Misplaced Pages

Redirect to:

• Talk:Islamic – Sikh relations/Archive 1

Most of the information is biased against Islam

Imbabalnced, hence I will add Muslim perspective on Sikh accounts of Mecca 86.171.101.59 (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please dont delete POV flags

There is too much nonsense in this article..

First we hear stories about a man fighting without his head, then we hear stupid stories that the Kabba was juming here and there, have some respect and stop these insults. Khari Sharif (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As ridiculous as an illiterate man being asked by God to read something? Please stop getting personal Khari. If it is referenced it stays. Regards --Sikh-History 08:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

i litterally feel sorry for the person who has added these illogical stories in this article. on one hand sikhs are deny BLINDED rituals and here this blinded wisdom is dipicted in many illogical stories. sikh people nowadays are educated, i am sure they would reject these illogical stories esp about kaba.

Please prove reincarnation & karma......

Moksha, Maya, Meditation, etc were invented by "all the Gurus" - sorry but anyone with a bacic knowledge of Theology will tell you that all the Gurus couldn't have invented all these belief systems at once ?? And I never mentioned the Vedas - YOU DID.

Use four tilde ~~~~ to sign your posts. Rursus dixit. (bork!) 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Constant Insults to Islam

& multiple user ID's==

I think the senior administrators need to look at two things:

1. Why the THIS DISCUSSION PAGE page has been edited (against wiki rules) 2. The multiple user ids as discussed above

Both the above are good indicators of propelled propaganda

I think the addition of the comments by 117.96.174.218 is balanced from a Sikh point and not propagandist as some of the other inputs

Use four tilde ~~~~ to sign your posts. Rursus dixit. (bork!) 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent pov editing by Ibn abdul hassan without references

This is to the IP address who has repeatedly reinstated Ibn abdul hassan's edits here, here and here. If you look on the top of the talk page you will see a large banner, reproduced below,

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

which says to supply citations when adding information, which you didn't do. The IP address also added information that was not a part of the original citation. If your view is correct then there is no need to insert misleading information, just provide credible citations for your view.

Also to the claim I am engaged in disruptive editing, Ibn abdul hassan added a slew of pov edits which were reverted by a user with a proper justification here, afterwards the IP user, who I suspect is a WP:SOCK, restored the unsourced edits and I restored the page to its original state. I suspect issuing me with warnings of vandalism is an attempt at bullying. To the IP user, read up on WP:DISRUPT and see how you fit the bill

• their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive

which I think was Ibn abdul hassans intention--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It turns out User:Ibn abdul hassan was using sockpuppet IP addresses to revert edits he didn't agree with Here is the sockpuppet investigation--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Undone POV edits by Prophetoftruth85

You were warned by another user here but you removed the warning(s)

here

This article begins by stating that Prophet Mohammed is the Seal of the Prophets this is considered heretic or the view by the Ahmadiyya community which is not representative of mainstream Islam community. According to the Misplaced Pages article, but more importantly the Islamic community Prophet is the LAST & FINAL PROPHET and should be described as such in the correct manner, without Sikh or any other bias see here on Prophet Mohammed Ibn abdul hassan (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

1. the warning was unwarranted so I removed it
2. you still haven't acknowledged that you are the one adding things without citations and pushing your point of view
3. read seal of the prophets it explicitly states "Muslims traditionally interpret this verse as meaning that Muhammad was the last prophet, whereas other small minority groups such as the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community hold an entirely distinct view" so I don't understand why you are getting so excited about that.

Look, I don't think I am exhibiting a bias, just trying to keep the article encyclopedic. I don't like that you added some things that weren't stated in the citations. In the future, when you make claims, find citations to verify them because simply adding your view to an existing citation when its not in the reference is unencyclopedic--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, yes, Mohammad was called the "Seal of the Prophets" not only does profitoftruth's referenced article support this, but I also remember it from some history classes.Spitfire19 (Talk) 19:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It turns out User:Ibn abdul hassan was using sockpuppet IP addresses to revert edits he didn't agree with Here is the sockpuppet investigation--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Issues in current version

