Jump to content

Talk:Ta'wiz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent Edits

[edit]

Recently the editor @Batreeq: added substantial content to this article. I have undone these changes as they consist of a combination of original research and sources which fail Wikipedia rules on reliability. The sources which fail reliability are:

  • islamreligion.com - a partisan non academic site with no scholarly credibility.
  • islamweb.net - In addition to having no academic notability, many of the articles on this site are just polemic vitriol against non Salafi Muslims. It is known for intentionally posting factually and historically inaccurate material.
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxbzcndATsg&feature=youtu.be - This is a Youtube video by the odious Assim al-Hakeem. it is neither scholarly or reliable as a source.

The original research consists of mass quotations from the Qur'an without any recourse to scholarly context or interpretation. We need secondary sources to verify the interpretations given per WP:RS.

I would suggest discussing the material you wish to add here before trying to make mass changes. MontyKind (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Recently, two of my edits to this article were reverted by MontyKind. I was attempting to add information to the article stating that Ta'wiz is forbidden in Islam, but my changes are continually scrutinized and reverted by MontyKind who, I believe, is against the information I am posting. The sources are being challenged, but the refutations are fallacious:
All the websites listed are religious sites with a clear sectarian bias. They are not academic and are not reliable. Try and find sources that adhere to WP:RS and back up your claims such as works by Brill, Oxford University Press etc... Further, it is upon you to prove the reliability of a source and not for me to disprove it per WP:BURDEN.
You mentioned the Cooperative Office for Dawah in Rawdah, but I could find no evidence of it being reliable or scholarly. According to this article it is a group responsible for proselytizing or preaching Islam. That does not mean it is reliable.
Finally, even if it were allowed to use non academic religious sites as evidence, there are a whole sphere of opinions on this issue and it is not crystal clear as you are trying to make it sound. Take for example this article. MontyKind (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Okay, I've made changes that are inclusive of both opinions—permissible and impermissible, as well as citing scholarly sources—mainly books. I have marked the article as under construction because I wish to improve my changes, if needed. Does everything look good now? Update: Watch this shocking (non-Wikipedia-standard source) - very horrifying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPOOj3xLBpM. – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 00:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you have done the same thing again. The sources do not fulfill the condition of WP:RS. For example, a YouTube video of a non-academic preacher isn't reliable for an Encyclopedia. Likewise, directly quoting from the Qur'an is an example of WP:OR. Some good examples of publishers that adhere to WP:RS are Brill, Oxford University Press etc... If you can find sources from publishers such as these to back up your claims then that would be sufficient. I would also urge you to put forward your suggestions here before making mass additions. Lastly, this isn't about including "both opinions" - it's about adhering to Wikipedia policy. MontyKind (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, I previously reviewed the policies and believe they are permissible. I was not interpreting the Qur'an on my own in my latest edit.
Why are these all considered unreliable? Sources are not completely restricted to journals—which believe me, I am trying to find—though very few, if any, journals cover this topic. Thank you, – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 23:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the website http://www.alifta.com is an extremist Salafi/Wahhabi website existing solely to promote a certain sectarian POV and declares those with other views as non-Muslims and deviants. It isn't a reliable source at all and fails the rules on WP:NPOV. A good example of a work that adheres to WP:RS and WP:NPOV is The Encyclopedia of Islam. Try and find sources such as these to back up your claims. Otherwise the claims would be unsuitable for an encyclopedia.
Secondly, the YouTube video of Assim Al-Hakeem isn't reliable for an encyclopedia. He is not an academic but is a polemic bigot (look at this for example).
Thirdly, the verse of the Qur'an makes no mention of Ta'weez.
Fourthly, the quoting of the Hadith is very selective and once again falls under WP:OR.
I feel like a broken record having to mention the above policy violations again and again. Please take the time to read WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR MontyKind (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I hope you are doing well. I will address your concerns in regards to the sources:
  • "Firstly, the website http://www.alifta.com is an extremist Salafi/Wahhabi website existing solely to promote a certain sectarian POV and declares those with other views as non-Muslims and deviants. It isn't a reliable source at all and fails the rules on WP:NPOV. A good example of a work that adheres to WP:RS and WP:NPOV is The Encyclopedia of Islam. Try and find sources such as these to back up your claims. Otherwise the claims would be unsuitable for an encyclopedia."
    • I'm afraid that is not how it works. Alifta.com is not extremist. Sources are not disallowed due to bias, as no religious source is completely unbiased (WP:NPOV § Bias in sources, WP:BIASEDSOURCES, Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources — an essay). In my most recent edit, which you reverted, I explained that views differ and cited sources, including this one, that back up the scholarly viewpoint of prohibition. I am not attempting to exclude the opposing viewpoints.
