Talk:Pacifism in Islam

A fact from Pacifism in Islam appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 November 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a colleague of Mahatma Gandhi, was hailed as an example of pacifism in Islam for his leadership of non-violent resistance?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/November.

Wikipedia

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anti-war Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics / Religion Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Philosophy of religion

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anti-war Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arab world Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nonviolence (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nonviolence, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NonviolenceWikipedia:WikiProject NonviolenceTemplate:WikiProject NonviolenceNonviolence articles

Iffy intro

I have some concerns about the intro of this article. To begin with, it states that:

Unlike its Christian counterpart, Pacifism in Islam is traditionally seen as governing non-violence within the Muslim Ummah, rather than fostering the unattainable ideal of global peace which is not desired until the Mahdi arrives, and the world converts to Islam.

There is only one source given for this statement, and given the variable quality of Western scholarship re: Islam I would like to see more support for this statement, specifically from respected scholars.

Edit: Having had some more time to look into this, I have found the source in question, and it appears to contain not a single statement in support of the above. This is obviously quite a cause for concern.

The intro goes on to state:

Mainstream scholars have suggested the idea of pacifism is "problematic" within the confines of Islamic interpretation, as Muhammad led a successful string of conquests to expand the Muslim empire.

Anyone can make such bold claims. But who are these "mainstream scholars"? For potentially controversial statements, we need specific statements, not bold but unsupported assertions. Gatoclass (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it's cited, but can you propose/add an alternative intro? I wouldn't object to something else, this is the only intro I could think of myself. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 13:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the first statement, can you please give the page number and an actual quote from the book? I looked at page 80 and the statements in the article just aren't there. Gatoclass (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is for the quoted "problematic", the rest is personal knowledge - hence why I'm open to you rewriting it. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "personal knowledge", why did you cite it to Judith Presler's book? Gatoclass (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I cited the word "problematic" to her book, since it was in quotation marks. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 14:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't, you cited the word "problematic" to Churchill. What you cited to Presler was the paragraph Unlike its Christian counterpart, Pacifism in Islam is traditionally seen as governing non-violence within the Muslim Ummah, rather than fostering the unattainable ideal of global peace which is not desired until the Mahdi arrives, and the world converts to Islam. That information is not on page 80 of the book as cited. I am asking you again to provide me a quote from the book which supports the statements made in your edit. If you are unable to provide one, I will be taking this matter further. Gatoclass (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've confused the two references. Page 80 of Judith's book says "inter-tribal warfare within the brotherhood (ummah) or community of Islam was banned [but] Muhammad supported wars...against infidel tribes" which seems to support the citation for " Pacifism in Islam is traditionally seen as governing non-violence within the Muslim Ummah, (but not within the whole world)". Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khomeini quote

I think it's confusing, especially for a Wiki reader who knows little about pacifism in Islam and comes to the article for an introduction to the topic.

The "Recent Movements" content (to the left of the quote) lists historic examples of pacifists, so many readers are probably expecting that the quote will also point out the significance of pacifism in Islam. Yet the quote goes in the opposite direction. If I'm interpreting correctly, Khomeini is attacking those in Islam who counsel against war. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to removing it if a similar quote can replace it, but a direct condemnation of pacifism in Islam is certainly not out of place in a discussion of how pacifism is seen in the Muslim sphere. At least that's my two cents. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the quote looked very incongruous, so I've removed it. Gatoclass (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

A source that I found that talk about pacifism in Islamic scriptures. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another source about Sufi pacifism. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normative traditions of pacifism in Islam

I've reverted (at 3RR now), pointed the IP to WP:V and WP:BRD but to no avail. The source cited "Majid Khadduri, The Law of War and Peace" is apparantly a 1941 Ph.D. thesis which has not gained much traction. The book mentions the term "pacifist" only once in conjunction with a "extremely pacifist sect", the maziyariyya", which appears anything but mainstream. Even the title of the book does not jive with the basic tenets of pacifism. All this (and the editwarring) leads me to conclude that the source mentioned isn't used appropriately and IP is POV-pushing. Kleuske (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some users push all the time mentioning of "Pacifist traditions" in islam and removing quality content to make it looking in their way. Adding sources what didnt made any impact or are personal opinions. pov pushing and cherry picking 178.221.249.176 (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are already other articles discussing violence in Islam and war in Islam. This article is specifically discussing pacifism in Islam, not war/violence in Islam. Stop changing the topic to war/violence when that's not what the topic is about. Stay on WP:TOPIC, instead of diverting the article off-topic. Also, your version of the article lacks a WP:LEADSENTENCE, which is supposed to explain what the article is actually about. "Islam does not have a normative tradition of pacifism" is not an introduction, but that's an opinion of several authors, which should not be expressed in the very first sentence, but should be expressed in later sentences. The first sentence is supposed to be a simple neutral introduction to what the topic is actually about. Maestro2016 (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where it is said to there is no normative tradition of islam, it is true. Facts are presented in the sources about rules and historical examples of warfare. Numerous sources can be found about Quran and Hadith and about history. Majority of muslims are Sunni and Shia and by numbers and infulence they are almost absolute and mainstream. There cant be taken fringe communities, movements and personal examples as rule or showing to things are different. Pacifism is clear. Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, but should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist that is balance. 178.221.249.176 (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOPIC states: "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you are wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with that topic." What you are doing is attempting to divert the article away from the actual topic, pacifist traditions/schools within the religion, to a different topic, about violence/warfare in the religion. This article is specifically about pacifist movements/schools that exist within the religion, so that should be the main focus of the article.

