Talk:Urine therapy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lodha's Urine Therapy

4/24/07 Removed claim "urine therapy is useful for any illness, cited authority warrants no such claim, and indicates evidence to the opposite (ineffective for any condition). Retained cited materials and moved reference to end of sentence, where a claim warranted by the cite appeared, in identical language.

Lacks NPOV, contains "how-to"

Lodha's Urine Therapy This article has been treated too kindly. It is an apologetic in favor of the practice of urine therapy, it makes many claims without substantiation or reference, and it offers advice on how to drink urine (making it a "how-to" guide, which article in Wikipedia should not be). Also, it does not conform to Wikipedia style standards. Also, the current article has done away with useful information from previous incarnations. It's a mess. Rohirok 04:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

"Urine is considered to be an invaluable source of nourishment and healing that perhaps has been too controversial or not financially rewarding enough for it to be talked about and encouraged as a potent medicine." WHAT THE HELL

In these articles it is clearly mentioned that Urine Therapy is one of the best, oldest therapy amongst all other therapies. Urine contains all vitamins, minerals, hormones and enzymes and many more things. I treated thousands of patients through UT since over more than 30 years at my clinic and at many camps of UT in several villages in India, mostly near our city Jodhpur [India], and also me and my wife used to drink urine daily for more than 30 years and we never went to any hospital for long because drnking urine prevents most diseases.

From ancient times in Asia many people used Urine Therapy at the time of famine, drought, flood, water-borne, invasion, casuality and Natural calamities and on bites of snakes, dogs, scorpions, bugs, spiders, insects, mosquitoes & for measles, dysentry, jaundice, fever, burn, and for most of all diseases, for normal delivery and it is substitute of water for survival of life and serves purpose of balm also.

Many Jain, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, and most of all religion and learned people adopt Urine Therapy in some or other way. Urine Therapy is known all over world as auto urine therapy, manav mutra, water of life, fountain of youth, golden fountain, miracles of urine therapy, amaroli, uropathy, urotherapy, natural juice, wonders of uropathy, swamutra, but my followers said it is a "RAKSHANK" and my patients also called urine drinking means drinking Lodha Cola.

Urine is a serum of the blood which being directed by the emulgent arteries to the kidneys is there separated and by the ferment of the parts converted in to urine

Urine is a part of nature and nature is a far more efficient healer and so turned scientific methods and there are lessons to be learnt from nature that are work with nature and she will do the work. Urine is most wonderful skin food.

Mostly people drinks fresh own's urine directly but few people drink urine mixed with either water, honey, clove, saffron, cardamom, tea, jaggery, vegetable soup or any other nutritious juice

While drinking urine the person may use any glass/cup made of clay, silver, crystal/glass, copper, chinaware, or to make their own hand in shape of spoon. People should drink urine whatever they passes daily or own capacity in start and afterwards they should increase quantity in drinking urine.

If a pregnant woman drinks her own fresh urine then there shall not be any disease in body to the newly born babies such as polio, jaundice and many other diseases.

I think there should be UT [Urine Therapy] hospitals all over world because only UT can give us health where as Drugs or alopathy medicines can not give us health because in alopathy medicines have side effects where as UT has no side effect so it is one of the best medicine Urine is also easily available with every person at any where then why should we not use it Urine is one the best Gripe water for infants and newly born babies also for all male and female to all age groups I have written 6 books on it in which 5 big books are in Hindi language and one small book on UT in english language which are selling in market

I request to all viewers and other persons that Urine therapy is one of the best therapy and again I request all persons to start drinking urine and I hope they will be cured with most of the diseases and there were not supposed to go for any other therapy for ever for healthy person they have to drink a glass of urine daily to keep remain their health for ever For normal diseases person should drink 3/4 times in a day till recovery and after recovery they are supposed to drink daily one glass daily for chronical diseases person should drink whole day what ever they passes urine and they should keep fast once in week and on fast day drink urine and warm water only and after few days that person should drink 3/4 times daily and after full recovery they should drink daily one glass of urine

Person should apply urine once daily for softens the skin and to solve skin problem ans not wash for 6/7 hours after application of urine and also they should not use any soap/ shampoo The person should eat only veg. food If there is any question then any person can ask me at my Urine Therapy clinic at following address:- Dr.Rakshak Mal Lodha Prem Basti In side Sojati gate Jodhpur 342002 [India] phone + 91 291 2620975 Email:- rakshakmal@yahoo.com

i am fifty six years old and i have been drinking urine for over twelve years now. The most obvious and immediate benefit i derived was complete elimination. My constipation and piles vanished like magic never to return. My resistance improved so did vitality. i used to suffer also from low blood pressure and vertigo . these were also history. I was quite surprised by the various health benefits and read extensively on the subject. The more i read, the more convinced i was that this was an amazing cure all. To day, i drink several times a day, massage my entire body with it and also massage it on my scalp once a week. I am in perfect health. I would like every one to discover this wonderful cure all for them selves and enjoy huge health benefits.

