Talk:Animals in Islam/Archive 1

WP:RS

This page needs Reliable sources, not sources that are extremist.--Sefringle 03:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean the sources are extremists? I've used quotes from the hadith to this article and analyse them from there. --Fantastic4boy 03:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Islamonline.net is extremist, because it has a clear bias to its work and is very one-sided. And some of your hadith quotes have not mentioned the exact hadith the interpritation came from. The ones that do do not mention a scholarly source to varify interpritation. And for future references when quoting the quran and hadith, use the quran-usc templete. It works like this:

For verse 1:1, enter {{Quran-usc|1|1}}.

This will allow people to just click on the link and view the verse as ^[Quran 1:1].

For hadith quotes, to show Sahih al-Bukhari, 8:73:68, enter {{hadith-usc|usc=yes|Bukhari|8|73|68}}. --Sefringle 01:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about this, but this article could possibly be merged with Muhammad's attitude towards animals.128.100.53.151 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support Those two article basically repeat themselves. Al-Bargit 17:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Less POV title and same topic--Sefringle 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support: At the least there should be RS for the introduction. --Matt57 19:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose and comment I would very much like it if Muhammad's attitude towards animals were merged into this article, not the other way around.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 02:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Caging animals

What is the authority to say that Islam forbids caging animals? Please address with special consideration to the caging of birds for their cultivation and the caging of hens to obtain their eggs. I would agree that caging affronts the Buddha.DavidYork71 06:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Say where you got it

as with the POV-oriented and selective quoting from the same book on other articles, the attributions to Khomeini remain unverified from a reliable source. what we have are polemic sites attempting to smear Khomeini, quoting (or even misquoting) his particular book. none of these agenda-driven websites are reliable sources, and there's nothing to suggest their translations are accurate. ITAQALLAH 15:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll search for references for them. Please note though, this is going to be a book reference by the way and I did reference it. I'll finalize this and get back to you. This is the book: Tahrir-ol-vasyleh --Matt57 17:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

the translation from a reliable source would be nice. you referenced it without actually consulting the book (unless of course, you know Arabic). per WP:CITE, that is not appropriate on an encyclopedia. you consulted certain websites which cite that reference, who have an agenda to defame Khomeini. as shown on Talk:Islam and children, such translations are not reliable. ITAQALLAH 22:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it Arabic or Farsi (persian)? If a website reports on a serial killer, you cant say that the website's agenda is to defame that person. It is not relevant whether the website is there to "defame" Khominie. The important thing is: are those quotes accurate? Thats what we have to confirm. --Matt57 23:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

i think the book exists in both. we can only really determine the accuracy of the attribution if we have a translation from an authoritative source. homa.org is an unreliable source, it has been known to twist translations, as shown on Talk:Islam and children. ITAQALLAH 23:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Pics

The pics were intially placed to ridicule and I consider trollish. Yes, the captioneds are all reliably sourced (so it would seem) but then they are mischievously used. No-one has yet been able to point out how they are not simply mischievous (to put it lightly) attempts to ridicule the subject and play on the cuteness of the image. In a similar vein, the slaughter picture just shows what any traditional slaughter looks like but most readers won't know this - it's not unique to Islam or Muslim societies, but the editor would like us to think it is.

This issue has being going on for weeks - I've now removed them twice and provided reasoning in the edit summaries, and has only simply been addressed with "It's relevant" which isn't very convincing - oh, it's been addressed with threats on my talk page not to reinstate it. This is also from the talk page of a previous article Muhammad's attitude toward animals which had the exact same pics and captions.

The reason i removed them which you have not addressed is it is clear that you put them there as an attempt to ridicule and pass judgement on your interpretations of the topic. By placing a bloody picture of a traditional slaughther is clearly aiming to 'make a point' which is not your role. Most 'traditional' slaughter is like this Islamic or not - most westerners don't see it - but it has always been the way. Have a look for example at the cook Jamie Oliver's book "Jamie in Italy" and you will see equally gruesome pictures of 'traditional' farm slaughter and butchery.

The gecko pic and particularly it's caption is a worse example. Clearly the picture and the caption are meant to ridicule.

Furthermore, GA criteria is NOT a reason to insist on (at best) dubious pics. See point (b) of the criteria you posted. Thus, the article's GA potential is no longer a concern without those (ot hypothetically any) pics.

Merbabu 04:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Kind regards --Merbabu 03:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think the pictures are there to ridicule and trollish? You're assuming bad faith. This is an encyclopedia. Relevant pictures are important to improve the quality of any article. And you removed them only becuase of the picture of the PIG. No one ever bothered until I put in the picture of the pig. The fact that you find a picture of the pig offensive (which you didnt even mention) is NOT important. These are just personal beliefs. There are many moderate Muslims who are not offended by pigs. Like I said, this is an encyclopedia, not a Muslim publication. I will go all lengths to make the pictures stay in the article and you should give reason as to why you want them to stay. Any reason other than "I hate pigs" - because thats not a valid reason. The motive used in putting these pictures isnt doesnt MATTER. All that matters is: Do they improve the article? Yes they do.--Matt57 11:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with offence over a pig (i removed them before the pig was even there) or causing offence, I am not a Muslim and I bought pork chops today, although i must admit, I ate mussels tonight and put the pork chops in the fridge for tomorrow night. Being mistaken for a Muslim doesn't bother me, but it seems to be fundamental to your disagreement with removing the pics, and also the source of your own lack of WP:AGF.

Yes, I am aware that this is not a Muslim publication nor is it an anti-Muslim publication.

I have given reasons for their removal a number of times here and on the other article, and as I have just pointed out, your reasons are mistaken and thus invalid.

So yet another time: as I pointed out I raised this (and removed the pics of the gecko, the slaughter, and the cute lab - ie, the black dog) well before today - the pig simply got removed has i couldn't see the context to Islam anymore than i could see the dog's context. If you read my post you would have seen that this came up in Muhammad's attitude toward animals a few times.

Can you honestly tell me that posting a pic of a tiny lizard which the caption "Muhammad says this was evil" is what makes a good encyclopedia? (I have no problem with mention of the gecko in the article though). Or that a very cte soppy-eyed lab with a similar caption is not subtle ridicule and really necessary? The article is not Gecko or Labrador but Islam and animals. I know you do get it, i doubt you will admit it. Eg, the article Islam and slavery doesn't just have photos of just any slaves, but slavery in the context of Islam (well, so we are told) and I am thus happy for them to stay. Rather than "going to all lengths to make the pictures stay in the article" it is my suggestion to find pics of animals in the context of Islam - it can be the fattest pig ever, rolling around in 'dirty' mud for all I care, but make it related to Islam, not some gratuitous pic to maintain your self declared mission to criticise Islam.

As for accusations of bad faith, you were the one who posted on my page after i first moved it telling me if I moved it you'd "report me to the authorities, alright" and now you are telling me you will do you utmost to keep it no matter what". If you think that is how wikipedia works, then my advice is to reconsider. You can't just get your way by acting tough ("I will go all lengths to make the pictures stay") and trying to be indimidating [1].

