Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles/Martyr

I'm not sure what's wrong with my/Cunado's/Pecher's version of the martyr section. Being more thorough with the rationale for the manual of style seems like nothing but good. As a side note, the way the section is currently written is gramatically incorrect (but, of course, that could easily be rectified). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can Christians be called martyrs and Muslims can't? BhaiSaab ^talk 20:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What guideline or policy page says they can? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is implied by Category:Christian_martyrs. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may be a disconnect in how martyr is used. The Christian martyr article says A Christian martyr is one who chooses to die, usually by means of a cruel or tortured means like stoning, crucifixion, beheading, etc., instead of renouncing a core principle or belief about their Christian faith. That doesn't seem like religious pandering, but a fact; a person, who is a Christian, chose to die rather than renounce his or her faith. However, when martyr is used in reference to Muslims, it is often used to mean the person "died in the way of Allah", which is clearly an opinionated statement. I don't think the current MoS clarifies which is acceptable (the former) and which is not (the latter). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An edit conflict has prevented me from writing the same. Pecher ^Talk 20:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to this, if nothing else, then on its wording. --Striver 21:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind putting forward arguments countering the above? --tickle me 21:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the very lest, the wording should not single out Muslims. And when that is fixed, it will be inconsistent with the prominent Christian use of the term. --Striver 23:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning above doesn't single out any religion. It alludes to a qualitative singularity of the Christian concept of martyrdom. This doesn't preclude the notion that other religions have related concepts. The debatte is on the term's usage, which, when referred to Muslims killed in contemporary religious or political struggle is invariably loaded. Christian martyrs, however, have became a rare sight as of lately. Mentioning Saint Sebastian and other figures od mostly obscure historical background usually excludes any political reference. This discussion is unwarranted as we don't categorise or label people on an ahistorical me too basis. --tickle me 23:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You missunderstood me. I am not objecting to the above text, im objecting to the wording in the project main page. It singles out Muslims in its text, thats part of the reason i changed it. --Striver 00:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martyrs is a subsection of Islamic_honorifics, thus it pertinently deals with the term's application to Muslims, and nobody else. On a side note, agnostic, atheist, Buddhist or Taoist martyrs are a rare sight in today's world, while Muslims killing themselves -arguably martyrs, arguably self proclaimed or labeled like that by Islamic authorities- are a mainstay of contemporary political and religious practice. The manual takes account of the fact and gives consistent advice to keep political and religious POV out.--tickle me 15:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting topic, however I disagree on blanket ban on the usage of the terminology Martyrs. I do not see how renaming Martyrs of Cordoba would make it any better. In terms of Islamic articles, I beleive it should be attributed as a POV provided along with the frame of reference. Let's take the 9/11 bombers for an example. Saying Al'Qaida view them as martyrs would I beleive both provide important contextual information as well adequately reference it. After all not all muslim agree on who is a martyr and who isn't, one mans martyr can be anothers villain. A bad example on the use of the term martyr: Hamas bombers martyred themselves in suicide missions. Another appropiate way to do so would be: Hamas considers its suicide bombers to be martyrs. On principle I disagre with blanket bans on English words, NPOV can be accomplished by reusing them in a manner in which they still convey the information latent in them without being applied as honorifics so saying Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto would be POV and I propose that any rule dealing with the usage of the term martyrs be accompanied by contextual information who hold that view.--Tigeroo 11:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I do not see how renaming Martyrs of Cordoba would make it any better": afaik nobody asks to to that. As for the rest I concur as well: If verifiable sources are cited, the religious aspect of contemporary political violence should, in fact, must be mentioned. However, the current guidelines don't preclude that. --tickle me 15:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least change it to Description of ~~Muslims~~ people as martyrs is in most cases inappropriate, as it ascribes a meaning to the martyr's death which ~~non-Muslims~~ other people might consider unacceptably POV. Terms like "martyrdom" are best avoided. --Striver 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Secular discourse

There is written not to use Islamic words like "The prophet" or "Martyrs" because it is NPOV. I don't understand why there is written secular discourse is NPOV bot religious one is POV. When we want to describe someone from Islam viewpoint we should use Islamic words. When we want to use non-Muslim viewpoints we shouldn't use Islamic words. I remind we can't represent Islamic viewpoint with secular discourse. --Sa.vakilian 03:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give examples? Every viewpoint on wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, therefore not a religious POV. The very word "Martyr" is extremely POV, since Muslims have applied it liberally to almost anyone. According to the Iranian government, photographers on a plane that crashed due to poor maintenance were "martyrs". Cuñado

- Talk 03:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend every sentence is POV. For example when you said Arabs/Muslims/Nomadic conquered Iran/Zoroastrian land/Sasanids Land in 7A.D. or 1 H.

You always use a discourse. You can't seperate value from language. You can't make the language NPOV. So we want to see an event from different viewpoint.--Sa.vakilian 03:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You find that even the neutral words like Asia and Europe are completely idealogic if you read Cultures in Conflict: Christians, Muslims, and Jews in the Age of Discovery --Sa.vakilian 03:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase myself... what are you suggesting we add or change to the policy page? Cuñado

- Talk 03:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I wrote my idea in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild too. We shouldn't write something which is impossible as a mission. There is written in WP:NPOV:"Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent all significant views fairly and without bias." and also there is written "Religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others". Of course I don't speak about facts. For example "Ali was killed" but Shia viewpoint(opinion) is "Imam Ali was martyred in 40 H."--Sa.vakilian 04:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I still don't understand what you're proposing. "Imam Ali was martyred" is not going to work for wikipedia. Cuñado

- Talk 05:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean we should write the viewpoint of each group with its discourse. For example we can't write Marxists opinions with postmodernist discourse. And there isn't neutral discourse anyway. I propose to ask this question in WP:NPOV --Sa.vakilian 09:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I was actually to bring that up, stating that holy Islamic people are "dead" is an anti-Islamic pov, Islam teaches that we should not refer to shahids as dead. Its in the Qur'an. So everywhere you see "Muhammad died", its just as pov as writing "Muhammad, pbuh". --Striver 16:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]