1. A line on article says, "As such he freely borrowed religious terminology from the lexicons of both faiths, sometimes redefining them." How did the contributor of this line conclude that Guru Nanak's intention was "borrowing" and "redefining" or was his intention using the common language of people to better communicate with them? This is a huge claim and will need extraordinary evidence in support to substantiate that Nanak's intention was "borrowing .......sometimes redifining" as claimed by the current text.
2. Another line on the article says, "Additionally, the Sikh Gurus taught reincarnation and karma, which are standard Hindu beliefs". First,this language is not encyclopediac as it feels like some missionary is speaking to his potential converts. Second, its factually wrong as the Sikh Gurus did not teach reincarnation. This confused ideology exists in the minds of some people due to the misinterpretations while translastion hymns from Gurmukhi to English and the influence of vedantic surroundings on the mind of the translator. --RoadAhead 08:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article claims the wounds inflicted on Guru Gobind Singh-ji is what had led to there apparent 'death'. The fact of the matter is that there body was never found, and in Sikh teachings there are stories that occured after the claimed passing of the Guru (simliar to Jesus's story). Therefore could you please edit that as it is unknown what happened to the Guru after they went Hazoor Sahib and the curtains were closed (nobody could see behind those curtains). Something along the lines off 'the Guru had reportadly passed away although there are accounts from Namdhari Sikhs and other sects of Sikhs of the Guru after these events' - evidence: http://www.sikh-heritage.co.uk/research/Guru%20Death/Death%20of%20GGS.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.108.155 (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Bhai Mardana

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request that Bhai Mardana Ji be changed to Bhai Mardana, since his article is present at the latter. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Done by redirect. — Bility (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

IT SAYS THAT CERTAIN MUSLIMS REGARD GURU NANAK AS MUSLIM AND SHOWS ARGUEMENTS FOR IT, PLEASE CAN YOU EITHER REMOVE THOSE POINTS AS THERE IS BIAS, OR ADD IN THIS POINT, IN WHICH GURU NANAK SAID THEMSELVES IN GURU GRANTH SAHIB : 'I am not a Hindu, nor am I a Muslim.' SOURCE: http://www.searchsikhism.com/islam2.html Otherwise i find this article very offensive, by claiming Guru Nanak is muslim you are insulting the Fifth largest religion Sikhism, its like me claiming Mohammed was a pagan Hindu.

Furthermore, Jhatka meat is NOT written in Sikhism, its a cultural cuisine, so please re-phrase or delete the part about Jhatka meat being compulsary for Sikhs to eat. Jhatka is a ritual meat, and hence its a contradiction to no Kutha meat. Please sort it out, right now there is a large bias towards Islam on this page. Not to mention, The picture is a Muslim sign, and there is no Sikh symbols, real bias. RACISM!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.109.124 (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 April 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have found a mistake in the writing, there is false information written. Sikhs aren't allowed to have any type of meat at all. Slaughter is forbidden in sikhism Jarnail Singh Atwal Ji (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's referenced so it stays SH 17:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Sikhs abolished Mughal rule in the whole province in one stroke and where the first army in history to destroy the Mughal Empire and conquer Afghanistan, which lead to the creation of a Sikh Empire in the late-17th century.

Where should be were.

75.1.99.153 (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

References

1. J. S. Grewal (1998). The Sikhs of the Punjab. Cambridge University Press. p. 79. ISBN 0-521-63764-3.

"martial race theory" confirmed?

Sorry, I'm not a normal editor of any sort, so I'm probably saying this wrong.

"...This was under the Martial Race Theory that Sikhs were born warriors, which proved true as the Sikhs were awarded 14 Victoria Crosses..."

While that sounds awesome and all, this does state explicitly that the "Martial Race Theory" "proved true". There is probably a better way to say that there was a martial race theory, it was why the British favored Sikhs, and the Sikhs performed well, without being wildly and ludicrously racist, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.247.166 (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 August 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Grammar correction - Please remove 2nd instance of the word "was" from the following sentence in the third paragraph of this article:

"Jahangir, the fourth Mughal Emperor, was angered by the number of Muslims who converted to Sikhism so had Guru Arjan Dev was imprisoned in Gwalior fort. and then later boiled alive."

Cigir (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Done and change the period after fort to a comma. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice Pro-Sikh article you got here.