Merbabu 12:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What is your central argument for keeping the pictures out? Can you explain in short? All I can see you saying is "These pictures are not related to Islam". How are they not? These are animals that the religion has an opinion on. What do you thikn would be an ideal picture? A copy of the Quran lying next to the gecko? I dont understand. Second: why did you say that these pictures were put in bad faith? What bad faith is involved in putting in pictures that supposedly are not that directly related to the article? Why did you say these pictures were put in the article to ridicule or in any way connected to trolling? Explain please. Making false accusations of bad faith is bad faith itself.--Matt57 12:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of bad faith. If you have to accuse me that many times, then take it to "the authorities" as you threatened on the talk page (an act of good faith are you assuming?). If you are going to lecture on good faith, could you please drop sarcasm (ie "A copy of the Quran lying next to the gecko"). I've explained enough. SImply pretending my explanation is not there, then accusing me consistently of bad faith gets is not a rebuttal. My arguments made by me and others (edit summaries on two articles) and now highlighted here in bold. In my opinion, you do yourself no favours by constant lecturing on bad faith. Furthermore, is a revert on your behalf that was based on your false assumption that I was a Muslim an act of good faith? :::::Merbabu 14:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

PS, Look at it this way: can you honestly say there is nothing ridiculous, provactive and hence unecyclopedic in pasting a very cute pic of the beloved labrador with the caption "According to one tradition attributed to Muhammad, black dogs are evil, or even devils, in animal form." or a gecko smaller than a finger with "It is reported that Muhammad commanded geckos to be killed and called them 'little noxious creatures'.[23]"? Honestly? And I know you say intent doesn't matter, but can you honestly say that you want the pics (and their captions i presume) to remain at least in part because you hope they provoke the necessary reactions? I don't ask here niavely believing you will agree - afterall, you've said above you will "go all lengths to make the pictures stay in the article" - but hopefully you and others will at least give it some thought. Also, remember although desired, pictures are not compulsory, particularly if they are lousy efforts like these.Merbabu 14:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Suppose we have a picture in a serial killer's article "This is the girl who was killed by this killer" - does that mean we are ridiculing it? No, these are not lousy efforts. I'm trying to IMPROVE the article. The fact is that Mohamemd DID say that black dogs are evil. How come reporting this becomes a POV issue? As I said if I report on a serial killer's page and highlight the stuff that he has said and done, how come is that a POV issue? In all your long texts here, the only reason you have given for these pictures to not be included is "they're not directly related to Islam". This is not reason enough.--Matt57 14:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop playing games. That is not what I said. I never removed the text nor questioned it's validity, in fact I put it in the article when i removed the pics. My problem is the use of the pics and you know it. I know you know this. Your above post is blatantly disingenuous. Talk whole and untwisted truths please. Merbabu 15:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I will take this up for an RfC or whatever is needed. --Matt57 15:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think that is what is needed. Be honest - not 1/2 honest please. Merbabu 15:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes thats whats needed because I'm not getting any real reason from you as to why you think the pictures should not be included. This is an article on animals and those are the quotes of Mohammed that are related to those animals.--Matt57 15:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My reasons are in bold and will mention them on request for comment - you chose to ignore them and seek to indimidate. You could have compromised (as I did by putting the text into the article). Merbabu 15:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I say we take time out, and come back tomorrow. I know there is GF in you, and there is in me too. If you don't agree with the need for time out, in the meantime while i try to walk away,then please at least be, well, - you know, I'm appealing to our good natures. regards Merbabu 15:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I can hardly trust any good faith coming from you, when you reverted DavidYork's valid edits and refused to agree that reverting valid edits is wrong (the discussion is there on your talk page as well as ItaqAllah's page). --Matt57 20:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Merbabu was right to revert the edits of a block evading puppet, and such actions are endorsed by the Wikipedia community. ITAQALLAH 17:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What ever happened to the RfC? Posting generic examples of commonly known animals is very unencyclopedic, and if anything is more akin to a children's book. It would be much more relevant if the names of the animals are linked to their wiki entry, which i believe they are already, in case the reader is confused about what a common house fly looks like. If you are to post pictures, perhaps something along the lines of Islamic paintings depicting animals in the context of whatever the caption is about, or perhaps a moslem dipping a fly in a beverage. Also i think the black lab picture would be more effective if someone were to draw in red devil-horns and maybe glowing red eyes, what do you think? - z

Merger with Islam and Animals

I agree with the merger. These are identical titles: Animals in islam. --Matt57 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

looks like a simple case of redirecting, there's nothing in that article that isn't discussed here (it's also extremely poor). ITAQALLAH 17:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon a quick scan, that seems correct. endorsed Merbabu 17:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In many Shi'ite accounts of Muhammad he is said to have conversed nonchalantly with camels, birds and other species. In one account a camel is said to have come to Muhammad and complained that despite service to his owner, the animal was about to be killed. Muhammad summoned the owner and ordered the man to spare the camel Hey, thanks for the laughs guys! We need a good joke article every now and then. Khorshid 00:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to know what exactly "^ Foltz (2006), pg.22-23" (the source for that nonsense) says. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 04:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There are some strange hadith out there, but considering how absurd this one is, I agree that we should know where on earth this is coming from and whether it is notable enough for inclusion. Khorshid 05:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If there's some strange hadiths out there, so what? Let people learn about them. And ofcourse its "notable". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

carry barbie songs 103.125.177.36 (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge to Islam and vegetarianism rather than the other way around

The article title is ridiculous. Khorshid 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

yes it is, but they are different topics. It would be better if you just nominated that article for an Afd.--Sefringle 05:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean that this should be merged to Islam and animals, right? Thats what I agree with.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No Primary Sources

We can not quote primary sources directly. I have removed all such references. --Aminz 22:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Who said we cannot? "SIMPLY quoting the text is not OR, or POV etc. Commenting on it could well be." See this. The only issue here is that some editors dont want people to see these quotes. Sorry, they will stay because this is not against policy. Comments? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your deletion. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed this before. You are the only editor(or maybe the second one) I have seen that wants to use primary sources directly. --Aminz 19:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The obvious reason that you want to remove these quotes is that they are embarrassing to you and other editors. I have given you the link where they said that we can use primary sources directly. What do you want - you want me to take this for an RfC? Then we'll end up like in Mohammed which is full of his pictures now. If you want to go that route, I can do that. Now, explain which policy of Wikipedia states that we cannot quote primary sources. Did you see Islam? the LEAD of that article starts with quoting primary sources but no, you never had any problem there because its putting Islam in a positive light. Here, the hadiths are an embarrassment so it didnt fit well with you. Here's the problem that you have to deal with: quoting primary sources is not against Wikipedia policy. Explain or I will keep putting back the quotes. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC would be a good option. Another option would be to ask an admin to comment on this topic. Can you please show me where we used primary sources in Islam article (i.e. the sentence). Regarding the "embarrassment" issue, most of the quotes you consider embarrassing are viewed as forgeries by most Muslims and you miss to mention that when you are quoting Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature. --Aminz 19:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that hadiths are forgeries? You are no one to declare that. These hadiths are all coming from RS, and are a part of Islam. Its do funny when you all use primary sources in the ways you want to, but when someone else wants to do it to show another point of view, you say that its not allowed. I would not like to contact a specific admin, but rather an RfC. the sentence in Islam is the 14th or 15th reference. See the article. Its all over. I'm asking you to CITE the actual policy which prohibits quoting of primary sources. Can you do that? No you cant. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I'll ask you one more time: where is the wikipedia policy that prohibits quoting primary sources? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the references 14 and 15, you made a mistake. Those verses are mentioned in reference number 2 ("Islam", Encyclopaedia of Islam Online), a secondary source, and that's why we can use them. I'll make this explicit.

