Talk:Liberalism and progressivism within Islam

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Moderate Islam[edit]

Was searching for the definition of "Moderate Islam" and was redirected to this page. There should be treatment on the phrase "Moderate Islam" or "Moderate Muslim". --70.142.44.41 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I agree. Seldom do people talk about "Liberal Islam". Furthermore, the distinction between liberal Muslims, and progressive conservative Muslims is rather unclear.
However, we'd have quite a lot of issues defining who a moderate is, given that almost everyone claims that title.VR talk 06:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that both the Qur'an and the Prophet Mohammad, declared Islam to be the religion of moderation, it would be quite wrong to assume that Islam is only moderate when it is made to be compatible with secular, or agnostic, or "western", or capitalist society, or with so-called "liberal democracy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannydayus (talk • contribs) 06:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up[edit]

Large sections of this article are unsourced. They should either be referenced or deleted. The article has been tagged for original research for more than 3 years.VR talk 06:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reform Judaism[edit]

Whrn I read this article, I was struck by the similarity of liberal Islamic movements to my own Reform Judaism. This should not be surprising. Judaism and Islam are cut from the same cloth. They both operate around religious law, are both monotheistic, and took similar norms and values from a somewhat similar sacred origin-story. However, Judaism has long been a minority religion in the many lands it has dwelt in, while Islam has been a majority religion in many of its own countries.

Nonetheless, what has happened to Islam in Western countries may be like what happened to Judaism during the Haskalah and the emigration to America and out of Europe. People were free to interact with an outside society. Values of tolerance and friendship, of common courtesy and diversity, were learned, and a traditional society had to cope with the norms and values of a new one. Thus, reform movements naturally arose.

Thus, I felt including Reform Judaism in this article might be helpful. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 04:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jalali Revolts[edit]

As far as I know Jelali revolts (XVI. and XVII. century) during the Ottoman era was the first revolt made by people against the religious order. Köprülü Fazıl Ahmed Pasha was also supporting by Jelali revolters who were looking for a more free order. That can be also mentioned. Cemyildiz (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bafflegab[edit]

This word needs to be replaced by a word in english: "madhahabs".

This is an english encyclopedia. It would be tolerable (just about) if this arabic word were linked to an article explaining what it means; but it links to nothing.

I am going to delete the prose that includes this word; if you restore that deleted text, I presume that you know what the word means, and I expect you to translate it into english. Thanks!

MrDemeanour (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's poor spelling; the most technically correct transliteration would be "Madhhab (one of the four traditionally-recognized schools of legal interpretation in Sunni Islam). P.S. Words such as "English" and "Arabic" are conventionally capitalized in English... AnonMoos (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Liberal Muslim movements. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Liberal and Progressive Muslim movements[edit]

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

Reference named "AP_detained21May":

  • From Women to drive movement: Al-Shihri, Abdullah (21 May 2011). "Manal al-Sherif, Saudi Woman, Detained For Defying Driving Ban". Huffington Post/AP. Archived from the original on 23 May 2011. Retrieved 23 May 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  • From 2011–12 Saudi Arabian protests: Al-Shihri, Abdullah (21 May 2011). "Manal al-Sherif, Saudi Woman, Detained For Defying Driving Ban". Huffington Post. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 23 May 2011. Retrieved 23 May 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Reference named "Metz_KSA_legal_system":

Reference named "Forbes_lashes_revoked":

Reference named "NPR_lashes_revoked":

Reference named "teleg_w2d_vs_Interior":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Liberal and Progressive Muslim movements[edit]

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

Reference named "AJE_women2325April":

Reference named "arabtimes_4kQatifetc_18March":

Reference named "pressTV_17March_4kQatif":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iran section[edit]