Really makes Sikhism sound like the greatest religion ever, that has never done anything wrong. I think we should have more pro-Sikh articles and more anti-Islam ones, it is only fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.127.102 (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

See now I support a more nuetral article that just mentions what scholars and religious texts state about each other but this makes it impossible to work through people, we need to stop lobbing insults and remarks randomly. In reference to this specifically Religion itself cannot do anything 'wrong' as it is a concept or grouping of ideas in comparison to people who can commit acts in the name of a religion then yes there have been people who have done things wrong in the name of Sikhism depending on what society thinks is wrong but I refrence killing innocents and terrorism as two wrong things, as for the sarcasm I have read a update to another article stating similar things from the same i

This article is definitely in need of rewriting - it's blatantly pro-Sikh and anti-Muslim, when it should be neutral. There's even one part that calls Sikhism the "religion of truth". Please, rewrite... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.29.132 (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Explaining revert of uncited content

@Alirobe please read wikipedia's content sourcing policies at WP:V. You cannot insert your opinions, such as here and here and here, without citing a single source, as this is disruptive. You must cite WP:RS sources. Latifa Raafat (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No problems, I will be reverting or adjusting some of your reversions. In the spirit of achieving a neutral point of view and avoiding Edit Warring, let's please have a discussion here to resolve these changes instead of going back and forth with editing. I will also seek citations for the points you brought up. For context, here is a link to the complete diff of your recent changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Islam_and_Sikhism&type=revision&diff=665563953&oldid=665254592

Food: Your additions on food and Islam are wrong - halal is required (makroub) not just recommended. Halal food requirements are many and varied, and fall into the larger spectrum of what is halal and haram. To talk about animal slaughter process in detail is not neutrally representative of all differences. I have temporarily restored the version I wrote, on the understanding that this should be expanded to include animal slaughter in some way. Let's please try to avoid emotions when it comes to this topic, and remain as neutral and factual as possible.

Circumcision: I am not sure why this needs to be a seperate section, or why it should be under 'food' rather than grooming... but you have misrepresented FGM. It has been widely criticized by Muslim authorities around the world, and in nations where it is carried out it is not restricted to Muslim populations. I have removed this passage, please check here for more details: Female Genital Mutilation

Prayer: could you please explain the removal of this section - it would seem to be quite relevant to the topic, and is adequately cited?

Apostasy: I have softened the language on this on the basis of practice - Apostasy is relatively common, and usually does not result in a death penalty unless the apostate challenges the state.

Views on other religions: In my view, this was inaccurate - I used this abstract of the book you cited to provide a better description: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199359363.do

Food Taxation and Charity: I am not sure why this section was removed, the Gurdawara is surely a clear difference, as is taxation.

Sufism: Sufism is not considered to be blasphemous in Islam. Please See article Sufism.

--Alirobe (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alirobe: Do not lecture other editors to read Misplaced Pages articles as source, as they are not considered a reliable source (see WP:WPNOTRS and WP:V). You must find and present non-wiki external scholarly or other reliable WP:SOURCES. Do not editorialize this article, as that is WP:WWIN and not WP:MOS. Do not remove well sourced content as you did here as that is disruptive, and do not slide in your unverifiable opinions before a cite as you did here in "Views on other religions" section (the source does not support what you revised it to). This applies to food for Sikhs, female genital circumcision, and other topics. The content are well sourced, the sources are reliable and scholarly. I am fine with some of your edits that included sources. Read the revised version, and let us discuss if you have concerns about a particular source. Latifa Raafat (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Latifa, obviously I am not suggesting using other Wiki articles as sources, I am merely suggesting that you inform yourself about the stuff you're writing about. The wiki pages you cited does not have any information suggesting that you should not cite wiki pages as ways of having a discussion. You clearly have some misconceptions about Islam which could be resolved by simply reading some basic wiki pages.

I note that you re-inserted 'face' covering as required. Please see wiki article on Hijab, this is not accurate by any standard and not supported by any reasonable source. Two citations are provided in the Hijab article. This assertion is without basis both in practice and doctrine.

