Talk:Peace in Islamic philosophy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Peace in Islamic philosophy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 January 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Philosophy: Religion Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of religion

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

I need help from 'elders' to develope it. thanks!

Zikrullah (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lack of neutral point of view

I have added POV for this article, since it looks more like propaganda. Surely, someone can disagree with it. Is there a place to balance this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Lewison (talk • contribs) 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC) I agree it is biased this is not me being biased against Muslims as I am myself Muslim and pro-peace but I do think it over-emphasises the view that Islam is a religion of peace compared to other views.[reply]

OR

I was going to AfD this article. This is all OR (WP:OR), obviously and it was disappointing that experienced users like BlessSins and Aminz are encouraging the new user to improve the article. There's no term such as "Islamic peace", otherwise we could obviously make one on "Islamic violence" and that would get AfD's on this site in 5 seconds. I didnt want to discourage the user by AfD'ing it so quick however if someone wants to do it, go ahead. I'll leave a note at the user's page. Stuff can be merged elsewhere but a seperate article is not justified as the term is OR. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IT IS NOT ORPlease have patience the created article is improved rapidly. i want help from my elders.there is a mistake in questioning about the use of the term as we should not notice only the popular terms as al Qaida, aliens and harry potter etc.Zikrullah (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit

it is the introductory article .u can discuss conflict on jihad and islamic terrorism etc.

edit

it is the introductory article .u can discuss conflict on jihad Zikrullah (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC) and islamic terrorism etc.[reply]

Requested Move

The consensus developing on the AfD discussion page seems to be that this page be renamed and no longer speak of "Islamic Peace," but rather the new name for the article. There doesn't seem to be consensus, however, on what it should be renamed to. I think that Peace in Islamic Thought works best, although the only other page I can see with similar content called is Catholic peace traditions (these pages should probably have links to each other). In any case, I don't know that the AfD will be closed until this article is actually renamed, and so some consensus should be reached on that new name. RJC ^Talk 16:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! i will suggest the muslim editors to edit it. all things discussed in contemporary viewpoint must be discussed else where as in jihad or islamic terrorism.though i am not agree with the title"peace in islamic thought"[i prefer global peace rather than only peace] as the article contains matter on global peace.
[NOTICE AGAIN THE article is about islamic thought not muslim's thought or views.so it will include all topics which are mentioned in qur'an and hadith not what muslim in present time think or act.

blessingsZikrullah (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

Please specify the part where you claim or observe an OR. THANKSZikrullah (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many verses in the holy Quran and hadith, which emphasise on the related concept of compassion.
Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice. (60.8)[[1]
Regarding forgiveness, the Quran in one place commends those of whom it can be said that "When they are angered, they forgive."

[2] Otherwise, a number of Islamic traditions commend forgiveness. There is a report of a person who came to Muhammad and asked:

+ "Give me an advice by which I may be able to manage all the affairs of my life." Muhammad is reported to have replied: "Don't be angry. Even if people provoke you, don't lose temper and forgive those who make you angry. Adopt forgiveness as your behaviour."

The Quran states, “ It is not piety that you turn your faces to the east or west, but piety is a person who believes in God.
they indicate that their must be an engendered personification of an abstraction, an idea of ‘piety’, or bir, and that the locus of this accident is man.Piety as the great Quranic exegete As-suyuti said: “is the doing of good, in all its manifest realities”. Reflexively the author of Acts has Peter saying when asked to describe Jesus as, “…he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him”. This is of the prophetic legacy.
Muhammad is reported to have said once, “Mankind are the dependents, or family of God, and the most beloved of them to God are those who are the most excellent to His dependents”
“Not one of you believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself” ^[1] Great Muslim scholars of prophetic tradition such asIbn Hajar al-Asqalani and Sharafuddin al Nawawi have said that the words ‘his brother’, mean any person irrespective of faith. Similarly, the author of the Gospel of Luke has written concerning Jesus: On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher”, he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “What is written in the Law?” He replied, “How do you read it?” He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and with all your strength and with your entire mind’, and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” Of course this the parable of the Good Samaritan, someone outside the orthodox Jewish tradition, yet a man manifesting the doing of good which characterizes the people of God. Seeing beyond ourselves, to others is quintessential to true heavenly religion, something inherently antithetical to modernity.

