Talk:Adam in Islam

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Book of Enoch?

Hi. This has the makings of a good article. I'm just a bit concerned about the inclusion of things such as that reference to the Book of Enoch - material that seems not to be connected to Islam. But I leave it in your hands. PiCo 07:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. CID!!! (Consider it done!) I made the adjustments. Cheers. --How's my editing so far? Call 1-800-2GOOD4U! 12:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys are we missing some information here. On one hand the tradition said that Adam was missguided by Satan and as a punishment he was send to earth, now my question is if Adam was in Heaven, how come Satan reached him in Heaven and missguided him? he supposed to be out of Heaven and no access to Adam.

This is actually one of the hotly debated issues amongst islamic scholar with the regards to Adam at eden.
  • This is probably the most famous view: Iblis, prior to this incident was living amongst the angels and was not regarded as having this devil nature.
  • Some say that Iblis (satan) has the ability to misguide from distance from distance.
  • Some even say that Adam's eden is on earth, and not the actual Heaven. This view is laregly marginalised and countered by Quranic verses that infer that Adan's even is Heave. --Djihed 19:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I feel like one of these parts in the article should be changed or deleted since they are rather contradicting: "Islam does not ascribe mankind's life on earth as a punishment, rather as part of God's plan" "God, as a punishment, sends Adam and Eve out into the rest of the earth" Lightssword (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the controversial Tabari section

The VAST MAJORITY of Muslims do not accept Tabari's hadith as authentic, ESPECIALLY due to the so called "satanic verses". I will then delete his section. It's like putting a fairytale section on the Christianity page. --71.102.116.218 (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam in the Qur'an

The problem should be obvious in that it's a complete quoting of nine long blocks of Qur'anic text, each prefaced with "Allah the Almighty says" and no secondary sources or even proper citation of the primary sources. I'm basically going to hide the section while I work on fixing it, as the whole thing is patently unencyclopedic. If I could get help with the following it would be extremely helpful;

  • Cleaning up the POV tone
  • Properly dealing with/citing the primary sources and trimming it down to an appropriate amount of quotation
  • Finding and citing reliable secondary sources on the subject.

I will, of course, also be working on this, but as I don't know personally of good secondary sources on this myself that's the thing I'll need the most help with. I encourage discussion on it here if anyone has any objection. Peter Deer (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter! I placed Quranic references from a secondary source website, owned by University of Southern California, USA. It is a reliable source because it is a respected and trusted university where people share unambiguous thoughts or whatever. The section now looks short and to the point. Thanks! Farjad0322 (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources provided prove that Islam views Adam as the first human being created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.61.129 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References to Adam in the Qur'an

The story of Adam can be found in different verses of the Qur'an:

As well as: 2:117, 7:54, 23:12-22, 32:7-11

Merge with Main Article

There have been several other instances where figures relevant to multiple religious perspectives, particularly Prophets, have been successfully consolidated in their own main article (in this case that would be Adam) and considering how trimmed down this particular page has gotten I recommend that it be merged with the main article and this section be fleshed-out to accommodate. Peter Deer (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is where I reply again to ping everyone with this on their watchlist. I'm really trying not to step on any toes by doing this ("Be bold, Peter!" "Shut it, you.") Peter Deer (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well. This one isn't too large. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an edit related to the creation story

I reverted this edit by Hicham Toumi (talk · contribs) for two reasons:

  1. He used the wrong template. He used {{main article}} when he probably meant to use {{quote}}. If it were just this error, I would have just fixed it.
  2. The claim in the edit summary, ou forgot to mention the fact that they were descended before covering themselves here is the verse that says so: https://quran.com/20/123, seems to be contradicted by this translation, which reads in part

    (20:121) Then the two of them ate the fruit of that tree and their shameful parts became revealed to each other, and they began to cover themselves with the leaves from the Garden. Thus Adam disobeyed his Lord and strayed into error. (20:122) Thereafter his Lord exalted him, accepted his repentance, and bestowed guidance upon him, (20:123) and said: "Get down, both of you, (that is, man and Satan), and be out of it; each of you shall be an enemy to the other. Henceforth if there comes to you a guidance from Me, then whosoever follows My guidance shall neither go astray nor suffer misery. (20:124) But whosoever turns away from this Admonition from Me shall have a straitened life;105 We shall raise him blind on the Day of Resurrection,

For what it's worth, the reference provided by Hicham Toumi,[1] which is the Sahih International translation, reads

[ Allah ] said, "Descend from Paradise - all, [your descendants] being enemies to one another. And if there should come to you guidance from Me - then whoever follows My guidance will neither go astray [in the world] nor suffer [in the Hereafter].