I don't understand what the significance is of historical incorrect rulings on female genital mutilation when modern rulings are all strongly against it. What Fiqh supported it in the past? I don't have access to the sources you've cited, do you have any easily accessible ones? Here is a UN paper exploring this topic: http://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/De-linking%20FGM%20from%20Islam%20final%20report.pdf

Sufism itself has not been considered heretical by mainstream scholars, and is widely practiced. It is a critical dimension of faith in Islam, and definitely not a sect - there are both Shia and Sunni Sufis, for example. Some argue it's a requirement on every Muslim. Citation or not, I am not sure why you insist on misrepresenting it in this article. Once again a basic reading of the summary of the wiki article on the subject should give you some idea of the consensus on the topic, with plenty of quality citations.

Please provide direct proof of the assertion that Islam teaches that "other religions are wrong" - this is an assertion on primary texts - Where is this stated in the primary texts? Once again a review of the abstract for the book cited does not support your assertion and is more accurately reflected by the text I provided. Consequently I have reverted this line pending your justification for this change. --Alirobe (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alirobe: Assume good faith. Do not pretend that only you know and everyone is a fool, then lecture, "I am merely suggesting that you inform yourself about the stuff you're writing about". If you refuse to read the cited sources on female circumcision, I can't help you. If you are having difficulty locating the source, see WP:SOURCEACCESS and seek help at your library - the one's I cited are available at good libraries. I will add a second source for "Islam states other religions are wrong" by Islamic authors. Latifa Raafat (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

who also introduced the element of militancy into Sikhism. They claim that Guru Gobind Singh had political problems with the Moghuls (who were Muslims) some of whom at times unfairl

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Guru Gobind Singh Ji introdued Pure Khalsa army against cruality of Mogul.

99.234.160.178 (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Not stricly true. The military aspect has been there right from Nanak through to Gobind Singh. If you read some of what Nanak says, it could be interpreted as quite militant. Many of the battles were fought with Hindu Hill Raja's as well as the MUghals. Thanks --SH 12:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

_{Marking as answered --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)}

Was most of Nanak's writing not akin to pacifism? I mean at his time he seemed more like a philosopher then a religious head, I've seen qoutes along the lines of "No one is my enemy" etc. having been said by him, and from the main article on Sikhism, it states a clear departure from pacifistic line to a battle line from the 5thish guru — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.154.153 (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Issues concerning Neutrality.

"Apostasy, that is abandonment of Islam by a Muslim and conversion to another religion or atheism, is a religious crime in Islam punishable with death."

"Jizya was a reminder of subordination of a non-Muslim under Muslims, and created a financial and political incentive to convert to Islam." ... and others.

While the sources may be correct, mentioning only one opinion is against WP:NPOV. --HakimPhilo (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there anyone willing to go through and help edit? I'll go through the citations first, but I don't really actually know much about either religion enough to rewrite the sections, so It'll take me a while to try and attempt some changes to make it more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.154.153 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

To User:Sisu55

Hello User:Sisu55. I am new user here. I already told you that I changed the content to as it is in the sources which already are there in the article. The content from before which you have reveted to is not as it is given in the sources and is even incomplete at place. Whatever I added was from the sources itself. Yet you keep claiming it is unsourced. All of iIt was sourced, that's why I added it in the first place. Please try reading the sources. Basically you're removing sourced content yourself that I have added.

About your other part of me removing sourced content, this concerns the section "Jizya", only on that you're right. I removed it because it is historically inaccurate. Though you are right, that sourced content should not be removed atleast not without a proper reason.

But you have removed my sourced content too. I will only add back my sourced content this time. If it's ok with you then shall I add back the sourced content that you removed? And please remember, the sources already exist. SiddharthSunny (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC) SiddharthSunny (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome and thanks for participating on talk page. Yes please add your sourced content, with clear and proper attribution to the source and the page number. Appreciate your understanding. Sisu55 (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand User:Sisu55. The sources and the page numbers are already there in the article. I just changed and added to match the text of the article to the sources. SiddharthSunny (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