Quoting hadith literature and qur'an is original research because 1. there is a process of searching for quotes <-- Research 2. Quoting particular ones against others <-- Original research 3. It obscures the context and external evidences --Aminz 20:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoting hadith is especially problematic because determining which hadith are reliable is a complex task. I don't think hadith should be quoted at all for this reason unless a secondary source is cited to back up its reliability. Quoting the Qur'an in isolation is OK as long as the manner of the quotation is not being used to make a point (again unless a secondary source is cited to support such usage). Saying stuff like "The Qur'an is clear about X, Y, and Z" and then quoting the Qur'an to back this up is pure original research. - Merzbow 20:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a simple hadith quotation, nothing else. Quoting religious sources is NOT OR. Where is the policy to support it? I dont want subjective arguments. I want a reference to the policy. Remember, you have to prove that its OR. If you cant prove it, then you're wrong. By the way amin, you have to go through all the references of Islam. There are many direct references to Quran. See the ref section. It wont stop there though. This is present all over wikipedia. The only problem is that you dont like that fly hadith on top because perhaps you dont want people to see it. Is that it? Its completely ridiculous that all over we see primary sources being quoted directly ALL the time and no one cared but when I put this fly hadith out there for the world to see, we suddenly have a problem with quoting religious sources. Sorry, you will have to give the policy that prohibits the direct quotation of primary sources. You wont be able to do that since such a policy doesnt exist. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

<r> Ok guys, here's the thing: In this article, show me the OR. We'll deal with each case. To show that its OR, you have to give an alternate explanation or interpretation. You also have to ready to defend each and every single direct quote of a religious source on Wikipedia, just for starters on the Islam article. I will give you more articles after you're done changing all direct quotes into something else. Third, ofcourse before doing this, you have to provide the policy according to which direct quotes are not allowed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's just one line that you will have to defend in Criticism of Muhammad: "In his 1841 essay "On Heroes And Hero Worship And The Heroic In History" Thomas Carlyle alleged that Muhammad was "an impostor, who to satisfy his ambition and his lust propagated religious teachings which he himself knew to be false."[10]" - explain to me how this is not OR, while my quoting Muhammad is. Hadiths are sayings and doings of Muhammed. If we can quote Thomas Carlyle, we can quote Muhammad too. Sorry, you're wanting to do something which is impossible. Aminz, also explain why quoting Thomas Carlyle in this example does not violate your supposed 3-point test for OR. Did the person not search the quotes of Thomas Carlyle? Did they not choose which quote to use? Did they provide the "context" and evidence under which Thomas Carlyle said such a thing? No, no and no. There you go. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In this case, a Secondary source, i.e. Watt, is quoting Thomas Carlyle. Thomas Carlyle is different from the Qur'an as he himself might be considered a secondary source. A primary source includes the original writings of a religion. Matt, we should not use primary sources directly, and I have tried to follow this in every article, even when I was writing the story of Ishmael in hebrew Bible say. I didn't quote it directly.

The secondary sources usually give more information about the incident, provide context (if not a new interpretation) which is important in our understanding of the text. --Aminz 20:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Give me an example of what is OR in this article. We'll deal with each case separately. Simply saying "Quoting Quran and hadith is OR" is not true because no interpretations are being. What is being done, is a direct quote. From the link I've given you, quoting is okay. Interpretation is not. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Each of the direct quotes from Hadith literature is OR. Matt, you wanted to start an RfC on this(?) Matt, Tom and Merzbow agreed with me on that point. Another example is here: [2]. I failed that GA candidate article for relying the Bible as sources. --Aminz 20:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The user said "It isn't up to editors at Wikipedia to interpret the Bible and then publish our interpretations" - Thats what I have said. What is being INTERPRETED here? All I'm doing is quoting Mohammed. Quoting a person is not OR. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm I don't see any direct quotes from the Qur'an, all I see is interpretations like "Qur'an 2:65 mentions that people who broke the sabbath were turned into monkeys as a punishment". That interpretation is your opinion; scholars heavily dispute the meaning of this verse. I've tagged all unjustified uses like this until the issue is resolved. - Merzbow 22:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of your tags are incorrect, for places which are simply quotes. I'm reverting these. Only one reference in fact, the one to 2:65 may be OR. The rest are direct quotes and are not OR. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Restored. Hadith cannot be quoted without a secondary source backing up the reliability of the hadith in question. Text not in quotes marks is not a quote, sorry. And a presentation of quotes that begins with "The Qur'an is clear..." or somesuch is indeed original research. - Merzbow 22:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hadith can be quoted directly. If you want to do an RfC over this, we can. I will not have you deleting sourced text like this. Please RV yourself. The statement "Quran is clear" is also OR, I agree. Take out OR from all the rest. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

<r> Ok Merzbrow, you put the tag in. Tell me where the OR is now (except for those 2 cases which I had agreed on). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The OR is where I had my original tags that you removed. It's still there for the reasons I explained above, which you have not responded to. - Merzbow 00:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the 2 OR tags right now, name one case of an OR. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again: Everywhere you cite a hadith without a supporting secondary source, and everywhere you cite Qur'an verses accompanied by summaries instead of a direct quotes (again without supporting secondary sources). - Merzbow 04:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll change them to direct quotes, although all I need to do is add the quote characters becaue the sentence were direct quotes in the first place.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Regarding this edit Jesus does not only appear in the Bible - and judging from this passage he is not being quoted in a Christian context at all. He is mentioned in the Koran as a teacher. Thus, we need to consider it in an Islamic context. To answer the blatantly off-point rhetorical question in the edit summ - no, I am not suggesting anyone quotes the Bible. If I am wrong about this, i can accept it, but I merely basing this on reading the referenced removed section. yes, I can see that comments apparently attributed to Muhammed seem to be OR, but not the Jesus comment, it would seem. --Merbabu 14:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If he's a teacher then lets start including some of his more interesting quotes into Islam related articles. If you dont agree explain why. Yes you're wrong about this. The way to know the right thing to do is: we have to be fair. As simple as that. If its okay for a Jesus quote to be used to reflect Islam in a positive way, then - where does it stop? It should then also be acceptable to quote Jesus to reflect Islam in a negative way. And then all Islam related articles will become a miserable mess becuse we dont know anymore if the subject is Islam or Christianity. Do you see that? Just think a little ahead and you can see this for yourself. Stick to fairness and consistency and you'll know what the right thing to do is. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't actually understand your reply - I'm not sure how fairness and consistency comes into it. Rather aren't 'facts' much less subjective - lets try and establish them. :)

To the best of my knowledge, Jesus appears as a teacher (a prophet even?) in the Koran. Hopefully, someone can come along and confirm that either way. Thus, if it can be proven that he is being quoted here in a non-Islamic context, I can accept that. But, the assumption was that the context of the quote is an Islamic context and it has so far not yet been shown to be an incorrect assumption.

Does anyone know where the Jesus quote came from? Do we know that it is not an Islamic context?

In reply to your addition I've already said I have no intention in mixing two religions (ie, I am not suggesting anyone quotes the Bible) - we both know that's stupid. Merbabu 14:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it an islamic context? You should know when something is defensible or not.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

edit conflict

This is the removed reference:

Al-Raghib al-Isfahani, an early fifth century AH/early eleventh century CE, Mahadarat al-Udaba', 1:610.