Dear LouisAragon, its not about is content sourced or not, problem is that its WP:IRRELEVANT to the title. There are long articles about Green movement and protests. Someone can also copy-paste content from Iran student protests of July 1999, but it would still be irrelevant if sourced text doesn't explain how its related to Liberal/Progressive ideologies. That's all. --MehrdadFR (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rupert loup, you added too much information which are not very relevant to title of this article. Other thing, "see also" section was full of marginal unknown parties which are neither Liberal or Progressive (but monarchist or ultra-nationalist), and not even Muslim. I tried to help by inserting material from Dabashi book about Green movement, and unfortunately I couldn't find label which would fit the title. Still, I found it in another book so OK, it can stay and it may even be expanded, but removing important figures which inspired many youth movements is not acceptable. You should not accuse others for "POV" without any basis, there's nothing related to it in my edits, only obvious problem is you're very ill-informed about Iranian intellectual movements. --MehrdadFR (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny because thats not what the sources said. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rupert Loup, which sources? Can you prove anything or you'll only engage in edit war? --MehrdadFR (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[1][2][3] and more. Google is your friend. Now I don't saying that the content that you added can't stay but it shouldn't read like an essay and should reflect reliable sources, which are? Rupert Loup (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Liberal and progressive Muslim movements[edit]

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

Reference named "WSJ":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How come Syrian Rebels are among liberal Muslims movements?[edit]

How come Syrian Rebels who are supported by Saudi Arabia are among Liberal and progressive Muslim movements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.233.63 (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which rebels who are supported by Saudi Arabia are here? Rupert Loup (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article name change from "Liberal movements within Islam‎" to "Liberalism and progressivism in the Muslim world"[edit]

I'm sure it was well-intentioned, but the new title could be about non-religious political progressivism in countries which happen to be Muslim majority, while the old title was about progressivism within Islam (as it said), so that the two are not remotely equivalent... AnonMoos (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, I know, I made it on purpuse, nobody says that are equivalents. It can refer to the Islamic community and/or in the Muslims mayority countries. I don't see why we should have it separete. "Within Islam" doesn't make sence. So I made a section, "In the Islamic philosophy", if it growth enough we can split it in "Progressive Islam" or "Progressivism in Islam". But until that I think we should keep it merged. Or we could rename it to "Liberalism and progressivism in Islam", that could work too. Rupert Loup (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't really understand why an article with a religious focus should be replaced by an article whose name strongly suggests a political focus? Why not create a new political article, without displacing the existing religious article... AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What? Liberalism and progressivism are political philosophies. It never was a only religious focus article. Rupert Loup (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was (or should have been) about reform movements within Islam in the direction of more tolerance and/or contextualizing traditional rules of Islamic law to fit with the circumstances of modern society (as opposed to reform movements within Islam in the direction of less tolerance and more rigid interpretation of traditional Islamic law). I still don't understand why an article on religion had to be destroyed to create an article on politics. Why can't there be two separate articles with two subjects? AnonMoos (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article about reform movements is called Islamic Protestantism. Rupert Loup (talk) 10:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of a stupid name (and it could apply equally to "movements within Islam in the direction of more tolerance and/or contextualizing traditional rules of Islamic law to fit with the circumstances of modern society" as well as to "reform movements within Islam in the direction of less tolerance and more rigid interpretation of traditional Islamic law")... AnonMoos (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I changed to Islamic Reformism. The content is what we have. If you think that you can improve it you are free to do it. Rupert Loup (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 128 external links on Liberalism and progressivism in the Muslim world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Liberalism and progressivism in the Muslim world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad move[edit]

The move to "Reform movements" was apparently motivated by certain currents of discourse in the West that associate the term "reform(ation)" in an Islamic context with liberalism, secularism, etc. This is not how the term "reform(ism)" is generally used in Islamic studies. See, for instance, Lapidus, Ira M. (2014). A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge University Press: 

 Modern Islamic reformism began as the religious and moral response of ulama, tribal, and urban communities to the decline of Islamic states [...] The reformers were opposed to later accretions to the foundational texts, and to the blending of Muslim and non-Muslim cultures. [...] Reformism came in a broad spectrum of colors, from light corrections of Sufi practice to deep hues of fundamentalism. [...] Contemporary movements of this type are also called "Islamist". [...] The earliest example of a reformist movement in a pastoral and tribal society was the Wahhabi movement in Arabia. p. 514

