Jump to content

Talk:Superstition in Islamic tradition

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

Are there sources that cover this topic in detail?

[edit]

Are there sources that give significant coverage to the topic of superstitions in Muslim societies. I see lots of sources talking about superstition in Pakistan, and sources specific to karamat, but I don't see many sources specific to the topic. There sources are important because we need a clear definition of "superstition". Some people would consider "superstition" and "religion" to be interchangeable.VR talk 00:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi greetings, for your last part, i.e. "...clear definition of "superstition". Some people would consider "superstition" and "religion" to be interchangeable. I suggest to discuss and if needed Rfc at Talk:Superstition because topic will relate to all Superstitions related topics.
I suppose there are many more superstitions which need reliable sources hence not covered. If you have suggestions which other superstitions can be covered you can note here. We can add those as and when reliable sources become available.
Thanks Bookku (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at Superstition in Pakistan and that article seems to list prayer and sacrifice (qurbani) as superstitious practices. I suppose some people would indeed consider most (if not all) Islamic rituals to be superstitious. All of this could be better resolved if there were some specialist sources devoted to the topic of superstition in Muslim societies in particular. Currently I don't see any.VR talk 13:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose as far as article Superstition in Pakistan is concerned the sentence is likely referring to the Magical thinking related to amulets taviz and all and more than enough sources can be found for that.
As you said an atheist may question even spiritual ritual.- In cases of Covid like pandemic to infant and child mortality atheists have been always questioning and those refs will be around abound. But even if one does not consider atheism and only consider strict rationalism still few superstition related to prayer are obvious. Some philosophies consider asking some thing through prayer and special prayers for asking something as superstition - refs to these would be available in some rational exegesis, then some (or many?) Muslims believe that Shaitan runs away when hears Call for prayer. (Then there are superstition even to pray before and after visiting Toilet. Refs to such Shaitan related superstitions can be found in ex-Muslim literature.)
Actually lot many refs to superstitions will be available in Islamic advice literature and Islamic literature itself, may be some will be in Non-English languages. A lot would be available in news resources from Muslim countries only that criticism in them is quite subdued and tongue in cheek due to fear of blasphemy laws and community harassment.
Bookku (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So do you think that Islamic prayers (dua and salat) and Islamic beliefs on shaitan be added to this article? VR talk 17:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title improvement suggestions

[edit]

During talk page discussion following titles too are suggested as better title might be Superstition in the Muslim world or Superstition in the Islamic world, since the subject is more general than "Muslim societies"

Bookku (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of useful references

[edit]

Lane, Edward William, and Jason Thompson, 'SUPERSTITIONS—continued', An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians (Cairo,2012;online edn,Cairo Scholarship Online , 21 May 2015), https://doi.org/10.5743/cairo/9789774165603.003.0011,

ISBN 9780323858441,https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85844-1.00011-8.

  • Ayar, D., Aksu, Ç., Çakı, B. et al. The Relationship Between Paranormal Beliefs, Social Efficacy and Social Outcome Expectations in Muslim Society: The Case of Turkey. J Relig Health (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-021-01467-4
  • Islamic sexual jurisprudence#Intercourse with jinns
  • Chapter 7 (Page 121): Healing, Agency, and Life Crisis Among British Pakistani Ruqya Patients ~ Andreas Gadeberg Nielsen - Islam, Migration and Jinn: Spiritual Medicine in Muslim Health Management. Germany, Springer International Publishing, 2021. (Preview available on Google books)
  • Tosyalia, Furkan (December 2021). "Does training analytical thinking decrease superstitious beliefs? Relationship between analytical thinking, intrinsic religiosity, and superstitious beliefs". Personality and Individual Differences Volume 183.


Bookku (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more:

I think that there are plenty of sources available to write a decent article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for RS refs

[edit]

Jinn

[edit]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-58559506

Bookku (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shab e Barat

[edit]

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coatrack

[edit]

I have concerns about this article being WP:COATRACK. In the absence of a clear definition of superstition and no sources that cover the exact phenomenon of "Superstition in Muslim societies", this article seems to be more about Criticism of Islam. Of course, criticism of Islamic practices is notable but it should be done in the appropriate article. Its is also interesting how there is such a large "see also" section filled with Criticism of Islam related articles. I think an article titled "Islamic views of superstition" would probably be more appropriate.VR talk 03:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. How would we go about defining that and differentiating it from Islamic beliefs? VR talk 02:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About various points raised up till now on this talk page, I have created an RfC discussion at Talk:Superstition#RfC Superstitions in Muslim societies related questions for wider attention, consultation and consensus process. I hope that helps. Thanks Bookku (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess that Islamic beliefs in general are what's generally religiously endorsed, i.e. what the religious authorities and traditions would teach as "Islamic." Folk belief, would be something like a common practice amongst Muslims (or anyone, for that matter) that isn't necessarily 'official' or may even contradict general teachings. This is a rough idea, but I think that veneration of Islamic figures as though they were saints would definitely be "officially" not allowed, but it's a not-uncommon folk practice. I'm not sure there is a non-loaded way to call specific practices superstitions, it will seem accusatory or condescending (not to mention arbitrary) any way you put it. AnandaBliss (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The veneration of Islamic figures is subject to a sectarian (Sufi vs Salafi) debate. Also, we do't seem to have any sources that connect the folk practices in India with the folk practices in Iran etc. For us to make those connections without sources would be WP:OR.VR talk 15:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right about that, and I’m not sure of the utility of trying to link them all together. AnandaBliss (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Superstitions in Muslim societies

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Superstitions in Muslim societies's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hughes-1885-134-6":

  • From Shaitan: Hughes, Thomas Patrick (1885). "Genii". Dictionary of Islam: Being a Cyclopædia of the Doctrines, Rites, Ceremonies. London: W.H.Allen. pp. 134–36. Retrieved 4 October 2019.
  • From Jinn: Hughes, Thomas Patrick (1885). "Genii". Dictionary of Islam: Being a Cyclopædia of the Doctrines, Rites, Ceremonies . London, UK: W.H.Allen. pp. 134–6. Retrieved 4 October 2019.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
RfC Statements should be "brief and neutral" neither of which apply to the multiple questions that start this one. Most of the initial post was not commented upon in any definite way by the majority of respondents. Closers are also instructed to discard: ...irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue A description that applies to the great majority of the text below. Accordingly, there is only one narrow point where a consensus is discernible, and even that one is subject to future refinement. The discussion shows a consensus to rename the article from Superstitions in Muslim societies to Folk beliefs in Muslim societies. ther appears to be some possible some disagreement as to whether "Folk beliefs" or "Folklore" is more accurate. Moving to "Folk Beliefs" (as the more discussed option) would be appropriate and if a properly-formatted move request can sort out which of the two "Folk[xxxx] in..." formulations has a consensus. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While some questions are raised at Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies about article Superstitions in Muslim societies IMHO wider attention, consultation and consensus is preferable that is why created RfC Talk:Superstition#RfC Superstitions in Muslim societies related questions that sounds logical to me, but some seem to expect Rfc at this page. So I am retaining that Rfc there and adding separate RfC to this talk page too.


I could see following points need to be brainstormed.

1) Is word 'superstition' positive one?, whether 'folk belief' or something similar would be appropriate instead ?

2) Whether same definition as of main Superstition article should apply to rest of superstition article or it should be different ?

3) How and what kind of exemptions should be allowed to religious, folk and cultural beliefs to avoid them being covered in superstition related articles.