SiddharthSunny edits

@SiddharthSunny: I am reverting your edits as they read like personal opinions and are not supported by the sources. Let us discuss these one by one. Please identify WP:RS with support for your edits? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I do not understand how you claim they are blogs or personal opinons without having read the sources. You are bluntly edit-warring now and even removing sourced content. Please add back the content yourself or I shall report you. SiddharthSunny (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@SiddharthSunny: Quit threatening, go ahead, report me. See WP:TPNO. I have checked the sources, and your edits read like personal opinions and are not supported by the sources. They are WP:WWIN. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch They are no threats. And neither what I added was a personal opinion. They were sourced. Now please add it back instead of deleting them. SiddharthSunny (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@SiddharthSunny: Read my comment above again. If you don't understand it, try getting help at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Welcome to wikipedia, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch I'm new but that does not mean I am stupid. You surely never have checked the sources. It's you who needs to check them yourself, not me who needs to help you know what's written in them. Add back all my sourced edits now please and stop your edit-war. SiddharthSunny (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources for my edits

As per Sarah's comments, I'll provide which edits of mine were sourced along with sources. After this, the edits have to be added back when they are proved to be sourced. If still she prevents them from being added back, then I shall have no choice but to complaint her for edit-war and removal of my content that too despite being sourced. Here's the list and the sources.:

1.) As per Hadith, Islam does not allow apostasy however the Quran allows freedom of religion.

This is sourced from The Oxford Dictionary of Islam's page 22.

2.) Islam itself allows for freedom of religion

Again it from the same source as above.

3.) Apostasy, that is abandonment of Islam by a Muslim and conversion another religion or atheism, is a religious crime in Islam punishable with death as per the Hadiths. However scholars argue that there is no punishment for apostasy as Surah 2:256 of Quran allows freedom of religion.

Again it is from the same source as no. 1.

4.) Muslim men, as well as women, must dress modestly according to the Quran. According to the Quran, a woman should draw their veils (clothes) over bosoms. Some Islamic scholars state that the Hadiths require covering of the body except face and hands.

This was sourced from Islam: It's Law and Society's page 78.

5.) The relation between Sikhs and the Muslim rulers of Malerkotla State remained largely coordial and tolerant. In 1705, Sahibzada Fateh Singh and Sahibzada Zorawar Singh, the young sons of Guru Gobind Singh were ordered to be bricked alive by Wazir Khan. The Nawab of Malerkotla, Sher Mohammed Khan lodged a protest against the punishment of the two children and said it was against Islam. Wazir Khan nevertheless had them buried alive after which the Nawab walked out of court in protest. Guru Gobind Singh, upon learning about the Nawab's deeds, is said to have blessed the house of the Nawab, declaring that its "roots shall remain forever green." During the 1947 riots, Malerkotla State was the only one where not even a single incident of violence occured.

I sourced this from two news articles Malerkotla has Guru’s blessings and A people's gratitude.

All of the above were sourced. Now will you please add them back or let me add them back Sarah Welch? SiddharthSunny (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@SiddharthSunny: You allege,

1.) As per Hadith, Islam does not allow apostasy however the Quran allows freedom of religion. is sourced from page 22 of The Oxford Dictionary of Islam's page 22.

Here is what page 22, column 1 actually states, "Hadith reports introduce the teaching that the renunciation of Islam is punishable by beheading, burning, crucifixion or banishment. Some traditions allow an apostate to repent. Islamic legal codes agree on the death penalty (traditionally by the sword) for an adult male in full possession of his faculties who has renounced Islam voluntarily." This cannot be summarized in a manner you suggest in #1.

I will add this and the 2:257 part, with a summary from Muslim scholars that contest that 2:257 applies to apostasy. On dress, the current section is well sourced, and after reading page 78 of your source, I am puzzled why you want to change. On rest, commercial websites are not WP:RS; we must rely on mainstream scholarly reliable sources; if you find a better source, we can include it. @Sikh-history: Any relevant sources we should consider? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Here's what page 22 of Oxford Dictionary of Islam actually says:

Hadith reports introduce the teaching that the renunciation of Islam is punishable by beheading, burning, crucifixion or banishment. Some traditions allow an apostate to repent. Islamic legal codes agree on the death penalty (traditionally by the sword) for an adult male in full possession of his faculties who has renounced Islam voluntarily. Thus apostasy was included among crimes for which there were punishments believed to be divinely mandated (hadd pl. hudud "offenses"). Some schools of law allow imprisonment instead of death for apostate women. The schools vary on the question of whether or not an apostate may be allowed, encouraged or discouraged to repent, as well as on the status of an apostate's property after death or banishment, but they agree that the marriage of an apostate is void. Based on the Quranoc prohibition of coercion in matters of religion (2:257), many modern thinkers argue for capital punishment against apostasy, and the legislation is rarely invoked today." Therefore my wording was right.