Given #2, I thought the safest thing to do was revert the change until it could be discussed. Disclaimer: I am neither a Muslim, nor an expert on the Koran or Islam, nor a reader or speaker of Arabic. I would defer anything that requires such expertise to editors who have it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content from Sayyid Mumtaz Ali's book

The reference and content both are reliable and have been subject of research studies. For example, Sayyid Mumtaz Ali and ‘Huquq un-Niswan’: An Advocate of Women's Rights in Islam in the Late Nineteenth Century, by Gail Minault and Published online by Cambridge University Press. I do not understand why the IP is edit warring and calling this "reliable source" as "propaganda source". They are definitely here for POV pushing. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already discussed matter on your talk page:
The following comments have been pasted here by IP from the talk page in question. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The view of a single author Sayyid Mumtaz Ali who never conducted any relevant or accurate research regarding the matter rather than sitting hope and writing his own opinion cannot be reliable. Many such people claim many things, like mr Rajnish used to claim to be God, that doesnt make his claims accurate and so arent accepted by wiki policies. You cannot claim that Adam wasnt first just by his claim, it is mentioned in Quran and by many reliable WP:RS than Azraeil took soils from Earth and Adam was created by God first, and Indian scholar claiming something he never did research on after 10,000s of years is invalid. No other WP:RS gives such baseless argument that Eve was created before Adam either. This is pure feminist propaganda! Please cite only reliable established WP:RS. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

It is mentioned as a opinion of "him" with a reliable source. Saying that he never conducted any research is nothing but childish. He has himself been subject of various research papers including the one by Gail Minault. You may try raising the issue on the talk page. Feminist propaganda? Please see WP:NPOV. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC) There are 1000s of scholars all over the world that have different opinions, only established WP:RS should use. If you want to add the opinion of just 1 out of millions of scholars that ever lived why not add the views of millions of Islamic scholars that have had varying opinions over the year. Please use only what is established in the main stream. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.121.219 (talk)

the title of the book makes it evident it is not neutral, but a one sided view not accepted main stream. There are countless scholars like these who gave countless "opinions", that do not fit WP:RS. We should move forward adding reliable and main stream sources, the fact that "Shura9999" was created today just to add back your unreliable source is highly suspicious". 43.245.121.219 (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there are any other source regarding this claim except that unreliable book, I will accept it. But there is NON. This is just a one sided feminist pov push, feminism is never neutral, only main stream sources are WP:RS, the claim of a single book cannot be a WP:RS, there are countless books that claim many things, like some claim Adam was a primate [1], we cannot add millions of different views all over the world nor should we, we only add what is main stream and that is WP:RS. Your source doesn't fit that and is exclusively based on a single "south asian" non global view. We should stick to main stream and WP:RS and if you want create a new article "conspiracy theories regarding Adam", and add that unreliable source there. Since the article is not regarding conspiracy theories and is about the mainstream Adam, only mainstream accepted WP:RS belongs there. End. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 07:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about inclusion of Sayyid Mumtaz Ali's opinion removed by an IP editor

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.
There is consensus for the inclusion of the opinion as presented below with attribution. Most agree that Sayyid Mumtaz Ali is a notable enough Islamic scholar whose views merit inclusion. His views on this subject are also quoted in a journal article as pointed out by TheAafi and that reference should also be cited in the article. VR talk 03:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the source is reliable and as added in the article meets WP:RSOPINION and it was not added in violation of WP:NPOV and other relevant policies. So requesting other experienced editors to participate in this discussion. A part of discussion may be found at User talk:TheAafi#Do not add incorrect views. The whole statement removed by the IP is:

Islamic scholar Sayyid Mumtaz Ali, while commenting on whether Adam was first or Eve, says that "the fact that Adam was created first is nothing but childish. To begin with, we are tempted to assert that this is so because it was not acceptable to God that a woman is left without a companion for even a second. Therefore, it is for her sake that He created Adam first. But as a matter of fact, the belief that Adam was created first and then came Eve is part of the Christian and Jewish faith. This is not at all part of the Islamic creed. There is no mention in the Quran about who was created first, Adam or Eve."[1]

