Jump to content

Talk:LGBTQ people and Islam: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 223: Line 223:


::::::Nowhere is to be found a phrase "Islamic death penalty", not even broad Google search gives something that inappropriate.--[[User:Santasa99|<span style="color:maroon;text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;font-size:0.8em;">'''౪ Santa ౪'''</span>]][[User talk:Santasa99|<span style="color:navy;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;font-size:0.7em"><sup>'''''99°'''''</sup></span>]] 00:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
::::::Nowhere is to be found a phrase "Islamic death penalty", not even broad Google search gives something that inappropriate.--[[User:Santasa99|<span style="color:maroon;text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;font-size:0.8em;">'''౪ Santa ౪'''</span>]][[User talk:Santasa99|<span style="color:navy;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;font-size:0.7em"><sup>'''''99°'''''</sup></span>]] 00:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
::::::If course, there is a "Sharia law and the death penalty", or "The Islamic Position on Capital Punishment", or "Islam and the Death Penalty - William & Mary Law School", and so on and so forth, but nowhere can be read phrase "Islamic death penalty".--[[User:Santasa99|<span style="color:maroon;text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;font-size:0.8em;">'''౪ Santa ౪'''</span>]][[User talk:Santasa99|<span style="color:navy;text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;font-size:0.7em"><sup>'''''99°'''''</sup></span>]] 00:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:31, 12 February 2022

WikiProject iconWiki Loves Pride
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2016.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shahzia Perveen. Peer reviewers: Mxrlena, Ryanccraw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laurapollack, NoahScafati, Simonkuflik.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Roskerjellybean728.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KumaleFufa. Peer reviewers: ColorMyPencils.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith vs sayings

Sharif Uddin As you can see from the quotes I just added, the text reflects the cited RSs. If there are other RSs which state that these quotes don't come from hadith, we need to reflect both these contrasting viewpoints, per WP:NPOV. However, I don't see where the article you linked to refers to that particular saying. If I'm missing something, please quote the relevant passage. Also, I don't see where Rowson identifies henna and perfumed hair with the mukhannathun of early Medina, and if he doesn't, this is also WP:OR. Eperoton (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rare hadith, but the second sentence seems to be mistranslated, at least compared to the only variant I'm aware of. The hadith in question can be found in the Arabian Nights with some discussion, and with a partial isnad in Kash al-khafāʾ (hadith no. 2997): "لا تنظروا إلى المردان فإن فيهم لمحة من الحور". Note that the second sentence can be translated as "they have some resemblance [fīhum lamḥa] to the houris", and not "they have eyes more tempting than the houris". Wiqi(55) 03:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wiqi55. Nice detective work! I agree that yours is a more likely translation (this idiom can be found in Wehr-Cowan: فيه لمحة من ابيه = he looks like his father), but we can't just declare a RS to be wrong based on our own reading of a primary source. That would violate WP:PRIMARY. We can, I think, list the original with an alternative translation alongside it without violating the policy. Note that most academic scholars are skeptical about the study of isnads, so this hadith could come from anywhere. In fact, the work cited by Semerdian (which I don't access to) is about the Abbasid era, so there's probably no claim about authenticity qua sunnah being made there: Wright, J. W. “Masculine Allusion and the Structure of Satire in Early ‘Abbasid Poetry.” In J. W. Wright and Everett K. Rowson, ed., Homoeroticism in Classical Arabic Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997, p. 7. Eperoton (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharif Uddin: It looks like you are misinterpreting what is meant by verification in WP:V. It's about verifying that we're reflecting what's stated in a RS (in this case Semerdian's publications). It is not about verifying whether a RS is correct in the assertions it makes about primary sources. If a RS doesn't identify a hadith it discusses, it is fine to request that additional information using a which[which?] tag, but the tags you added there were inappropriate. Eperoton (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sodomy