See also the collection of encyclopedic quotes in the first ref of Wahhabism to confirm that this is standard usage. The older title is also problematic because it conflates liberal/progressive/etc religious interpretations of Islam with movements and ideologies where religion plays little or no role at all. The whole history of Westernisation, communism, socialism, secular nationalism, etc, in the Muslim world could be included here. On the other hand, restricting the scope by using the term "Islamic" in the title would invite OR as to what movements are and aren't sufficiently "Islamic". Unfortunately, there no easy way to make this article anything other than a sprawling gallery of arbitrarily picked "Good Muslims" whom someone somewhere has called "liberal" or "progressive" (and I doubt anyone has bothered to check that it's the case for many of the movements and people listed here). However, the latest move was clearly not an improvement. Eperoton (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 120 external links on Liberalism and progressivism in the Muslim world. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overhauling[edit]

The article was WAY too long. I often had to access from low-spec PC or places with crappy Internet connections, and the article was nothing but a nuisance. Made overhauling by (re)focusing on Islam, cutting contents regarding liberal/socialist/social democratic movements that have nothing to do with Islam, creating new articles for notable figures and individual movements:

Even if you disagree with my edit, I seriously urge you not to revert to the old revision. I'm simultaneously a Wikipedia editor and a user, and from user's perspective, it was a complete and immense failure of an article. JahlilMA (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberalism and progressivism within Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy and Narrative[edit]

This article has a number of accuracy issues around liberal or progressive Islam. Liberal and progressive Islam doesn’t really go back to any sort of classical Islam. Classical or mainstream Islam derived from Quran and Hadith is conservative or as some might say “fundamental” (meaning practicing the fundamentals not as in extremism).

Rather liberal and progressive Islam tends to depart from the pillars and foundations of Islam and the Quran and Hadith. Examples are in liberal and progressive Islam music is more widely accepted as permissible while it’s haram according to a majority of modern and traditional scholars which point to Hadith.

Liberal and progressive Islam is just a liberal application of Islam to ones daily life and many in those circles believe that Islam can be changed to be more suitable for modern time.

Anyways as advanced notice I intend to overhaul this article to make it accurate as right now it’s not and is misleading. Bkerensa (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting opinions[edit]

This edit (difference) of ParthikS8 deletes wording "or rationalistic" from sentence
"Liberal ideas are considered controversial by traditional Muslims, who criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western or rationalistic"
Claiming to be strawman criticism per WP:BIAS.
Prima facie I did not find any thing wrong in wording "or rationalistic"
Read the sentence without word 'Western' "Liberal ideas are considered controversial by traditional Muslims, who criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too... rationalistic.
Some of the liberals and liberal ideas can be always criticized as being too rationalistic.
Personally even being liberal and rational I don't find any thing wrong in the criticism. What does wording "Too rationalistic" means is one is stretching too much to stay rational. I feel my rights of being rational are important so another person has right to criticize my position. What is wrong in citing criticism if one has proper reference?
For an example Donald Trump might be committing lot of fallacies while criticizing, when we take encyclopedic note of criticism made by Trump we need not sit on judgement whether his criticism is fallacious or not because whenever we start judging somebody else's referenced opinion we will be indulging in WP:OR which we need to avoid IMHO.
Every article need to include proportionate well referenced criticism. IMHO.
Can some one evaluate the change, pl.?
Thanks Bookku (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting also opinions who may guide about fallacies (Selected randomly from users appeared on related recent changes of List of fallacies.
@EsotericJoe: @Materialscientist: @Felida97: @Drevolt:
Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bookku:, I think that since “rationalistic” is explicitly included in the source, its inclusion is definitely warranted. I will say that “rationalistic” in this context means something different from “rational”. The claim here is that liberalism focuses too much on speculative reasoning rather than empirical evidence of the real-world consequences produced by liberalism. Given the way that it’s clearly explained in the source, I think its inclusion is well-supported here, even if some users dislike the fact that some people make this claim. —Drevolt (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Bookku:
Firstly, I should apologise that I have quoted the wrong policy. The edit made above was the last in a long line of edits I made that day and towards the end I became a bit sloppy.
The Wikipedia policy I should have quoted is the following:

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

— WP:IMPARTIAL
Now as for the change, as according to the above, Wikipedia should not involve itself in disputes and should characterise disputes neutrally. The below sentence is the one I edited:

Liberal ideas are considered controversial by traditional Muslims, who criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western or rationalistic.[1]

My objection at the time, rather hastily, was that the wording is non-neutral as it forwards the idea that "traditional Muslims" criticise liberal ideas as being "rational". The source quoted is a single source, and doubtless, "traditional muslims" would contest that they are "irrational". E.g.

Tariq, Malik Muhammad. "The Ideological Background of Rationality in Islam." (2008): 31-56.

Now we have a conflict of sources. {Some) Western sources reporting what Muslims think, claim that Muslims criticise the west as being "too rationalistic", whereas as Muslims sources go as far as arguing that they believe their religion is rational[2], and might describe the west as being irrational[3]. Are liberal ideas rational or irrational? This depends who you ask. The user above may well believe they are rational, but Muslim sources might describe western ideas as contrary to reason and would uphold their own beliefs as rational.
So as Wikipedians what should we do?
We should, of course, not get involved in the dispute as to whether Muslims allege that they think Liberal ideas are "rational".
Personally, I view it as a strawman - it doesn't make much sense that Muslims would (essentially) argue their own religion is contrary to reason and I note that the above source does not actually provide examples of "traditional" Muslims criticising "liberal" ideas as "rational".
However, what I think is irrelevent, we are not here to engage in original research as aptly pointed out above. I would agree and disagree with the user above, Bookku. Perhaps the allegation by the reliable, but not necessarily neutral, source should be included, but it should be attributed to the source. E.g.

Liberal ideas are considered controversial by traditional Muslims, who, according to Oxford Islamic Studies Online, criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western or rationalistic. However, Muslims argue their religion is grounded in rationality, and some Muslim scholars, such as Mustafa Sabri criticise western thought.

The sources that I brought above and other sources can then be used in citation for the added point.ParthikS8 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ParthikS8 I think it's really important to note that "rationalistic" does not mean the same thing as "rational" and that opposing rationalism is something completely different from opposing rationality. The lead wording and the source are both about rationalism (e.g. the ability of reason on its own to give us concrete, definitive answers about the world), not about rationality. Therefore, opposing rationalism is not an endorsement of irrationality. --Drevolt (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Drevolt:
So, although you've seemingly engaged in OR by not quoting a source, nevertheless I would agree with you. But my point would still stand - three traditional muslim schools of thoughtα - the Maturidis, the Asharis and Usuli Twelver Shia would argue that reason alone can be used to arrive at Islamic belief etc.[4][5][6] The sources I've relied upon use the word, "rationalism" not just "rationality". ParthikS8 (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ParthikS8: WP:OR applies to articles, not to talk pages. It's silly to cite policies in reference to talk page discussions. And I'm not an Islamic scholar, so I can't speak to the accuracy of the cited source, but it's definitely a reliable one in general, and it's fairly cut and dry that the word "rationalism" is well-supported here. You can try to add another sentence after the claim or an explanatory footnote in order to offer a more well-rounded presentation of Islamic views on liberalism, but don't remove the term without strong sources showing that the claim in the original source is incorrect. I would also caution you to not get sidetracked into a discussion of Islamic views on rationalism in the article, since that's only indirectly relevant here. The basic point being made in the cited source seems sound and doesn't make a claim about all traditional forms of traditional Islamic views, so I don't see why its inclusion would be a problem. --Drevolt (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Drevolt:
Its good that we seem to be in agreement then. I take it that you support my suggestion above then, namely that we should add (with the sources brought) the following to represent the topic impartially (I would slightly edit the above suggested edit, based off of what you have said about rationalism):

Liberal ideas are considered controversial by traditional Muslims, who, according to Oxford Islamic Studies Online, criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western or rationalistic. However, Muslims argue their religion conforms to rationalism, and some Muslim scholars, such as Mustafa Sabri criticise western thought.