References

  1. ^ Deobandi, Sayyid Mumtaz Ali. Huquq-e-Niswan (in Urdu) (1898 ed.). Lahore: Rifah-e-Aam Press. pp. 21–22. Retrieved 22 August 2020. Adapted from Javed Anand's translation to the piece {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help)
Should the statement be include per WP:RSOPINION or not? Thank you. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose: See the entire discussion:

The following comments have been pasted here by IP from the talk page in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.121.219 (talk • contribs)

The view of a single author Sayyid Mumtaz Ali who never conducted any relevant or accurate research regarding the matter rather than sitting hope and writing his own opinion cannot be reliable. Many such people claim many things, like mr Rajnish used to claim to be God, that doesnt make his claims accurate and so arent accepted by wiki policies. You cannot claim that Adam wasnt first just by his claim, it is mentioned in Quran and by many reliable WP:RS than Azraeil took soils from Earth and Adam was created by God first, and Indian scholar claiming something he never did research on after 10,000s of years is invalid. No other WP:RS gives such baseless argument that Eve was created before Adam either. This is pure feminist propaganda! Please cite only reliable established WP:RS. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned as a opinion of "him" with a reliable source. Saying that he never conducted any research is nothing but childish. He has himself been subject of various research papers including the one by Gail Minault. You may try raising the issue on the talk page. Feminist propaganda? Please see WP:NPOV. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are 1000s of scholars all over the world that have different opinions, only established WP:RS should use. If you want to add the opinion of just 1 out of millions of scholars that ever lived why not add the views of millions of Islamic scholars that have had varying opinions over the year. Please use only what is established in the main stream. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Things like This is pure feminist propaganda!, and assumptions like Not reliable invalid propaganda source. I suspect Shura9999 and TheAafi of sockpuppetry. definitely speak that "you are here for POV pushing". We go with neutral point of view and calling a "reliable source" as unreliable and propaganda source is proof of your POV pushing. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The view of a single scholar isn't reliable, and like I said millions of scholars over 1000s of years gave millions of different opinions. That which is accepted by mainstream is WP:RS, you are just following the views of a single scholar whom you are disciple to, whose views are not main stream. This is not neutral. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again and again' you are saying same thing. Views that aren't acceptable to you because you don't like them, and call them as "feminist propaganda", don't become unreliable. You are also not assuming good faith even after I warned you. you are just following the views of a single scholar whom you are disciple to - this? If you disagree with certain content in any Wikipedia article, rather than removing/edit warring/being bad with fellow editors, the best is to discuss the issue on article's talk where a consensus would take place between multiple editors that whether the content can be kept or not. Edit warring and attacking is not a solution. POV pushing definitely not! ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Aafī You are the one trying to do pov push of a single scholar that is not accepted anywhere else also the fact that "Shura9999" was created today just to add back your unreliable source is highly suspicious. Find any other source regarding this claim except that unreliable book, I will accept it. This is just a one sided feminist pov push, feminism is never neutral, only main stream sources are WP:RS, the claim of a single book cannot be a WP:RS, there are countless books that claim many things, like some claim Adam was a primate [2], we cannot add millions of different views all over the world nor should we, we only add what is main stream and that is WP:RS. Your source doesn't fit that and is exclusively based on a single "south asian" non global view. We should stick to main stream and WP:RS and if you want create a new article "conspiracy theories regarding Adam", and add that unreliable source there. Since the article is not regarding conspiracy theories and is about the mainstream Adam, only mainstream accepted WP:RS belongs there. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have already missed the thing. Do you even know "fact" and "opinion" are two different things? In the WP:RS, there are guidelines like WP:RSOPINION. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. I hope that you would stop this childish behavior. In your edit you have malformed the entire infobox in article. If I would have been pushing POV, I would've reverted your edits again and again, but I just reverted your edits two times. Moreover, the article is in my watchlist like many others. Shura9999 reverted your edits before me and you're wrong in saying that they did it to re-add my content, remember that you malformed the infobox as well, there are numerous reasons for that revert. Anyways, if you are suspicious, try your part at WP:SPI which I guess would be closed as "vandalism". ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So we both agree what is main stream and established WP:RS can be added. if there was a single other source other than that unreliable book it could be considered, but there is non, and all established mainstream and WP:RS says Adam came first, a single conspiracy theory book means nothing and there are countless other scholars who gave countless theories (like the Adam = primate example), they do not belong to the main stream article "Adam in Islam" but I suggest you to create a new article "Conspiracy Theories Relating to Adam in Islam" and add the unaccepted conspiracy theory there, goodbye but keep in mind if you re add the unreliable source in the main article I will remove it keeping in mind WP:RS. Take care. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've already told you that it is a reliable book written by a known scholar, and a subject to research articles, and thus important work on the subject. Just because you disagree with the opinion (not fact) it doesn't become "conspiracy theory". ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope it is feminist and can't be considered neutral and reliable is that which is accepted main stream. you cannot even find a single other source that shares the same view as this or calls it a reliable source. It is "not recognized as reliable" anywhere. Unreliable, dismissed.. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still, you are doing hocus-pocus with fact and opinion. I would've removed it myself it was added as a fact, since it is added as opinion, and meets WP:RSOPINION, there's no way out to object its inclusion. Take some time and distinguish "fact" and "opinion". Unreliable? Author and book being subject of a research paper published by University of Cambridge Press are "unreliable". Wow! Just because you differ with a reliable opinion, it doesn't become unreliable or non-neutral. You may see articles with Criticism sections? Most of criticism is non-neutral (but it is included in the article in a neutral way, does that become unreliable? No, never. But if such things are added as facts, and not opinions - I would be first one to object their inclusion on the Wikipedia. But the opinion statement of Sayyid Mumtaz Ali is added as "opinion" hence meets WP:RSOPINION, and is from a reliable book as I said above. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time I repeat countless scholars gave countless opinions, it is not possible nor necessary to include them all, what should just be included is opinions accepted by mainstream, and also you fail to provide a single source other than that one which shares the same opinion making it a totally unreliable source failing WP:V. It cannot be considered a reliable source just because you say so, it fails WP:RS guidelines, it is a feminist book and violates neutrality, no other source support Sayyid Mumtaz Alis book. If there are any other source beside this book that do, provide it, but they do not. This alone among many other factors shows "It is not recognized as reliable" anywhere. As there are no other source supporting the views other than this non mainstream unreliable source, this does not deserve inclusion as it is unreliable. Hope you understand now. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Cambridge University Press Publishers they never claimed they exclusively publish reliable sources, they also publish fairy tales among other things. Regardless not a single source besides this book shares the opinion and countless scholars published many opinions, that do not make them eligible for entry. "It is not recognized as reliable." Thus this book fails WP:RS guildiness, lacks neutrality and cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. I am done explaining now and will just revert if you add it back. Take care. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
43.245.121.219 (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include (as nom) I've explained in my earlier comments above and at User talk:TheAafi#Do not add incorrect views, the statement is well supported, and not added as a fact. "Because I do not like any position supposedly because it comes from "feminists" is not a valid argument to exclude this statement from the article". The book Huqūq-e-Niswān is also not an unreliable source and it is definitely not necessary that others should support Mumtaz Ali's statement then it may be considered. If there's statement from a reliable source and is included as "what it is, either fact or opinion", I guess there is no other ground to oppose its inclusion. This journal article from Gail Minault adds more to Mumtaz Ali's significance. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 – I have moved the whole discussion from my talk page to here. ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The view of a single author Sayyid Mumtaz Ali who never conducted any relevant or accurate research regarding the matter rather than sitting hope and writing his own opinion cannot be reliable. Many such people claim many things, like mr Rajnish used to claim to be God, that doesnt make his claims accurate and so arent accepted by wiki policies. You cannot claim that Adam wasnt first just by his claim, it is mentioned in Quran and by many reliable WP:RS than Azraeil took soils from Earth and Adam was created by God first, and Indian scholar claiming something he never did research on after 10,000s of years is invalid. No other WP:RS gives such baseless argument that Eve was created before Adam either. This is pure feminist propaganda! Please cite only reliable established WP:RS. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned as a opinion of "him" with a reliable source. Saying that he never conducted any research is nothing but childish. He has himself been subject of various research papers including the one by Gail Minault. You may try raising the issue on the talk page. Feminist propaganda? Please see WP:NPOV. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are 1000s of scholars all over the world that have different opinions, only established WP:RS should use. If you want to add the opinion of just 1 out of millions of scholars that ever lived why not add the views of millions of Islamic scholars that have had varying opinions over the year. Please use only what is established in the main stream. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Things like This is pure feminist propaganda!, and assumptions like Not reliable invalid propaganda source. I suspect Shura9999 and TheAafi of sockpuppetry. definitely speak that "you are here for POV pushing". We go with neutral point of view and calling a "reliable source" as unreliable and propaganda source is proof of your POV pushing. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The view of a single scholar isn't reliable, and like I said millions of scholars over 1000s of years gave millions of different opinions. That which is accepted by mainstream is WP:RS, you are just following the views of a single scholar whom you are disciple to, whose views are not main stream. This is not neutral. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again and again' you are saying same thing. Views that aren't acceptable to you because you don't like them, and call them as "feminist propaganda", don't become unreliable. You are also not assuming good faith even after I warned you. you are just following the views of a single scholar whom you are disciple to - this? If you disagree with certain content in any Wikipedia article, rather than removing/edit warring/being bad with fellow editors, the best is to discuss the issue on article's talk where a consensus would take place between multiple editors that whether the content can be kept or not. Edit warring and attacking is not a solution. POV pushing definitely not! ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Aafī You are the one trying to do pov push of a single scholar that is not accepted anywhere else also the fact that "Shura9999" was created today just to add back your unreliable source is highly suspicious. Find any other source regarding this claim except that unreliable book, I will accept it. This is just a one sided feminist pov push, feminism is never neutral, only main stream sources are WP:RS, the claim of a single book cannot be a WP:RS, there are countless books that claim many things, like some claim Adam was a primate [3], we cannot add millions of different views all over the world nor should we, we only add what is main stream and that is WP:RS. Your source doesn't fit that and is exclusively based on a single "south asian" non global view. We should stick to main stream and WP:RS and if you want create a new article "conspiracy theories regarding Adam", and add that unreliable source there. Since the article is not regarding conspiracy theories and is about the mainstream Adam, only mainstream accepted WP:RS belongs there. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have already missed the thing. Do you even know "fact" and "opinion" are two different things? In the WP:RS, there are guidelines like WP:RSOPINION. Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. I hope that you would stop this childish behavior. In your edit you have malformed the entire infobox in article. If I would have been pushing POV, I would've reverted your edits again and again, but I just reverted your edits two times. Moreover, the article is in my watchlist like many others. Shura9999 reverted your edits before me and you're wrong in saying that they did it to re-add my content, remember that you malformed the infobox as well, there are numerous reasons for that revert. Anyways, if you are suspicious, try your part at WP:SPI which I guess would be closed as "vandalism". ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So we both agree what is main stream and established WP:RS can be added. if there was a single other source other than that unreliable book it could be considered, but there is non, and all established mainstream and WP:RS says Adam came first, a single conspiracy theory book means nothing and there are countless other scholars who gave countless theories (like the Adam = primate example), they do not belong to the main stream article "Adam in Islam" but I suggest you to create a new article "Conspiracy Theories Relating to Adam in Islam" and add the unaccepted conspiracy theory there, goodbye but keep in mind if you re add the unreliable source in the main article I will remove it keeping in mind WP:RS. Take care. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've already told you that it is a reliable book written by a known scholar, and a subject to research articles, and thus important work on the subject. Just because you disagree with the opinion (not fact) it doesn't become "conspiracy theory". ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope it is feminist and can't be considered neutral and reliable is that which is accepted main stream. you cannot even find a single other source that shares the same view as this or calls it a reliable source. It is "not recognized as reliable" anywhere. Unreliable, dismissed.. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still, you are doing hocus-pocus with fact and opinion. I would've removed it myself it was added as a fact, since it is added as opinion, and meets WP:RSOPINION, there's no way out to object its inclusion. Take some time and distinguish "fact" and "opinion". Unreliable? Author and book being subject of a research paper published by University of Cambridge Press are "unreliable". Wow! Just because you differ with a reliable opinion, it doesn't become unreliable or non-neutral. You may see articles with Criticism sections? Most of criticism is non-neutral (but it is included in the article in a neutral way, does that become unreliable? No, never. But if such things are added as facts, and not opinions - I would be first one to object their inclusion on the Wikipedia. But the opinion statement of Sayyid Mumtaz Ali is added as "opinion" hence meets WP:RSOPINION, and is from a reliable book as I said above. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time I repeat countless scholars gave countless opinions, it is not possible nor necessary to include them all, what should just be included is opinions accepted by mainstream, and also you fail to provide a single source other than that one which shares the same opinion making it a totally unreliable source failing WP:V. It cannot be considered a reliable source just because you say so, it fails WP:RS guidelines, it is a feminist book and violates neutrality, no other source support Sayyid Mumtaz Alis book. If there are any other source beside this book that do, provide it, but they do not. This alone among many other factors shows "It is not recognized as reliable" anywhere. As there are no other source supporting the views other than this non mainstream unreliable source, this does not deserve inclusion as it is unreliable. Hope you understand now. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Cambridge University Press Publishers they never claimed they exclusively publish reliable sources, they also publish fairy tales among other things. Regardless not a single source besides this book shares the opinion and countless scholars published many opinions, that do not make them eligible for entry. "It is not recognized as reliable." Thus this book fails WP:RS guildiness, lacks neutrality and cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia. I am done explaining now and will just revert if you add it back. Take care. 43.245.121.219 (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be like someone who thinks they own Wikipedia articles. I've requested for a RfC and asked for comments from other editors, let's see what is the consensus. Sayyid Mumtaz Ali is not a non-notable figure like rest of your "thousands scholars" who are unknown. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include: The opinion of a notable scholar, per WP:RSOPINION, is fine to be included in the article, provided that it is properly attributed to him/her. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 14:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the opinion does not contribute to the subject of who was created first, other than stating the omission about it in Islam. JohnThorne (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include The statement is an opinion from a notable scholar and it is fine to be included per WP:RSOPINION. — Hammad (Talk!)
  • Include, per point raised above by Anupam Idealigic (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Sayyid Mumtaz Ali is an Islamic scholar with his own Wikipedia article? And he made a statement about exactly this topic? Certainly good enough for me. Wes sideman (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include, as a notable commentator's relevant, published view on the matter. It might not be necessary to block-quote him; just the bare fact that an Adam/Eve order isn't given in canonical Islamic materials is an important point, and could be reliably sourced to this author. I would think there are more authorities to cite on this, too. I.e., this shouldn't be some kind of a "Sayyid Mumtaz Ali's standing-out opinion" setup, when his view on this doesn't actually stand out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question His opinion should only be included if his beliefs have precedence in the source texts. Are they based on any authentic narrations or verses from the Qur'an? Maqdisi117 (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His beliefs are quite clear, and he came from a known Islamic seminary called Darul Uloom Deoband. Secondly, as SMcCandlish pointed out, "this would not be a stand alone opinion", and such things are available there in other works. For the time being, Sayyid Mumtaz Ali is a notable Sunni Muslim scholar, and is known for his works, and been admired by the scholarly figures like Ghulam Rasool Mehr and others. His works received enough praise from scholars like Anwar Shah Kashmiri, Sulaiman Nadwi, Amin al-Husseini and Abul Kalam Azad. The thing is clear again when he says, There is no mention in the Quran about who was created first, Adam or Eve. and this statement is clear on its own. ─ The Aafī (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include, it has a source and is notable.--Shura9999 (talk) 07:36, 5 November 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.