4.1) Superstition related article titles should be Communities oriented, religion oriented

4.2) for example Superstitions in Muslim societies covers few non-religious superstition among Bangladeshi pregnant women ? Should such coverage be allowed ? Is it leading to WP:Coatrack issues.

4.3) Alternate name suggestions for Superstitions in Muslim societies are or Superstition in the Islamic world, Islamic views of superstition Whether such change will be able to accommodate such superstitions not having religious standing but exists in communities as example given above?

4.4) Or another suggestion has come to consider title Superstition in the Muslim world?

4.5) When Criticism of Religion related articles do exist whether separate superstition related articles focusing communities or religion are needed at all?

My personal opinions are obviously different, but I have attempted to be as neutral as possible, What are your opinions ? Let us brainstorm. Bookku (talk) 04:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that part of the issue is that a “Superstitions of...” article isn’t really criticism, save for the term superstition, which I’m not sure can ever be used neutrally. I personally think that the Superstition Wikipedia article is unnecessarily broad in its definition, and I don’t think there is any religious practice, folk belief or general societal trend that couldn’t be called a superstition by someone who didn’t like it. A “Folk Beliefs/Practices in X Country” article might be better, as VR pointed out, as the Muslim World isn’t tightly enough knit together to have a single, general folk culture. AnandaBliss (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:AnandaBliss
1) ..I personally think that the Superstition Wikipedia article is unnecessarily broad in its definition..A “Folk Beliefs/Practices in X Country” article might be better,... I already said definition of Superstition can be better discussed at Talk:Superstition That's why created RfC there Talk:Superstition#RfC Superstitions in Muslim societies related questions. But you people do not want to address questions one by one there for some reason I don't get.
2.1) There is nothing negative in etymology of word Superstition. Much of Islamic advice literature and Islamic literature itself not only uses term 'Superstition' but criticizes superstitions, they don't find nothing wrong there.
2.2)VR's position ..VR pointed out, as the Muslim World isn’t tightly enough knit together to have a single, general folk culture.,.../..but no(ref) that would connect them all together.. is inaccurate since there is pile of overarching references in Islamic (Scholarly) literature itself which keep criticizing various kinds of superstitions among Muslim communities.
3) The word Superstition is much easier to differentiate than not so accurate terms like Social distancing or Islamophobia. Though title Islamophobia in itself is tilted is in use in Wikipedia, besides Wikipedia includes criticism of every faculty around then I do not understand why one need to feel afraid of criticism under title Superstition?
4) As User:SMcCandlish describes main article Superstition as from WP:SUMMARY article similarly, why we can not treat Superstitions in Muslim societies WP:SUMMARY article?
5) Superstitions are not just another folk culture folk belief or folk Taboo but some thing more than that where human behavior gets impacted and rational human faculties have been criticizing the same time to time. One agrees with their claims or not critics need to have agency to criticize. And Wikipedia need to cover all sides. If one feels concept of Superstition can duly have a separate criticism section with RS ref sources.
6) I do not think efforts of soft censoring will help much because Superstitions will keep getting criticized beyond Wikipedia. On Wikipedia at least you can check for validity or sources and all. And If referenced sources are fact; Directly or indirectly hiding facts and Truth is not only un-Islamic but more over unbecoming of Wikipedia values IMHO .
I look forward to more views thanks for joining discussion.
Bookku (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the "pile of overarching references in Islamic (Scholarly) literature" to this topic? Please provide them.VR talk 13:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's quite a claim. I agree with several of Bookku's other points, though. Superstitions, like taboos, form a narrow subset of folk beliefs that have a strong impact on behavior and world-view. But they are not part of a religion's established dogma. E.g., belief in ghosts (in the sense of lingering spirts of the dead haunting us) is a superstition common to many cultures. Belief in the the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit in Christianity (an aspect of the religion's triune deity) is not a superstition, but religious dogma (and is not even a ghost by the same definition; that's a metaphoric use of language).

I think the central question, though, is whether "Superstitions in Muslim societies" is a proper encyclopedia topic. I'm skeptical that it is, because this is not about the relation of superstition to Islam, but rather is an arbitrary trivia collection of superstitions, that just happen to be common in countries that are presently Muslim-dominated. As anyone steeped in anthropology, mythography, and related fields can tell you, superstitions are often far older than the dominant religious context they are found in, and new ones also arise through the same sorts of processes that generate other popular-culture phenomena like urban legends (sometimes superstition and urban legend cannot even be cleanly separated, especially when the legend is a couple of centuries old).

If the problem we're trying to solve is that a single list of superstitions (if that's even encyclopedia-worthy to begin with) will be too long and will require an arbitrary split for size reasons, then it would probably make more sense to do this geographically (e.g. Middle Eastern, European, South Asian, etc.) rather than by religion. Or to do it country-by-country, or culture-by-culture. Since there's no clear connection between superstition and particular religions, the current article seem to be a fake topic with a PoV to advance (or is easily taken for one, whatever the intent was).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Country-by-country would probably be the best bet. I am still reticent about the word superstition, to me it seems very similar to a folk belief/practice/religion, though cast in a more negative light. So a list of superstitions isn't criticism per se, but it slants the reader toward a negative view. If it is intended specifically as criticism, perhaps it belongs in the Criticism of Islam article? Again, that's just an opinion of mine & I haven't given it a ton of thought. SMcCandlish also brings up a good point, would this article be more list-like, or an analysis of these beliefs and practices? Sorry if I've brought topics up in the wrong discussion, it's just easier to keep it centralized since this article is the main focus of the discussion. Edit: I also just want to add, Bookku, on the idea of "soft censorship," I'm not for censorship on Wikipedia. These beliefs/practices probably do deserve some amount of space in an article, it's just the details of how they're organized, sourced & portrayed that I'm commenting on. AnandaBliss (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SMcCandlish and AnandaBliss I think there is sufficient sourcing to establish topics like "Superstition in Iran", "Superstition in India" etc. If we wanted to organize them, we could make a List of superstition by country article or a WP:category or both.
Now on to AndandaBliss' other point: should articles like Superstition in India be called Folk belief in India? I'm not sure, I think it depends on which term is more commonly used in reliable sources.VR talk 02:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before placing my rest of points here, I have raised an AfD which refers to above discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstition in Judaism and a Merger and renaming proposal for related discussion over change of name from Superstition into Folk belief has been initiated at is opened at Talk:Superstition#Merger and renaming proposal for sake of giving opportunity to maintain consistency in views for those who wish to deny encyclopedic space for scientific and rational views about relationship between Superstition and religion and religious communities. Look forward to participation deletion discussion there. I hope this helps. ThanksBookku (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bookku, I’m not sure anyone wants to “deny encyclopedic space for scientific and rational views...” in fact, those views are always appropriate in any spirituality-related article. My dislike of the word “superstition,” isn’t based on extensive knowledge of scholarly work. If the sources refer to superstition, then that’s how Wikipedia should refer to it as well. This particular article, though, is trying to link together things that may not form a natural, coherent group. “Superstition on the Arabian Peninsula” or “Superstition in South Asia” would probably be an easier article to write. One in every 7 people alive is Muslim, and they are found in just about every country. They may all be of one religion, but they aren’t one “society.” One way this article could work is more list-style, understanding that it’s a sort of compilation of ‘’superstition + Muslims,’’ not Islam-wide superstitions (or whatever you want to call them.) As for a similar article on Judaism, they are such different scenarios that comparison is deceptively difficult. There are less Jewish people on Earth than there are in some U.S. states, and 80%+ live in one of two countries. They’re similar religions, but demographic setup is very different. AnandaBliss (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the status of the article, as of now hardly touches religious aspects still prominence in snow flex concerns is going to straw man questioning like, which religion related aspects article might touch upon? to preposterous claims being "...no clear connection between superstition and particular religions,.. calling "... the current article seem to be a fake topic with a PoV to advance.. to "...There are less Jewish people on Earth ...They’re similar religions, but demographic setup is very different.!... Let me analyze and explain these further one by one.
1) Non-religious superstitions may exist that is not suppose to mean religious superstitions do not exist. That was what intellectual gymnastic attempted. Some good Christianity example forwarded where ghost does not mean superstitious belief but just a religious dogma; Accepted!
But what about? Vatican insisting not only charisma but also insistingly asking for miracles even in 21st century for conferring sainthood! Take example of Mother Teresa saint hood could have been conferred just for her work, isn't it? But the Church waited for claims miracles!! Is this not religion peddling superstition? It is not than none of the contemporary rationalists did not question it, if rational criticism of the same becomes available through reliable source whether it won't need an encyclopedic space? When church is influencing most of earth how does that superstition can be called limited to cultures and geographies having no role of religion?
Just a while ago I was googling for refs and came across anti-immunization -keep secular objections aside for a while- Fatwas and counter Fatwas across countries and continents, besides Pew research report exists about various kind of commonalities across Muslim countries and communities about certain kind of superstitious beliefs. Like Church Islam does not have centralized institution to finger point but dogmatic to superstitious preachers keep moving preaching across continents. Search Google with words 'superstition and tafsir' together one comes across conservative anti superstition writings on one side ignoring their own superstitions on the other side. One religion claims other's religious practice Pagan and superstitious, rationality point of views science should have had no issues, but the same religious people associate shaitans and so called living fallen angels to icons and statues, is not that a religious superstition and is not that shared across geographies by respective religious communities? Strong defensive network of larger religions has not allowed criticism much over that but taking law in hand and violence and persecution against folk beliefs under superstitious belief that some icon or statue and believers are overwhelmed by shaitan or fallen angel for this one gets ample references and again this phenomena is shared across geographies by respective religious communities. Now some one tell me how giving cover to bigger religion's superstitions by playing them down as folk belief is going to help having different conscience having smaller communities like Yazidis ?
Rather Yazidis, Hindus and Jews are more of geographically concentrated communities and covering their superstition geography wise might give more than enough geographic coverage. But for them we would not mind to have separate articles criticizing superstitions in their religions but we will throw snow flex when any article emerges about superstitions in dominant communities and religions. We will happily come out with hundreds of rules to intellectual fallacies and happily attempt to suppress!
"... the current article seem to be a fake topic with a PoV to advance.. What kind of comment is this? By this standard Criticism of every religion related articles would be called ...fake topic with a PoV to advance..?; Then very good even call many science related articles like evolution to genetic mutation as against creationism and ...fake topic with a PoV to advance..?
This article does not amount to coat rack but WP:Summary of other articles. Giving examples with reliable source ref is not supposed to be banned on Wikipedia but we want to write off them saying trivia for our own convenience? If at all any trivia comes in will get replaced by substantial ones as article develops but we want to stifle at beginning.