This entire section contains no secondary sources; only the quran. The quran alone is a primary source, and is unreliable on its own. It is an interpritation, and every verse can be interprited differently by different people. To quote the quran, a secondary scholarly source is necessary. Otherwise it is original research. Yahel Guhan 06:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

comments of nawawi and asqalani cant be removed. Great Muslim scholars of prophetic tradition such asIbn Hajar al-Asqalani and Sharafuddin al Nawawi have said that the words ‘his brother’, mean any person irrespective of faith. Similarly, the author of the Gospel of Luke has written concerning Jesus: On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher”, he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “What is written in the Law?” He replied, “How do you read it?” He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and with all your strength and with your entire mind’, and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” Of course this the parable of the Good Samaritan, someone outside the orthodox Jewish tradition, yet a man manifesting the doing of good which characterizes the people of God. Seeing beyond ourselves, to others is quintessential to true heavenly religion, something inherently antithetical to modernity.

so it should be reverted.Zikrullah (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

References

^ sahih muslim here

BROTHER YEHEL GUHAN & RJC PLEASE NOTICE.:[AND OTHER EDITERS]

I am clearly mentioning the topic which is peace in islamic thought means what is the islamic idea about peace in the religion.this article is by no means saying about wether the islam is peace or islam has some resemblance with peace OR 'synonymous with peace,but it is for showing the concept within islam. so quoting that islam is not peace or what rev. pope say about islam is not peace' may come in the article where it is mentioned that islam is a religion of peace. this matter is discussed in RoP .THIS ARTICLE IS CONNECTED TO ISLAMIC THEOLOGY AND IF THERE IS ANY CONTEMPORARY VIEWPOINT sho within islamic theology. as i have seen in wikipedia[i know wikipedia for 8 years] every contemporary viewpoint can be given within the range of topic not from outside EXAMPLE: if there is a concept of God in islam in an article and you will give atheistic view point it will rediculous.or see if there is any critical point in Catholic peace traditions. thus peace in islamic thought can not mention a contradiction from outside. if you want to show it then please show if there is any dispute within islamic sholars on peace [ OR RROVE IF REV. POPE WAS CRITISING ISLAMIC CONCEPT OF PEACE?]in islam blessing you Zikrullah (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While "Peace in Islamic Thought" deals with a subject in Islamic thought, it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to address the concept solely from the perspective of a Muslim (especially as there is no single Muslim perspective on this, but instead a multiplicity of perspectives). Those outside of the Muslim community have also written about the place of peace within Islam and Islamic thought. One set of opinions about peace in Islam may be correct, another incorrect, but only original research could settle that issue. As the first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability states, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As such, the Alternative Viewpoints section is both appropriate and (given the tone of the rest of the article) necessary. If there is not a similar section in Catholic peace traditions, then that is a flaw in that article. RJC ^Talk 07:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you are right at some extent but you should provide a non muslim or contemporary point where the theory of islamic perspective is critisized not islam is critisized. as in case of pope. so as the article discuss about peace in islamic thought we should give here a comment on islamic thought from any historian [not of roman emperors].i think you got the point thanks & blessings122.162.36.106 (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

introduction of article

there is an introduction which indicate if thre is nothing like peace in islamic context. this seems to be preview of the article rather than its introduction and i ask bless sins or aminz to edit it. as iam tired of saying that this article is not taking islam sa peace but islamic thought about peace. blessings!Zikrullah (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

controversies

this article is based on concept of peace in theological context. so any controversy should not be mentioned in this article as critisizm of islam is already a subject under the topic. and it should be discussed there. please see RoP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikrullah (talk • contribs) 08:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV/sources

re this intro: quotes by Muhammad, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and Sharafuddin al Nawawi in intro are unsourced, assertions regarding the latter two contradict bulk of traditional interpretations. --tickle me 22:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fath_al-Bari you can read and search here 122.161.30.172 (talk) 09:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why there's only peace in the Islam and not in orhet religions??

the main value behind wikipedia - neutrality- is being violated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.139.191 (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOREOVER - why there's not references to the Jihad in the Islam?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.139.191 (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013 NPOV tag

The subject is covered solely from Islamic sources, therefore I doubt that the coverage is balanced. What is more, most of it is based on priomary sources (Quran and Muhammad) and the usage of the works of Islamics scholars is close to none. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal

I would like to see the page concept refocused and called religiously supported peace and violence in modern religion. That way we are encompassing the issue in it's entirety and engaging the concept across the board. It should be divided into sections according to each individual religion and site examples from recent history. That being said, good luck ladies and gentlemen; we all need peace, please use this site as objectively as possible. 67.171.249.44 (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC) you are a good man but I think that is already covered and you sound a tad biased if you excuse me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.78.176 (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] sahih muslim here

[1]