Also, WP:LEADSENTENCE states: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is.". Your lead sentence does nothing to introduce the subject, but just expresses a particular POV. The lead should just be a simple neutral summary of what the actual topic is about, simply stating that the article title refers to pacifist schools/traditions within the religion. And then subsequent sentences could explain the debate about whether or not they are mainstream or fringe. Maestro2016 (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cant be taken small not mainstream communities, movements and personal examples as rule or showing to things are different. Especially not in leading section. Pacifism is clear. If you promote some own agenda make blog or something like that and then preach. 178.221.249.176 (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not making any sense at all. As per WP:LEADSENTENCE, the first sentence should simply state what the article is about, i.e. about pacifist schools/traditions that exist within the religion. And as per WP:TOPIC, it should not stray and divert into another topic that is only tangentially related, i.e. violence/warfare (for which there are already other articles). The second sentence can then deal with whether those schools/traditions are mainstream or fringe. Starting the article with Islam does not have any normative tradition of pacifism is a terrible way to start the article, going against the WP:LEADSENTENCE and WP:TOPIC guidelines. A more appropriate lead sentence would be: "Pacifism in Islam refers to pacifist schools/traditions within Islam." And then the second sentence could be: "However, several scholars state that Islam does not have a normative tradition of pacifism". That's all my point is. Maestro2016 (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but we cant make to put notability about if minority hold some opinion and majority doesnt, it can look as pov pushing, advocacy etc. It should be about facts. Also traditions are clearly on the side of mainstream majority . There is indeed minority but it is already into content, under History secction, it is content about movements and schools of thought and personal achievements. Waging war is different and totally oposite of pacifism. And what to do, serious majority of scholars and population hold opinion to self defence, aid to other muslims and breaking deal is the reasons to wage war. We cant ignore what normative mean, what traditions are, what some general rules are, and to warfare has been integral part of Islamic history and for defense and for the other reasons. So I am for to content stay as it is. Thank you.178.221.249.176 (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked the sources, and nearly all of them fail WP:VERIFICATION, with almost none of them supporting the claim "Islam does not have any normative tradition of pacifism", so this is a huge misrepresentation of the sources. The only source that actually does state this is James Turner Johnson. None of the other sources state this. The statement even contradicts the first source cited, Ahmed Al-Dawoody, whose only mention of the word pacifism in the entire book is the following: "Sufyān al- Thawrī (d. 161/778) headed what Khadduri calls a pacifist school". The other sources (Efraim Karsh, Bernard Lewis, Robert G. Hoyland, Walter E. Kaegi) don't even even mention the words "pacifism" or "pacifist" at all anywhere in their books. As such, I am removing those other sources, and only keeping the ones that actually do mention the words "pacifist" and "pacifism", and properly represent what they actually say about those words, not misrepresent them like you have done. Maestro2016 (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand to you maybe have a motivation to if there is not some accepted pacifism to make one, for that you can make your own web blog. "Sufyān al- Thawrī (d. 161/778) headed what Khadduri calls a pacifist school which maintained that jihād was only a defensive war" You dont know what pacifism is . And waging war even defensive is not acording to pacifism. Sources represents teaching and historical examples to war is well accepted and regulated In islam since prophet Muhammad life. 178.221.249.176 (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, stop misrepresenting sources. What you are doing is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, by combining a WP:SYNTHESIS of sources to push a claim that almost none of the sources themselves actually make. I repeat, almost none of your sources support the claim that "Islam does not have any normative tradition of pacifism", with the sole exception of James Turner Johnson. That claim can only be attributed to James Turner Johnson, and him alone. None of the other sources you cited support the claim. You are being deceptive by citing sources to support a claim that those sources never make in the first place. You are just pushing your own opinion, and then randomly citing sources that do not even support your opinion (and one even contradicts your claim). Please stop your POV-pushing and edit-warring, try to be neutral, and try to accurately represent what the sources are actually saying. Maestro2016 (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it appears the three WP:REVERT limit has been exceeded. Instead of edit-warring and reverting endlessly, please try to discuss the issue first, and come to a consensus here first. Also, please cite Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to support your position. I couldn't care less what your personal opinion on the matter is. My point is that you need to stick to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Maestro2016 (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok, seems yo dont get it, islam has a lot of sources and I can find many about war and when to wage war and how, pacifism is against to wage war in self defence or anyhow. personal doing of couple of examples, not many just couple, and schools of thought and some movements do not make impact about mainstream and normative traditions . We cant here lie and pretend to things are different. 178.221.249.176 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already cited a number of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies that you have broken: straying off WP:TOPIC onto something only tangentially related to the article's topic (war and violence), an off-topic WP:LEADSENTENCE that fails to introduce what the article is actually about, WP:CHERRYPICKING a particular WP:POV that supports your own personal opinion while excluding any POV that opposes your opinion, misrepresenting sources that fail WP:VERIFICATION as almost none of those sources support your claim that "Islam does not have any normative tradition of pacifism" (and one source even contradicts this claim as I explained above), and engaging in WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH by combining a WP:SYNTHESIS of sources to push a claim that almost none of the sources themselves actually make (which is bordering on deception). Anyway, I'm getting tired of this edit war. This is why I usually stay away from political and religious articles, because of having to deal with insane POV-pushing editors like the anon IP above. I'm done here. Good bye. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only you do pov pushing, if your personal opinion is different you want to present thing in your own way. Some movements and some persons tryied to link pacifism with their teachings and that is all. And pacifism is not if someone does not opose war and violence in self defence or for some other reasons. Normative traditions and mainstream schools and majority of population think in not pacifist way, history sources also shows that, and facts shows that. in the name of balancing is noted when reasons for to stop waging war stop, fighting should stop too and that is it.178.221.249.176 (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the topic of pacifism in Islam is a devisive topic and I believe it should not be. Mohammed ( peace be upon him) was a very peaceful man at the outset of the birth of Islam. However it must be realised that for the Qur'an to be properly interpreted we must view it through the eye's of Mohammed. All earlier verses were abrogated by him in favour of verses that were written at a later date. By this time Mohammed was in fact a warlord and had conquered nearly 10 million square miles. Islam did not spread, it was inflicted upon people much like Christianity. Pacifism in Islam does exist, but only within Islam. Maybe the title could be changed to reflect this fact. Actions(violence) against infidels is not only tolerated but encouraged by the holy book. Interpretation of the Qur'an is key to this topic, but nowhere does it state to be peaceful to the kafir. RuthMargolis (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I also add as I did not make myself clear that Muslims of different sects do not tolerate each other or have the same regard for each other in terms of following the holy book.