The persons who are capable of searching and giving refs can be kept occupied and exhausted on the talk page itself.

Refs are available if one searches Superstion word with various words like Tafsir, Islamic modernism. One ref is added in separate literature section. We do not want to see it. Some refs will be behind some academic library walls and those can be referred with Wikipedia:Library. Superstition is being questioned since mythology of Moses and Abraham and in Islamic world itself lot of Tafsirs are written in various languages about Superstition and we want to say no piles of refs exist.Refs are available in Islamic feminist literature, Islamic modernist literature, Ex-Muslim literature (and I have worked on articles across myself including conservative Islamic literature, Islamic advice literature to modernist Islamic literature) and modern YouTube like media to archives are available. But we don't want to count them for what reason? I don't know how spirituality in any religion is going to benefit by hiding superstitious aspects?
Bookku (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bookku, I'm honestly starting to lose the thread here...my apologies as I am not familiar with the term "snow flex," is that possibly an autocorrect of snowflake?
  • Regarding the AFD and other issues raised elsewhere, I do not intend for you to start a discussion in another article's Talk Page every time I state an opinion because of "consistency." It can confuse uninvolved editors and balloons the issue way bigger than it needs to be.
  • I'm not sure if you're advocating for the existence of Church superstitions or against it in your first paragraph. And regarding..."When church is influencing most of earth how does that superstition can be called limited to cultures and geographies having no role of religion?"...the Catholic Church is not the subject of any of the articles we have been discussing, and you keep bouncing back and forth between the label of "superstition" being a 1. neutral description of some human behaviors and 2. criticism of the religion or culture. How influential the Catholic Church is has no bearing on whether there are superstitions or not.
  • I'm very sorry, but I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the main point of your paragraph that begins..."Just a while ago I was googling for refs"...and none of it addresses the issue that I and VR have raised, not about the existence of such beliefs, nor their notability but the terminology used to describe them. You will inherently bias the sources if you only search by Googling superstition + Islam/Church/etc. Again, I am not an expert on these things, and I am not sure what the scholarly sources say. But there needs to be a more well-rounded sourcing.
  • Regarding your paragraph that includes..."But for them we would not mind to have separate articles criticizing superstitions in their religions but we will throw snow flex when any article emerges about superstitions in dominant communities and religions."...Wikipedia should not criticize, or support, any belief system. It should present the facts in accordance with the sources.
  • And on to your quote..."Refs are available if one searches Superstion word with various words like Tafsir, Islamic modernism."...again references would be available if you Googled Superstition with Coca-Cola. Academic historians, religious studies departments, etc. Will probably include the concepts of superstition, folk belief or whatever term we end up agreeing on in their research regarding Sociology, Psychology, Religious History, etc. I think it's fair to say that you're much more read up on this topic than I am, but I will try to see what sources I can find and digest.
  • Finally, I don't think that I, VR, you or anyone else here is trying to "hide" any information. It can't be a productive discussion if you keep accusing people of having some agenda when there is a disagreement. I'm hoping we can come to an agreement with what sources are best, and how to go forward with this article. AnandaBliss (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all thanks for pointing out 'snowflake' spelling issue.
What I have invested in all my related efforts is on defending primary notability of the article. The reason being most of my own encyclopedic writing, even without anyone asking me for, happen after extensively source searching.(And I do specially make point to include criticism of even those points which I do not personally agree)
Besides I do invite many editors for writing, If article goes for deletion later it is huge waste of time of many people so I prefer to have AfDs in beginning itself so once notability hindrances are over writers can write peacefully and writer's time is not wasted.
Topic of superstition related to Christianity is not started by me, what I have written is contextually proper. Besides comparative religious studies, critiques and sources exists from both sides articles will have those at some point of time and may be discussed in future too.
Sourcing related points are procedural and temporary issues at the most a dozen of usual hatnote templates would suffice, but some one still feels AfD test is better then I will prefer it earlier than latter.
Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bookku I totally understand the need to establish notability early on to avoid wasting time. But the way to do that is by providing sources for this article, not by nominating other similar articles for deletion. If your reason for nominating Superstition in Judaism for deletion was to see how this article would fare at AfD - then that is very disruptive. And that article surviving an AfD doesn't mean this article would. So please provide sources that cover the topic of "Superstition in Muslim societies".VR talk 01:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why Wikipedians feel hurt for seeking more inputs and asking for common application of principles, but so be it. About sources I have created section in article and on talk page too and not for other but for my own convinience will be updated time to time. All refs I mention on talk page I do not necessarily use in article immidiatlly but only after getting some related more refs. One can have look at them add more or give suggestions. Now if that is not sufficient then it is okay for AfD what happens most is article will go temporarily to userspace or draft space and I would not mind that if Wikipedian community wishes so. Let me know if you want I will begin with AfD procedure. Bookku (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the references at Talk:Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies#List_of_useful_references. Most of them refer to local superstitions (superstition in India, superstition in Egypt etc). This source refers to Islamic views of superstition, but is it reliable? The Pew survey is a good source because it is reliable and covers Muslim societies in general. Yet it doesn't use the word "superstition", nor does it try to connect them. Instead it lists several beliefs and practices under the heading of "Other Beliefs and Practices": faith healing, Jinn, witchcraft, exorcism. Each of these alone can be a good topic for an article: e.g. Exorcism in Islam, Islamic views on faith healing, Islamic views on witchcraft (Witchcraft#Islam).VR talk 02:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Geshem, thanks for joining the discussions, both on the AFD and here. As you may have noticed, one of the (many) points of disagreement here is the nature of the word superstition. While some have argued that it is a neutral term, or refers to practices that simply don't deserve a non-negative description, others, such as VR and me feel quite the opposite: calling something a folk belief/religion/practice/tradition, etc. isn't white-washing, but rather a far more neutral term, with the word superstition being an unnecessarily pejorative label that people almost always assign outside of themselves. For example, someone who is Catholic and has a home altar might describe similar behaviors with a Hindu person as superstition, but not their own. I'm not quite sure how to get to the bottom of it, but the general definition of superstition can sometimes imply something that is "spiritually silly," rather than more established spiritual practices, which are not described with a (to me) inherently slanted term. Regarding the AFD with Judaism article, I left a comment but didn't vote, I do not wish to muddy the waters between that article and this one. But Superstitions in Muslim Societies has a number of problems, including the fact that it lists many folk practices amongst many people in different countries and cultures who all just happen to be Muslim. There's no true through-line here, very much unlike the Judaism article. Would you mind, for the sake of clarity, elaborating what you think the difference is between a "superstition" and a "folk belief," as well as the implied positive/negative/neutral slants to those terms? Again, thanks so much for coming into this discussion. AnandaBliss (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't gone through the RFC or the conversation above in much detail so bear with me if I'm only repeating a question but:
    • The article states "Islamic modernism and Salafism downplay the superstitious beliefs of Islamic cosmology" but unlike the modernists, the reasons Salafists do so is because of concerns of heresy. They have their own brand of "superstitions"/"religious practices"/"folk beliefs" which they consider as being authentic like [1] for seeking advice on the future.
    • On what basis can we claim that getting on your knees and praying to God for good health is religious but crafting a talisman (Tawiz) with the said prayer to God and wearing it around your neck is superstitious?
    • The article also adds Karamat (or miracles by saints) in this article about superstition. To begin with (as far as I know) the miracles of saints are not denied by salafists, their veneration is, although this also depends on the "Saint" in question. Is veneration of saints superstitious? This sounds like an internal Islamic Sufi-salafi dispute and I think there are parallels in Christianity too about the role of saints.
    • The article seems to have a quasi-modernist but still traditionalist bias (think the Muslim brotherhood) while the see also section seems to devolve into an anti-Islamic bias labelling everything supernatural within Islam as superstitious and then tying it up with criticism of Islam (How is list of former Muslims even relevant here?)
    • The issue of quack doctory faith healers should certainly be noted, but their beliefs are often intertwined with "secular", pseudo-scientific ideas from good ol' Greek physicianry like Humorism as well as the Ayurvedic traditon and homeopathy. Ol' Islamic medicine has similar ideas such as the miraculous powers of honey and olives (the significance of olives is shared by Christianity) which often gets out of hand. The odd beliefs should be mentioned but I'm not sure how were categorizing them or even what their true origins are. Sure its proponents will always present you with the strongest argument for a believer i.e religious one but the source of some of these beliefs is quite obscure, like the black cat one?
  • VR, I agree with your points that this article is more of a compilation of, what I said above, superstitions + Muslims, instead of a unified set of beliefs, traditions, practices, etc. with Muslims world-wide. I think that most of these belong in their own country or region articles, one for South Asia, one for East Africa, etc. AnandaBliss (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Season's Greetings,
For Superstitions in Muslim societies while some references are available still some users are insisting additional supportive references with following criteria.
  • The reference should talking about Superstitions in Muslim societies/ communities at global level.
  • The reference should preferably specifically mention word 'superstition or superstitious'. (The little problem here is in most Muslim countries and communities blasphemy is severely punished, so sources seem using some other optional wording, but some Wikipedia users are are asking for literal presence of word superstition to maintain content-for obvious reasons!)
Requesting support to suggest sources and content with refs if possible.
Thanks, Bookku (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this helps, Any ways I am quite okay for AfD discussion now on pl. let me know when to begin AfD discussion. Bookku (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A belated comment after sitting on this for a while, and catching up on the thread: I don't have any particular objection to, and am starting to prefer, re-formulating this sort of article as "Folk beliefs of" or "Folk belief in" or "Folklore of" sorts of articles, as long as the scope of their content actual broadens. Superstitions are only one narrow form of folk belief. I'm skeptical that superstitions, as country-by-country or whatever lists, are really all that encyclopedic a topic, and seems to raise the same sorts of bias questions as referring to religious beliefs as "myths", to minor denominations as "cults", etc. We might be up against the MOS:WTW maxim that we should be following the terminology in the sources and not using a controversial term unless it heavily dominates in the RS. So, if a particular belief isn't overwhelmingly labeled a superstition, we probably shouldn't call it one. That in turn has implications for all article of this sort, since the title would imply that nothing should be listed here that does not qualify under that kind of sourcing standard, but people will add drive-by unsourced entries all the time, and few people will ever bother to patrol these pages. Moving to a folk-beliefs topic (or something similar to that) would obviate all of these problems, yet would require more article-writing work to get the content to agree with the title.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well my opinion is substantially at variance and consensus is unlikely to come up; me and VR are more for escalating it to AfD discussion where as two other user seem to suggest move discussion and again their an option of discussing merge in Criticism of Islam remains. At this movement I thought it will be prudent to seek opinion from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies#RfC Superstitions in Muslim societies related questions. I hope this helps. Bookku (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bookku, I'm not sure why you're requesting a closure just 5 days into an RfC when you're still continuing to expand List of useful references. It seems like you're still doing research and I think you should be given time to do that before bringing this to AfD, because any AfD discussion would hinge on WP:GNG for which you need sources.VR talk 15:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming here from WP:RFCLOSE, where I had made my own post. Going through this talk page, I agree with SMcCandlish, VR, and AnandaBliss that this article should at the very least be promptly renamed to "folk beliefs in..." in order to avoid prejudice. As others have written, the topic is so potentially vast that one or a number of articles might replace this one, in order to narrow the focus. For instance, "Animism in early Islamic society." If anyone wants to make an initial page move to "Folk beliefs...", that seems reasonable, while further discussion is ongoing. -Darouet (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unreliable sources

[edit]

I see the recent addition of Ibn Warraq and Swami Vivekananda. While both of these are notable figures, they would not be considered reliable sources on Muslim societies. They are not academics and their works are not published by academic publishers.VR talk 20:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions like this do not make good RfCs unless they have already been discussed at length and consensus between editors at the article talk page fails to emerge. Even then, the discussion should probably move to WP:RSN, which exists for assessing source reliability concerns. A page like this should not have three RfCs open on it at once.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just for record: It's not me but others run shy of discussions at centralized place. Even they run shy of AfD discussion. And when different sides come with baggage it's not easy to emerge for Mr.Consensus.Bookku (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


RfC Is Swami Vivekananda a reliable source ?