Sodomy is the correct term for anal sex. What is the problem? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Contaldo80: The problem is as I wrote in the edit summary. The term "sodomy" is often used in this narrow sense, but that's not the definition given in our own sodomy article that you linked to, or returned by a Google search, or found in Merriam-Webster. It's fine to use "sodomy" in running text, but the first time it's discussed in the article, we need to clarify in what sense it's being used here. Eperoton (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? You are confident that the men of Lot were purely wanting to have anal sex with the angels as opposed to fellatio? Come on, sodomy is fine. The point of the story of Lot is one of sexual violation and abuse of guests - it's not to say that it would have been ok if the angels had given oral sex but drawn the line at anal! Contaldo80 (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't discussing what the men of Lot wanted to do, but rather how that passage has been interpreted in the Islamic tradition. The RSs cited here state that the condemnation was interpreted in classical commentaries as applying specifically to anal intercourse between men, and not to other activities encompassed by the broader definition of sodomy such as oral sex. See for example, the cited Iranica entry, which uses mainly "sodomy" in the running text, but takes care to make clear what is meant by the term when it first discusses the passage: "Later exegetes and jurists unanimously understood this as referring specifically to anal intercourse between males". Eperoton (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems somewhat tenuous. We are led to believe that jurists (writing in the centuries following Mohammad) all understood that the men of the city of Lot (which didn't in reality exist anyway) would have wanted to have only anal sex with the angels (which do not in reality exist in any case) if they'd had the chance. Which of course they didn't get? I think you're trying to be very specific in terms of desired sex acts considering we're drawing upon a myth. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to reflect what's in RSs, in particular the Iranica article I quoted above (by the same author as the EoQ citation), which you can read in full. It seems that you aren't arguing that it isn't reliable, or that I'm not reflecting it correctly, so I don't know how to read this as a policy-based objection. Eperoton (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, apologies. Thinking about this it isn't really your fault. I'm really thinking the religious debate is kind of daft and thus makes it difficult to properly describe in this article. Exegetes and jurists etc who have been influential in this area assume the angels have a gender (male) and then use the story to condemn (attempted or actual) anal sex between men - prompting the question as to whether it would have been perfectly fine if the angels had been women and been anally raped by the men of Lot or if the men had raped the angels but without anal sex. But I digress and agree we just need to reflect the sources at hand. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kosova and Albania are not muslim states, they are secular

It is incorrect as describing Albania and Kosovo as muslim states with anti-discriminatory laws. They are secular states, and religion does not play any kind of role in regulating the laws of the state. Please do not use the names of this state to further some muslim agenda, which try to incorrectly describe islam as tolerating. It is not, and wherever there is the Islam law, there are no LGBT allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.99.155.234 (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that they have a majority muslim population. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

@Russianvodka: Please discuss your wish to remove content, and gather a consensus, before actually editing out content. You must prove why something should be removed, and your peers have to accept that resolution, before you actually remove content that is not obvious vandalism. Also being the tender and controversial subject that LGBT rights are, you cannot just remove information before it's been discussed. DeniedClub❯❯❯ talk? 01:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on LGBT 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:

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) 09:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Visions of Islam

I am at a loss to understand why this page has a large section devoted to a master of arts thesis by an otherwise not notable Rusmir Musić, when no third-party sources establish the notability of the thesis and when the only citations are to the thesis itself. There are tens of thousands of MA theses written in universities each year, but few end up being considered notable. Without third-party sources, one cannot consider this one notable. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional punishment

It's not right to say the "punishment for homosexual acts" is death. This is the punishment for male anal intercourse, witnessed by four people, listed in the hadith. Because no one is going to witness literal penetration, many scholars (including the Ottoman scholars) do not take this literally. 128.135.96.214 (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Male homosexuality v lesbianism

