Talk:Zakat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Zakaah)

Consensus problem[edit]

119.152.141.149 already has removed the section from article stating consensus on 31 March 2020. Sad that I missed to see the history of article. There is no objection so far, and DTM has a bit agreed for the removal of content as of now. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

It seems like an IP has a problem with Zakat#Role_of_zakat_in_terrorism_funding. Please elaborate here. Thank you. DTM (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of a similar nature by the same editor were reverted on the Sharia and Jizya article. See Jizya talkpage for a massive argument in favour of a clear cut POV push. There may be issues of copyright and undue as well. Plus the structure is also very wierd, constantly referring to book page numbers.119.155.27.171 (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
119.155.27.171, rather than delete the entire section why not try to sort it out before getting rid of it? Lets cut out the POV tone. The section is trying to touch an important topic. I have done some copy-editing. Copyright issues sorted with the quote blocks, even before text was within quotes. To get rid of the undue point, the section can be paraphrased even more and the length reduced. DTM (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AaqibAnjum: G,day. Hope you are doing well. Please could you have a look at the addition mentioned above, the comment by the IP, and the matter inserted into the article... and then please give your opinion on whether the matter should be edited or completely deleted? Thank you. DTM (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DiplomatTesterMan:, it seems to me an attack on Zakat, Islam and Muslims at whole. It must be deleted entirely. Islamically, the Zakat is applicable to these people only. Thus, deeming the whole section that has been added by the IP as an attack and misinformation altogether, must be deleted. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AaqibAnjum: @DiplomatTesterMan: So in conclusion what is the consensus? Historically, it is true that (as in the case of Christianity) donations were given to military orders and this is mentioned by the the inclusion of Fi sabilillah (which has multiple interpretations), but the current section tying it up with terrorism does seem like an attack on the concept. Otherwise terrorists use multiple sources to fund their activities including smuggling, money laundering and the drug trade.119.155.63.78 (talk)
119.155.63.78 and @DiplomatTesterMan:. Delete the entire section was my opinion and I provided few supportive links. I didn't heard any response from DTM since then. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk)

@DiplomatTesterMan:: I think we have completely lost this. Should I remove the related text per references provided above? - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AaqibAnjum: Please don't wait for me to make a decision on this. This is a topic with which I currently am not too comfortable and hence wouldn't feel correct giving my opinion for the consensus. When I have done enough reading I will come back to this. For now decide among yourselves what can be done, if anything should be done etc. No need to hesitate any longer. If anyone feels a mistake has been made it can be rectified later. DTM (talk) 12:11, 14 May 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.
I dispute the deletion, the topic is important and valid. Use of zakat for terrorism funding is well known phenomenon. Removal of an important aspect related to global security based on onion of 1 or 2 is not sufficient.
  • A. Use goodfaith: Instead of making emotionally charged blanket accusations and "attack on Islam" (by than tone even Criticism of Islam and all edits on scores of articles critiquing Islam become the attack on Islam.) Wikipedia is not a tools of taghlib (preaching and spreading Islam), Wikipedia is based on the analysis of topics from modern scientific methods. Christians, Hindus, Buddhists to not cry "POV attack" when their core belief are criticised as myths, discriminatory, pseudoscience. This is because these religions have largely reformed themselves, Islam still has not, which demand blind followership and deems any verifiable reputed source criticism as attack. Highlighting things that are wrong with Radical Islamism (and other things which are wrong with Islam, such as misogyny, intolerance, radicalism, etc) is not Islamohobia i.e. being aware of dangers of zakat based funding for radicals and being intolerant of intolerance is is not Islamophobia. Playing victim card based on emotional outburst, without providing specifics, is manipulation of wikipedia policies. There could be unstated tendency among some editors, due to their belief in hudud (punishment for which is beheading), to gang up against "valid" edits and obliterate "inclusion of well-known phenomenon" such as use of jizya as ransom and use of zakat and Islamic banking (which was found to be less transparent than mainstream banking by FATF type global monitoring orgs) for terror funding.
  • B. As per wikipedia policies, inclusion of an important aspect (especially from verifiable and reliable sources) triumphs the majoritarian consensus of editors. Hence, this edit can be be thrown out by consensus of one registered editor supported by another IP (I hope they are not connected/related, please clarify your relationship to each other of any, WP:COI, none assumed as of now, no harm in asking to keeping things transparent).
  • C. Please provide the "specific and actionable objections"
    • Alleged POV push: (a) either rephrase inline with the source without diluting/neutralising (no weasel words), or (b) list each specific one by one for others to remedy/action upon. See item-A above.
    • Avoid speculative statements" such as "there may be issues of copyright and undue as well". If here is any unrilaible/copyvio/undue, then provide the itemized list below.
    • No throwing of baby with bathwater": e.g. minor allegations such as "weird structure" and "referring to book page numbers" can be easily fixed by a well intentioned editor adhering to coopertaive-iterative enhancements instead of wikilawyering to throw out the whole edit.
    • Sharia and Jizya needs to be relooked: Similar reverts on the those articles need to be relooked, one thing at a time. Reverting one place (unattended by the contributor editor) and then using this as justification to revert elsewhere is not a valid justification. Those articles too need to go through "itemized", "specific" and "actionable" objections (list one those talkpages, point-by-point refute the "massive argument" there) from the editors who demonstrate willingness to "iterative-collaborate" and not jump to reverts.

Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      • Lol man. I'm not going to seriously respond to that mostly offtopic rant. The fact that you demand the assumption of good faith but accuse others of tableegh, suspect collaboration btw two agreeing editors, and even suspect editors of being in favor of pro-hudud beheading is just rich.
      • In any case the onus to include the content lies with you. The proposed content seems disruptive here as on the other articles and the POV issue is kinda obivous as can be seen both in the edits as well as your talkpage comments.119.152.143.135 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A. Adressing ideological and emotive aspects: I have tried to address ideological and emotive aspect so editors can see things in the rational perspective.

B: Keeping 'misuse of zakat for terror funding' out of wikipediais attack on muslims who donate with good intention: Statements like "Islam under attack" is a way of lobbying which is in violation of wikipedia policies. This is not an attack on islam at all. Even from a pro-muslim perspective, imagine the plight of those well-intentioned muslims who donate money for zakat for humanitarian causes and unbeknown to them it somehow ends up in terror funding. Since most of the victims of islamic fundamentalism/terrorism are muslims themselves, stuck in fight zones of various fiqs/maddhabs/sects of islam, keeping the edits related to the "misuse of zakat for terrorism" and "misuse of islamic banking for channeling terror funding" out of wikipedia is actually an attack on muslims and humanity. Anyway, lets resolve the logjam.

C. Show intent to collaborate by providing "construtive feedback" with not only objections but also what you agree with so that those edits could be retained immediately, and also provide specific objections and suggest actionable remedies: Wikipedia policies require "collaborative editing": Demonstrate the intention to collaborate by citing specific sources you have issues with, and explain why it is not valid/reliable by citing corresponding passage in a specific policy. To ensure you are abiding by the 'collaborative spirit", also provide the list of cited sources in my edits that you do not have objection to. That way we have a basis to move forward with what to keep without contention. In case, if you dispute all sources, even then please provide the specific and actionable objection for each source so that I can remedy it. Otherwise, it coems across as "deliberate" WP:DISRUPTIVE vauge objection, which is a basis for ban from editing. Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zakat&oldid=1194738883"