[edit]

Is Swami Vivekananda a reliable source ? Whether deleted content wide edit dif from articles be restored or not?

Deleted Content for reference:

"Swami Vivekananda reasons that, like many other God-Men preachers who stumble upon untrained state of superconscious and end up in phantasmagoria, prophet Mohammed's inspiration of superconscious state was untrained hence open to hallucinations, that caused things like Mohammed's visit to heaven with Angel Gabriel on flying horse to mixing up of array of admirable truths amidst superstitions in Quran; the combination which leads to contrast of some good actions along considerable fanaticism affecting humankind for centuries together.[2]"

References

  1. ^ Magdi Abdelhadi (23 June 2008). "Signs of division on Egypt's brow". BBC News. Retrieved 2011-01-10.
  2. ^ Vivekananda, Swami. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda - Volume 1. Advaita Ashrama (Publication House of Ramakrishna Math, Belur Math). pp. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 1/Raja-Yoga/Dhyana And Samadhi, Swami Vivekananda, Wikisource link . ISBN 978-81-7505-862-0.

Bookku (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I feel above content paragraphs are well reasoned and sourced content. I personally find criteria put forward by User:Vice regent for deletion of opinions of "Ibn Warraq and Swami Vivekananda. While both of these are notable figures, they would not be considered reliable sources on Muslim societies. They are not academics and their works are not published by academic publishers." is too subjective and restrictive.
As far as I am concerned I have used sourced scholars of all views in article, out of them only well established Hindu scholar and theologian Swami Vivekananda's comments and ex-Muslim Ibn Warraq's content getting deleted 'sounds awkward soft censoring on subjective pretext' to me. Wikipedia is crowd sourced encyclopedia which content to be passed and protected which not I leave it to the community conscience and prudence.
Personally I feel either above paragraphs be restored or at least in separate section for non Abrahamic criticism above paragraphs or their quotes be allowed.
Bookku (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Few points:
  • I leave it for wisdom of future Wikipedians constructively contributing to this article. But just at least for record they would know following points from my side.
  • I doubt those who seem to oppose above paragraph Swami Vivekananda's have read his article at all so those who have not read and open minded enough can visit and read at The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 1/Raja-Yoga/Dhyana And Samadhi, Swami Vivekananda; Wikisource link
  • The points which can be noted Vivekananda's above mentioned particular article seems to be more of from agnostic point of view rather than theistic.
  • It is sort of neutral, while making criticism since it criticizes across all religionist making mistakes too including his own one.
  • Does he have authority to criticize others? South Asian religions and the Vivekananda belongs too are the most exposed to the theological concepts and actual practices of religious and intellectual trans and they likely to know strength limitations of religious and intellectual trans better.
  • Besides Vivekananda does not carry Abrahamic baggage of belief in angels that Scientism would expect for article on Superstition.
  • For those who do not believe in angels story of angels tend to make only two senses some psychological issue is involved or what any other atheist would say, but compared to atheist or people of other religion Vivekananda's critique is too moderate since it accepts positive sides too.
  • Knowledge about believed to be religious trans of Muhammad and psychology of Hallucination are of too common knowledge, Why one should expect any special levels of additional knowledge from Vivekananda or any other critique ? If we put such conditions only apologetic sans any criticism remains does that help any Wikipedia article?
  • When Quran it self takes note of criticism of Muhammad may be to disagree with critics but it does not run shy to specify the same then why Wikipedians need to feel afraid about mentioning a balanced proportionate critique by including Vivekananda approach even while it is more reasonable among critics?
  • As I earlier said it is not that other critiques are not available on the same topic Vivekananda neither has missionary interest to covert some one nor he would go to atheist extremes to deny Muhammad's religion in entirety.
Thanks Bookku (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Is Ibn Warraq a reliable source ?

[edit]

Is Ibn Warraq a reliable source ? Whether deleted content wide edit dif from articles be restored or not?

Deleted Content for reference:

"Similar to Samuel Marinus Zwemer's reasoning Ibn Warraq too says that most of superstitious nuances in Islam are continuation from pre-Islamic idolatrous cultural practices including rituals of the Pilgrimage to Mecca and the superstitions associated with jinns in ancient folk tales such as those of Ad and Thamud.[1]"

References

  1. ^ Warraq, Ibn (2010-09-30). Why I Am Not a Muslim. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-61592-029-7.

Bookku (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I feel either above paragraphs be restored or at least in separate section for non Abrahamic criticism above paragraphs or their quotes be allowed.
Bookku (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience vs superstition

[edit]

Currently this article uses sources that seem to confuse superstition with pseudoscience. I am not sure if that is superstition. For example one source says,

Regarding superstition about some fruits and vegetables, previous study in Bangladesh showed that, fruits like pineapple might cause miscarriage.

I have a hard time seeing how that is superstition and an even harder time seeing how that is something related to Islam.VR talk 09:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One way is to redirect titles Pseudoscience in Muslim societies and Supernatural in Muslim societies to this article. If at all those area grows we can fork them out. Alternatively I can create draft articles for those subjects.
But as of now article name is broad enough as Superstitions in Muslim societies and just not Superstitions in Islam. To decide on this matter I already suggested we will move towards AfD discussion you only delaying it . Bookku (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudoscience is not a type of superstition. The only way to include both is if this article was called Irrational practices in Muslim societies or something.VR talk 11:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about Pseudoscience and superstition in Muslim societies? There may be overlap to some extent. For example, this is from the lede to psuedoscience:
Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs, such as those found in climate change denial, astrology, alchemy, alternative medicine, occult beliefs, religious beliefs, and creation science, is part of science education and scientific literacy.[1][2]
Occult beliefs are superstition. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Pseduoscience and superstition is an actual topic, much less Pseudoscience and superstition in Muslim societies. But either we change the title of this page, or we remove all the pseudoscience content.VR talk 15:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well they are both non-rational beliefs/practices. Of course an article title Irrational practices in Muslim societies would cover this but sounds a little clunky, like it might include widespread habits of people in Iran that don't make sense but aren't superstitions -- not washing your hands or something. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to revisit issue at hand,
One thing I realized is both the Wikipedia articles namely superstition and pseudoscience deserve to have Definition section, and also notation about nature of relation between both the topics. And also having Wikiquote articles can help reduce confusion and centralizing discussion at Talk:Superstition can help bring in more inputs.
I prefer to be methodical so, I have started Talk:Superstition#Section_on_Definition similarly I will start Sub Section on co relation between the two concepts, there.
While I read some intellectual discussion among medical professionals too about similarity and difference between Superstition and Pseudo Science it would be more wise to take note of the same in those article first. Here I will point out few easier aspects briefly,
  • Wikipedia article Superstition says : "..Often, it arises from ignorance, a misunderstanding of science or causality,.."
  • Wikipedia article Pseudoscience defines Pseudoscience as "..Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method..." (So in pseudo science claim to science in expected. So if we take these two points in to account, The point of beliefs related food in Bangladeshi Women are borderline case. How?
  • Meanwhile as such easy to understand views I came across in a Quora Q&A [3](I am not claiming these quora opinions to be Gold standard but I suppose will help clarify a bit) One view expressed is "...Pseudoscience is a superstition pretending to be a science.." According to him If one just believes in some thing irrational then amounts to superstition but when he/she mistakenly attempts to defend superstition as science then it becomes pseudo science too. (In Bangladeshi women food belief side there is no clear claim of being science so it is border line.)
  • Another explanation in same Quora thread is "...Obviously one can attempt to wrap pseudo-scientific explanations around any superstition. So the two aren't mutually exclusive; but neither is a subset of the other..." So in brief they are not mutually exclusive either so Bangladesh Women food beliefs are borderline case.
  • Is it intellectual gymnastic? While I welcome comments if points put forward above are intellectual gymnastic or not; I want to bring in notice another intellectual gymnastic at play here. In earlier discussions on this talk page about Pew research VR claimed Pew research report has not used word 'superstition' in their report so it won't qualify for this article (though rest of Pew research report is all about Superstition is very well evident) Now in this case of Bangladeshi women food beliefs source paper itself is using word "Superstition". I don't know how 'VR' would reconcile this. Hence personally I do not insist on literalism and would prefer weighting more for context otherwise in any of criticism related articles we will need to avoid lot of criticism because source does not use word 'criticism'.
Thanks Bookku (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Stanford-Demarcations was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hurd was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-pseudoscience-and-superstition

