Talk:Hijama

Vandalism Warning for Hijama Article

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to hijama, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your continued vandalism without any effor to imporve the rticle has left me no choice. To take the position tht ijaaza has nothing to do with hijama is ridiculous at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HacksBack (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is not at all NPOV. The writer is obviously a firm believer in a treatment that is not considered effective by Western medicine. The article should therefore show that modern medical science does not advocate this treatment. Makerowner 00:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Try doing a searc on hijama and cupping and then tell me how irrelevant it is. Modern Medical Mafia only promotes things they can profit from. HacksBack (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Also the link is dead, so this article does not cite any sources. This page should probably be deleted or completely rewritten.Makerowner 00:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about modern machines, Modern Madince has been proven wrong many time. I beleivne the objecter is an islamophobe facist and he has some personal issue, this is encyclopedia and only list information on the subject not an advocacy board of FDA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.161.203.86 (talk • contribs).

I am neither an islamophobe nor a fascist, and I have no "personal issue". I do not accept Western medicine as the final authority on medical treatment, and I believe it is seriously deficient in several respects (prevention for one). I am interested in alternative medicine, yet the fact still stands that modern Western medicine has had greater success in treating disease and injury than any other system invented. It is accepted as the standard by which other systems must be judged. Western medicine does not approve of this method and I think the article should reflect that. This is not necessarily a default of the treatment: it may be effective, for all I know. I'm just saying that the article should mention that modern doctors do not use this technique. Also, please sign your comments and refrain from personal attacks in the future. Makerowner 18:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish, the western or US medical system is now ranked 47th in the world and has a higher morbidity rate than countries spending a fraction per person on health care. The AMA is brilliant at promoting this lie. The US is highest in cost and the use of often dangerous technologies. The best health insurance in America is a round trip ticket to another country where human values are still high and patients are treated like human beings rather than money sources for bigger hospitals and more toys. I lived in Syria and had a doctor, trained in the West, charge me $2.00 for an office visit and $4.00 for a house call. You can get any medicine from a neighborhood pharmacist who knew you well, without a prescription. The AMA spends big money hiring shills to perpetuate the lie that western medicine is king, so ignore these people. A very small risk of blood clotting can occure if hijama is not performed properly, otherwise it is amazingly safe and extreamly effective. BeNothing (talk) 16:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Edits here amount to vandalism as there is no effort to improve upon any given contribution, instead just removing entire edits that people simply disagree with. You cannot seperate ijaaza from hijama anymore than you can seperate beef from hamburgers, although die hard vergitarians who are concerned about animal rights would like people to think so. Make your case why the ijaaza system is not relevant to teaching and practicing hijama or stay out of the mix. They are not a ble to be seperated. If the same, then cupping and hijama should be combined as there will be no difference in practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HacksBack (talk • contribs) 20:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes the root of all Islamic disciplines, arts, sciences is the ijaaza system. One may not transmit or teach most anything without it. This knowledge should be a given, but attempts to destroy these concepts have been undertaken for many years becasue it is the heart and strength of Islam and people (the devil) wants to keep them burried. You are free to disagree, but you should then refrain from making any contribution becasue your bias is noted. UmarRab (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit undo

"it may well be nonsense, but some people believe in nonsense, and the encyclopædia should document that neutrally" referring to "is considered a form of energy medicine because it has been claimed to unclog the meridians in the body" What are these "meridians"? Have they been proven to exist? "Energy medicine"? Needs links at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.23.150 (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC) People who have pointed this out have been branded Islamaphobes. There seems to be an "Islamic conservapedia" happening in this page. -Sri

Go vandalize accupuncture then, as a discussion of meridians is offered there aes well. Perhaps we should expunge gravity from all listings becasue you are not able to see it. There is an agenda to destroy alternative medicne and protect the medical mafia. But people are rejecting the medical mafia and going for what works. HacksBack (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What works is what passes double blind testing. If it works, it is called medicine. -Sri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.232.155 (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What works are people actually qualified to teach and practice hijama being cited before third parties such as the American Cancer Society cited in the article for some broad statement without any studies to back up the general statement that cupping does not work. Theses citations are welcomed because they support your campaign to destroy this article. People who do not or are unable to comprehend spiritual understandings are not able to understand the basic concepts that all cures come from God and the simple recitation of holy words, as proven scientifically by "western" really eastern Japanese sources namely Masaru Emoto confirm the energy resonance on matter. It is evident and presented as placebo effect in western studies. What is that odd effect? Until you are brought to higher spiritual stations it is impossible to contribute to these articles, you are ill equipped, way out of your league. To do so is like a five year old attempting to sit in on a college physics class. But here you have the right to sit in the class and contribute nonsense. Tis a shame there is not a better way to qualify people as true experts, so we have to tolerate this disruption. I intend to end it as much as possible. Your cooperation is appreciated. UmarRab (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Issues with article

I took a look at the article, and have the following non-exclusive concerns:

• Hijama is stated to be fundamentally different to blood letting or cupping. In what manner is it fundamentally different? The only major difference shown is the quantity done - which is not a fundamental difference.
• The benefits section needs a citation, and also uses weasel words. If Hijama is believed to have all those benefits, then there should be at least one study confirming or denying this. The only reference that indicates some health benefits does not directly refer to Hijama, and states that the process is of use for a limited set of diseases or issues (and that diet plans can have the same effect.)
• The "Other Treatments" section says that it shouldn't be confused with bloodletting, and becomes a mini-segment stating that bloodletting doesn't have benefits. Does the same apply to Hijama?
• And finally, I have a concern with the reliability of the blogspot link - it performs a search on a blog, which is not guarenteed to be consistant due to natures of searches on these sites.

As far as I know, there's plenty of unanswered questions when I take a look at the page. There is content, but it leaves a few unanswered questions and isn't supported by references. --Sigma 7 20:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

_________________________________________________

Let me address some of your questions/statements.

Blood letting opens up veins and bleeds people - has nothing to do with cupping or hijama as they target specific areas, not veins - big, no huge difference. Hijama is governed by the advanced ijazah system of education which judges students with moral standards before academic standards, but I do not think western universities are places to learn moral standards - do you? Hardly. dens of sexual perversion.

There are many studies to support hijama/cupping and many more from when this article was first upped. Problem is they are ststematically challenged and removed from what I have experienced. Is iki a western service or a globla service? It is global and the number of languages illustrates that very well. When non-western sources are cited, they are removed almost imediately. I remind you that hijama is a world discipline, governed by Islamic Sahria, so why are only western non-Islamic sources above all others? Major, major bias. Make thatargument for cupping not hijama. Only people with an ijaaza are qualified sources on this subject, no one else, full stop.

Blood letting, huge differnce, see above. Why do you need to repeat this - memetic warfare?

I will attempt to revamp this article now and will document all the edits. I may then turn this obvious bias into a documentary about one small example of the bias on WWikipedia from Christian zealots intent on destroying anything favorable about Islam. Are any of you expert on Islamic Sahria, Islamic Hijama, Islamic anything. You draw on western sources as if that is a higher standard than someone with an ijaaza to practice this discipline.

UmarRab (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'm not against this article existing, or even presenting the possibility that this treatment is effective, I just want to see some evidence from reputable medical sources.Makerowner 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The only qualified medical sources are those with an ijaaza to practice this discipline. All others are comentators and arm chair experts. The source quoted from the American Cancer Society does not refer to any studies to disprove hijama. How is that source any different than statements from qualified people with and ijaaza? Like asking someone about flying who never piloted a plane. UmarRab (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment via WP:RFC - Agreed with Sigma 7 and Makerowner. It simply is cupping (the form called "wet cupping"). A Google on hijama finds plenty of Muslim sources that use "cupping" and "Hijama" interchangeably. Here is a very nice detailed reference. I've made a start by slimming down the intro. I notice there's some material on hadith in Fire cupping that could be moved here. Tearlach 00:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cupping and Hijam are used interchangeably for better explanation and to gain greater market share in SEO searches, theya re not the same as one requires an ijaaza. UmarRab (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree; I think the articles on Fire Cupping and Hijama should be merged into an article on Cupping. Hijama is a form of wet cupping. --Voiceofplanet (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Support merge, unclear how this ended up as a separate article. a13ean (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Strongly in opposition to merge, s explained above on requires an ijaaza the other does not. One requires the process be dedicated to God for maximum benefit, the other does not. With so many other things some want to kill God. A13ean, do you have any direct experience or an ijaaza to teach or practice this discipline? UmarRab (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Expert Hijama Practitioner and Author Strongly Disagrees, hijama requires an ijaaza to practice which seperates it from cupping. This relevant point or position is now being vandalised in an effort to make it the same and remove hijaama from wikipedia - more attempts to discount Islamic science, practices and contributions. Very sad - HacksBack (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, I will spend much time on this article and will cite many studies. Please do not make changes without a full discussion, and please have some basic knowledge about the ijaaza system and its importance in training qualified teachers and practitioners before entering into the fold. Thank you. UmarRab (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Amount of bloodletting

How much blood is let in this practice? Faro0485 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Cupping Film Project

I am adding this film because I agree that it is a project that might do wonders in helping to shed some important light on the subject of cupping or hijama. It is a non=profit collaborative effort that I think deserves some recognition and support by anyone interested in the field of cupping or hijama.