Once again, all I am asking is that the validity be confirmed one way or the other. It is not evident that it is Biblical, and it is not evident that it is not-Islamic - but I am happy to be proven wrong, not simply told how to do the 'right thing'. :) kind regards --Merbabu 15:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont know what that reference is talking about. Jesus came before Islam. He didnt know what Islam is. If he said anything, it would fit something in articles related to Christianity. The quote has and can have nothing to do with Islam. The person who put the quote will come and defend his insertion, so we'll just wait for him. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding Jesus appears as a 'teacher' in the Koran. Furthermore, it's referenced to an Islamic scholar. --Merbabu 15:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok then lets start putting Jesus quotes in Islam related articles. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That response is not a very helpful approach to the debate IMO. As you suggest, it would be better if someone else comments. --Merbabu 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This debate is closed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, the referenced info shall then go backMerbabu 20:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC) edit conflict: Is there someone else who can show me that it is inappropriate. As I said before, i am happy to be proven wrong. It appears that Matt57 is unable to comment furhter on the matter. Merbabu 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll comment in a bit. Sorry for missing this. --Aminz 20:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont do that, Merbabu. The quote is from Jesus, not Mohammed, as I said for the 50th time. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As have I. And you know that. Merbabu 20:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Merbabu, it is YOU who has to show me how that quote is related to Islam. Dont put it back in unless you can do that. Whats the big mystery here? It was JESUS who said that, not Muhammed. It has NOTHING to do with Islam. This is really obvious. I cant believe that you're debating on this. Do you want me to bring in quotes from Hitler and put them in Islam related articles? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the quote doesn't belong to the bible. It is sourced to "Al-Raghib al-Isfahani". If the referencing is true, it is something attributed to Muhammad(true or false). We can say that "Al-Raghib al-Isfahani mentions a quote attributed to Muhammad that may supports a vegetarian lifestyle: ...." --Aminz 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This was something that Jesus said, not Mohammed: ""Masih (the Messiah, Jesus) said, 'Flesh eating flesh? How offensive an act!'". If Hitler said "Kill all rabbits" and Mohammed quoted Hitler saying that, does that mean Islam wants all rabbits killed? See my reasoning here? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We should see how Al-Raghib al-Isfahani interprets it. We can not decide on our own whether it supports veg. or not. --Aminz 21:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need of any "interptation". This is something that Jesus said. I'll ask you again, if Jesus said "go cut off tails of all the rabbits", should I bring that in Islamic articles and attempt to pass that off as an Islamic teaching? What happened is that someone found something nice in Christianity and tried to pass that off as if its a teaching in Islam. If Jesus said "dont kill animals", it has nothing to do with Islam's view of animals. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure that it is attributed to Muhammed. That was a seperate unsourced quote that i agree should have been removed. look at the edit history. Also, What do other editors know about Jesus in Islam? Whether or not the quote is relevant or not, on a more general note, it is missing the point to say that Jesus only appears in Christian context (although of course his role in Christianity is far more significant). and These 25 include Noah, the man of the Ark, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad.These five are the greatest among God's messengers. They are called 'the resolute' prophets. [3] Merbabu 21:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This was something Striver put in. As I said, this quote has nothing to do with Islam's view of animals. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Merbabu, I understand. Of course, this quote would be relevant but we need an scholar who says that in the context of veget. Though it may be obvious but if traditionally Muslims have seen this quote to mean something else, we can not use it in the context of veget. We don't know, may be they haven't done it or may be they have. All we need is a secondary source that mentions this saying and explains it. I'll try to find one. Cheers, --Aminz 21:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Matt57: You are obviously uncomfortable with the fact that Jesus is a significant figure in Islam, and this is not the place for you to grind that axe. Muslims have some ideas about Jesus (Arabic: عيسى) that are quite distinct from conventional Christian doctrine, but are just as valid with regard to Islam as the Canonical Gospels are to Christianity. You are stubbornly refusing to articulate your point of view in a manner appropriate for fellow wikipedians who don't share your views, and therefore you are compromising your own credibility. The life and ideas of Jesus are far from being an objective reality agreed upon by all. Though both Christian Jesus and Muslim Jesus are rooted in the same historical figure, as far as theology is concerned he is two separate, yet equally valid individuals. Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

New Cleanup and Quote Tags

The excessively long quote at the end of the article seems a little un-encyclopedic. Can we cut this down a bit? --ProtectWomen 07:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethics of farming animal in Islam???

This article covers most of animal topics except the one I mentioned in the subject line.

My curiosity is on how muslims farming animals, as I suspect that human's sexual orientation is more or less related to the way of animal production if people agree with me that animal spirits are playing roles in the universe. Furthermore, the history of human evolution maybe also playing a part.

I have tried to search the literature on this issue and found nil results unfortunately.

Reliability

Arrow, what do you mean by this edit summary [4]? Can you please explain? Which website? --Aminz 03:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevent images and quotes

This article contain images of random animals (including a dog, pigs, and a fly). Can someone explain how these images in anyway help the article.

I think all our readers know what a dog is, and don't need to be given a picture of it.Bless sins 21:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And oh yeah, I'm removing any reference to the Quran or hadith, unless supported by a secondary reliable source. This is because, there are tens (if not more) of verses and ahadith that refer to one animal or another. Unless a reliable secondary source specifies a verse or hadith as significant in Islam's view on animals, the verse or hadith should not be here.Bless sins 22:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Its all sourced information. Dont remove this information again, it will be reverted, ok? The pictures are relevant to the article and so are all the quotes relating to animals. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt, such threats and telling us how it is going to be, suggest, at least in this instance, that you need to work on tone and collaboration skills. --Merbabu 01:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Particularly the image in the lead shows the irrelevance. Does Islam and Animals summerize in what it is attributed to Muhammad regarding house flys? --Aminz 00:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The images have been a festering joke of a sore for a while. It’s about time to do something about it. They are completely irrelevant and posted to ridicule the subject matter. Find a pic of a cute dog, or a harmless fly, and find a quotation have nothing to do with scholarly reporting. Do the images supporters support, for example, putting a pic of any women in the Islam and women article? Find something that shows Islam and animals and how they relate, connected, etc – not just any animal. Amateurs with barrows to push have cherry picked quotes out of any context or analysis are pointless too – but this is a problem on all Islam and controversy articles. --Merbabu 01:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

absolutely, Merbabu. and to note, i think the spam of primary source quotes is unnecessary, as are the random and quite needless images. ITAQALLAH 01:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said. 1) These are relevant quotes of Mohammed. 2) Pictures are always an improvement in an article. If you think the pictures are there for ridiculing, then you're assuming bad faith. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the authenticity, or even relevance of the quotes. The issue is the pictures. To this end, I previously incorporated the quotes into the article when I previously removed the pics.

Pics are indeed an improvement if they are relevant. The pics aren't relevant - you have not established this. This article is not Labrador or Fly. Rather, find something that relates to Islam. Throwing around distracting accusations of bad faith are not helpful to the disussion. For me to elaborate further here would also not be helpful to the actual issue at hand, so please let us stop talking about bad faith. --Merbabu 02:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Its a black dog and the picture is of a black dog. Thats as reasonable as we can get. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If that is "as reasonable as you can get", it is not reasonable enough and should go. --Merbabu 02:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I said the hadith is about a black dog and this is a black dog. Whats the problem? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you are assuming that most readers don't know what a "black dog" is. These useless pictures make this article like a "show and tell" from grade 2. The pictures do notnehance the reader's understanding of the role of animals in Islam.Bless sins 03:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures improve this article as they would improve any other article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt's revert

Matt, what do you mean that "We're not bound to E.of.Nature and Religion"? [5]. Why have you reverted me? --Aminz 01:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

For example, why did you remove the italic part of the following caption of the image: "According to one tradition attributed to Muhammad, black dogs are evil, or even devils, in animal form. This report reflects the pre-Islamic Arab mythology and the vast majority of Muslim jurists viewed it to be falsely attributed to Muhammad. "--Aminz 01:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are you supporting Bless Sins taking out important relevant information from this article? I reverted him deleting a lot of sourced relevant information (as he does usually) and this was the edit I reverted. I'll add back that part you highlighted. You can add anything but dont remove sourced relevant information or pictures. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the pictures are irrelevant particularly the one in the intro. Please explain other parts of your reverts [6]. Starting from the "Dog" section. EoQ(Dog) says that the Qur'an does not say anything about the uncleanness of dogs but there are traditions. The article previously said that the Qur'an does not say anything about the uncleanness of Dogs but somebody has removed it. Anyways, Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature says that a minority of jurists (Jurists from the Maliki school of thought) view those traditions as un-authentic. I replaced that with "The majority of Muslim jurists consider dogs to be unclean (Jurists, particularly from the Maliki school of thought disagree)." (i.e. not getting into details of the sources for this hukm). Please explain why did you remove this?

Also, why did you remove other quotes from Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature? Please revise your revert and remove only the matterial you can defend should be excluded. --Aminz 02:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Which information? I cant see it. I made a simple revert because he deleted sourced information in that edit. If you think something is missing, add it back or wait for BlessSins to do it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You reverted a pre-bless sin's version [7]. Please compare this version with the one you reverted. --Aminz 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that was the right diff. See this. This is what I reverted. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As a note, there are two books of hadith that all Sunni scholars (excluding those who reject hadith entirely specifically Quraniyoon but those are not technically Sunnis) agree are authentic. They are Saheeh al-Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim. The hadith regarding the black dog being a devil is in Sahih Muslim. The English translation of the hadith is as follows: "Abu Dharr reported: The Messenger of 'Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of the saddle, his prayer would be cut off by (passing of an) donkey, woman, and black Dog. I said: O Abu Dharr, what feature is there in a black dog which distinguish it from the red dog and the yellow dog? He said: O, son of my brother, I asked the Messenger of Allah(may peace be upon him) as you are asking me, and he said: The black dog is a devil." To claim "the vast majority of Muslim jurists viewed it to be falsely attributed to Muhammad." is simply untrue if it is Saheeh Muslim. If you intend to assert this point, then you should prove where the vast majority of Muslim scholars say Saheeh Muslim contains weak or false hadith. The previous link that was provided as a reference never makes that argument.

