Talk:Islamic ethics

message: Please explain why the article is POV? --Aminz 23:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a selection of some positive reforms made by Islam. I.e. it's POV essay. Also an article by this name should describe ethics in Islam, and compare them to other world religions. Arrow740 02:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agree with arrow. clearly a POV essay Cydperez 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with POV. The article does not read like an objective assessment of Islamic ethics. The section on human rights is belittling: the idea of human rights is a modern one (did dhimmi have the same rights as muslims?).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.8.71.103 (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: Well...at first glance, this article seems rather pointless. Not that the idea behind its creation is bad, but its substance is greatly lacking. And as far as improving it goes, I am severely underqualified to make any suggestionsStarwarp2k2 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: where is the substance of this article. notability? possible AfD here? Cydperez 15:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be deleted, but it must contain a critical view of islam as well. Just not sure of any scholarly critical views. There is plenty of unscholarly views though. But since this article contains a ton of praise for Islam, it is clearly POV.--Sefringle 04:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article's Existance

message: *According to Encyclopedia of Ethics, Islamic ethics is meaningful in the context of a community which finds its reasons for being in carrying out the mission given to humanity, that is to submit actively and willingly to God.
What does that mean?
*"Such mission involves efforts in all dimensions of person's life; it includes self-discipline, as well as calling of others to submission." The motive force in Islamic ethics, as a mode of discourse, is the call to "command the good and forbid the evil", in all life aspects. [2]
What is the second sentence supposed to mean?
*The Qur'an and Sunna of Muhammad explain this mission further: All human beings bore the impress of a primordial covenant with God (meaning that all humans naturally have the capacity to discern God's will and submit):[2]
What does a capacity for discernment have to do with a covenant?
*And when your Lord brought forth from the children of Adam, from their loins, their seed, and made them testify of themselves, asking: Am I not your Lord? They said: Yes! truly, we testify. That was in case you should say on the Day of Resurrection: We were not aware of this. Or in case you should say: Our fathers ascribed partners to God from ancient times, and we were only following them, as their seed. Will you destroy us on account of what they did? (7:172-173)
I think this needs more context. What is "That" which was in case? 
*In this view, the human beings, independent of their religous background or living place, are thus expected to reflect on the meaning of existence which is ultimately believed to lead to the reality of God from whom they come and to whom they return. 
So "the meaning of existence" leads to "the reality of God?" What is that supposed to mean?
*Muslims believe that when humans discern God's will and submit to it they practice Islam. 
What does this have to do with Islamic ethics? Wouldn't every religion have a belief of this kind?
*According to Qur'an, most human beings are in the state of jahiliyya or "headlessness" (as opposed to islam or "submission") by working against their nature. And they do so because of their focus on material success. "Rivalry in worldly increase distracts you," the Qur'an says. [2]
So Hindu ascetics aren't Muslim because of their focus on material success?
*Muslims believe that Muhammad, like other messengers, was sent to remind human being of their responsibility. Muhammad, in opposition to what he considered as the state of jahiliyya or "headlessness", significantly focused on the following five aspects of the civilization of his time: [2]
*The tribal organizations of Arabs based on kinship and blood ties was replaced by Umma, a community based on piety. The measure of value from ancestral lineage and wealth was placed on piety, taqwa.
At best this needs to be reworded.
*Polytheism was replaced with Monotheism
What does this have to do with ethics?
 
*Among human qualities, instead of the notion of muruwwa (manliness), the characteristics of the "big man" upon whose patronage others rely, the notion of humility and God-fearing (preparing for the Judgment day) has to be lifted up.
"has to be lifted up" would have to be said another way. Has to be lifted up by whom, how?
 
*The notion that the supreme goal of the life from performance of the deeds that would make next generations remember, was replaced the notion of "returning to God" as the supreme goal of life.
This needs a "by."
*Pattern of legimation based on ancestral tradition (i.e. that which always has been done) was replaced by what God sends down as a measure of legitimation.
A general comment: why is Islamic ethics being described in opposition to the pagan Arab tradition? Why this comparison? Why not Islamic ethics as opposed to the Jewish tradition, the Christian tradition, the Zoroastrian tradition? Or why isn't it being described as a discipline in its own right? The discussion of pagan Arab traditions is excessive and tangential. This stuff could be in an article about "ways that Islam was some improvement over the pagan Arab system" but this is hardly an article about Islamic ethics. I suppose that if the goal were to propagandize about positive aspects of Islam (not that that is the goal here), comparing it to paganism in Arabia is about all one could do. Arrow740 02:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like many other articles on Islam, this one will definitely benefit from a more consistent application of the sui generis approach. Beit Or 21:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: "Delete and merge" (if there is anything useful here) is the motto of the day. Beit Or 21:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.Proabivouac 08:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True the quality of this article is quite poor. However, if articles such Jewish ethics exist, then so should this one.Bless sins 23:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it could end up being a good article. The "foundational motifs" section needs to be cleaned up, as I strongly indicated above. Arrow740 08:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arrow! The simple answer is that this whole section is written using "Islamic ethics" article from "Encyclopedia of Ethics" and also from Encyclopedia of Islam "Akhlaq" or ethics article. Both sources are peer-reviewed scholarly sources. This is enough explanation for not removing the section. Secondly, if two scholarly encyclopedias have discussed this issue in this manner, it should be discussed this way. And please, wikipedia not based on Truth, rather it is based on the principle of verifiability. TruthSpreaderreply 05:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is a POV essay and moreover is barely comprehensible. Arrow740 05:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please explain 

message: Hey, would it be irrelevent to add sections on the Islamic ethics of life, such as abortion, euthanasia etc.Bless sins 00:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes. I think we should focus more on that than on the morality of the quran.--Sefringle 02:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other sections