No further discussion on rationalism in Islam in the article would be needed, nor would I see a need to include it. The sources I have provided above would surfice for verifiability. Also, traditional Muslims of the Maturidi, Ashari and Usuli Twelver schools do oppose liberalism[7] even if they accept rationalism, as shown by above sources.
You said:

The basic point being made in the cited source seems sound and doesn't make a claim about all traditional forms of traditional Islamic views, so I don't see why its inclusion would be a problem.

Just a thought I had: the "Muslim Rationalism arguing" sources I have brought would not contest the sentence if what it really meant was that traditionalist Muslims oppose liberalism on the ground that it is too rationalistic. It is well known that modern traditionalist Muslims are anti-rationalist[8], believing the use of kalam (dialectical reasoning[9]) to be heretical.[10] But unfortunately the writer chose to use the word, "traditional" (not "traditionalist") which implicates the majority rationalist kalami schools of broader Sunniism and the Usuli school of Shi'ism. I personally think the sentence should not be changed to reflect this undestanding, even if it is what the writer intended, as that would be OR unless sourced. Instead we can make the edit I suggest and that you seem to agree with.
As a side-point: My point on OR was your argument for/against inclusion in the article of something based off of an idea that you have. Which is fine, if that idea is sourced - otherwise when unverifiable information is added to an article, they could just take it to the talk page and say, "include it because ... (unsourced OR)" - Someone on the talk page would have the right to say, "that idea is unsourced/OR". Nevertheless, I am not contesting what you have stating as far as the difference between "rationalism" and "rationality" is concerned.
Hope we can reach consensus soon, happy editing. ParthikS8 (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be tampering with quotes, but the interpretation of that passage is filled with landmines: e.g., who is a "traditional Muslim", given that some of the liberal currents in Islamic thought long predate the Renaissance? Are we using "traditional" in the sense of political reaction or religious fidelity? I would normally say that providing a little context regarding the source is a good strategy, but I see no connection between the passage and the source at all. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

^α . The three are the three given in the sources, but others, especially extinct schools such as the Mu'tazila could be argued for and included too. E.g. see Bilgin, Mustafa. "Mu’tazili Rationalism." International Journal of Business and Social Science 10.7 (2019).

References

  1. ^ "Liberalism - Oxford Islamic Studies Online". www.oxfordislamicstudies.com. Retrieved 2019-07-11.
  2. ^ E.g. the above and also the Kalam tradition etc. are examples of the use of reason, according to Muslims, in proving traditional beliefs.
  3. ^ E.g. Mustafa Sabri according to Oliver Leaman: Oliver Leaman (2015). The Biographical Encyclopedia of Islamic Philosophy. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781472569462.
  4. ^ Bacik, Gokhan. "The Islamic Idea of Nature." Islam and Muslim Resistance to Modernity in Turkey. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2020. 59-100.
  5. ^ Dibaji, Seyed Mohammad Ali. "Philosophical Rationalism in Shia Kalam." مجله پژوهش های فلسفی دانشگاه تبریز 11.21 (2017): 25-37.‎
  6. ^ Bano, Masooda. The Revival of Islamic Rationalism: Logic, Metaphysics and Mysticism in Modern Muslim Societies. Cambridge University Press, 2020.
  7. ^ Example of Rationalist Ash'ari/Maturidi Muslim source that is explicitly anti-liberal: Imtiaz, SM Atif. Wandering Lonely in a Crowd: Reflections on the Muslim condition in the West. Kube Publishing Ltd, 2015.
  8. ^ See for instance SECULARITY, RELIGIOUS, and A. THEOLOGICAL. "ETHNOGRAPHIES OF ISLAM: RITUAL PERFORM." Religious Studies Review 42.2 (2016). "Opposing this, violent Islamist groups embraced Athari theology with its antirationalist doctrine"
  9. ^ Adib-Moghaddam, Arshin. "On Islamic Politics and the Resistance in Iraq." Int'l Stud. J. 5 (2008): 1.
  10. ^ Makdisi, George. "Ashʿarī and the Ash'arites in Islamic Religious History I." Studia Islamica (1962): 37-80. " the rationalist theologian uses both terms inter- changeably, equating kalam with usul ad-din, the traditionalist regards usul ad-din as the only legitimate king of theology, and condemns kalam and its partisans as outside the pale of orthodoxy"

