User talk:Mushrik: Difference between revisions

Hey Raman, I replied to your messages on my talk page and on the rape in Islamic law page. --IbnPinker (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for volunteering. I reverted your edits on the Zina page because the rape was moved from the Hudood ordinance 1979 to the Pakistan Penal Code in 2006 (alluded to in the intro of the Rape article) and prosecuted very differently. Also, the language is too stretched to say a married woman rape victim "will" be accused of zina and punished. Rather, it's a high risk if she cannot prove that she was raped. So that could perhaps be re-added with better wording (also presumably even an unmarried rape victim can be accused of zina, though the punishment would be different). We need to be precise as possible when citing sources and do significant research on a topic before editing, especially if sources are 20 years old (the Pak example).

I similarly reverted changes on the Rape article for the above reason about Pak. Regarding the intro, when adding wording to a paragraph it's important to check that it doesn't intefere with an existing citation at the end of the sentence/paragraph (it's easy to accidentally add something that isn't in the source). In this case the source does mention that women can end up being accused of zina in modern courts, but not that this is Islamic law. I've readded the essence with different wording. The comment about rape of one's own slave being allowed could be readded, but I don't think necessary as it's clear from the rest of the article (and a bit tricky to phrase as we already argue scholars didn't consider it rape but we do). Lightyears (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Warning

Good evening Raman

I am also writing this message to issue your first warning. We found that the content on two of your recent articles, Forced Conversions in Pakistan and Love Jihad, consist of material copied wholesale from another website, Gyaanipedia. It may not have been clear (and our policies are being updated to better reflect this) but the wholesale copying of material from other websites is considered plagiarism and expressly forbidden. Another infraction of this type will result in your banning from WikiIslam. In addition, the material in the articles did not meet the criteria for the WikiIslam scope. Please refer to our scope document here https://wikiislam.net/wiki/WikiIslam:Scope_and_Article_Relevance .

As per our relevancy document, in order to be covered on WikiIslam, a topic must be about "a belief or practice that is or has been widespread amongst Muslims, or does it chronicle the history of such a belief or a historical subject which is germane to such a belief." The Love Jihad article you created cites no examples of widespread practice of "Romeo Jihad" in the Muslim community nor any proof of widespread support or promotion of the practice by Islamic scholars and clerics, but rather cites examples of BJP governments in India passing legislation against the practice (and the articles cited actually bring up the fact that this is not a widespread practice which is actually happening). For this reason, it also violates WikiIslam's policies on article relevancy and scope. As with the above infraction, a further infraction will result in your permanent banning from WikiIslam. If you have any further questions, please feel free to reach out to me or User:IbnPinker. --Asmith (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought it was enough to cite sources Alan. The, "Forced conversion to Islam" article was copied from a Wikipedia draft, I did not know that Gyaanipedia had put up the same content with a different first sentence. I will try to get User:IbnPinker to help from now on. I am sorry.—Raman (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Please never edit quotes with your own words

I reverted some changes to the jihad and kafir articles. The content looks ok, but as you've since learned, we have a policy against copy pasting from wikipedia, which in this case even had an unfinished sentence. As well as wanting to avoid plagiarism, there is a risk when copy pasting that errors are transplanted this way, and from past experience, cited sources often go unchecked when copy pasting. As it's difficult to untangle approved/rejected edits, I then repeated your removal of "This is not true" - a good application of the new policies, thanks.

A very important thing to note is that we must never change translated verses, hadiths or other quotes with our own words (you added your own commentary "to Allah" and "according to Islam" in parentheses to the 9:5 in the Kafir article, I guess to emphasise that the Arabic words were salat and zakat). A reader would wrongly assume that this was part of Yusuf Ali's translation, which often has its own round brackets. Worse, the site would risk being accused of tampering with translations. The most we do is occasionally add square brackets (not round brackets) just with the transliterated Arabic word used. Then there is no risk of confusion. If something in a quote is mistranslated, we can add commentary and evidence before or after the quote. Lightyears (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Muhammad and Booty

Hi Raman, I am not going to accept your change to the Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Muhammad and Booty Page. The additions you made cite tertiary sources with commentary, they are good but out of place on this page. Rather, since they all deal with slavery, I would like to create a new page called "Slavery in Islamic Law" and you could put the material there. If you would like to work on the page, I can create it and then paste your material into it. Please let me know how you would like to proceed.--Asmith (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the article being titled, "Islamic law on capturing and enslaving non-Muslims" but the matter we can add to such an article will be limited, so I will leave the choice to you. As an ex-Moose, you will know better.-Raman (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)