Some bands of Muslims favour violence against anybody outside of their class of Islam as deemed permissible by the Qur'an. Pacifism means settling any dispute by peaceful means. Self defense can not be regarded as being peaceful, therefore you can not be termed a pacifist. If a religion calls for self defence then it can not be deemed to be a form of pacifism.

RuthMargolis (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Peace in Islamic philosophy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, as these are distinct topics. Klbrain (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two relatively similar articles/topics. Citations needed on Peace in Islam. The two pages are not too long. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2 is in https://www.clearquran.com/010.html. It is a verse in the Quran. However its contextual occurrence indicates end-of-times peace as in Paradise, which is mentioned in the following verse 10:26, I'm not opposed to keeping it, however if the intent is to discuss Islam and world view peace why not mention verse 49:13 "O people! We created you from a male and a female, and made you races and tribes, that you may know one another. The best among you in the sight of God is the most righteous. God is All-Knowing, Well-Experienced." Finally if the objective is to find a basis or lack thereof for compulsion in Islam, why not quote verse 2:256 "There shall be no compulsion in religion; the right way has become distinct from the wrong way. Whoever renounces evil and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handle; which does not break. God is Hearing and Knowing."

On a personal basis, I'm an american muslim born in Morocco, a predominately muslim country. I grew up with christian and jewish neighbors, and I went to a christian pre-school, never felt they were compelled to change their view on religion. Of course there are extremists in 1.7 B population but they do not define the majority view on peace. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.100.26 (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title "Peace in Islamic Philosophy" reflects a good topic and should remain as a distinct topic from "pacifism", this is a slightly different topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.100.26 (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am against proposed merge. It should stay how it is. Different articles and different topics. "Pacifism" is not equal to "peace" in general. Thank you. Avigorlevy^^ (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Pacifism in Islam: The first paragraph needs a more balanced edit. The page indicated by the first reference does not support the first sentence in this entry, may be another page in the book?. The second reference is obviously less than neutral. While Pacifism as a solution to everything is not central to Islam, it is acknowledged and made as an example of behavior in some situations as in the story of Cain and Abel in the Quran 5:28,

5:28 “If you extend your hand to kill me, I will not extend my hand to kill you; for I fear God, Lord of the Worlds.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.102.202 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is good. And about content it is well balanced. Mainstream mean all main major denomination. Sources in Islam are Quran and Hadith too. Also main consensus of islam scholars,Figh. Pacifism is pacifism and in Islam fight in self defense is accepted and permited and even obligatory and multiple sources are aviable for that. Also as aid to other Muslims. Tnx. Avigorlevy^^ (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2018 (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.

Primary sources

Some of the sources that has been added were WP:PRIMARY, Wikipedia discourages their use so we should discuss their addition first. This discussion is also talking place in Talk:Islam and violence#Response to Pacifism Post Above. Rupert Loup (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did the First Intifada really begin peacefully?

According to First Intifada, violence such as stone throwing, Molotov cocktails was used, alongside nonviolent tactics, by Palestinians right from the beginning of the Intifada in 1987. This article suggests otherwise. Which article is correct? -- 2A02:3030:406:CEA0:71C8:B0D7:89B:C7A4 (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]