Typo in this line

Mispelling of the word "sources"

"Muslim suorces identify the place with Mecca or the Ka'ba." 68.42.155.156 (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I want to fix that. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False informastion

Islamic traditions acknowledge that before Adam was made, Muhammad's spirit, also known as the Muhammadan Light, was already created This information is false. I am a Muslim. We don't believe this. Remove this information. This is not true. 27.123.255.206 (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message,
The section in question is well-sourced. However, it is possible that otherwise reliable sources are wrong. This can be for various reasons: The author of the article misinterpreted the source. The author of the source was mistaken. For further information how to proceed in that case, see: WP:RS/QUOTE and WP:WSAW. The request to remove this section, based on the claim that it is "false information" cannot be accepted without further ado, since there are both Muslim individuals (maybe not all) as well as Muslim sources confirming the claim made here. See also: "Dünyada yaratılan ilk varlıklar neydi? Hz. Adem (as)'den önce yaratılan insanlar var mıydı? | Sorularla İslamiyet (sorularlaislamiyet.com)" (copy link to your browser) and Logos (Islam).
If you think, this view presents a minority view, it is possible to assert that this view is not an accurate reflection of the majority or what there is no consensus (see WP:FRINGE). However, you need to point out what exactly the objection is aimed towards. Until now, I cannot see, what this section is a violation of an accurate depiction of Muslim belief, due to contrary evidence.
with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swapping categories

Is the section "Creation of Adam's soul" more relevant for "Life before Adam"?

The section could be trimmed down to one paragraph, and the notions about Muhammad's pre-existence moved to the main-article Muhammad in Islam, given that the section is mostly about Muhammad rather than Adam. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Adam_in_Islam"