  • "Secondly, the YouTube video of Assim Al-Hakeem isn't reliable for an encyclopedia. He is not an academic but is a polemic bigot (look at this for example)."
    • Firstly, please keep your statements objective. "Polemic bigot" is rude and disrespectful to him and all that follow him. He is free to believe such and scholars differ on topics. He made that statement because Sufism often involves innovated practices which have no basis in the Qur'an or Sunnah. I will cite IslamQA.info on why, which you believe is unreliable (despite its utilization in a multitude of other Wikipedia Islam articles): Here. Ultimately, we need to respect other beliefs and be careful when labelling someone as a bigot.
  • "Thirdly, the verse of the Qur'an makes no mention of Ta'weez."
    • I cited three publications, citations #9, #10, and #11 in my pre-rollbacked revision that support this verse as evidence of the prohibiton of ta'wiz.
  • "Fourthly, the quoting of the Hadith is very selective and once again falls under WP:OR."
    • Actually, citation #7 immediately above the quoted hadith in the pre-rollbacked revision contains the interpretation of this hadith. This is not original research. :)
I understand your concern of ensuring that as many Wikipedia articles are as accurate as possible, and holding the highest standards of sourcing, however, non-journal sources can be reputable. I have ensured the authenticity of the sources because I strive to include other viewpoints.
Regards,
– Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 23:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, you claimed that, Alifta.com is not extremist. I'm really not sure why you feel so strong in defending what is evidently a fanatic extremist website. Consider for example this fatwa in which the author states that, "I only deemed it lawful to kill whoever claims that the sun is static and refuses to repent of this after clarification". Really??? If this kind of attitude isn't extremist and fanatical then what is? If you dig through the archives you will note that there are many such instances of extremism and fanaticism. Further, the "scholars" behind this website are not academics. Consider this article where the author claims that this Earth is still.
  • Secondly, WP:BIASEDSOURCES makes clear that sources still need to adhere to WP:RS which has not been established by yourself. You need to prove the reliability of the source as per WP:BURDEN. For example, the New York Times might be considered bias by some but still fulfills the conditions of WP:RS. The same is not the case for Alifta.com unless you can provide evidence. Further, using a biased source is only valid within a particular context. For example, it *might* be valid to use Alifta.com as a source for an article on the Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Ifta itself. It is certainly not valid to use it to back up a claim that "Ta'weez is forbidden in Islam".
  • Thirdly, Assim Al-Hakeem is a bigot. You only have to look at some of his fatwas for confirmation. Consider, this for example, where he claims that "It is permissible to have a non Muslim in the house though it is not recommended.". Imagine if somebody claimed that "it is permissible to have a Muslim in the house but not recommended". I doubt very much that you would consider this anything other than bigoted.
  • Fourthly, your state that "He made that statement because Sufism often involves innovated practices which have no basis in the Qur'an or Sunnah." This is your view (and the view of the Salafi sect) and you are entitled to it. I only mentioned his statement as it shows how narrow minded the man is. For what it's worth, most Sunni's would disagree with him and consider Sufism to be a core integral of the faith in line with the Qur'an. Take a read of this from the BBC. It provides a far more nuanced view on the subject than bigoted whack job websites that propagate that the Earth is still.
  • Fifthly, you state that, "I cited three publications, citations #9, #10, and #11 in my pre-rollbacked revision that support this verse as evidence of the prohibiton of ta'wiz". The verse makes no mention of Ta'weez and therefore should not be quoted. Otherwise it is an example of WP:OR. As for the 3 sources, none of them fulfill the criterion of WP:RS. Suhaib Webb is not an academic and his work has not been vetted by the academic community. Darussalam Publishers is not a reliable publishing house and the abridged version of Ibn Kathir's work is a distortion of the original text (consider the fact that Ibn Kathir actually quotes incidents of early Muslims supporting the use of Ta'weez).
As I mentioned earlier, I feel like a broken record having to state the same things again and again. Try and find reliable sources that back up your claim from established publishing houses such as Brill. We cannot rely on non academic websites that hold such extremist ideas for an encyclopedia. MontyKind (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for specifying the erroneous sources. :) However, I still deem Essentials of Islamic Faith as accurate, because the author, Suhaib Webb, is an academic (which the definition is "a teacher or scholar in a college or institute of higher education"). "Suhaib Webb is currently the resident scholar at the ICNYU (Islamic Center of New York University). He holds a degree in Education, as well as a degree from al-Azhar in Cairo. He has served the Muslim community in America for over twenty years."[1]. WP:SOURCETYPES: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 22:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:RS, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I doubt very much that CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform has a reputation of "fact-checking and accuracy" (acceptable examples given were Random House Publishing and Cambridge University Press). In any case, the book in question makes no mention of Ta'wiz. Page 29 simply quotes some verses of the Qur'an on the need to rely on God - it does not make mention of Ta'wiz so it's inclusion would also be a violation of WP:OR. MontyKind (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for your response. The excerpt of the book (p. 28) reads:

Thus, as a Muslim you must believe that harm and benefit are created by God, as are all things, both the good and the bad, both in this life and the Hereafter. The fruit of that is that you will be patient with hardships, understanding of tragedy, humble with success, and you will not trust anyone or anything to bring benefit or remove harm except God. The fruit of that is sincere devotion and a sense of responsibility.

Allah says,


وَإِن يَمْسَسْكَ اللَّهُ بِضُرٍّ فَلَا كَاشِفَ لَهُ إِلَّا هُوَ ۖ وَإِن يَمْسَسْكَ بِخَيْرٍ فَهُوَ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ
If God touches you with harm, no one can remove it except Him, and if He blesses you with good it is because He is all powerful.
Qur'an 6:17


— Essentials of Islamic Faith by Suhaib Webb

Replying on a ta'wiz is relying on other than God. Therefore, this supports the interpretation I wish to cover in the article.

Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer (see WP:Biographies of living persons § Reliable sources).
— WP:RSSELF § Exceptions

The information is not factual. It is the interpretation of the scholar. Its addition will not tarnish the reputation or have ramifications of any individual.
Furthermore, the current sources of the article, #4 (Asiatic Society of Bengal) and #5 (Hans Wehr's Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic) are not scholarly, nor academic, nor are they published by publishers such as Random House Publishing and Cambridge University Press. Why are they retained in the article?
Sincerely, – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 01:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) You made the claim that

Replying on a ta'wiz is relying on other than God. Therefore, this supports the interpretation I wish to cover in the article

This is precisely an example of WP:OR and is not allowed. The source makes no mention of Ta'wiz. It does not state that using Ta'wiz means relying on other than God. It does not state that Ta'wiz is prohibited in Islam. This is your conclusion which you have derived from the text. WP:OR states that, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This is exactly what you have done.
2) You didn't provide a reason why you felt CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform is regarded as a reliable publisher.
3) The Hans Wehr's Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic is the most commonly used Arabic-English dictionary in the world and was originally published by Harrassowitz Verlag which is a German Academic publishing house. Similarly, the Asiatic Society of Bengal is certainly a reputable academic institute which has a collection of about 117,000 books and 79,000 journals printed in almost all the major languages of the world.MontyKind (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting help in article expansion

[edit]

Hi,

Requesting you to have a look at


Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to Merge Articles

[edit]

I think Ta'wiz and Amulet cover the same topic. I suggest merging them into one article, as one is redundant. Arijit Kisku (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, especially since the Amulet article already covers Ta'wiz. Furthermore, we could merge the article for Nazar into Amulet. Since Ta'wiz and Nazar are small articles, I believe this would help streamline things. However the Amulet article would need to be reformatted.
My idea would for reformatting would be:
History by region:
Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome...
History by religion:
Abrahamic Religions, Buddhism...
Types of amulets:
Nazar, Ta'wiz, etc.
Gallery
This kind of opens up a broader question of when subcategories of items should be merged into one article. I'm not sure what the rules are for differentiating between subcategories/classes of items, but I also feel like my reformatting would be cumbersome. Potentially we could just have a List of Amulets or expand the List of Good luck charms article. Insertcatchyname(here) (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COMMONNAME, amulet is the term "most frequently used for the topic" in the English language. This is the English-language Wikipedia, so smaller articles published in this Wikipedia with foreign spellings describing the same thing could be viewed as merge candidates into the Engliah-language article. On the left side of the amulet article is a long list of foreign-language Wikipedias with their own amulet articles and spellings. See WP:INTERWIKI for how to link to foreign-language articles. 5Q5|✉ 12:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ta%27wiz&oldid=1265746670"