Talk:Naskh (tafsir)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm just a random reader, but I find this article incomprehensible. Those who know what this is talking about, please edit this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.179.96.184 (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a "few scholars"

"...directed at the [sic] what a few scholars historically believed might be a problem of seemingly contradictory material within or between the twin basises of Islamic holy law... Naskh has been criticized by many scholars, who state that it is a term used by those who dislike Islam to attempt to prove it wrong.

Taking this out for the following reasons:

• 1) Assertions are completely uncited

• 2) Assertion that only a "few scholars" recognized naskh is absolutely false. There are literally dozens of exegetical works devoted specifically to naskh, only some of which are mentioned in the article. This is in addition to the many more general works of tafsir which contain discussions of the topic. The reality of Qur'anic/Sunnic abrogation was acknowledged by most of the major legal and scholarly authorities of classical Islam: Qurtubi, Shafi'i, Malik, al-Ghazali, Suyuti, Tabari, etc. In fact, in my research I did not find mention of one classical authority who completely rejected the doctrine. If you find one, though, please include it in the article.

• 2) Naskh has been criticized by many scholars, who state that it is a term used by those who dislike Islam to attempt to prove it wrong. Who are these scholars? And why historically believe? If you have evidence the doctrine is rejected by most contemporary Islamic jurists please add a section on modern attitudes with references to contemporary authorities. Yet in any case this does not change the fact that naskh was recognized in Islamic jurisprudence throughout almost its entire history; the article should not misleadingly make it appear that what would be a very novel attitude towards the doctrine is somehow historically normative.

Jleybov 06:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Needs cites in the article, use of quotations is excessive

This article, which deals with a very controversial subject, needs to have cites located inline. By this I mean that a statement would be followed by the cite that supports it. Listing the references at the bottom might be okay for some articles, but when dealing with controversial subjects you need to know which reference a particular statement is supported by. Also, it is unclear whether the article uses any references at all, with the references section just being a list of the works that are quoted in the article. I suspect that this is the case, as it would explain all of the quotations and the references are the same works that were quoted. The only one I did not see in the article is the reference Quranic Studies by John Wansbrough and Andrew Rippin. Also, there are plenty of statements in the non-quotation parts of the article that need cites.

The number and amount (in terms of total content) of quotations is excessive. I have never seen an article which relies so heavily on quotations on Wikipedia before, not even including articles on books or movies. The article should cite the works, not just quote them.

Finally, the article is over reliant on sources written by Andrew Rippin and John Burton. An article of this size should have a wider variety of sources, especially when the topic is controversial. -- Kjkolb 17:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)