Zamzam water

[edit]

User:Vice regent(VR) is very good at art of convenient literalism, I do appreciate such skill of usefulness.

His recent edit dif Zamzam Water in Wikipedia article 1 Zamzam Water in Wikipedia article 2 deletes the water of Zamzam was believed to be auspicious, with special miraculous therapeutic properties.. In a way he is right, since cited source of Gruber, Christiane does not mention of words miraculous and therapeutic together. For words "miraculous therapeutic" actually I had referred to different source I THE QUALITIES AND USES OF ZAMZAM WATER (A SCIENTIFIC AND ISLAMIC EXPLORATION By ABDUL-QUADIR ADENIYI OKENEYE, With Wikipedia culture of literalism I had avoided this ref since it did not contain word 'superstition'. So be it.

The edit changes create 2 issues, First is Gruber in her article uses word "Godliness" in the new edit it seems to become "Goodness", now I don't know, whether "Godliness" equals to "Goodness", or if that is just a spelling mistake.

Now the new edits reproduce additional information The Quran says water is the source of “every living thing", personally I fail to relate to 'superstition'. I wonder what purpose does it serve in article on Superstitions? Whether User:Vice regent(VR) shares Gruber's statement to consider it as superstition or he is just following Wikipedia tradition of literalism ? I wonder.

Bookku (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gruber doesn't seem to call the use of zamzam water as superstitious. If we include her views, we should include them fully, not partially. The "goodness"/"godliness" was a spelling mistake, I'll fix it.VR talk 15:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hughes

[edit]

Is Thomas Hughes (priest) a reliable source on Islam? His work was written in 1885 and he was an Anglican priest and a Christian missionary. He doesn't seem to have any academic background or qualifications.VR talk 16:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) With a lighter note, I would like to question moral right to present any such subjective argument; The fact is Neither scriptures were words of any earthly academic nor were sent through any earthly academic, nor the one who revealed scriptures was an academic, contrarily believed and boasted to be too simplistic for understanding by illiterate and for common illiterate on one hand but when any criticism comes that way pretended some thing more than a rocket science, that ordinary human beings can not criticize superstitions in the same and their commoner believers!
And again blasphemy charges and assertiveness of politically right censorship is part of the ball game, also supposed to be taken lightly!
2) On serious note, take list of logical fallacies in your hand (Your means who ever reader is) and understand that the contention that, non Muslim free thinkers can not criticize superstitions in Muslim societies or won't be worth it's salt in an encyclopedic article, with exceptions of academics, is very subjective, very fallacious, very hocus-pocus argument.
If one is open minded, then to understand, deduce most superstitions does not seem to require more than school level science and logic. Not only for non Muslims but for any modern educated Muslim it is very easy to understand that most of the earth, it's air, it's environment around, the rest of universe is reasonably and reliably analyzed by modern physicists, other than some attempts to deduce some metaphorical meaning, modern sciences with logic hardly leave any scope for superstitions based on scriptural literalness.
It would be very simple calculator count for Seven billion population how many Angles , Jinn and devils will be needed to scriptural superstitions to be true! Today's science learning school kid very well knows from how air vacuum gets created, to detail configurations of gasses, air and environment around them, to how the universe and cosmos looks like formed and deformed through telescopes and scientific methodologies.
And some on Wikipedia attempting to say other than academics other non Muslim Authors would not have necessary sense and logic to make difference between superstition and non superstition is nothing but intellectual gymnastic using deceptive diversionary tactic .
3) Can any wikipedian produce best of their own self criticism ? Or other free thinker's critical review will be more authentic ? Does not same apply to religion and religious communities that the outsider free thinker's will be capable of finding faults better.
If outsider's faultfinding is not accurate one can always present counter points and balance the same. Why does one need to find ways and means to censor outsider's criticism rather than presenting criticism and counter points both?
I have already said the article is all the way about criticism of superstitious practices in Muslim societies and it's obvious that outsider (non Muslim) criticism ought to have considerable space in such article, if not at least separate sections of criticism originating from non Muslim quarters, later any one is welcome to present counter points . But attempt to soft censor are mere deception and pretentious.
4) Last but not least, even principles of Historical analysis give precedence to third party accounts, and 19th century sociological observations noted by Thomas Hughes (priest)'s through Dictionary of Islam is considerably reliable documentation which has been taken note of in many other later sources.
Almost parallel criticism from academic sources too is likely to become available which is likely to validate many of the missionary criticism in times to come, so attempts of soft censoring will at the most score some temporary brownie points, but for rest in longer duration one will find all such attempts were infructuous and waste of their own time who attempted direct indirect censorship.
The bast way for them is to include referenced critics voices respectfully and then present other side with refs. But still if things are not sorted out properly then may be Wikipedia would deserve to have an independent article with title Draft:Non Muslim views on Superstitions in Muslim societies because Wikipedian readers have right to know every side of the coin of knowledge.
Bookku (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bookku wrote non Muslim free thinkers can not criticize superstitions in Muslim societies or won't be worth it's salt in an encyclopedic article, with exceptions of academics, is very subjective, very fallacious, very hocus-pocus argument.
Non-Muslim criticism of Islam can be included in wikipedia subject to two conditions, 1) that it has been published in a reliable (preferably academic) source, and that 2) it be of due weight in that article. Hughes satisfies neither requirement, he is neither reliable nor a notable figure when it comes to superstitions in Islam. If you believe that there exists "parallel criticism from academic sources" then please use those sources instead.VR talk 02:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I claim to have doctorate in Wikipedia book of commandments nor I do have skillfulness of [[User:Vice regent|VR] in subjective projection to reject unsuitable references under garb of some claimed to be literal reading of Wikipedia rules.
Through my honest study for the given Wikipedia article, I got to know many non Muslims including Ex Muslims have done good reliable authorship that rejects and exposes superstitious sides. What I understand and believe in of Wikipedia values of Neutrality which requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. And that Non Muslim viewpoints too are significant and are published in reliable manner but are also reliable in context since those reject unscientific premises.
Since I do not have doctorate in all specific Wiki commandments, I will systematically research the same more by requesting assistance from other Wikipedians in due course, and find out what can be done to give justice to NonMuslim view points being duly taken note of. If we fail in that then some one quoted on lighter note @ Meta on lines that, wiki rules being made sharia and Bible compliant to state angels are real living beings and earth is flat will remain true.
So as of now I can just agree to disagree. Thanks anyways Bookku (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC) I[reply]
Nope. Thomas Hughes, like William Muir, is utterly unreliable, and any content or quote by him should be purged from Islam-related articles immediately. There is no shortage of modern reliable academic scholars and works on Islam and Muslim cultures that I wonder why we need to resort to 19th-century White Christian apologists (and very likely enthusiasts of their imperialist countries) who more often than not, disliked the people, cultures and religions that they wrote about. Personally, I take any work by a European on anything involving Eastern cultures written before Edward Said's Orientalism (book) with a grain of salt. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Premotions of prejudiced plus Straw man even without reading or understanding source Book and content. Now this fellow user even does not know nothing substantial of Thomas Hughes has been used in the article up till now.
IMHO, Criticism of Orientalism and Criticism of imperialism are many times deployed as polemical excuses to save the skin to seek refuge from criticism of plain unjustifiable superstitions and breach of fundamental human rights. (actually some of superstitions do undermine animal rights too as a matter of fact)(Pl. do read again ten times)
It is absolutely Presumptuous and logically fallacious that some contentions of a group of authors not matching expectations of some group of readers means those authors are wrong on all footings/context and they should not get any encyclopedic space amounts to plain censorship.
Show me ten Islamist Authors who criticized their own religious superstitions on all accounts any point of time? Even in academic religious studies usually those people opt for religious studies who are oriented and dependent on earning from religious roles. How does one expect some one dependent on income to criticize faults in own religious superstitions?
It is only authors involved in comparative religious debates and studies and atheists only do make open criticism of questionable beliefs and practices rest many use apologetic to save skin of own religious superstitions even when those are plainly superstitions. As I said earlier it does not take more than school level education in modern sciences plus sound logic to refute superstitions and any author doing so need to be considered notable, in my honest opinion.
Censoring critics content in itself tantamount to original research, The right way is to provide justifiable platform to the critic's content, and critique of critic in proportionate manner.
In this article I have already provided empty section for Islamic responses to criticism over superstitions and expanding on that would be more constructive engagement with the article than that of expecting / demanding / imposing direct indirect censorship of critics of superstition the article.
Thanks
Pl. Do read again
Bookku (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Marinus Zwemer is not a reliable source

