Talk:Abul A'la Maududi/Archive 1

Neutrality in question (POV)

This article's neutrality is in question on basis of omission. The article completely fails to contextualize Maududi's thought or influence, makes ambiguous claims concerning his theories, and adds an irrelevant smear concerning a quote about the intellectual roots of Nazism. Aharriso 23:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I put a POV tag on this after someone just put a very nice, long post all about him. I've very glad that they have put up some information about him, however, it needs to be more neutral. There are numerous statements about how great he is in this. While he might indeed have been a great man, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and let his actions speak for themselves. Great men (and women) don't need excessive praise, their greatness speaks for all who will listen to their words and actions. Fanra 18:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Since I was the one who put on the POV tag and the POV text I put it on for is now gone, I'm removing it. If Aharriso or anyone else objects, they can put it back, or even better, they can add some text to this article. Fanra 01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, I felt reading this article that it was overall positive in the light of Islamism. Islamism is not a good thing, and so to present it, even neutrally, is to give the wrong perspective. 86.185.147.54 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge Introduction of Islam (book) into this

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was to merge. -- Futurano 12:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC) I feel that Introduction of Islam (book) should be merged with this article and left as a redirection page. That page contains no information and hasn't for over a year. Leaving a redirection page will enable anyone looking for information about the book to be sent to Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi where they can read that he wrote this book. The vote page about deleting that page also points to a vote for Economic System of Islam (book) which is not the title of that book. Fanra 09:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• I did the merge. Anyone who wants to flesh out the Intro of Islam page, go right ahead, it is there as a redirect page. Just put in some real good information and remove the redirect. Fanra 09:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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.

Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allah be on him).

While I can respect the Holyness that many people have toward Muhammad, Wikipedia is not the place for prayers or laudation. Therefore, I am changing the sentence from "Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allah be on him)" to "Prophet Muhammad". Any Muslim should have no trouble understanding that when Wikipedia says "Prophet Muhammad", that they are quite free to think or say, "Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allah be on him)" if they wish. Fanra 18:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Content merger from Human Rights in Islam (book) is proposed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was to keep. -- Futurano 12:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC) On May 23, 2007 User:Black_Falcon proposed to merge the content mentioned above to this article, as part of the Notability wikiproject.

• Merge. That article sits unreferenced and abandoned. --Futurano 19:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If you note above, I proposed that his other book be merged into this article because the other book article says nothing. This one actually says something, although very little. Stick a stub tag on it and hope someone adds to it. It is no worse than a great many other articles. Fanra 09:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• I added it to his list of books on this page. If you decide to merge, just unlink it. Fanra 09:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Someone just blanked the page and put a redirect. If I understand merging correctly, merge requires that you actually put the contents, or at least a summary of them, of the page you are merging from. Merge is different from deleting the page, which is what was done. Deleting requires that you use a delete tag. Since this was not done properly, I'm reverting it. Fanra 01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• I initially proposed the merge on May 23. After further review, I do not view the present content of Human Rights in Islam (book) to be appropriate for inclusion in this biographical article. Prior to proposing that the articles be merged, I performed a relatively limited search of English-language sources via Google and found no reliable secondary sources that discussed the book non-trivially. I will perform a more comprehensive search for sources (in academic articles and in foreign languages) tomorrow and, if I find any, will add them to the article. If my search again comes up empty, I will return here so that we may discuss and arrive at the most appropriate course of action. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I have rewritten the article from scratch, using information available from various reliable secondary sources. It is still a stub, but I think it merits a separate article now. I would welcome any comments or suggestions regarding the article. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

The exact quote for this please

Can I have the exact quote for these sentences:

"Outside observers compare his ideology and theology to Nationalism blended with Islamic Fundamentalism, in many ways in opposition to the teachings of the Fiqh against Nationalism. Mawdudi's aim was not to build a non-existent state, but seize power from a well-established state structure and replace them with Sharia law controlled Islamic states. His methods have been compared to that of Mussolini's Fascist movement in Italy."

I have read the source and it doesn't seem to say this.Bless sins 17:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You paid for (or got access through a library or other way) the entire article and it doesn't say this? If the entire article cited doesn't say this, then it should be removed. I don't have access to the entire article, since I'm not willing to pay for it, so I can't confirm this. The full article is a PDF of 667 KB in size, so you would have to have read it all to be sure of this. Fanra 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Though 600+ KB in size, the actual article is only 9 pages long. The relevant portion of text is on the 7th page of the article (page 114 of the journal issue):

"Perhaps the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in 1917, or the march on Rome organized by Mussolini in 1922, would serve as better models in inspiring twentieth-century radicalists." (Choueiri 1993, p. 114)

That does not justify the current strong wording. Also, "aim was not to build a non-existent state" and "a well-established state structure" are direct quotes from Choueri. The paragraph below is also problematic. The quote is not entirely his; the only parts that are his are "German Nazism" and "the ingenious and mighty leadership of Hitler and his comrades". The rest is copied from Choueri 1993. I am removing both paragraphs. However, as the source contains a wealth of information on Maududi, I will try to use it to add to the article later on. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• If he indeed praised Hitler and "German Nazism", that is a very important thing that should be added. However, it must be added carefully, in context. Also, the date in which he said it (if he did) is also important, as that many people in the early days of Nazi Germany were mislead by Nazi propaganda and had no idea of the true evil of the Reich, an example would be Charles Lindbergh. Fanra 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

When dealing with such a POV-charged issue, its best to verify all sources, and try to get multiple sources whenever possible.Bless sins 23:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Content merger from Social System of Islam is proposed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• The result was merge into Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. -- Fanra 16:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Social System of Islam contains one line. It has done so for over a year now. I will hold off for a short time in case someone wants to do something but there isn't really much need for me to wait since you can always add to it any time, after the merge it will still be there as a redirect page. Fanra 12:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. We can assume that all books of a given scholar reflect the same system of views and theories. So if a book article fails to meet guidelines, merging to author is the best choice. --Futurano 08:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. --Aslamt 00:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

The Punishment of the Apostate according to Islamic Law

This source [1] says that he also published "The Punishment of the Apostate according to Islamic Law" in Urdu as "Murtadd ki Saza Islami Qanun men" and that it has never been published in any other language. According to the translation provided, Maududi supports the death penalty for "apostates". While the Wikipedia definition of apostate requires someone to denounce their former religion, it appears the term is used here for anyone who merely converts from Islam to another religion or atheism, no denunciation of Islam is required. The book also states that Maududi feels that non-Muslims are free to practice their religion in a Muslim nation and teach their children but are prohibited from the right to propagate their religion and they are also prohibited from promoting their "ways" which seems to mean any public announcement or lobbying for anything in disagreement with Islamic ideas. Thus, a non-Muslim is prohibited from any political or social or commercial speech except in support of Islamic views.

This source is Christian converts from Islam, so I'm not sure that it is an objective one but it does seem to match what a majority of Muslims in the Arabic world seem to be saying in my readings. Fanra 13:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

his greatest work

The unsourced statement about what might be considered his greatest work was removed for POV??? I understand it was both unsourced and opinion but I can't see any way someone could claim POV violation here. The reason I put it here was that I removed it from another article where it didn't belong and placed it here in the hopes someone might be able to confirm it was true. I felt that it would be nice to know that he spent 30 years working on something really important to him, if someone could get a source. I put the "unsourced" tag on it myself in the hopes that if it stayed there someone might find a source for it.

But to call it POV is a bit much.  :) Fanra 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

POV just means opinionated. It was also weasel worded:

It is claimed his greatest work is his monumental tafsir in Urdu of the Qur’an, The Meaning of the Qur'an, a work he took 30 years to complete.

There's no problem leaving the material around until someone sources it, but I see no particular reason it should be in mainspace. Though if you insist, I suppose you may restore it.Proabivouac 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've restored a less opinionated (though still unsourced) version.Proabivouac 00:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sayyid

The word "Sayyid" was removed from his name. Is it some kind of title rather than his name? Considering that the name of this article is "Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi" and not "Abul Ala Maududi" and that JI and other web sites call him "Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi", I think we need some kind of explanation for calling him "Abul Ala Maududi" rather than "Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi". Could you please put one in? Thanks. Fanra 07:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct, Sayyid is a title, which means "descendant of Muhammad," or in India, just "mister." Per MOS, this article should be moved to Abul Ala Maududi, which currently redirects here. We need to have that deleted before we can do a proper move (with history).Proabivouac 07:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've been reading the MOS and it doesn't really seem clear on this issue. Generally, it says article titles should go with the name used most commonly, which seems to be "Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi". If there is something special about "Sayyid", like, for example, the title "Sir" for those knighted, then it needs to be listed specifically in the MOS. If it isn't special in that way, then we need to figure out whether or not to go with the common name or not. I was about to put a speedy deletion request on Abul Ala Maududi so we could move it there but after reading the MOS it doesn't seem clear if we should move it or not. In the meantime, I'm placing an explanation of why we are calling him Abul Ala Maududi and not Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi in the text because the vast majority of English language readers here have no idea that Sayyid is a title and not his name. Fanra 09:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll also find "Maulana Abul Ala Maududi" and just "Abul Ala Maududi." There is no formal Islamic authority which can hand out any title.Proabivouac 09:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• I've noticed that you have put his last name as "al-Maududi". Isn't the "al-" a word meaning "of", so it would be like "John Smith of New York"? If so, then when we refer to him as "Maududi" in the article that would be wrong and we should refer to him as "Ala"? The whole issue is confusing to someone who only knows English. Fanra 09:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To understand this matter completely, it should be recognized that not all languages use the template: "[First name] [Last name]" in their naming systems. Having said that, following tries to explain the structure of his name:

• His full name is Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi. Sayyid is a family title, much different from a conferred title or an honorific such as Sir or Maulana. While it literally means "Mister," "Lord," or "Sir"; in the sub-continent, it has come to refer to a person's lineage as explained above, and becomes part of their official name just like a family name would. Thus it is not a first name, but is still part of one's official name and is passed on from one generation to the next.
• "Al-" does not mean "of"; rather, it is the definite article "the." The 'i' at the end of "Maududi" is indicative of a possessive relationship between "Maudud" and "Abul Ala." So it is more appropriate to translate the name as "Abul Ala of the [line of] Maudud," where Maudud was an ancestor of his. It should also be noted that this formation (the use of al-) is only relevant in Arabic. In Urdu, the definite article is implied and is thus dropped.
• "Abul Ala" -- even though broken down in English transliterations -- is actually a compound name and either part of it is misleading without the other ("Abul" literally means "father of the" and "Ala" means "high," and the whole name can roughly be translated as "one of high status"), and should be treated as such. Thus it would be incorrect to treat Abul as his first name and Ala as his last.

To sum up, the full name should be kept as "Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi" since it is already free of all conferred honorifics and titles, and is the most commonly used full form of his name. --Aslamt 16:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To further clarify, I mean to propose that the first instance of his name (and the title of the article) should be the full form; but "Sayyid" can be dropped later on to avoid redundancy. Where he is to be referred to by his first name, "Abul Ala" should be used; and where he is to be referred to by his last name, "Maududi" should be used. Additionally, the explanation about "Sayyid" would become meaningless in this new context and should consequently be removed (perhaps a link to the wikipedia article Sayyid can be included). --Aslamt 17:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the explanation. Fanra 18:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone saying that "Ala" was his last name. The article did state that "Sayyid" was his first name until I corrected it.

As "Sayyid is a family title," preposed to honor (purported) descendants of Muhammad, why exactly are you saying that Wikipedia should keep this in the article's name? All we need is a sentence stating that this honorific is often applied, and by whom.Proabivouac 19:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Fanra proposed that Maududi be referred to as Ala since they thought Maududi was referring to a place: "If so, then when we refer to him as 'Maududi' in the article that would be wrong and we should refer to him as 'Ala'?"

First of all, it is highly inappropriate to take an action before a consensus can be established on a matter. Once it was said that the matter was not necessarily clear and beyond dispute; it should have been left as it was, pending further discussion. Secondly, I am not concerned with the fact that the word literally "honors" someone. If you remove a word just because it does that, then you ought to remove all Khan's and Shah's and such "honorifics" from people's names as well. Imran Khan would become Imran Niazi, Genghis Khan would become Genghis, Reza Shah would become Reza Pahlavi, and so on. The fact of the matter is -- and I want to say this without talking about my personal identity -- that Sayyid is used just as a family name would be: it is added to people's birth certificates, passports, marriage certificates, etc. In essence, it becomes part of one's official name like I said earlier, and that is what distinguishes it from a simple honorific that gets applied only under specific circumstances by specific people. To liken it to "Sir," "Maulana," "Prophet," or "Imam" is not appropriate in this context. It is important to recognize that different languages and cultures may have different naming conventions and while organizing an encyclopedia, it is necessary to take them into account and not force English/Latin conventions on them. I will not instigate an edit war by editing the page and moving it back to its original place, but I do propose that the page be restored to its original state before a discussion can be pursued. --Aslamt 10:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We acknowledge that different languages and cultures have different naming conventions; however, where these are superfluous prepositions meant to honor (purported) descendants of Muhammad, and highlighted here and elsewhere in order to underscore someone's pretense to religious authority, their inclusion in article titles isn't appropriate. A number of Google searches turned up many instances of "Abul Ala Maududi" without any variant of "Sayyid/Syed", as well as a number which were prefixed by "Maulana" alone; it does not seem nearly as inseparable as you say.

(And for whatever it's worth, British peerage titles are indeed part of someone's legal/official name.)Proabivouac 17:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, Sayyid (also spelt Syed) is often a part of one's name. I mean one can't earn their descent from the prophet Muhammad, they have to be born with it. But I'll have to look more deeply into the case here.Bless sins 18:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, if you look at Salman Rushdie, John A. Macdonald, Sam Hughes etc. the articles all have the word "Sir" preceding the name.Bless sins 18:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Not in the article titles, only in the first line.Proabivouac 21:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I suggest.[2] Unless ofcourse someone can show that the "Sayyid" is part of his name, something that he was born with.Bless sins 23:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is tough at this point to "show" that for his specific case. However, from cultural and personal knowledge, I know for a fact that the name Sayyid is applied at birth and not later on as it is being projected. Also, contrary to what Proabivouac believes, the title does not "underscore" anyone's pretense to religious authority. There have been many individuals with very secular tendencies that used it just by virtue of their births and did not do so to claim any religious advantage. In fact, the mere idea that it is used as such is, with all due respect, laughable if you know how the title is actually used (perhaps with the possible exception of some rural areas) and have not discovered it through wikipedia or some other source. I think I have made my point and I will not belabor it any further since it is not of such importance for me as to spend endless time debating it. I do not mind the current arrangement even though at a first glance, it seems to be at odds with the MOS which states: "The first sentence of each article should have the article title in bold and then define the article title." But like I said, it might be a minor issue. --Aslamt 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Important Fact

Why such an important fact has not been included in this article. Mawdudi was arrested in 1953 for his alleged part in the agitation against the Ahmadiyah sect. He was sentenced to death by a military court, but the sentence was never carried out. This article is not neutral. He is a controversial figure, but none of the controversies are mentioned. I remember this article was longer few months ago. It seems someone removed information mercilessly. It doesn't make sense anymore.

Sirajuddin84 15:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Added this with cite --BoogaLouie 18:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Syed Maudoodi biography at a glance

1903 Born in Hyderabad 1918 Started career as journalist in “Bijnore” news paper 1920 Appointed as editor “ daily Taj” , Jabalpur 1925 Appointed as editor daily “Muslim 1925 Appointed as editor “ Al-jamiat”, New Delhi 1927 Wrote “ Al- Jihad fil Islam 1930 Wrote and published “Deenyat” 1932 Started “ Tarjuman-ul- quran” from Hyderabad 1938 Moved to “Pathankot” to Darul Islam established by Chaudhry Niaz Ali Khan 1941 Foundation meeting of Jamaat-e- Islami, appointed as Amir 1942 Jamaat headquarter moved to Pathankot 1943 Started writing “Tafheem ul quran” 1948 Campaign for Islamic constitution and government 1948 Sentenced to Jail 1949 Government accepted Jamaat resolution for Islamic constitution 1953 Sentenced to death for his alleged part in the agitation against the Ahmadiyah sect. He was sentenced to death by a military court, but the sentence was never carried out. 1953 Death sentence converted to life imprisonment 1955 Released from jail 1958 Martial law, ban on Jamaat Islami 1964 Sentenced to Jail 1964 Released from Jail 1972 Completed Tafheem-ul-quran (quran translation) 1972 Quit as Ameer Jamaat 1979 Died

Added this as timeline --BoogaLouie 18:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

SELFPUB

I would like to remind users to observe WP:SELFPUB. Specifically it says:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

   * it is relevant to their notability;
   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
   * the article is not based primarily on such sources.

In the article I see many quotes of Maududi that are of no apparent notability, and some that are quite contentious (e.g. the references to "evil"). Still, other quotes are cherry picked.

Please remember that we can't (a) copy and paste all of Maududi's works, nor (b) randomly select quotes from him. If a quote of him appears in a newspaper, article or book, than we should include it. But we should not be including random quotes that are contentious.Bless sins (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Aya"

The article currently has "But Meddeb argues that a full reading of the aya reveals that..." However "aya" links to an irrelevant article. Should this be "ayah"? I hesitate to change it myself as I'm not familiar with Islamic terms. Could someone else check? Pmilner (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it should. You're right. Ayah is usually spelled aya but not on wikipedia apparently. It's fixed now. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Have attempted to cleanup the criticism section which was a bit of a mess. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Criticism and controversy be in it's own section? Faro0485 (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Abul Ala Maududi

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 Abul Ala Maududi'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 "shi3a":

• From Zulfikar Ali Bhutto: Vali Nasr The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future (W. W. Norton, 2006), pp. 88-90 ISBN 0-3933-2968-2
• From Muhammad Ali Jinnah: Vali Nasr. The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future (W. W. Norton, 2006), pp. 88-90 ISBN 0-3933-2968-2; text available at Pakistan’s Transition from Shia to Sunni Leadership. faroutliers.wordpress.com. Accessed 2010-04-28.

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⚡ 16:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we

Can we get a specific paragraph on clear differences among this sect from other sunnis please? Someone65 (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Letters and Issues

The article Letters and Issues has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No mention of notability no references, fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, all above information is respected about such a great personality, but one mistake is there, as it is mentioned that he was direct decendent of Khawaja moinuddin chishti then he should be in progeny of Imam Hussain not Imam Hassan because, Khawaja moinuddin chishti was direct decendent of Prophet Muhammad through Imam Hussain. Thanks Dr Zafar Hasan 19:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Zafar Hasan (talk • contribs)

Quotation section

I just removed all of the quotes from this page and added them to Wikiquote:Abul_A'la_Maududi. A link to this page on Wikiquote appears in the External Links section. In general, we should not have large sections of quotations without context on Wikipedia articles. It's fine to include quotations in paragraphs or other sections as long as proper context is given for them. This is why we have the separate sister project to keep those things all in one place. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Questionable name change

[3] It appears that this name change took place without discussion, and in the face of general consensus. Usually, English-language references to his name will have his middle name without an apostrophe, as it was before the move eg [4]. I recommend moving the page back Applesandapples (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Biographical Data Error

Kurshid Ahmad, Qazi Hussein Ahmad, and Tufail Mohammad were followers of Maududi not who influenced the latter. Please change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C56A:C500:917E:F4F7:32CF:3FA8 (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Logical fallacies

"The man who denies God is called Kafir (concealer) because he conceals by his disbelief what is inherent in his nature and embalmed in his own soul" // Maududi. I call this BS. A man who denies God - does not want to manipulate or interfere with God, and nothing else. All cats must be killed, because they are non-believers. A philosopher who was too narrow minded to understand requirement of a research to both branches in order to find shortcomings of each.

I think you are missing the point, there is no killing of cats. He is just saying that if one denies God he is a Kafir (concealer). Like a man who don't believe in God is a non-believer. So please don't murder cats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.134.147 (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)