message: The article contradicts itself. First, it says that the Islamic ethic "was eventually shaped as a successful amalgamation of pre-Islamic Arabian tradition, the Qur'anic teaching and non-Arabic elements (mainly of Persian and Greek origins) embedded in or integrated with a general-Islamic structure." But then it ignores the non-Islamic sources and says "Islamic ethics were gradually developed based on the Muslim understanding and interpretations of the Qur'an and stories of Muhammad." Beit Or 21:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of that one simple contradiction, you can't remove the whole section. Pls. stop.Bless sins 15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this talk page from top to bottom before commenting on my actions. Arrow740 19:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, this whole section is completely meaningless. Beit Or 19:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of this section is "incomprehensible"? State to me a sentence - one at a time - and I will either explain to you the meaning or make it comprehensible.Bless sins 00:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The burden of proof is with the editor who wants to make an edit: you, in this case. Either rewrite the section so that it is well-wriiten and NPOV or demonstrate that it is well-written and NPOV in your current version. Beit Or 17:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ofcourse, the burden is on me make it well written. Can you please specify one sentence that is not well-written.Bless sins 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The burden of which proof? If someone claims that X is true, the proof is on the person who claims. So, if one wants to add something to the article, he must source it. However, if one claims that the section is incomperhensive, then he has to show it. --Aminz 23:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Encyclopedia of the Qur'an in the article Ethics and the Qurʾān has to say the following about non-Muslims:
Since the Muslims are a single group, relations with non-Muslims are shaped by that fact. Yet, in the end, the claims of ethical behavior outweigh those of communal solidarity. The distinction between Muslims and non-Muslim Peoples of the Book  is fundamental to qurʾānic behavioral norms, but a common ethical monotheism of the members of these traditions seems to underlie more superficial distinctions. For example, q 3:84-5 lists in credal fashion the faith described as Muslim, in a way that is inclusive of more than just the umma of Muḥammad: “We have faith in God, in what has been sent down to us and what has been sent to Abraham, Ishmael (q.v.)… We do not distinguish any of them from the others. We are to him submitters. And who follows other than the submission (al-islām) as a religion (dīnan) — it will not be accepted from him; he will be, in the afterlife, a loser” (q 3:84-5). Consequently the Qurʾān recognizes the existence of virtue and even religious virtue among Peoples of the Book: “…Of the People of the Book, there is an established people reciting the signs of God at the time of night prostrating themselves. They have faith in God and the last day and they command the good and forbid the reprehensible and hasten to good deeds (al-khayrāt); these are among the righteous (al-ṣāliḥīn). And whatever good they do, they will not be rejected” (q 3:113-4). In other words, the Qurʾān assumes a moral universe shared with the other Peoples of the Book.
Christians and Jews, then, are not a demonized Other, the anti-thesis of Muslims, but they belong to the same religious genus. Yet, because of their theological errors, and, more importantly, due to their animus against Islam (cf. q 5:82 for the anti-Jewish and anti-“associator” polemic), the Muslims are enjoined not to take them as friends: “O you who are faithful! Do not take the Jews and Christians as friends. They are each other's protégés (awliyāʾ). Who has taken one of them as a protégé — he is one of them. God does not guide a wrong-doing people” (q 5:51; the whole anti-People of the Book polemic can be found at q 5:41-82; see also q 3:118; 4:144). Furthermore, their theology leads them to moral error (q 5:62-3).
Indeed, it is the claim of the scriptuaries that moral norms do not apply to other than their own moral communities that brings God's condemnation: “…And among [the People of the Book] are those who if you entrust them with a dīnār, do not return it to you unless you insist upon it; this is because they say ‘We have no duty toward the gentiles They say of God a falsehood, which they know” (q 3:75). Only a single verse enjoins struggle against People of the Book (this, contrary to Vajda in ei 2, i, 264): “Fight those who do not believe in God nor the last day and do not forbid that which God and his messengers have forbidden and who are not religious with the religion of truth from among those given the scripture until they give a reward [for being spared] while they are ignominious” (q 9:29; for this translation, see Bravmann, Ancient Arab background). In sum, the boundaries of religious identity are irreducible in the qurʾānic understanding and crucially shape the ethical conduct of Muslims toward one another and towards others. A norm of moral conduct that transcends communal boundaries is, however, equally a part of the qurʾānic message. 
Sefringle, are you okay if we summerize this? --Aminz 01:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see the summary before I make a decision.--Sefringle 03:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Why should we remove "only"? The source says:"Only a single verse enjoins struggle against People of the Book" --Aminz 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As we know, surah 9 was the last one Muhammad delivered. The "only" is therefore misleading, since the later the surah, the more important it is, because it negates anything earlier which it contradicts. So this verse is in effect part of the final word on fighting others. Arrow740 04:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "As we know, surah 9 was the last one Muhammad delivered." That's wrong. I don't know where Spencer has got this heresy. Sura 9 dates back before the conquest of Mecca as it is clear from its context. Sura 5 was revealed later: verse 5:3 for example reads: "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion” (Quran 5:3)"--Aminz 04:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was the last revealed in full according to Bukhari. Arrow740 04:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Revealed in full" probably meaning all at the same time. What does it have to with your argument? --Aminz 05:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have a citation for that?--Sefringle 04:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Qur'an Translation: Discourse, Testure and Exegesis By Hussein 'Abdul-Raof, p.65,  Routledge Taylor and Francis group -Aminz 05:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What does he say? Arrow740 08:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  And why do we care what he says? Arrow740 08:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding "After that, I would suggest restoring/summarizing the part about god not guiding the nonbelievers." would you please copy/paste the original sentence from source here? Thanks --Aminz 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: POV--Sefringle 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have another verse? Hmmm I saw the paranthesis. --Aminz 03:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People of the book 

message: My first suggestion is to remove the word "only" where it is refering to verse 9:29. After that, I would suggest restoring/summarizing the part about god not guiding the nonbelievers. It seems the origional quote gives an entire paragraph to this. It seems important.--Sefringle 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should we remove "only"? The source says:"Only a single verse enjoins struggle against People of the Book" --Aminz 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As we know, surah 9 was the last one Muhammad delivered. The "only" is therefore misleading, since the later the surah, the more important it is, because it negates anything earlier which it contradicts. So this verse is in effect part of the final word on fighting others. Arrow740 04:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "As we know, surah 9 was the last one Muhammad delivered." That's wrong. I don't know where Spencer has got this heresy. Sura 9 dates back before the conquest of Mecca as it is clear from its context. Sura 5 was revealed later: verse 5:3 for example reads: "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion” (Quran 5:3)"--Aminz 04:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was the last revealed in full according to Bukhari. Arrow740 04:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Revealed in full" probably meaning all at the same time. What does it have to with your argument? --Aminz 05:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have a citation for that?--Sefringle 04:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Qur'an Translation: Discourse, Testure and Exegesis By Hussein 'Abdul-Raof, p.65,  Routledge Taylor and Francis group -Aminz 05:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What does he say? Arrow740 08:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  And why do we care what he says? Arrow740 08:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding "After that, I would suggest restoring/summarizing the part about god not guiding the nonbelievers." would you please copy/paste the original sentence from source here? Thanks --Aminz 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: POV--Sefringle 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have another verse? Hmmm I saw the paranthesis. --Aminz 03:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: suggestions for improvment