[edit]

I'm removing Samuel Marinus Zwemer as a source. He was a Christian missionary, not an academic. I don't see how he can be considered a reliable source. And while he is a reliable source for his own opinion, I don't see how his opinion is WP:DUE in this article.VR talk 12:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: This is certainly an interesting perspective for you to take, given your proclamation here: An academic's religion (or race, gender etc) must never be a factor in their WP:Reliability, period. I note that Zwemer had no fewer than three doctorates and was professor of the history of religion. Could you expand on why you believe this has persuaded you this academic is not reliable? GPinkerton (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that my justification for considering him unreliable was terribly misleading. To clarify, Christians of all denominations can be very reliable sources on Islam. Examples include W. Montgomery Watt, John Esposito (who is a Christian) etc. Zwemer seem to have been "professor of missions and professor of the history of religion" at Princeton Theological Seminary at a time (1930s) when even many non-seminary institutions didn't have an accurate understanding of Islam. Professors at religious seminaries can be experts on the religion of said seminary, but not necessarily experts on other religions. I would consider him as much as "expert" on Islam as I would consider an Islamic seminary professor to be an "expert" on Christianity. But I could be wrong, and best course would be to take this to WP:RSN.VR talk 19:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @Bookku: and @Al-Andalusi: as we had a similar discussion at Talk:Superstitions_in_Muslim_societies#Thomas_Hughes.VR talk 20:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out dirty water (i.e. questioning superstitions) is primarily business of Skepticism i.e. of skeptics, So this article needs to be viewed from point of skeptics first. Rather than giving primacy to skeptic giving primacy to scholar of same school which is under criticism is erroneous, logically fallacious and subversive since who is being criticized is having conflict of interest in defending their own school of thoughts.
No doubt defender has stake in pointing out all is not dirty water but their baby too is standing there by pointing out the baby. And so we do have already given space in separate section Superstitions in Muslim societies#Islamic responses
Primary business of religion is parenting of humanity for good values is their baby. And so religions do have separate articles to display their own babies. In those articles skeptics and criticism will have secondary place, So I repeat, in encyclopedic article on Superstition skeptics are supposed have first and freer space irrespective of their background.
In an encyclopedic article on "Superstitions in Idolatry and polytheism" , Moses Abraham Jesus Muhammad and other similar skeptics first place as skeptics. They don't need academic degrees in skepticism, their skepticism will not be right because they were prophets but just for rational (and peaceful) part of their arguments. Like wise in article "Superstitions in monotheism" their Skeptics should have first space.
Supporters of one school of thought can be good skeptics of another school of thought. Followers of one religion can be can be good skeptics of another religion. Let their skepticism have good space in articles of Superstition, in later sections defending religion / school can have their representative response.
Skeptics and Skepticism and critiques is fact of human life since it's beginning, in a civilized society's civilized encyclopedia they need to have their peaceful due space irrespective of their background.
With little changes to what Prof. Najaf Haider says, "..therefore it is not surprising that first writers of ... history of on some of fields of knowledge... are the westerners. Intellectuals who not necessarily writing with any particular design (irrespective of their background) and here I have a very strong objection to what Edward Said writes in his book Orientalism. I am sure this book is very popular with you and I think it is very important for me to say that, there were many European intellectuals who wrote without any explicit design of hegemonizing the people they were writing about, their purpose was intellectual not political, what Edward said has done is great disservice to knowledge that he has turned entire landscape into a flat land where every European writing on Islam particularly, .... is harboring some kind of a nefarious design to control, that I think is most vulnerable part of Edward Said's book Orientalism ..., this is about anybody who is an outsider, therefore I would like to mention this very strongly, this outsider insider debate, people who are not Indians do not should not write on India, people who are not Muslim should not write on Islam because they will never understand Islam, people who are not Dalits should not write on Dalit history , because they will never understand; I am afraid all these is things are totally redundant in our world of professional ... research (and encyclopedic writing in Wikipedia) which has lot of drawbacks and weakness which we try to fine tune , except for this kind of artificial divide between us better equipped Muslims and they ill equipped non Muslims to understand religion and politics,... so there fore ...Some of them writing also to criticize other religion so I am not saying that element of criticism to defend own religion is absent, (it's) very much there. But deletion of their skepticism from encyclopedia is not the way. Limitations of their arguments and prejudice, if any, can be pointed out separately in separate section in an encyclopedic article.
( Above is not original as is of Prof. Najaf Haider . Original you can hear at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5OtQ09Cls4 from 8:20)
I have already exposed fallacy of Argument from authority. For example According to Rashid Shaz the whole Muslim world is permeated with pre-Islamic superstitions, which he relates to "clinging to false hope" and even shirk.[1] is from Islam focused university is doing stereotyping. While you ended up deleting the factual and balanced still non stereotyping statement: superstition is a criticism coming from side of rationality and sciences, plus in this case from non Muslims and ex Muslims. Where is the logic?
Being encyclopedia Wikipedia needs references but it would be more prudent if one does not forget, encyclopedias are compendium first. Encyclopedia needs to subscribe first to rationality and logic and not attempting suppression through democratic talk page forums making rules supporting and judging positions on based on own PoVs and conflict of interests but pretending otherwise .  ::::Same conservatives who oppose inconvenient content here participate in rule making and judging creating facade as if democracy means logic is not only big deception but also injustice to fundamental principles of encyclopedia.
Thanks anyways
Bookku (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Shaz, Rashid; Shāz, Rāshid (2006). Islam, Negotiating the Future. Milli Publications. p. 167. ISBN 978-81-87856-05-4.