Misleading statement[edit]

Bookku I don't disagree with Imtiaz ahmed rifat's removal here. The article says Liberal ideas are considered controversial by some traditional Muslims, who criticize liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western or rationalistic and that is misleading. Instead the source says,

Takes several specifically Islamic forms: that divine revelation requires liberalism, that divine revelation allows but does not require liberalism, or that liberalism follows from the fallibility and multiplicity of human interpretations of divine revelation. Remains a controversial position among traditional Muslims, often vilified as inordinately Western or rationalistic.

This seems to be a criticism of rationalism not rationality. In the Islamic context, rationalism often refers to mutazila, though its not clear from this source. Without this additional qualifier, saying that "liberal ideas are criticized for being rationalist" is misleading.VR talk 14:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,
1) Deletion was reverted because of removal of sourced content without explanation.
2) As you say internal link in the article connects to rationalism only [[Rationalism|rationalistic]]
3) If one reads taking into account nuances in sourced paragraph, one would realize that sentence

"... Remains a controversial position among traditional Muslims, often vilified as inordinately Western or rationalistic."

relates to second part of second sentence sentences in sourced paragraph i.e. to

"... An ideology encompassing belief in electoral democracy, civil rights, gender equality, human progress, and/or the abolition of premodern social hierarchies. Introduced to the Islamic world in the nineteenth century by Europeans, then wielded against Europeans by Muslim intellectuals who noted the discrepancy between liberal ideals and colonial (and later postcolonial) practices.."

; so better way to simplified reading would be like following.

"..., then wielded against Europeans by Muslim intellectuals who noted the discrepancy between liberal ideals and colonial (and later postcolonial) practices....Remains a controversial position among traditional Muslims, often vilified as inordinately Western or rationalistic. "

So the sentence seems to speak about, 'traditional Muslim intellectual's criticism of west supported Rationalism in liberal ideals.' And does not seem to relate with mutazila, IMHO.
In any case 'opposition to rationalism by some (traditional) Muslim Intellectuals' would remain true to referred source.
Hence probably 'Liberal ideas are considered controversial by some traditional Muslim intellectuals, who criticize Rationalism of liberal ideas on the grounds of being too Western' would be a better sentence ?
Thanks Bookku (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How are Sayyids related?[edit]

The article has a section on Liberalism and progressivism within Islam#Sayyid supremacism and caste system in Islam. How is that related to this topic? Are there sources that consider this a major issue for liberal Islam?VR talk 02:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're theoretically descendents of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Many of those marriage-equality restrictions in Islamic law applied more in the early centuries of Islam than now (though the issue of Muslims in certain areas of the Indian subcontinent being divided into caste-like groups is a current one)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note[edit]

@William Avery:

This is just information. No action expected nor required vis a vis your edit.

Your recent edit dif 325137 to this article reminded me of a very very very very slow discussion process I began on couple of article talk pages for example @ Talk:Apostasy in Islam#Difference between Muslim .... and Islamic .... ?. Some how I missed this article, may be after some more weeks/months I will begin a formal discussion here too.

Usually Wikipedia traditions usually goes as per which term is most used in reliable English languages sources. And most terminology comes in accordingly. Most times one does not need to look in to underlying nuanced issues. For example most people are usually not aware and not careful about differentiation between word 'Muslim' and word 'Islam'. If copy editors doing article maintenance know there can be issues about appropriateness may help a little in long run.

For some people (many of them likely conservative) Liberalism and progressivism is basically reinterpreting Islamic scriptures liberally. Islam does not reinterpret it self, who reinterprets is Muslims and liberals. So one can rightly claim that article title should have been, "Liberalism and progressivism among Muslims and liberals".

Probably that was the reason the other editor tried his good faith edit changing 'within Islam' to 'about Islam'.