As a record of uncommon forms of insanity, Wikipedia shines. Thanks for the smiles!

It is interesting you say that, as the romans brushed their teeth with urine (that's actually true- they believed the acid whitened them.) On another note, I suggest merging Uropath into 'urine therapy'.Merkinsmum 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There was some logic to what the Romans did, for thousands of years up until recently, stagnent urine was used as a bleaching compound as the urea broke down into ammonia (which is alkaline not acidic!) and was used to wash clothes, so it may have worked, disgusting and unhygienic as it was.

Ironically many of the same chemicals found in modern laundry chemicals are found in toothpastes to make teeth appear brighter.

O yeh and ROFL at the blatantly fake and desperate testimony to persuade people to drink their own piss ([[User:Giani g|Giani g]] 02:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

"... disgusting and unhygienic... " (1) Disgusting? I think that's an individual opinion, colored by cultural assumptions. Personally, I do find it disgusting. But not everyone does. (2) Unhygienic? Not if the person urinating is healthy: "Except in cases of kidney or urinary tract infection (UTI), urine is virtually sterile ..." The problem of urea poisoning is real, but healthy urine contains no bacteria. Karl gregory jones (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Where's the neutral point of view now? All I can read is tenths of "skeptic" sources (read : big-pharma-industry-sponsored), and historical religious references (nice but incomplete and unconvincing). Not a single webpage describing the favorable point of view, like for example this one: http://integrativehealthcare.net/html/urinotherapy.php which comes second on google right after this wikipedia entry quintal 78.112.55.159 (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

should be flagged?

I am NOT a proponent or practitioner of any weird stuff, but THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTCILE SHOULD BE MARKED AS DISPUTED because while I don't have any agenda or side to take, this article is plainly polarizing.

Wikipedia should be neutral, at best, but not give wrong information

I dont support the statement "there is no scientific evidence supporting Urine Therapy". It is definitely not true. It is a plain tragedy that so much dollars of profit made in Urokenase through the descrete urinal filtrates, but the main raw material used in the drug is not reseached or perhaps hushed up. It serves well for these drug companies. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that anyone opens up their mind and apply urine on their wounds would find out. The toughest thing is just opening up their head. The same people would accept Urokinase. It is unfortunate to see this statement is Wikipedia.

- Rajesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.184.85 (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Alleged Biblical reference" should be referenced

It should be reported where in the Bible has been written "Drink waters from thy own cistern, flowing water from thy own well." 151.65.47.30 (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Proverbs 5:15 --Enric Naval (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Kidney Stones

I think urinotherapy can cause kidney stones, can somebody confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.165.186.231 (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

yes of course, your drinking a waste product which contain high concentrations of urinary minerals which causes Kidney stones (and is why your body gets rid of it) Markthemac (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Islam for Peace, not p*ss

I feel sure that the followers of Islam wish a path of peace; however to ignore the teachings of their books, or to deny such to others is surely a debatable practice?

My mother used to swear on being able to kiss my knee better when I fell over...can even make it work with my children. It still means I take the proper medical care of them while the primary measure is having its effect.

And there are a heck of a lot of people alive today and through history because they survived on urine in extreme conditions.

Sorry the (possibly helpful) inclusion of your texts riled you...sure whoever added them will get what is coming. But to hide them? That's just weird imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Findelin (talk • contribs) 21:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Findelin (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Islam for Peace, not piss

Assalamualaikum, Please remove ISLAM from the list it is utterly untrue that ISLAM and PROPHET MUHAMMAD (Sallallhu Alahi Wassallam) ever avocado drinking Camel’s urine. Only the ILLEGAL PALESTINE OCCUPY JEWS, INDIAN HINDUS, CHINESE BUDDHIST, and ROMAN CHRISTIAN qaidanis drink piss and not the holy and only true region of Islam. It is not fair to unnecessarily bring ISLAM into the show. Wikipedia got NOTHING to do with ISLAM and so please leave ISLAM and PROPHET MUHAMMAD (Sallallhu Alahi Wassallam) out of this nonsense. Hadith verses cannot be used as cortation out of context. So please stop this. Or else the MUSLIM community will STAND UP against this unsanity by peace full petition. REMOVE THE NONSENSE> LEAVE ISLAM OUT. Muslims like me and the rest NEVER EVER discriminate or critisise or even mention other religion so please show the same altitude to peace loving brotherhood of ISLAM.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Al-Ikhtifar Lahore (talk • contribs) 03:39, 3 April 2009

See [1] and [2]. In that same book, in page 103 it says that "Khamr is filth in an extreme degree, like urine.". I'm adding it to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious Claim

Urine does contain substances that are beneficial, such as Vitamin C; however, these substances have been excreted because they could not be used or because they were present in excess, so re-taking them will just result in re-excretion. I can't see the full source online, but surely some dictionary doesn't qualify as WP:MEDS, especially when making a ridiculous claim like this. If someone excretes excess Vitamin B today, and tomorrow takes another pill, of course they can absorb more later. It's excess because of the body's ability to absorb at a particular time, not because it can never use it. Greenman (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory

There is no known scientific evidence of a therapeutic use for urine.[1][2][3][4][5] A chemical component of urine, urea, does have some well known commercial and other uses.

• The first sentence here is badly stated.

There is plenty of "evidence" (both historical and scientific) of the "use" of urine for theraputic purposes.

This is not the same thing as saying that there are no "scientifically-proven benefits" for the use (ingestion, specifically) of urine for theraputic purposes.

Please fix this.

• The second sentence contradicts the first. And is perfectly true. Urea, drawn from urine, is used in a number of commercially available, widely-acceptable health-care products such as foot balm to repair cracked feet and soften callouses. This constitutes a "theraputic use of urine".

Please rewrite the two sentences so that that do not contradict.

Amandajm (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

References #4 and #5 say that componentes are therateupic but urine itself isn't, with #5 plainly saying that there are no scientific studies of urine therapy. #4 says that, even if one of the substances in the urine cured cancer, it is unlikely that you would drink enough amount from your urine to get any benefit.

To clarify: the first sentence is about urine itself, the second is about components of urine that have been isolated from urine.--Enric Naval (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The following sentence seems to contradict itself. Or I don't follow the 'nuance' of it because it is badly worded: ... and ingestion of urea has been found to increase this antibacterial activity in urine itself,[6] though no evidence was found for such an effect upon the actual ingestion or application of urine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.52.242 (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Obvious experimental difficulties"

In the "Auto-urine drinking and meditation" section, the last sentence is: "Obvious experimental difficulties (particularly in constructing a double-blind clinical trial) mean that this is a difficult hypothesis to reliably test to any requisite evidence-based standard."

This sentence should either be clarified or removed.

It's not at all clear to me what is meant by "Obvious experimental difficulties". I've studied scientific methods at university and continued to follow them since. I'm pretty sure an average Wikipedia reader will have even less idea of what these "Obvious experimental difficulties" are. As such, I think it's safe to say that whatever experiemental difficulties exist, they are obviously NOT obvious ;).

24.180.99.144 (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the above analysis. My feeling is that almost anytime someone needs to say that something is "obvious," it actually isn't. I mean, I get the whole "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" implication here, but people do far more extreme things to be part of paid medical studies, so I don't actually think the difficulties are obvious. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In a double-blind trial, not only you would have to drink someone else's urine, but you wouldn't know the identity of that someone else. Also, depending on what effect you are looking for, participants would have to drink someone else's urine for days in a row. (should we put this explanation in the article, even if it doesn't appear in the source?) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that is in no way fatal to conducting such an experiment. You could easily re-color it and flavor it so it wasn't clear which was real urine and which wasn't. For that matter, you wouldn't even have to give someone another person's urine: you could do an initial study with people's own urine--just collect everyone's urine, then replace half of the samples with a suitably colored fake, and ensure the people doing the swapping do not know the identity of the people receiving the trial liquid. Again, if people are willing to get paid to take drugs of questionable safety, I'm sure that there are people willing to get paid to drink urine, especially if they were assured that it was "safe." The only real problem would be in initially determining if the urine was "safe" in the sense that it would pass an HRB. In any event, if we don't have a source that says that there are "obvious experimental difficulties" (or a similar phrase), including that in the article is original research, and thus must be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I googled a bit, but I couldn't find any reliable source for this. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Recommended changes

I would like to recommend a few changes; however, given my recent tragic mistake in reverting legitimate claims, I wanted to bring them to talk first instead of just boldly making the changes myself. Please let me know what you all think. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Questionable BLP info

Normally, I would have deleted the info on Madonna and Dolores Riordan immediately, because it's unsourced info about a living person. I strongly recommend that we delete this ASAP. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Use as acne medication

This section is both unsourced, and also seems to violate WP:NOTHOWTO. I recommend at least rephrasing it so that it's not a how to. It's currently unsourced, but I see that said tag was only added this month, so others could argue it should stay a little longer while people find a source. As it's not BLP, it needn't be removed so quickly, but, as an immediatist, I wouldn't mind removing it now. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead

One could argue that the last sentence should be removed. This is the one I am most hesitant to suggest, as it's what got me into trouble yesterday. But after looking more carefully, I wonder if it really belongs here. The study in question doesn't actually study the use of urine as a form of therapy. Rather, it exams the qualities of urine, and found that increased ingestion of urea (not urine) correlated with an increased antibacterial quality of urine. This seems to me to be fundamentally different from using actual urine as a form of therapy. That is, I see Urine Therapy as saying "Do X with urine' and you get Y results in your body", while the study says "Do C with urea and you get D results in urine". Even if we decide to keep this in the article, I don't think it belongs in the lead, as it is only one small component of the overall discussion; rather, the info should be (if kept) moved into the "Modern claims and findings" section. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

The author is "quoting" sources that do not exist. In fact, the whole concept of urine therapy was invented by a dubious writer "John W. Armstrong" (no information about this person) in the 1940s. There is not the slightest mentioning of drinking your own urine in any kind of traditional medicine (Indian, European, Chinese). This article needs either drastic editing or it should be deleted. --87.188.211.43 (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple sources in this article, and the ones I've checked all seem to exist. The Sahih Bukhari, for example, exists, and wasn't invented in 1940. This isn't a "neutrality" issue, it's about adequate sourcing - the article is relatively well-sourced, your claim comes without any sources. If you object to any particular claims, please be specific. Greenman (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You may be able to understand this German link (because you obviously speak Dutch), this TV series has a very good scientific reputation. http://www.wdr.de/tv/quarks/sendungsbeitraege/2010/1116/003_urin.jsp

--87.188.188.61 (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I agree, this article is unbiased. It points out the lack of acceptance and the potential failings of the therapy while still explaining the believed benefits by those who are practicing it. I found the article extremely helpful. 173.11.86.161 (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I found the article being totally biased by lacking an appropriate section about the risks of this practice. As an example, a woman infected by HPV on genitals can spread the virus into her own oral tract, being the virus itself present in urine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.27.133 (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In order to include that last bit (about transmission of HPV) would need a reliable source to be included. On the more general note, this article does seem to be basically neutral, with sources, doing just what it should: describing a fringe theory/medical practice as a fringe practice. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits by User:NarSakSasLee

Please refer to his edits made. He completely removed the section Islam by claiming that it's full of "weasel words". What weasel words when the section is probably the one with the best references?

Let me highlight some of the crap contained in his version ([3]):

For example from the Hindu website LifePostive.com the article states "Dr B.V. Khare, an allopathic doctor and Mumbai-based follower of AUT, says: "The Italian surgeon Stanislau R. Burzynski, now settled in America, separated anti-neoplastin from human urine and showed remarkable results in the treatment of cancer. Another substance found in large quantities in the urine is called dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA).

The above is an addition in his new version (which surprisingly only seems to be centered on Hinduism). Please go to [4] and let me know which section of the Website identifies itself as a "Hindu website"? Or how does what Dr B.V. Khare or Stanislau R. Burzynski say have to do with Urine Therapy in Hinduism? Did they say it from a religious viewpoint? Anybody sane who reads the article would know that it is said from a medical point of view. ([5])

In 1978, the former Prime Minister of India, Morarji Desai, a longtime practitioner of urine therapy, spoke to Dan Rather on 60 Minutes about urine therapy. Desai stated that urine therapy was the perfect medical solution for the millions of Indians who cannot afford medical treatment.

How is this connected to Hinduism? Morarji Desai was not a practicing Hindu but an Agnostic. Further did Mr. Desai specifically claim that he drank urine because it was prescribed in Hinduism?

The Hindu nationalist organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh developed a beverage called Gauloka Peya which translates as "drink from the land of cow" that incorporates distilled and sterile cow urine mixed with water and traditional Indian herbs and medicinal plants such as Brahmi and basil in a 1-to-7 ratio, claimed by the manufacturers to have medicinal properties.[15] The group announced plans to market the beverage as a 'healthy' alternative to soft drinks such as Pepsi and Coca Cola

Yet more nonsense, this one copy-pasted from the Panchgavya article. If RSS (which undoubtedly is a Hindu nationalist organisation) develops some Urine drink, does it mean Hinduism, as a religion, prescribes the drinking of Cow Urine?