message: Could someone find quotations from the qur'an or, at least, from the hadiths instead of "mere" jurisprudence and doctrine? I mean there are many tendencies in Islam (Shias and sunnis, differences between sunnis madhhabs, etc.), so you can't say that some scholars represent the whole Umma. Mitch1981 (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some scholars represent a substantial part of the umma. For example, Imam Abu Hanifa would represent the majority of Sunnis (almost of half of the umma). Nevertheless, your request to have hadith and Qur'an quotes is legitimate.Bless sins (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very few groups follow simply Qur'an and hadith, since ethics as practiced isn't deduced from these raw texts even for the Athari, but a rigorous scholastic process taking the entirety of Islamic revelation and sunnah into perspective. --Enzuru 06:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam and human rights 

message: I noticed this article was deleted in August 2010 without any proposal or discussion.
I understand that much of the article was written by Jagged85, and cleanup is proceding. 
According to Wikipedia:Jagged_85_cleanup, anyone cleaning up is required to "Assess whether the current text satisfies relevant policies such as WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV". Mass blanking demonstrates no such assessment was made.
Furthermore Jagged85 isn't the only one that contributed to this article. I remember having contributed to it as well, as have many other editors. Blanking the article article nullifies our contributions.Bless sins (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not to say that there aren't problems with this article. I see many that draw conclusions that the source hasn't. I'm working on fixing them, and would appreciate help, not hindrance.Bless sins (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Im glad you want to save it. For a good outline see Jewish ethics (for a bad outline see Christian ethics). Keep up the good work. J8079s (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article deletion 

message: Dr. Ismail has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Ismail has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Possumah, Bayu Taufiq & Ismail, Abdul Ghafar & Shahida, Shahimi, 2012. "Bringing Work Back In Islamic Ethic," MPRA Paper 41351, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 07 Feb 2012.
ExpertIdeas (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Ismail's comment on this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Islamic ethics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080227095928/http://images.agustianwar.multiply.com/attachment/0/RxbYbQoKCr4AAD@kzFY1/IslamicCalendar-A-Case-Study.pdf to http://images.agustianwar.multiply.com/attachment/0/RxbYbQoKCr4AAD@kzFY1/IslamicCalendar-A-Case-Study.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Islamic ethics. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080229042135/http://www.1001inventions.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.viewSection&intSectionID=441 to http://www.1001inventions.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.viewSection&intSectionID=441
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130818180319/http://www.rissc.jo/index.php/english-publications.html to http://www.rissc.jo/index.php/english-publications.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://images.agustianwar.multiply.com/attachment/0/RxbYbQoKCr4AAD%40kzFY1/IslamicCalendar-A-Case-Study.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following cites McAuliffe to support the idea that Eickelman wrote that Bellah suggested an interpretation.  This is a little extreme in terms of indirect citation.  Is there any way of finding the Eickelman source, or at least the Bellah source?
 Dale Eickelman writes that Bellah suggests "the early Islamic community placed a particular value on individuals, as opposed to collective or group responsibility."McAuliffe (2005) vol. 5, pp. 66-76. "Social Sciences and the Qur’an"  Clean Copytalk 12:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indirect indirect indirect citation 

message: Rewriting it with some of the criticisms made on this page in mind, such as adding a comparison of Islamic ethical systems with other religions.
===Just made a massive deletion of Jagged 85 edits ===
−36,258‎ bytes gone. From his edits from October and December 2008. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Louis P. Boog: I've had a further go at stripping out copyvios, dubious website sources and the like and restructured it into something slightly more resembling a digestible article. Just thought I'd let you know in case another helping hand was all the motivation you needed to have another crack at the whip. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hope to redo article

message: −36,258‎ bytes gone. From his edits from October and December 2008. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Louis P. Boog: I've had a further go at stripping out copyvios, dubious website sources and the like and restructured it into something slightly more resembling a digestible article. Just thought I'd let you know in case another helping hand was all the motivation you needed to have another crack at the whip. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Just made a massive deletion of Jagged 85 edits