Talk:Quranic literalism
 | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
literalism
editthe statement "Salafis believe that the Qur'an should not be interpreted allegorically" needs to be clarified and justified because from what i know this is untrue. if you are talking about sifaat (attributes of allah) then that is different to saying how the verses of the qur'aan should be interpreted. ITAQALLAH 00:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- The burden is upon you to prove that it is not true. Are you saying that Salafis are not fundamentalists who oppose any metaphysical interpretation of Qur'an? Their own literature even states this, which is one of the reasons why any type of Sufism is considered haraam amongst them. Alavian 12:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- the burden is upon the claimant, not upon the one trying to refute the claimant. the opposite of literalism is not "metaphysical", it is allegorical. provide your evidence that "their own literature even states this", as there are many "salafi" websites which affirm the existence of majaaz aayat [1] in the qur'aan. instead of reverting why not provide the evidences in place of the fact tag? the best that can be said about it is that there may be differing opinions within "salafism" (if the opposition to majaaz was not just semantic) ITAQALLAH 15:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Biased Article
editI don't know about you guys, but I find this article extremely biased. Obviously the person(s) who wrote it do not agree with Quranic literalism. In my opinion, they don't have to agree but their personal feelings should not be obvious.
Atrocious
editThis has to be one of the most one-sided, poorly written articles i've seen on this site. It is as though the original editors threw the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy right out the window. The comment above was spot on, and the bias in this article must be removed. MezzoMezzo 19:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- the rewrite is much better than the previous version in general. it confuses literalism a bit i think... for literalism (haqīqi) is not always equivalent to the dhāhir (most apparent). the principle of ithbat `ala dhāhir is what is generally ascribed to the corpus of athariyya. ITAQALLAH 13:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Dubious pretext for merger; Proposed reversal of merge ;
editWhy is "without asking how or why" = "literalism", which is the use of the text AS the how and why? Scripture without explanation, vs USING the text as the explanation?? The two seem utterly different- even mutually opposed. Additionally, no citation for "Quranic literalism" has been provided. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)