Page 78 of Islam: It's Law and Society nowhere mentions that "Islam encourages gender segregation in public, and Muslim men and women do not usually mix in public places such as mosques. These restrictions are part of 'Adab'." This is why I removed these lines from the article.

Also news articles are a reliable sources, and they aren't forbidden from being used. Scholarly sources are preferred in such articles but not always necessary. Since you have been proven wrong, I am adding the edits back myself. Any edit-warring without discussion and you'll be complained straight away. And this is no threat. SiddharthSunny (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@ SiddharthSunny: The source for "gender segregation..." is Richard Martin, not the book you found. Have you looked at Martin? See WP:AGF. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch Yes I looked at that too, when I removed it for the first time days ago. And even Martin nowhere says the same thing. Amd I had warned you not to edit-war. I'm going to report you, you clearly have no respect for the rules and I can't repeat the same behaviour like you. SiddharthSunny (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@SiddharthSunny: You have edit warred in this article. Your claims "I can't repeat the same behaviour like you" is absurd. On Martin source, we don't remove content with source, but use "page needed" or other appropriate tags, giving other editors some time to provide the missing information. We must assume good faith. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC

Female circumcision

I have no idea what Islam says about this but, based on the material in the article Female circumcision, it appears that "has been historically believed to be mandatory or preferred for Muslim females" overstates the relationship between fc and islam. Add to that the "has been" (is it now?) and I think we can safely remove this pending further discussion.--regentspark (comment) 14:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, do we need this section at all? AFAIK, only Judaism and Islam require circumcision so I'm not sure why the article needs an entire section that says that Sikhism does not require circumcision? --regentspark (comment) 14:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Please see Religious views on female genital mutilation, which is what I remember reading and WP:V checking when I last checked this. There have been quite some edits in that article, since I last checked and I haven't checked the new additions/ deletions/ sources since my last check many months ago. This is an important difference between Sikhism and Islam, per RS, so it seems to be worth a mention. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

From that article, I get the impression that it is practiced predominantly by Muslim communities which is not the same thing as its being preferred by Islam. (For example, some Ethiopian christian communities also practice female circumcision.) Giving the impression that female circumcision is a difference between Sikhism and Islam doesn't seem warranted to me. --regentspark (comment) 14:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@RP: This (pages 5-13), this (pages 17-23) and other sources link FGM to the hadiths. There has been dispute whether it is mandatory, required, recommended or acceptable, and this should be noted in this article. FGM has been debated in Islam, but there is no mention of FGM in Sikh historical literature that I am aware of. For NPOV, this difference along with the FGM-dispute in Islam seems worth a mention; if we don't mention it, the silence may be taking sides. Frankly, I need to read these sources again and will do so next week or may be earlier if am able to. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. When you get the chance. I still think that a simple sentence of the form "Unlike Islam, Sikhism does not require male circumcision" is all that is required here. On fgm, we need to be careful that we don't overstate the case for fgm in Islam. the article says that Sikhism "criticizes the practice" but is unclear on what form that criticism takes. Is it specifically proscribed in the GGS? Has some Sikh authority issued a critical statement? Does that authority speak for all of Sikhism? Do we have evidence for a blanket statement of that sort? On the other hand, the various articles on fgm and Islam say that the Quran doesn't mention it, some 'hadiths' praise it while others say it should be banned, and that the practice has its roots in African pre-Islamic religions. A murky enough connection, imo, that requires careful statement or no statement at all. --regentspark (comment) 15:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@RP: Indeed, excellent points. That "African TR" roots is equally disputed since FGM is found among Kurds / in Indonesia after Islam arrived / among Muslims and others outside of Africa, but all that is undue in this article. I agree this article needs to stick to the sources, be careful in not overstating, and in keeping the balance. No statement is an option, one I will meditate on after a careful read of the relevant RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics