Talk:Qurban (Islamic ritual sacrifice)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qurban (Islamic ritual sacrifice) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Clean up[edit]

This article reads more like an instruction book than an encyclopaedic examination of the topic. This article is very much in need of revision.
—Sowlos 08:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noted a contradiction between two sections - does one third or two thirds of the sacrificed animal go to the poor and needy? Perhaps that should have been noted here instead? But it seems like a substantive issue. Tenuki1957 (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Tenuki1957[reply]

To amplify the previous noted contradiction: the original source (reference 9, https://web.archive.org/web/20190410065901/http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e969) says, "Only a portion, usually one-third, of this animal's meat is to be consumed by the family offering the sacrifice. The rest is to be distributed to the poor." This agrees with the first reference, "One third of their meat is consumed by the family offering the sacrifice, while the rest is distributed to the poor and needy." but disagrees with the second, "The meat is divided in three: one portion goes to the needy and poor, one portion goes to the one performing the sacrifice, and another to their family. One may donate their third to whomever they choose."

It is possible that both practices are followed, in different circumstances, but then the second quote should reference a different source and say why the practice described differs from the previous.

Ibrahim vs. Abraham[edit]

The names Ibrahim and Abraham were used throughout this article, but refer to the same figure. I'm not sure which spelling is more appropriate when discussing topics related to Islam, but Ibrahim redirects to Abraham on Wikipedia. I suggest that Abraham be used here. Captain Schmetterling (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made some edits to the The sacrifice of Abraham section, replacing referneces to "Ibrahim" with "Abraham". I'm still not sure this is the best method for referring to the character from the Quran, but at least it makes that section conform to the rest of the article and to the redirect to the Abraham article on Wikipedia. It may become problematic when using quotes from the Quran which use "Ibrahim". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Schmetterling (talk • contribs) 17:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When referencing Abraham from a Muslim perspective, Ibraheem (or a variant should be used, e.g. Ibrahim, etc). It is acceptable to link to the Abraham article, since Ibraheem and Abraham are the same historical figure. However, the Arabicized version of the name is proper in this context here. As an example, one would likely not use the Arabic name for Jesus ('Issa) in an English article within a Christian context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.219.186 (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References and citations[edit]

This article does not reference or cite the texts from which the rules are taken, and thus could be taken out of context. More than the attention of a Muslim scholar, this article needs to be written in the normal Wikipedia way with citations, not just a list of references at the bottom. It should also clarify where there might be differing Islamic scholar opinions, etc. As it stands, it is basically one view from one perspective, which may or may not be valid in a broader Islamic context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.219.186 (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

In October 2013, this article was tagged for possible copyright violation without any url to compare with. June 2016 saw the addition of a website containing a paragraph identical to the lead section here. However, upon closer inspection of the revision history, Wikipedia already had this lead section before said website published its blog post in May 2014. I am therefore removing the falsely identified url from the copypaste tag.

It still remains to be seen which website is the source of the copyvio. According to the tagger's edit summary "at least some of the recent edits are copyvio." I assume that the copyvio was added somewhere in this diff, where one editor almost doubled the amount of text. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]