References

Unresolved Picture Issue & call for an RfC

I've been following this picture issue, and as it stands he is the de facto judge on this issue is matt because of his diligence in reverting the article. The fact is there are two sides to this, and the current situation carries the danger of a revert war. What happened to the RfC that was called for in April, and then again in May? An RfC is the only solution to this, every discussion on this topic invariably reaches to the same conclusion. I think we've all gotten out what we've needed to say, its time to look to the community to assess the situation.

Do we agree to an RfC?

Uzairhaq 23:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

An RfC is not a big deal, maybe you meant a mediation case. In any case, I dont see any problem with this article. The pictures and quotes should stay and are being repeatedly taken out by ItaqAllah abd BlessSins. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

see WP:NOT and WP:V. the article isn't a laundry list for every animal ever mentioned in Islamic texts. if you can find any proper discussion or analysis in reliable secondary sources, please include them. ITAQALLAH 01:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is Islam and animals. What else do you expect to find in it except the relation between Islam and animals? Sorry, these quotes will stay in. Wikipedia doesnt forbid quoting. As long as we're not making interpretations, its okay. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Sorry, these quotes will stay in." - see WP:OWN. primary-source spamming is unencyclopedic, see WP:NOT and WP:V. ITAQALLAH 02:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not quote spamming. We're quoting the relevent portion of the hadith. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/archive12#Quoting_religious_sources. There's nothing wrong with quoting primary sources. Quotations can be made, otherwise a large part of Wikipedia wouldnt exist. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

there's nothing wrong with quoting a primary source once in a while when necessary. primary source spamming, on the scale you are advocating, violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY("Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote"), WP:V ("Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources..."), WP:NOR (highlighted in bold: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.") as WP:NOT says, if you want to produce an exhaustive list of quotes/primary sources, please use Wikiquote. ITAQALLAH 14:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As usual, this is just another attempt to censor what may seem unpleasant to you. Yes, Muhammad said that looking at a snake can cause abortion. Sure, this is a completely silly untrue statement that Muhammad gave but its related to Islam and animals and so is relevant. Revert it back or I will do the same later. I linked the discussion for the community's opinion which said "It is absolutely OK to quote from such texts... they are a perfect example of the proper use of a primary source". Revert it back. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

perhaps you should consider assuming some of the good faith you demand from others. the other POV-oriented rhetoric is also quite unhelpful. you said:

"I linked the discussion for the community's opinion which said "It is absolutely OK to quote from such texts... they are a perfect example of the proper use of a primary source""

the discussion, which i am well aware of, didn't say that primary source-spamming is allowed. please see my response above, which cites the relevant policy points. ITAQALLAH 15:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not "primary quote" spamming. You'll see. I'll make some edits later. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"This is not "primary quote spamming" i believe i said primary source spamming. "I'll make some edits later." -as is your entitlement. please ensure that they adhere to our content policies, and are sourced to reliable secondary sources. thanks. ITAQALLAH 15:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the policies you adhere to usually are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sorry, its relevant text and will stay in. You'll have to get community consensus to keep it out. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah has a point about what he's termed "quote spamming". Along with the pictures that assume we don't know what animals look like, such listings make this article really poor quality. He also has a point, Matt, about your tactics. If you are going to demand good faith from others, you need to start showing it yourself. My advice is to start being a bit more circumspect about your actions on this article. Telling people how it's going to be - for example, "it...will stay in" - smacks of ownership issues, and worse is non-collaborative. --Merbabu 15:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

These are just excuses. We didnt have digital cameras 1400 years ago so there's no way to see what the animals looked like. If its a snake, showing a picture of a snake is sufficient. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What are excuses? For what? A number of editors have commented on the inappropriateness of this article's images linked to captions from religious texts - quotations which are in the article body anyway. I know you understand these concerns (above on a few occasions). --Merbabu 15:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is inappropriate? When Osama bin Laden can be quoted on his page, no one objects. I dont see whats the problem with Muhammad being quoted. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't pretend you don't understand - it's been discussed over and over. Let me put it back to you - why are they so appropriate that you are fighting tooth and nail to keep them? They are pictures of animals we all know the appearance of. Why so important? The captions only repeat what's in the article. --Merbabu 03:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I could say the same for you - why are you fighting tooth and nail to keep relevant pictures out? Do pictures not improve articles? I dont see a problem. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

but that's the point, the pictures are not relevant. they are pictures of animals we all know the appearance of. If you can't be open about my previous question, answer me this: as the quotes are already in the prose, why not remove them from the pictures? This has been discussed to death - please don't make us go over old ground. The fact is they are put there to ridicule the quotes, and hence Islam. That "pictures improve articles" is a very weak justification. Any pics improve an article? Pics to ridicule improve an article? --Merbabu 04:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Another question, if this pic of a black dog was public domain, I then assume you would have no problem using that in place of the cute Labrador. Am I correct? Either one would be fine by you, I assume. --Merbabu 04:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh? you mean that cartoon? I would object based on the simple fact that it isn't a real dog!--Sefringle^Talk 04:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not real dog, but I know you understand what I am getting at. What aout replacing the cute lab with a pic of a (real) angry, teeth-bearing, vicious dog? --Merbabu 04:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Merbabu. --Aminz 06:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant if we cannot find a free image of one. What if...? questions are problematic in their nature. It doesn't matter, because it isn't even an option.--Sefringle^Talk 06:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i was asking Matt57, but your declining to answer suggests that you prefer a cute (hence ridiculing) pic to a scary "evil" pic. --Merbabu 06:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Suggests" is another one of those problematic words in this context. Do not jump to conclusions. I just do not like "what if x?" questions when x isn't even a possibility.--Sefringle^Talk 06:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, that is fair enough. What is your take then on the issue (all over this page. lol)? Although, my question of using a scary-looking "evil" not over a cute lab is not actually an impossibility at all. --Merbabu 06:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide a feasible example? This question is very vague.--Sefringle^Talk 06:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess there are two questions:

• broadly, what is your (and other eds') opinion on the issue of pics of harmless and/or cute animals being deliberately chosen and defended being linked to captions of religious teachings - this issue has been discussed in 3 sections on this page.
• More specifically, how about if we changed the pic to say more vicious looking creature? This would change the effect of the pic and importantly the current caption, right?