Thanks - let me know what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.22.161 (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As per my comments at Talk:Fire cupping#Collaborative Film on Cupping. It's currently un-funded and un-made film. As such the addition is spam and we should not be directing readers to go and assist them. something lame from CBW 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the film is partially funded and 50 hours or more of film has been shot, documenting the practice in Damascus and other places. The current request for funds is for completion. Sounds to me like the AMA does not want this film finished???????????? BeNothing (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, nobody here works for the AMA and they have no interest in suppressing dissent. .froth. (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed references

I thought I'd do my part to help bring this article into line with scientific medicine. I read the full text of the first article cited. The test wasn't double-blind; the placebo effect was discounted by comparing this study's success rate with placebos for headache treatment in other studies. However, the researchers admit that all of their patients firmly believed in the efficacy of the bloodletting treatment beforehand, which explains why the study was so successful: they would be very unlikely to . Therefore, the results of the study are explained by the placebo effect. Additionally, the researchers' speculation about the mechanism behind wet-cupping applies to the loss of blood alone. Of course, bloodletting has been conclusively refuted for decades.

I think it's fairly obvious that this journal is not a reliable source. It seems from this and other comments on the talk page that the article was written more to defend Hijama than to offer a neutral treatment of the topic. I suspect that there are strong religious interests in defending this practice since it's apparently specifically endorsed by Muhammad. The Islamic world seems particularly determined to churn out bad studies to defend traditional beliefs. Frankly, it seems that our current understanding about bloodletting fairly conclusively disproves wet cupping as a real treatment. I'm changing the article to reflect this. .froth. (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As stated and explained below cupping/hijama and bloodletting have nothing in common and making these grand conclusions shows enormous ignorance for the subject matter. One really needs to be at least somewhat knowledgeable about a subject to contribute, don't you agree? If not, this turns into a game amongst fools and tyrants. Currently on the article the American Cancer Society is sited and has been reverted three times, a violation of policy I believe. It is not close to being a study, just an opinion and further doe’s not even name the individual making it, so we have no idea of their qualifications or background. That citation is never removed, in fact, held up as the standard of truth and is cited simply because the ACS said so. Conversely, citations pointing to non-western sources, and this is an article about a non-western practice for God sakes, are removed with all sorts of supportive reasons ranging from the absurd to the idiotic - at least in comparison to those sources accepted. So, I agree, valid studies are required, but can you show me one study that refutes hijama based on scientific evidence? Given that this is not a western subject, do you not think that people who revere Prophet Muhammad as the most trustworthy and honest source known to mankind could use that as a basis for performing hijama without your bigoted and distorted western opinions on everything Islamic? There is no question there is a strong bias from many editors who never stop and think for one moment that it is not a western perspective that prevails in the world anymore – s desperate as they want it to be. The west’s ranking in the health care field is 47th in the world and dropping everyday. Your chances of dying in a hospital are 2000 times greater than getting killed by an assault rifle. Look it up, or get an Obama citation to refute it if you wish to distort those facts as Obama does, I digress. Perhaps you can actually learn something if you take the time to really listen and understand rather than disrupting these non-western subjects and articles. Thank you! UmarRab (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Where to begin...

With [1]

1. POV for insinuating that Muhammad is the only prophet and not just the muslim prophet
2. (saw) is inappropriate for a secular encyclopedia
3. Most of the edit is unsourced
4. The one source added doesn't appear to be reliable
5. This article is about Hijama not Ijaza

Please see WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.

SÆdon^talk 21:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

2) I'm pretty sure this has been discussed a lot, and the consensus has always been the same (to not include it). The tone needs a lot of work, although as I noted above the best place for this is probably a section of the cupping article. a13ean (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibly the cupping article would be appropriate but definitely not the way that this was written, as you pointed out. Also, though the user has been blocked for 31 hours I am at 3RR and won't revert again, would you mind restoring the previous version? SÆdon^talk 21:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't realize he reverted between my edits. Done shortly. a13ean (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. By the way, I suspect that editor actually owns the website used to support those claims. bobrayner (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I only noticed this because this edit showed up on my watchlist. Nothing really gets the Bat-Signal out like a redlinked editor leaving vandalism warnings on the talk page of experienced editors. Cheers a13ean (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

How is a medical degree not related to practicing medicine? In the same manner how is an ijaaza not relevant to the practice of hijama when it is a requirement and the primary thing that differentiates hijama from cupping. Please explain your reasons for disgarding such an important point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.180.214 (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just curious, how is an encyclopedia secular or religious? Would an article about Jesus Christ followed by "is our Lord", would is our Lord need to be removed. Theses common practices help people to understand the actual subject matter, again, how is that secular or religious, it is fact to a Christian which is what the article is about, that is the practice of Christians. This is what is so glaringly apparent to anyone with a mind that these many attempts to kill religion (make secular) are really attempts to kill God. Your clear bias has no place here. UmarRab (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you would be better off editing a wiki created by fundamentalists, since everyone here is going to think you're crazy. Moving elsewhere would be easier for everyone in the long run. 76.105.194.160 (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Cancer

It has NOT been shown to be effective for cancer and that is what the link says. However, it has not been discredited by western science, please give a citation if it has. It has been showing in scientific studies to be effective in things with large n values. Don't delete or censor scientific information. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC))

Energy Medicine

I think the following should be amended or removed, or moved to the Chinese cupping article, because it sounds more like a description of the Chinese model than the present one: "Hijama is considered a form of energy medicine because it has been claimed to unclog the meridians in the body, and is viewed by some practitioners as a cure that can alleviate black magic and possession.[4]"

MERIDIANS are a Chinese concept.

Ericcartmanfat (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

PubMed Articles

I cited some scholarly articles that are published in PubMed, which is a reliable source I believe. Yet my paragraphs were deleted twice because WP:MEDRS.They do not comply with Wikipedia reliable souces in medicine. I've checked the link, and it self says "PubMed is an excellent starting point for locating peer-reviewed medical literature reviews on humans from the last five years"! So I need explanation on thus matter please. Thanks. Arabiah Arabiah (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

If you had found "literature reviews" all would be well. You were adding primary research. Alexbrn (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

All resources not reliable?

Hello, I've added two new studies to the articles, both were rejected because they are not reliable? One of them is a literature review, so it is not a primary resource. The reason my previous input were rejected is that they are primary This is thge response I got: "If you had found "literature reviews" all would be well. You were adding primary research". Now when I added a literature review study, it was rejected. The other one is a study which does not seem to be different than the article already cited in the section labelled "Bloodletting comparison". I hope I can know why these two studies were rejected. Thanks. Arabiah Arabiah (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

References

The first source is indeed a review, but from a fringe altmed journal and so lacking WP:FRINDependence; also it considers Chinese research into Traditional Chinese Medicine, which is known to be unreliable. We must use reputable sources. You were right the other source is primary: I have removed it, thanks! Alexbrn (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hijama. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070911211305/http://www.hmc.org.qa/heartviews/VOL5NO2/special_section.htm to http://www.hmc.org.qa/heartviews/VOL5NO2/special_section.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Problems with 'Evidence' section

From my reading of this, there are some problems with the first couple of paragraphs in the 'Evidence' section.

The first paragraph currently says "Favorable effects were shown when wet cupping was combined with adjuvant conventional treatments." The source itself actually says that cupping was an adjuvant to the conventional drugs. This is quite a major difference - it changes the meaning, suggesting that cupping was the core treatment, which is not what the source seems to be saying. The source itself looks pretty dodgy (Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies), and probably doesn't meet MEDRS, but if it is going to be used we should be honest about what it says.

Propose: either striking this paragraph altogether on the grounds of unreliable sourcing, or at least rewording this sentence to better match the source.

The second paragraph is very odd. It goes into great detail describing the methodology of a single primary study published in the American Journal of Chinese medicine. I again don't think that this meets RS, but furthermore it's not clear that this is a study about Hijama as opposed to regular wet-cupping. Comments on this talk page above seem to suggest that there is a an important distinction between Hijama and wet-cupping, and calls to merge the two pages have been opposed, but this source is (a) in a journal about Chinese rather than Islamic medicine and (b) uses the phrase wet-cupping throughout the abstract, not even including the word Hijama in the keywords section. If this is not unambiguously about Hijama as opposed to regular wet-cupping, then it belongs on that page rather than here; if, indeed, it belongs anywhere as a small-scale primary study.

Propose: striking the paragraph altogether, unless (a) it is demonstrated that this is specifically about Hijama, and (b) a good reason for using a small-scale primary study for a claim about medical effectiveness is suggested.

Thoughts?Girth Summit (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I still think this should be merged with cupping - it's not apparent why it deserves its own article rather than a section of the cupping article. Redirects can go to sections, can't they? But those primary studies clearly fail MEDRS. --tronvillain (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC); edited 18:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I support Tronvillain's proposal of merging with "Cupping" which is Hijama without the religious overtones. Looking at this talk page, it is clear that religious concerns have kept the page as it is, rather than reliable sources. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

And even the somewhat reliable evidence is on wet cupping in general anyway - even the Hadith evidence review. --tronvillain (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I would also support a merge with cupping, since most of the sources referred to in this article seem to suggest that Hadith is an Arabic word for the practice of wet-cupping - we could have a section in the cupping artical explaining that. If the page is kept however, it should only use sources that are specifically about the practice of Hadith, and how it differs from 'vanilla' wet-cupping.Girth Summit (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)