This difference needs to be enumerated. There is no punishment for lesbianism under Islamic law. Conversely, the "orthodox" punishment for m-m anal intercourse is death. (Though it has almost never been implemented since it is impossible to satisfy the four-witnesses requirement.) 128.135.96.214 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a lot of issues with this article, which I am not in a position to address at the moment, but would like to raise another one: the section on "Modern laws in the Islamic world" has a great deal of overlap with various other articles on LGBT rights by country or territory, Religious views on same-sex marriage and indivdual entries on individual countries. IMO, individual countries need not be named here, and if the information held in this article is pertinent and relevant to that country and is not currently included under its individual entry it could be added there. I would like to see this section pared back to a minimum to avoid needless repetition and risk of out-of-date information remaining here when it has been updated in the main articles on the topic. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of source

In the third paragraph, it states "There are also several Muslim organizations that support LGBT rights and LGBT Muslims." kindly mention the aforementioned Muslim organization for transparency and neutrality. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicop33 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicop33, as per WP:LEAD, there is generally no need to provide citations in the lead. The article includes sections on organisations and activists. You have, however, highlighted the fact that the whole lead could probably do with updating as per good practice, and some of the content and citations probably belong in the body of the article. (Please remember to sign you comments with 4 tildes, btw.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Hidayah

I want to add Hidayah to the list of active groups as I recently attended a conference which was organised by them and felt that their presence was lacking on this website. I am currently working on research around LGBT+ Muslim activist groups and they are very active in the UK along with the other groups listed on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamieMansoor (talk • contribs) 10:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SamieMansoor: thanks for taking this discussion to the talk page. Kleuske had a concern that the addition was "poorly sourced and promotional". WP content should be verifiable in independent reliable sources. The question here is whether the lgbtconsortium.org.uk directory has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" or simply hosts promotional content. Ideally, we'd like to have a citation to a source like a news organization. Eperoton (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eperoton: I took this feedback on board and added this Metro article which describes one of the workshops Hidayah organised

https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/25/im-muslim-and-lgbt-and-i-teach-children-its-ok-to-be-both-8713922/

You can also see this newspaper article for further information

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/parkfield-birmingham-lgbt-classes-teaching-no-outsiders-acceptence

It just keeps getting deleted. I also tried to move the active groups above the defunct groups because that seemed to make more sense to me. However, this is no longer something I'm willing to challenge as it's not that important.

Thanks, SamieMansoor. The the first link seems to be an OpEd by someone affiliated with Hidayah, which would not meet criteria for reliability, but the second link looks like a news story that we can use. Eperoton (talk)

LGBTQ in Islam evolution of beliefs

I included some further background on where beliefs stem from in the Islamic faith. Both the Qur'an and Hadith, are used to cite discrimination toward the community. However, as times have changed and society is constantly pushing to gain more equality for everyone, people in the Islamic community continue to challenge the discrimination. The Islamic Society of North America, in 2013, established their approval of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, ensuring that people are not discrimination based on their sexual orientation. Additionally, there have been the rise of Unity Mosques, which are inclusive of the LGBTQ community across the United States and in Canada. Laurapollack (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Laura Pollack[reply]

Thanks, Laurapollack. Unfortunately, there were a couple of problems with this addition. First, the lead should be a high level summary of the article. Some of the more specific background information you added is already covered in the body of the article, and general information about Islam is better suited for a more general article. Also, the sources you used, an OpEd and an advocacy organization website, should generally only be used as reliable sources for the opinion of the author (i.e., with attribution) and not to source statements of fact. Eperoton (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Recent Events

While reading through and editing this page, I noticed that there is a lack of recent events from news outlets. I have added some myself but believe there is still a need for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoahScafati (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Punishment in Egypt

I added a relevant fact about Egypt's criminalization of homosexuality: "An Egyptian tv host was recently sentenced to a year in prison for interviewing a gay man in January 2019. [121]" This addition shows the overall negative social attitudes towards homosexuality and the extremes that the Government take it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonkuflik (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Student editor's summary table