Other pics exist like this one. Not quite the same effect. :) I'm not actually advocating we change it to that one, but I'm not alone in suggesting there is a problem with these pics and their use next to the quotes. --Merbabu 06:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My only issue with that picture is there is a man pulling on the chain in the background. I don't think the man (or the chain) is relevant to the subject. It looks like he is being strangled. As for which dog, I'd prefer whichever dog is most relevant to the subject of this article. I think I will change the image and the caption to something more relevant to this image. I just wish we could get rid of that red timestamp.--Sefringle^Talk 06:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Merbabu, since the dog was black in the hadith, this is a reasonable picture. If you want to use pictures of angry vicious snarling dogs, you can do so if the hadith mentions that. You just have to be reasonable. And as it stands now, the captions shouldnt simply say "a dog", "a cat". That doesnt make sense. The caption should tie in the picture with whats in the article. I'll work on this sometime. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I thought about it a minute, and have several issues with the picture, notably the timestamp, the man choking the dog, who probably is not a muslim, and the excessive empty space, which just doesn't look asteaticly pleasing to the eye. So here is my proposal: We replace this image with this dog: Image:Shikoku dog.jpg and for the caption, we only say "a dog".--Sefringle^Talk 00:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

it's astounding that we need to remind our readers what exactly a dog or a cat looks like. we might as well start using images for every odd noun discussed in an article, just to make it more "aesthetically pleasing" (and just to make sure our readers know what they look like!). fortunately, Wikipedia is not a gallery or repository of images, so if you have any meaningful images directly related to the topic, please bring them to the table. ITAQALLAH 02:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

astounding, maybe, but important nonetheless. Having pictures is generally preferable within articles, and you can't claim the images are irrelevant to the topic.--Sefringle^Talk 03:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, thanks for your civil and collaborative manner, combined with a willingness to at least consider other viewpoints. Really. It is appreciated. However, the relevancy of the pics is indeed what is being questioned. The article has now solved the dubious linking of cute pics and religious quotes, and that apparent tool for ridicule is gone (which was the biggest problem). Now a smaller problem exists: although I have no real objection to the pics, I agree with Itaqallah they are little silly. Of course, the article would be improved with pics - but not any pics. Poor choice of pics is worse than no pics in any article.

On a different (or related?) topic, i noticed you specified a smaller image size a few days back. Any particular reason? WP:MOS#Images requests that images have no forced pixel count (although, usually it's the opposite problem; people want to increase image size). regards --Merbabu 03:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason. Many of the sections are not that big, meaning they don't have a lot of content, partly because many of the sections are stubs. If the images are too big, they will overlap, and may not fit where they should. (ie. the camel image may be in the pig section, pig in ape section, etc.) If they are small enough, this isn't a problem. The other problem is this creates a lot of blank space we have to work around.--Sefringle^Talk 05:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Views regarding certain animals

This section goes into details of how certain animals are viewed in Islam. There are in fact many animals that Islam has something to say about and I don't think such a section is appropriate in this article. The specifics can go in their parent articles. What we need here is a summary of the view of Islam with respect to various animals (by categorizing it); and some analysis on how their differences or similarities matter. Right now, we have one whole page on dog which is excessive which is too much space for one animal. --Aminz 04:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Its an article about Islam and animals, thats what its going to talk about. What other animals does Islam have a say about? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read my comment again. We should provide a comperhensive analysis of the views of Islam regarding various animals not that take a few animals and write in much detail about them. --Aminz 07:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong revert, please revert yourself. I've given the link to the community input on this which said, its okay to quote. And if you want to write an analysis, go ahead but dont leave out important details and again, I dont see anything wrong with the article as it was (before your revert). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This is all wrong. You took out what Mohammad said about Salamandars and I bet many other statements. Sorry if you dont like these hadiths or something but they'll stay in. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt, aside from your usage of primary sources which is problematic, we don't need to quote every hadith on every animal here. Similarly, I removed the details of stories of Muhammad's kindness to animals from the main article. --Aminz 02:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why dont we need to mention everything that Islam says about animals? Thats what the article is about. If you have sourced relevant information, please put it back, including the kindness to animals thing. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many many quotes attributed to Muhammad on many many animals, and Muslim scholars have written on the historicity of each of them in details. Right now, we have more than a page on "DOG"s. It deforms the article. Similarly, quoting all stories of Muhammad's kindness to animals is too much. At most we can mention one of them. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article rather than a collection of isolated quotes from primary sources. --Aminz 03:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

recent inappropiate edits

After reviewing the last comment, I see there seems to be conflicts over primarysources. However this edit was inappropiate because it removed secondary sources as well, and added primary soruced material for the sole purpose of refuting it. Both of these are inappropiate actions, especially since there was no discussion on the talk page.--Sefringle^Talk 03:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion - two sections above. But, the discussion is mixing up that of the validity or otherwise of primary sources, and the use of the pictures and their captions. I suggest that Sefringle's new discussion section be incorporated into what is already there - rather than start up another section. --Merbabu 03:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree Merbabu. Let's merge this. --Aminz 03:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The main secondary sources that were removed was those about dog. I think giving one full page to dogs is undue weight. In the article about "Dog", we can mention the details. Similarly, there were also stories of Muhammad's kindness to animals which were sourced to secondary sources but I don't think we should write those stories in detail for our readers. We can simply mention there are such stories in one sentence (and possibly add a few words summerizing their other main points). --Aminz 03:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

First, please explain further how the dog stuff is given undue weight. As for the second suggestion, that would be an improvement I could agree upon.--Sefringle^Talk 04:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, please take a look at the section headings of this version. They are encyclopedic. But to start a subsection on every other animal doesn't seem encyclopeic. There are many other animals and we can not write about each of them in that section (plus direct usage of primary sources is problematic). --Aminz 03:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, direct usage of primary sources is a problem, but when combined with the removial of secondary sources, especially when only explaining the removial of the primary source, is not good editing and is problematic and likely to be reverted, if not on purpose, than by accident.--Sefringle^Talk 04:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

okay, we can remove the clearly problematic reliance on primary sources as per our content policies. i will leave the material about dogs in (though i agree that the previous version gave too much undue weight towards them) for further discussion. ITAQALLAH 15:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, can I assume in your recent revert, you did not mean to restore the mass primary sourced quotes I'd removed here (since your edit summary indicated prolems with removal of secondary sourced text)? To everyone, can we tackle one issue at a time also before moving onto the next. Cheers. → AA ^(talk) — 09:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer not to get myself involved in the issue about the primary sources. If only primary sources were removed, I probably wouldn't have reverted it. However if primary and secondary sources are removed without any discussion about the removial of material, I will revert it, even if I end up restoring primary sources in the process.--Sefringle^Talk 00:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No you can't insert original research (which is basically using primary sources). I'm going to remove all references to primary sources (wihtout support from secondary sources). Any objections?Bless sins 00:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, considering you removed the part about pigs being forbidden. That is not OR. Scholars mention pork being forbidden in islam, and many other news sources do as well. Second, someone removed the apes section, which is also a relevant section without any discussion.--Sefringle^Talk 01:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

the apes section is a POV-fork from Islam and antisemitism. the sources used discuss these verses in the context of what Islam says about particular Jews- not about what Islam says regarding animals, hence its usage here is also a form of original research. you compared it with the material on the prostitute and the dog, the flaw in your analogy being that the sources are explicitly discussing this incident in the context of what Islam says regarding the ethical treatment of animals. ITAQALLAH 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

However, apes are animals. The quote is about how certian jews were turned into apes. That part is relevant. The only irrelevant part would be the interpritation. I removed the interpritations, so the rest of it is relevant. So no OR here. It seems you are bringing up multiple issues at once; why don't you create seperate headers for each one.--Sefringle^Talk 06:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, once again it is about the Jews, and not the apes. The apes, just like everything else, were created by God. The Jews on the other hand transformed into apes (according to some sources), but still remained Jews (according to all sources I've read). That you want to include Jews in an article about animals is ridiculous.Bless sins 16:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WHAT?? Please clarify your statement better. How can a verse which states that Jews were turned into apes not be about apes.--Sefringle^Talk 03:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

er.. because the Jews in question are the subject of the verse, not apes. if i say, "John went to the bus station," the subject of the sentence is John, and thus the sentence is about John (and not the bus station). ITAQALLAH 16:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) Firstly, it's just "primary source spam". Are there any secondary sources that say anything about this verse? Secondly, the subject of the verse are Jews not the apes. If there was discourse related to apes it would be valid to discuss it in the article about "...animals", otherwise it is best left to articles on Jews or Criticisms of the Quran. → AA ^(talk) — 09:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No. The subject is Jews becomming apes. Thus apes are part of the subject. It is sourced to a secondary source which says jews were turned into apes.--Sefringle^Talk 22:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is about attitudes & treatments regarding animals, in this part the main subject are Jews not apes but Jews aren't animals, are you?! Smart_Viral ^(talk) 23:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the jews and the apes are used as the same subject. The quran says jews were turned into apes, thus the two are equally the same subject. And no, we are not apes.--Sefringle^Talk 02:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

wonderful section keep it. Smart_Viral ^(talk) 02:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, all Islamic scholars agree that the punishment was meted out on Israelites (who are/were humans) and not animals. Thus these verses refer to humans beings, not animals.Bless sins 02:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What were the humans turned into? Apes and pigs, whom are animals. The verse refers to Jews being turned into apes and pigs, so thus it refers to both humans and animals. Besides, technically humans are animals anyway.--Sefringle^Talk 02:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The interpretations of this are quite wide. Some say these humans began to act like apes and pigs, while others say that they also looked like apes and pigs. But I have not seen as interpretation that suggests either their was some genetic transformation, or that apes and pigs in general have anything to do with Israelites.