I just tried to explain, how nuances are experienced differently through different perceptions, and how it connects to copy editing and maintenance tasks, very much indirectly though.


Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some concerns[edit]

Greetings @GenoV84:,

First of all let me appreciate you took lead in recently (October end) updating the article. Same time I do have some concerns about the edits.

A)
Article Islamic revival says In academic literature, "Islamic revival" is an umbrella term encompassing "a wide variety of movements, some intolerant and exclusivist, some pluralistic; some favorable to science, some anti-scientific; some primarily devotional, and some primarily political; some democratic, some authoritarian; some pacific, some violent".[1]
Your addition to this article says, '"..Liberal Islam originally emerged out of the Islamic revivalist movement of the 18th-19th centuries. ..[2]'
First of all your above statement is in Wikipedia's voice. Then it goes on to give a blanket credit to all sort of revivalist movements some of which can be just plain antagonistic to any sort of liberalism and pluralism and some may even be subscribing to extremism too.
Due to restricted view I could not immediately view the quotation you are referring to, may be you can add a quote to see exactly what your source is trying to say.
Second is it really very very necessary to include an ambiguous statement right in the lead? or it would be better to accommodate in 'Movements' section mention with suitable clarification.
B) Substantial credit of liberalism in Islam goes to reinterpretation but you seem to have deleted a related sourced sentence:
"Liberal Islam values reinterpretations of the Islamic scriptures in order to preserve their relevance in the 21st century.[3]"

Is this accidental deletion or it is really case that you wish to value revivalism more than reinterpretation?

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lapidus, Ira M. (2014). A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge University Press (Kindle edition). pp. 521–523. ISBN 978-0-521-51430-9.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Kurzman 1998 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Zubaidah Rahim, Lily (2006). "Discursive Contest between Liberal and Literal Islam in Southeast Asia". Policy and Society. 25 (4): 77–98. doi:10.1016/S1449-4035(06)70091-1. S2CID 218567875.
@Bookku:
  1. Kurzman states in Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook (1998) that liberal Islam originally emerged from the Islamic revivalist movement of the 18th-19th centuries. Unfortunately, I can't borrow the full quote from the corresponding page anymore because Google Books has locked the preview, however it can be found in the first chapter, "Introduction: Liberal Islam and its Islamic Context", also authored by Kurzman.[1]
  2. I deleted the statement Liberal Islam values reinterpretations of the Islamic scriptures in order to preserve their relevance in the 21st century because I thought that it was redundant and unnecessary, but you're free to reinsert it in the lead section of the article, if you wish.
  3. I never stated that liberal Islam values revivalism more than the reinterpretation of the Islamic texts, since it values both equally. GenoV84 (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting inputs[edit]

Greetings,

Adequate and nuanced overview for even non– Muslim audience is expected out of the articles Muslims and Muslim world. Whether the articles are achieving that purpose adequately? Requesting and expecting proactive participation in providing inputs from non–Muslim audience too along with Muslim users.

Since the article Muslim world is tagged various improvements it can not be submitted to formal review process still I feel the article deserves more inputs for content improvement.

Requesting your visit to the articles

and provide your inputs @

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page currently refers to non-Muslims as "unbelievers". This has a negative connotation and is unnecessary.

Sia271 (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction summary and the past[edit]

There are passages like "Liberal Islam originally emerged out of the Islamic revivalist movement of the 18th-19th centuries" and "and a modern view of Islamic theology, ethics, sharia, culture, tradition, and other ritualistic practices in Islam."

While this seems to be true for many movements, should other Islamic movements that took inspiration from European economics and values be listed in this article as well? GoutComplex (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trends of thought which are clearly mainly inspired by "European economics and values" have little credibility among large numbers of Muslim believers for exactly that reason... AnonMoos (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Kurzman, Charles (1998). "Liberal Islam and Its Islamic Context". In Kurzman, Charles (ed.). Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–26. ISBN 9780195116229. OCLC 37368975.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberalism_and_progressivism_within_Islam&oldid=1216614755"