Hi Wiki-editors, I re-added the summary chart at the bottom of the page. I was working on this page as a assigned project for my class. I notice someone is keep removing it. I have a request that this is not a medical topic and I tried to added as many as countries possible on the table after doing the enough research. To me this chart was very useful for the information as you can see more than one country at one chart instead of going back and forth for the information. I put it up there to benefit my other readers as well. Requesting again, please let it be there, I appreciate your understanding in advance. Thank you!Shahzia Perveen (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahzia Perveen: Regarding your table, Verifiability is Wikipedia policy. We can't accept material just because we have faith that it is correct. This is true whether or not it is a medical topic. Is the chart even based on references in this article? I remember looking and finding that at least some of it was not discussed in this article. It might be okay if it were immediately next to a section that contained the same information in prose and that prose was fully referenced; however that is not yet what we have here. You definitely should not edit war by attempting to re-add the chart twice unchanged. Shalor (Wiki Ed), any thoughts? -Crossroads- (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pinging me! @Shahzia Perveen:, you won't be graded on what "sticks" in the article, just your effort. Definitely do not re-add the content, as this should not impact your grade and can actually lead to a block if you continue to try to re-add it once it's been contested. The best thing to do here is to try to resolve the issues brought up here - which is that the table lacked sourcing to back up the claims. Also, given that some of the content isn't in the article, it would be better to expand the article to include those claims (with sourcing).
Something else to take in mind when it comes to tables - they aren't always the best avenue to impart information, as it is so easy for these to be imprecise because it's limited in how much information that can be imparted. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus about two images

Images
Ottoman Turkish manuscript from 1773
Ottoman illustration depicting a young man used for group sex (from Sawaqub al-Manaquib), 19th century

I am seeking attention about these two photos, I think the writings are enough to understand the matter, and the depiction is not further needed to add here because it does not enhance the encyclopedic quality, and if that according to WP:GRATUITOUS, images which can be offensive or vulgar to any viewer are not allowed to be added in wikipedia. Or if dont, the photos should be kept as collapsible at least. Besides the article is about Islam, mostly muslims will come to read the article and the fundamental rules of muslims is to protect their gaze, it is more important in Islam than depicting Muhammad (modestly), and the article should at least make the photos as collapsed so that wikipedia does not seem to force viewer to see the photos, by giving them option. 43.245.120.33 (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We are not in the business to protect anyone's claimed morals. That's a slippery slope. You are free to avert your eyes from that which you do not wish to see, same as I might from other things I wish not to see. The specific images in question are each the only illustration for their adjacent content text. They are not purely decorative, but instead literally illustrate the specific topics. They provide authentic, contemporaneous evidence that this stuff you find icky was and is factually happening and was important enough that many people wrote and drew about it. It should be a surprise to nobody, and instead is clearly on-topic, that an article about "LGBT in Islam" would have images of an LBGT nature specifically in the context of Islam. DMacks (talk) 07:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But parsian, ottoman or any other culture are not the mirror of basic Islam, the basic Islam is based on quran, hadith, the life of muhammad, his companions and his four generation followers, which are called salaf, the latter muslims are not any religious reference of Islam, whoever they are, so it cen be placed in ottoman or persian empire related article, not in an article, where the main topic is Islam. At least you can collapse the photos, so that one will click the show option who wish to see by his own will, he will then not be bound to see the photos by first indroduction with this article, and wiki will not be liable of making them bound to see these photos by giving them both options, and if they see it by their own wish, then wiki will also not be liable of it. 103.67.159.137 (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both sections have text specifically about the Ottomans. DMacks (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will still request not to delete but to collapse the photos to make the article universally tolerable and more easily worthy of taking information kind to all, like which i did above or equally of better syntax than that (which more precisely fits in the page with adequate space). Isn't it bad that if a huge number of people becomes abstained of having knowledge of this article only for fear of this two photos always being opened up in front of their eyes when the intentionally or unintentionally open this page? 43.245.121.38 (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is against WP:NOTCENSORED, which is a formal Wikipedia policy. DMacks (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No collapsing in the article per DMacks. That's not done in any article. Crossroads -talk- 01:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Besides the article is about Islam, mostly muslims will come to read the article..." No, there is no guarantee that mostly Muslims will want to read this article. Non-Muslims wanting to know about the topic may want to view the article. And even if most of the article readers are Muslims, that is not sufficient or good enough reason for censorship. --50.30.178.10 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Hegazy

Sara hegazy was not a Muslim but an Atheist Nlivataye (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have been looking and trying to find information that would backup your claim, I have found none. Where is it stated that she was an Atheist? In this video of her, when saying, "..and you took off the hijab.." she seems to be implying she was Muslim. glowing regards, paperandscissors (contact) 06:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Idol worship in Quran by Lot to his people

The section which i would like to be removed from this page is the below one

"Some Muslim academics disagree with this interpretation, arguing that the "people of Lut" were destroyed not because of participation in same-sex acts, but because of misdeeds which included refusing to worship one God, disregarding the authority of the Prophets and messengers, and attempting to rape the travelers, a crime made even worse by the fact that the travelers were under Lut's protection and hospitality"

This text was given under the table tile "in Quran" which means anything given in this section should be present in Quran and not of personal opinion of someone. For example if some article states Abraham Lincoln was not the president of United States , i think wiki will reject it even if it is from an famous author. Similarly "in Quran" section should contain passages of only the verses from Quran. There is no mention of idol worship in Quranic verses when prophet Lot is talking to his people. Please look at the verses of Lot in Quran https://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=%28lot%29&chapter=&translator=5&search=1&search_word=all&start=0&records_display=10&phonetic= 124.40.246.231 (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR does not trump WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by trump? Is some random article of lie is bigger than Quran on which this article section is written? That article is lying about quran and I request you to remove that reference.124.40.246.231 (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Won't do, since the policy is WP:V. See also WP:NOTCENSORED. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Junaid1068, digressions aside, Wikipedia policy is very clear about this. The edit you’re suggesting would violate WP:RNPOV, a foundational aspect of Wikipedia. What you’re proposing is that we include a theological view specific to Muslims as unvarnished truth, and that’s simply not going to happen. We reflect what mainstream scholarly sources say. And that some Muslims might get “wrong information” is immaterial. We do report what the majority theological view amongst Muslims is. So, it’s very much already there. But we can’t say it’s the truth, because it’s contradicted by archaeological and textual evidence. It’s not our job to practice Muslim apologetics, or discourage what you see as heretical opinions. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The comment "Islam is the truth, despite to even if you do not want to admit it," is a prime example of what is delaying your unblock. It is very easy for me to read that and interpret your statement as you saying that your belief in Islam will cause you to edit with a pro-Islam perspective and rejecting neutral, factual sources for religious ones.

No religion holds a monopoly on truth: not Islam, not Christianity, not Judaism, not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It may feel like Wikipedia's version of truth is an atheistic truth. If so, it's because atheists don't look at religious perspectives for guidance but focus on objective, observable facts. Wikipedia's WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Reliable sources policies work on those lines: events should be written about in articles based on reliable sources, and preferably independent ones. The encyclopedia does not yield to religious doctrine or polity.

One personal note: yes, I'm a member of an organized religion. The teachings—or truths, if you prefer—of my church are the lens by which I look at my own behaviour. Other than being mindful of how I treat my fellow editors, it does not influence my editing. Even in articles related to my religion, what is "truth" is dictated by what is shown in the historical record and independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my edit-summary undoing your removal of that material: WP editors are forbidden to use their own literary analysis, but instead we only report what others say (as you can read, it says "someone says this", not "this is true") with cites to support that they say so. See our WP:OR and WP:WIKIVOICE policies. We actually could say "Some historians claim Abraham Lincoln was not a real person, with the role of US President at the time instead being held by a sentient potbellied stove" as long as we have citations to reliable sources saying that they make the claim. DMacks (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support the consensus here not to remain the text challenged above (the reasoning is sound). That said it is a little odd that we reference "muslim academics". Is it important to point out that they are muslin? Does it give them more weight? If someone is an academic but not muslin but makes the same point are we suggesting that their viewpoint is less relevant? I'd like to remove "muslim" unless we're trying to argue that even within the islamic faith there are different views about what's going on in relation to the story of Lut. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to again highlight here that i am not arguing whats right or wrong. The argument is simple, the section in question is dedicated to in Quran, that space should not be given to anyone’s personal opinions, be it academic or scholar. If at all somebody is interpreting the verses differently then they have to put down that verse and explain the reason. Without an valid reason, just putting out that some academics believe is not correct. Some people believe in flat earth and wiki will not consider those articles as reliable source. Does the admin say, we are asked not to do scientific analysis and put let that info in along side spherical earth? You might create a different section called criticism or other beliefs and put that info there. I know wiki doesn’t speak from Islam point of view, only request i am making is dont give wrong articles as reliable status which is saying something is there when it is not. I also disagree with wiki that they dont do literature analysis. Only by analysis they mark a source as reliable or unreliable. Wiki doesn’t consider articles of many scientists who oppose evolution and we cannot cite them. This is analysis. In this case they have marked a wrong source as reliable source.124.40.246.231 (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion among Muslims

Hi GenoV84, how is The two world maps of the percentage of Muslims per country and the countries that support LGBT rights at the UN give an impression of the attitude towards homosexuality on the part of many Muslim-majority governments. sourced? Do you feel like it is a case of eyeball estimation?

Neither source mentions muslims/islam, so how is the inclusion of the information not OR by suggesting an (unsourced) link between muslim-majority countries and attitudes towards homosexuality? See Wikipedia:No_original_research#cite_note-7. The inclusion of the maps should be conditional on the inclusion of (existing) research on muslim-majority countries and homosexuality.

And what does Raja Gemini have to do with the topic? Best, 15 (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While you are at it, GenoV84, please provide a ref for inclusion of ludicrous phrase "Islami death penalty" before you revert it back to this article.--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, almot every source provided in the article, so stop quarrelling about a wikilink. GenoV84 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I am asking you to point in which source, which page, paragraph and line is used a phrase "Islamic death penalty"!--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this project is serious enough to me, so when someone uses a pipe to deceive I find it extremely disruptive.--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try with this one,[1] for example, alongside many others that you obviously didn't check out. Many sources and paragraphs of this article deal with the Islamic legal tradition and its prescription for capital punishment, in case you didn't notice. You sound quite angry for a simple wikilink; you should try to calm down and check out the cited sources by yourself instead of lashing out on other users aggressively. Since you have stated that this project is serious enough to me, you should get familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, including Behavioral guidelines and Content guidelines, in order to engage and cooperate with other users in a proper, civil manner. GenoV84 (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading: for a broader understanding of Islamic death penalty and other religiously-based punishments prescribed by the Sharia law, Muslim scholars, jurists, and theologians, see the following academic reference: Schirrmacher, Christine (2020). "Chapter 7: Leaving Islam". In Enstedt, Daniel; Larsson, Göran; Mantsinen, Teemu T. (eds.). Handbook of Leaving Religion. Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion. Vol. 18. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers. pp. 81–95. doi:10.1163/9789004331471_008. ISBN 978-90-04-33092-4. ISSN 1874-6691. GenoV84 (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere is to be found a phrase "Islamic death penalty", not even broad Google search gives something that inappropriate.--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If course, there is a "Sharia law and the death penalty", or "The Islamic Position on Capital Punishment", or "Islam and the Death Penalty - William & Mary Law School", and so on and so forth, but nowhere can be read phrase "Islamic death penalty".--౪ Santa ౪99° 00:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Rowson, Everett K. (30 December 2012) [15 December 2004]. "HOMOSEXUALITY ii. IN ISLAMIC LAW". Encyclopædia Iranica. Vol. XII/4. New York: Columbia University. pp. 441–445. doi:10.1163/2330-4804_EIRO_COM_11037. ISSN 2330-4804. Archived from the original on 17 May 2013. Retrieved 13 April 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGBTQ_people_and_Islam&oldid=1071312510"