Finally, these verse may affect how Muslim view Israelites, but they certainly don't affect how Muslims view apes.Bless sins 02:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet they all say "apes and pigs," and that is the point that establishes relevance of the quotes. As for your second point, much of this article just presents things muhammad said about animals and his encounters with them, much of which is not necessarily how muslims view animals in terms of relationships. No, it isn't about how muslims view apes, but it is about something muslims believe about apes; that at least some jews were turned into them.--Sefringle^Talk 02:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

BlessSins, the name of the article is "Islam and animals". Anything in Islam related to animals can be mentioned in this article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No Muslim do not consider "apes" to be Jews. Please provide sources if you disagree. the sources you are citing are in relation to Jews and antisemitism. They are not in relation to zoology or animals.Bless sins 11:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Quran, they were transformed into real Apes and Pigs, were they not? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No, the Qur'an never uses the word "real". There are some scholars who argue that a physical transformation never happened. Others, who argued that it did happen, say that people were only made to look like apes, but thier minds were still human and they were same people.Bless sins 13:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

there is debate on that issue among writers, and irrespective of the opinions on the topic, the subject here is Jews, not apes/pigs. ITAQALLAH 14:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Break 1

The topic is both Jews and apes/pigs. Jews were transformed into apes/pigs according to the qur'an. That is what the scholars say is the interpritation, and that is what the verse says. The fact that apes/pigs is what the jews were turned into proves relevance.--Sefringle^Talk 04:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

...so says Sefringle. But Quranic scholars (like Sayyid Qutb and Maududi) clearly disagree. And it is the latter's opinion that really counts.Bless sins 22:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

explain how they disagree. How do they say apes/pigs are not the subject or co-subject.Sefringle^Talk 23:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

they disagree about the interpretation. i'm sure that's palpable from the discussion.

i think we have discussed the irrelevancy of this before. if we say, "Some jews were transformed into apes/pigs", the grammatical subject of the sentence is "some jews". it's not relevant here, because the source is not discussing in the context of the topic "Islam and animals" (see WP:OR: "In short, the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article..." emphasis theirs). ITAQALLAH 10:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And if you look at the sources, they do say "apes and pigs" in the interpriation of that verse, so it is relevant on that point alone. Sefringle^Talk 01:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus here now? Yahel Guhan 02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

a consensus on what? the material on apes and pigs is clearly inappropriate, as explained above. that's what numerous editors involved in this discussion believe. ITAQALLAH 02:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

just a reminder, you haven't responded to the above post. Yahel Guhan 02:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

i believe it has been responded to multiple times in the discussion above. ITAQALLAH 23:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't. Yahel Guhan 23:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

several editors here, myself included, have explained the issue to you thoroughly, and have also directed you to the relevant statements from WP:OR. i don't think we have to explain it to you again, unless there is anything you are genuinely not understanding. ITAQALLAH 00:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The subject of the verse is about Jews and not pigs/apes - as has been discussed in the above thread. In all commentaries I've seen, discussion is centered on the Jews. → AA ^(talk) — 10:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

do the verses not say "apes or pigs"? Yahel Guhan 23:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you show some secondary sources that discuss the subject of apes and pigs with reference to that verse? Interpreting the meaning and context of primary sources is OR. → AA ^(talk) — 09:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure: Heres one [8]. Yahel Guhan 00:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The subject in that link (ignoring the validity of MEMRI as an RS) is, again, Jews. It's not discussing the treatment/study of animals etc. → AA ^(talk) — 11:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

exactly. and yes, MEMRI is not a reliable source when it comes to Islam.

Yahel, i think you might understand the flaw in your argument better if you read: subject (grammar). the subject of the verses in question is the Jews, while animals are the object. ITAQALLAH 13:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I have also asked Yahel Guhan to show some evidence of reliability of MEMRI in the field of Islamic studies here.Bless sins (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources - again

Once again, we can not choose and quote sparsely from primary sources without any analysis. Have you ever seen any secondary source doing that. If they would like to do that they would make sure to gather everything relevant (plus include their analysis re their historicity) at some appendix or so. --Aminz 12:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Article protection

I protected the article from edits by all non-admin users. This article was listed at WikiRage.com. Normally, that list contains articles being given trouble by new and unregistered users. This article seems to be an exception. A review of the article edit summaries makes it clear that this article has a serious problem. First, please avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Instead, place such comments, if required, on the talk page. Please consider reading through Edit summary. Please considr reading through eidt war. This dispute has been going on way too long. Before this article is unprotected, there should be some steps taken to follow the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policy. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jreferee, I just found this article and, I must say, I’m disappointed that a block protection on all non admin editing here is necessary. This is too bad since the page needs some work. It’s been almost a month now. Can the page be unblocked? It doesn’t seem that there is an active dispute resolution process going on here and the discussion above seems to be ended for the time being. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

S.dedalus, this is such a strange suggestion (a block on all non admin editing); a suggestion I have never heard of anyone before.--Aminz (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong terminology. :) --S.dedalus (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Talking Animals in Quran

Quran mentions several talking animals such as ants and birds (27):18-19. Can anybody address this here please? Thanks. 88.86.17.60 19:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

can you please provide a source? Yahel Guhan 00:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Source?

Is there an online verifiable source for this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_and_animals&diff=180317187&oldid=180252495 ? William Ortiz (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Apes and Pigs in the Quran

This is a relevant section that keeps getting removed. Its talking about Apes and Pigs. How does it not belong here? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you see the above discussion? ITAQALLAH 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll quote from WP:OR for your convenience:

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

(emphasis theirs)