Knight sourced quotes

[edit]
Knight is very clear he is using word magic alternatively for superstitions too when he says, "..., one community's divinely revealed or empirically observed knowledge would be mere superstition to another community...., at the same time most pro-science atheist thinkers believe that any attempt at differentiation between religion and magic can be flimsy at best.[1] IMHO this matches his quotes easily.
Included text under discussion in Superstition in Muslim Societies
"...Knight says that the study of superstitions in Muslim societies raises difficult but important questions for any Islamic revivalist projects, and not only deconstructs between sectarian categories and within themselves too but also challenges the historical stability, coherence and distinctness of Islam as a religion.[2][need quotation to verify]..."

References

  1. ^ Knight, Michael Muhammad (2016). "Creeping Mageia". Magic in Islam. New York: Tarcher Perigee. pp. 6, 7. ISBN 978-1-101-98349-2. OCLC 932302756.
  2. ^ Knight, Michael Muhammad (2016). Magic in Islam. New York: Tarcher Perigee (Penguin). pp. 195, 197. ISBN 978-1-101-98349-2. OCLC 932302756.
Knight seems to maintain all religious corners for being politically right, but next moment destabilizes them using Islams own template. Knight's pluralism and inclusiveness on one hand attempts respects pluralist traditions same time he deconstructs them. Observing his social media activity one will find him mocking superstitions among Muslims like any thing still he seems to maintain political decorum. When he speaks of Magic largely he speaks of ‘Superstitions’ if not he would not have done intellectual mocking exercises which even atheists would find difficult to succeed in doing.
  • Knight being pluralist and modernist attempts to leave space for everyone, thus analyzing and understanding him is a bit complex, Even while criticizing he attempts to maintain his politically correct position. “... Magic undoes its own coherence……….(It’s) constructs all stand on perpetually moving ground. ...”
Word coherence is defined online as “the quality of being logical and consistent.” Where supernatural (magic) does not remain logical it obviously speaks of ‘Superstition’
After questioning “Where in Solomon’s body ... end and the jinn-commanding master sorcerer begin’, further he says “Magic undoes its own coherence “ So here he talking about necessarily superstition.
Knight is particular where to use word Islamic and where to use Muslim, Knight uses word Muslim when he speaks of lived experiences of Muslims,
'...but I believe that thinking about ‘’’Muslim magics’’’ raises important (if uncomfortable) consequences for projects that seek to revive the Islamic spirit.
For a moment, replace word magic with superstition but I believe that thinking about ‘’’Muslim superstitions’’’ raises important (if uncomfortable) consequences for projects that seek to revive the Islamic spirit
Knight says that the study of superstitions in Muslim societies raises difficult but important questions for any Islamic revivalist projects, Why thinking or studying of magic will raise uncomfortable and important consequences unless he is speaking about magic among Muslims as ‘superstition’? “Try reading "Knight says that the study of magic in Muslim societies raises difficult but important questions for any Islamic revivalist projects,” This will sound odd if you do not use synonym ‘superstition’, hence rather here Knight employees word 'magic as synonym of 'superstition', here.
“... Magic does its deconstructive work not only between categories but also within them, challenging what could be conceptualized as a distinct religious tradition called “Islam,” denying its best claims at coherence and historical stability….” Why and how magic will deny best claims of coherence and historical stability unless Knight does not mean ‘superstition’ in using the word ‘magic’?
Bookku (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Iran in South Asia

[edit]

According to the writer, Iran is included in south asia, which I think clearly shows the lack of geography classes the propaganda team has missed. So this must be corrected and more over the article should be deemed to free from biased reference. Saifullah.vguj (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is valid, as to the rest what does "the community of article" even mean [[2]]? Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community means the religion or sect that we are talking about, since none of them were clearly mentioned in the reference Saifullah.vguj (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Saifullah.vguj: Many greetings and thanks for your valuable inputs and observations. At the outset I want to emphasize is article is about superstitions in Muslim societies. Many of superstitions prevalent in Muslim societies have been adopted from their past or other contemporary communities over the centuries. For an example un til previous century Punjabi Hindus used believe that third child of every couple is unlucky I came across two reliable news items one from Karnataka one from Sindh Muslim families discriminating against (kind of torture) third child. It is not that every individual or families are sharing those superstitions but some do and this article takes note. This article does not create any bias rather will be helpful in reducing superstitions and original spirit of Islam too is against superstition. Hence I request you to come ahead and join in expanding the article yourself so you will not have feeling of who is writing and what bias is there and what not.
Countries related content was imported from old established WP articles and some areas of improvements seem to be there, I do have some work on my hand I am scheduling next update to improve upon as per your suggestions in couple of weeks after.
About India Pakistan related section primarily what seem to have happened is (I am just guessing) that user has written on the basis of Pakistani ref sources and for neutrality sake added whatever Indian sources they could find.
I find this nation.com.pk article seems credible enough. When 98 percent Paikstanis are Muslim saying word Muslim is not written in the article is kind of stretching too hard still we all will try to find better citations in times to come.
I have made some other article expansion help at your talk page please do have a look at them too.
Happy editing and cheers
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Difference?

[edit]

Greetings,

I would like to request how other Wikipedians perceive the difference between this article and Islam and magic? Superstition and magic often go hand in hand, and both are usually understood to be beliefs without a proovable physical connection. Unlike magic, the term superstition is often condenscending. Although I do defend the general idea of including a "superstition" article as per WP:NOTCENSORED and the factual talk about superstition in Islamic cultures in academic papers, there is not equivalent for the Christian or Jewish religion. Since Islam, unlike Christianity for example, has no formal clergy, Islam may also be considered culture, comparable to the article Japanese superstitions. However, I think, what the article talks about, does focus mostly on Magic related beliefs. Merging this article with Islam and magic might even be helpful to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS of sources. What are the thoughts of others in regard to taht matter? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks all a bit OR to me. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is Superstition?

[edit]

@Louis P. Boog Greetigs, I appreciate your efforts to improve the quality of the article. However, I had to revert your last edit, due to both WP:RS and missing context. Remember that Dawah Webpages are not realiable, since they just promote private thoughts.

I would like to recommand the paper "The Superstition, Secularism, and Religion Trinary" by Jason Ānanda Josephson-Storm to make yourself familiar with this complex subject, to ensure your future edits are an improvement for the article. I would further appreciate if you participate in the discussion of the proposed merge. The paper I recommanded further shows the similarities between superstition and magical beliefs.

Complementary material, especially in regards of the subject of superstition and Islam includes "Fears, Hopes, and Dreams: Talismanic Shirts of Murād III” by F. Özgen, "The limits of going global: The case of “Ottoman Enlightenment(s)". by M. Sariyannis, and "Nur Baba: A Sufi Novel of Late Ottoman Istanbul" by Karaosmanoğlu, Yakup Kadri, and M. Brett Wilson. To udnerstand the relationship between superstition, magic, and Islam, it is crucial to be familar with the historical development. It does not suffice to look at that Muslims consider "superstition" after they came into contact with Imperialism and how their attitude is today, all periods of Islamic history must be taken into account.

with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Novel? Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the novel, the paper about the novel exploring the change of Islam between "superstitional" and "modernized" in the transition stage of the alte Ottoman Empire. However, this might be a bit too specific, I did have another paper in mind. I will correct this. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC) edit: No, it was actually this paper but not as extensive as I had it in mind. The other two papers are more important.[reply]

with best regards

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Superstition_in_Islamic_tradition&oldid=1241127834"