source" as unreliable and propaganda source is proof of your POV pushing.  ─  The Aafī (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The view of a single scholar isn't reliable, and like I said millions of scholars over 1000s of years gave millions of different opinions. That which is accepted by mainstream is WP:RS, you are just following the views of a single scholar whom you are disciple to, whose views are not main stream. This is not neutral. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Again and again' you are saying same thing. Views that aren't acceptable to you because you don't like them, and call them as "feminist propaganda", don't become unreliable. You are also not assuming good faith even after I warned you.  - this? If you disagree with certain content in any Wikipedia article, rather than removing/edit warring/being bad with fellow editors, the best is to discuss the issue on article's talk where a consensus would take place between multiple editors that whether the content can be kept or not. Edit warring and attacking is not a solution. POV pushing definitely not!  ─  The Aafī (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Aafī You are the one trying to do pov push of a single scholar that is not accepted anywhere else also the fact that "Shura9999" was created today just to add back your unreliable source is highly suspicious. Find any other source regarding this claim except that unreliable book, I will accept it. This is just a one sided feminist pov push, feminism is never neutral, only main stream sources are WP:RS, the claim of a single book cannot be a WP:RS, there are countless books that claim many things, like some claim Adam was a primate , we cannot add millions of different views all over the world nor should we, we only add what is main stream and that is WP:RS. Your source doesn't fit that and is exclusively based on a single "south asian" non global view. We should stick to main stream and WP:RS and if you want create a new article "conspiracy theories regarding Adam", and add that unreliable source there. Since the article is not regarding conspiracy theories and is about the mainstream Adam, only mainstream accepted WP:RS belongs there. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You have already missed the thing. Do you even know "fact" and "opinion" are two different things? In the WP:RS, there are guidelines like WP:RSOPINION.  I hope that you would stop this childish behavior. In your edit you have malformed the entire infobox in article. If I would have been pushing POV, I would've reverted your edits again and again, but I just reverted your edits two times. Moreover, the article is in my watchlist like many others.  reverted your edits before me and you're wrong in saying that they did it to re-add my content, remember that you malformed the infobox as well, there are numerous reasons for that revert. Anyways, if you are suspicious, try your part at WP:SPI which I guess would be closed as "vandalism".  ─  The Aafī (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So we both agree what is main stream and established WP:RS can be added. if there was a single other source other than that unreliable book it could be considered, but there is non, and all established mainstream and WP:RS says Adam came first, a single conspiracy theory book means nothing and there are countless other scholars who gave countless theories (like the Adam = primate example), they do not belong to the main stream article "Adam in Islam" but I suggest you to create a new article "Conspiracy Theories Relating to Adam in Islam" and add the unaccepted conspiracy theory there, goodbye but keep in mind if you re add the unreliable source in the main article I will remove it keeping in mind WP:RS. Take care. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

text: I've already told you that it is a reliable book written by a known scholar, and a subject to research articles, and thus important work on the subject. Just because you disagree with the opinion (not fact) it doesn't become "conspiracy theory".  ─  The Aafī (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope it is feminist and can't be considered neutral and reliable is that which is accepted main stream. you cannot even find a single other source that shares the same view as this or calls it a reliable source. It is "not recognized as reliable" anywhere. Unreliable, dismissed.. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, you are doing hocus-pocus with fact and opinion. I would've removed it myself it was added as a fact, since it is added as opinion, and meets WP:RSOPINION, there's no way out to object its inclusion. Take some time and distinguish "fact" and "opinion". Unreliable? Author and book being subject of a research paper published by University of Cambridge Press are "unreliable". Wow! Just because you differ with a reliable opinion, it doesn't become unreliable or non-neutral. You may see articles with Criticism sections? Most of criticism is non-neutral (but it is included in the article in a neutral way, does that become unreliable? No, never. But if such things are added as facts, and not opinions - I would be first one to object their inclusion on the Wikipedia. But the opinion statement of Sayyid Mumtaz Ali is added as "opinion" hence meets WP:RSOPINION, and is from a reliable book as I said above.  ─  The Aafī (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For the last time I repeat countless scholars gave countless opinions, it is not possible nor necessary to include them all, what should just be included is opinions accepted by mainstream, and also you fail to provide a single source other than that one which shares the same opinion making it a totally unreliable source failing WP:V. It cannot be considered a reliable source just because you say so, it fails WP:RS guidelines, it is a feminist book and violates neutrality, no other source support Sayyid Mumtaz Alis book. If there are any other source beside this book that do, provide it, but they do not. This alone among many other factors shows "It is not recognized as reliable" anywhere. As there are no other source supporting the views other than this non mainstream unreliable source, this does not deserve inclusion as it is unreliable. Hope you understand now. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Cambridge University Press Publishers they never claimed they exclusively publish reliable sources, they also publish fairy tales among other things. Regardless not a single source besides this book shares the opinion and countless scholars published many opinions, that do not make them eligible for entry. "It is not recognized as reliable." Thus this book fails WP:RS guildiness, lacks neutrality and cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. I am done explaining now and will just revert if you add it back. Take care. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be like someone who thinks they own Wikipedia articles. I've requested for a RfC and asked for comments from other editors, let's see what is the consensus. Sayyid Mumtaz Ali is not a non-notable figure like rest of your "thousands scholars" who are unknown. Thank you!  ─  The Aafī (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

text:  His beliefs are quite clear, and he came from a known Islamic seminary called Darul Uloom Deoband. Secondly, as  pointed out, "this would not be a stand alone opinion", and such things are available there in other works. For the time being, Sayyid Mumtaz Ali is a notable Sunni Muslim scholar, and is known for his works, and been admired by the scholarly figures like Ghulam Rasool Mehr and others. His works received enough praise from scholars like Anwar Shah Kashmiri, Sulaiman Nadwi, Amin al-Husseini and Abul Kalam Azad. The thing is clear again when he says,  and this statement is clear on its own. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about inclusion of [[Sayyid Mumtaz Ali]]'s opinion removed by an IP editor 

message: Mispelling of the word "sources"
"Muslim suorces identify the place with Mecca or the Ka'ba." 68.42.155.156 (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I want to fix that. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in this line 

message: Is the section "Creation of Adam's soul" more relevant for "Life before Adam"?
The section could be trimmed down to one paragraph, and the notions about Muhammad's pre-existence moved to the main-article Muhammad in Islam, given that the section is mostly about Muhammad rather than Adam. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swapping categories