The sources are not talking about what Islam says about animals (the topic of this article), they are talking about what Islam says about Jews of old, hence the presence of this material in Islam and antisemitism, Islam and Judaism, and so on. ITAQALLAH 16:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What LINK do we have to find? Are Apes and Pigs not Aminals? Is that what you're suggesting? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the subject of the source's discussion is what Islam says about Jews - not what Islam says about animals. Hence, the attempted usage of a source talking in a completely different context is WP:OR, as quoted. ITAQALLAH 17:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The Jews were turned into Animals, Apes and Pigs, Real Animals. There's no OR here. Its something that has to be mentioned in this article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Jews were turned into Animals, Apes and Pigs, Real Animals." - Yes. Note how the subject of your sentence is Jews. Not animals. Similarly, the sources talk about this in the context of Islam and Jews. Hence inclusion here is of vague relevance, and OR. If it was discussing about what Islam says about animals, and then mentioned the transformation of Jews, then that's not OR. We've been through this numerous times. ITAQALLAH 18:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The verse talks about animals and this is the animals article. I dont know what you're trying to say. Please revert your changes. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide the verse in question? As I read it, the subject of the verse is certain Jews who broke the Sabbath. ITAQALLAH 18:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But they were turned into PIGS and APES, which are... surprise.. animals? Open an RfC on this, I dont think you're going to get the point here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look at your first sentence - its subject is 'they', i.e. Jews. Are you sure that it's not you whose not getting the point? Thes source tell us nothing about apes in Islam, nor discusses what Islam says about animals. It's discussing in a completely different context. Do you even dispute that? Open a RfC if you like, but we've had multiple editors explain that this is OR. ITAQALLAH 19:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll open the RfC. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Jews being turned into apes has to do with animals and Islam. Arrow740 (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The connection is no more than tangental, in both the primary and secondary sources. Neither discuss it in a context of what Islam says about animals. ITAQALLAH 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It has to do with a certain mythological animal-related event in Islam. Arrow740 (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Find some sources discussing it in that context then. Else it's OR, as it currently is. ITAQALLAH 15:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? No one would deny that it relates a mythological (or true) animal-related event in Islam. Arrow740 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is related to a Jewish tribe (hence the context in which the sources are discussing it, and the context in which the verse itself is discussing it), not animals. Any mere mention of an animal in a primary text doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion here. ITAQALLAH 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find many people who will be convinced that the concept of "animal" is unrelated to this passage. That's a silly idea. Arrow740 (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a silly idea to claim that the object of a verse is actually its subject. The verses- and the secondary sources (mis)used tell us nothing about what Islam says about apes or pigs. ITAQALLAH 00:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The verses are obviously relevant to animals in Islamic thought, which is the subject of this article. Arrow740 (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not really, but I see now why your strange change of the lead was done simply to advance an already futile argument. The first paragraph of WP:OR says it all, really. ITAQALLAH 01:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Another assumption of bad faith. Please see WP:AGF. There is no original research being done (that is what OR stands for). Arrow740 (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because a verse mentions an animal doesn't mean it's relevant to this article topic - which is what Islam says about animals (generally and specifically). To claim it is, without a supporting source, is original research. ITAQALLAH 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The verses - according the exegeses - are about Jews, not animals. Unless, you are saying that Jews are animals, which is rather silly (and offensive) claim, this does not belong in this article.Bless sins (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a leap. Arrow740 (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree - categorizing Jews as animals is quite a leap.Bless sins (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Saying that those Jews were transformed into animals is an infinitely bigger leap. This is what the Quran says. It talks about animals, the subject of this article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? It talks about certain Jews who broke the Sabbath. It then says that they - you know, the subject of the verse- were transformed into animals. The whole time it's talking about these particular Jews. Not once does it impart any information about animals. Are you sure you've read the verses? ITAQALLAH 03:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost nothing in this article imparts information about animals. Arrow740 (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Inclusion of Quran's mention of Jews being turned into apes

The Quran mentions some Jews were transformed into Apes. Editors are disagreeing whether this can be mentioned in this article. Some believe the Quran is talking about Jews primarily and not animals, therefore this information cannot be included in this article since it is of "vague relevance, and OR". Others believe the verse mentions animals and therefore merits inclusion here. Link to disputed section. Ongoing discussion on this section can be found above.Anything found in the quran should be inclulded

Comment I'd say no to inclusion - the article states that it is about animals, not about mythical animals. Also, there is some debate as to whether or not these passages are meant literally or metaphorically. And then there's the fact that even if the passages are literal, they're not about apes, they are about humans turned into animals.

The mention has no relevance, it isn't vague - it's nonexistent, because it doesn't mention anything beyond the fact that some humans were turned into apes. Can someone provide one sourced sentence as to why this fact is relevant? WP is WP:NOT a repository for every little factoid. If apes - not transformed humans - are a significant symbol, you should be able to find other ape instances (and meaning/relevance). If you can't then it would seem that apes are not significant animal symbols and do not merit inclusion. Phyesalis (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the dispute, but I'd like to point out something not obvious in medieval Arabia, that should be reflected in the language if we're going to be objective: Gentile or Jew, we're all apes. 87.114.44.82 (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Separate sections

I think this article has been rightly divided, thus far, into Qur'an and Sunnah sections. Further sections need to be created for , "Islamic law" and "Muslim culture" (which should have subsections "Islamic art" and "literature"). None of these four sections should be confused with another. It maybe helpful to have a section on "Modern debates" which can discuss "Dhabiha slaughter" and "Vegetarianism".Vice regent 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many small sections in the article. It would be much better to merge them into a large section.Vice regent 20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hyenas

Does the info provided here on hyenas being Halal have any Quranic basis? All it says is that it is permissable in specific areas. It seems strange to me that an omnivore like the pig is disliked, yet an animal like the hyena is not. Are there any passages in the Quran or the Hadith mentioning hyenas?Dark hyena (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel a separate section for Hyenas is warranted given the respective weight in sourcing- and some of the content you inserted doesn't directly pertain to the Islamic perspective. ITAQALLAH 17:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The question remains unanswered. Are hyenas mentioned in the Quran or Hadith? This article claims that hyenas are portrayed negatively, yet the only provided source indicates otherwise.Dark hyena (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Swine

Re the edit summary tedious pedantry, please answer the question. What does "swine" mean here? The domestic species, genus, family, or order? The link goes to the article about the genus. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it probably refers to the domestic variety, but such a distinction did not exist when the Qur'an was written. Graham87 04:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamnavoe's edits

@Hamnavoe: The time has come for you to discuss this before you continue inserting information into the article. Please read WP:BRD: after you have been reverted you must then take it to the talk page. So please, let us discuss your changes now. — Richard BB 10:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

the opening sentence looks like a dawah brochure from a mosque. I suppose, Richard, that your goal is to keep Wikipedia OBJECTIVE. You removed a perfectly sources material. Damn, it's even in quran (2:196).Hamnavoe (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

My primary issue with your latest edits is that it defies WP:WEIGHT. I do not believe that the content that you have added is significant enough for the opening sentence of the article; instead, it should be reserved for a criticism section. By saying "however", you are trying to promote a certain point of view, in that Islam does not teach Muslims to "treat animals with compassion and not to abuse them". It's not up to you to make these interpretations, even if you're citing a source which talks about animal sacrifice. This is synthesising material from sources, regardless if they're reliable. What you need to do is find citations which actively state that there is hypocrisy in their actions, rather than making interpretations. If we are to include criticism in the lead section, it needs to be far less specific, with better sources, and more general in its approach: after all, we have the "Modern debates" section for that (which I intend to improve myself soon enough, after looking at it). — Richard BB 12:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Richard dont be ridiculous. If you had truly problem with WP:WEIGHT, you'd never leave the CURRENT FORMULATION WHICH IS A CLEAN WHITEWASHING. Hamnavoe (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In your opinion it is "whitewashing." The current lead does not defy WP:WEIGHT in any way. It is appropriate for a lead section. I intend to add criticism into the lead section soon enough, but it won't take so much bias. — Richard BB 12:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

what is so biased on "however the animal sacrifice is an integral part of key islamic annual celebration - Eid Al Adha"?!! my original formulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamnavoe (talk • contribs)

I have since added criticism to the lead section, renamed the "modern debates" section to "criticism", and even linked it to the criticism section on the Halal page. This seems to include the fact that there is criticism fairly, while at the same time not being too WP:WEIGHTy. — Richard BB 12:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Animals in Islam. 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/20070502045147/http://www.renaissance.com.pk:80/febislaw2y2.html to http://www.renaissance.com.pk/febislaw2y2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929044433/http://www.answering-christianity.com:80/bassam_zawadi/killing_of_dogs.htm to http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/killing_of_dogs.htm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Animals in Islam. 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/20070403055033/http://muttaqun.com:80/cats.html to http://muttaqun.com/cats.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411044136/http://www.al-islam.org:80/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00694.html to http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/aalimnetwork/msg00694.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411044136/http://www.al-islam.org:80/organizations/AalimNetwork/msg00694.html to http://www.al-islam.org/organizations/aalimnetwork/msg00694.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

First sentence not written in encyclopedic language

The opening sentence has not been written in an unbiased and encyclopedic language. Please correct this. I recommend changing it to:

The relationship between Islam and animal rights has been a complex one that's varied greatly depending on the historical context.

edit

Edit to complete the articleM1nhm (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)