In other religions some advocates believe that the Bible recommends urine therapy. A verse in Proverbs...

That too is contained under "Hinduism"!!

Now I invite NarSakSasLee to point out to one and all the "weasel words" you found in the "Islam" section that according to your actions made the whole section irrelevant. Thank you.

Can somebody also please take note of his other edits, considering he is an Administrator? eg. [6] Inai09 (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

NarSakSalas is not an administrator. I believe that you were correct to revert his edits--they seemed to introduce WP:OR, especially as you point out above by citing one or two websites and then claiming that something is a fad across a large population. Other information was misorganized. It was definitely all overlinked. If NarSakSalas would like to come again and try to make changes a little more slowly, perhaps some of them are worth incorporating...but it's impossible to process such a massive change to an article in a single go. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I really, really do apologise but when I tend to edit articles I tend to start with one point of view and then the other and then ultimately mix them together to take an article up to standard. I was going to incorporate that section under the religion section for Islam later on and then for Christianity. The reason I deleted it was because I came into conflicting opinions about it and thought that section would need to be added later on to a controversial section since its disputed in both abrahamic faiths as well as Judaism and for my native religion of Shintoism where it is practiced by some on a much smaller scale. I really meant no offense and was only going by the references I found when I googled it. For more information on my editing style please see here, where I've explained my style to the admin. I only wise to carry on and then re-add to make it overall more informative. NarSakSasLee (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I also need to add that with regards to Hinduism I did find sources that suggested it was widespread in India to drink cow urine. The Times of India linked to a lot articles that suggested it and if that was the case it was the main reason I placed it there. NarSakSasLee (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Judging from your edits anybody can easily deduce your affiliations and the direction you want articles in, and that is why I did not write on your talkpage but rather immediately highlighted it here. And to that you give such a flimsy "defence". But anyway that's another issue.

About your peculiar style of editing, please realise that you cannot just make changes and leave a "half-baked" article like what you did for a day or a week, hoping to return sometime in future to fix it. Millions of people rely on Wikipedia and your edits done in bad taste would not really help anybody. If you can't create a new version at once (which is totally understandable), you may wanna make a new draft in a "sandbox" or in MS Word, and then once it's complete, copy-paste it into the page.

Regarding your second comment "...with regards to Hinduism I did find sources that suggested it was widespread in India to drink cow urine, if something is "widespread" in India (which anyhow is not true, drinking cow urine is not "widespread"), what does it have to do in Hinduism? Just because majority of Indians are Hindus does it mean what Indians do is what Hinduism preaches? Terrorist attacks too are common (or as you may like, widespread) in Islamic Republic of Pakistan - according to that Times of India search page, so you may also wanna introduce "Islam" at the very top of the "terrorism" page too - going by your logic. I hope you get the point and stop this nonsense and your not-very-smart arguments. I'm sorry if I've been rough but what's to be said has to be said. Inai09 (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I will look out for it in the future, I did plan on coming back to it today. I have experienced this sort of thing before with my other article (DKC2) where a few editors were trying to correct my pov bias only to find out I was editing it rigorously. As for your other point, a lot of those articles seem to mention it being a "Hindu practice" or somehow related to Hindusim. Also I found that it was in Hindu religious text. Maybe its not that common but from the initial impression I got was that it was common in the religion. I'll make sure definitively that it is religious practice but most Hindus don't do it (if the sources say that or prove that given that India is now a secular democracy and not a religious state). Also I need to further that aren't terrorist common too in Pakistan? And that they should be mentioned there somewhere given how much Islamic terrorism has played a part in the world. It should also be in the Islam article as well given thats its part of its history now (I think). I think this might have to do with issues of my personal ignorance rather than it being fact with regards to both arguments of Hinduism and Islam (I come from Japan actually and don't really much know that much about the history of either but am greatly interested in both faiths). NarSakSasLee (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear NarSakSasLee, your way of thinking is wrong. Just because some Muslims indulge in terrorism (in the name of religion) does not mean that Islam prescribes terrorism, unless somebody can specifically identify verses of Islamic texts that state otherwise. Likewise, just because some Hindus drink cattle urine, it doesn't mean that it is prescribed in Hinduism. I am aware that in Hinduism there is some Damar Tantra (a Tantric text) that is based on Urine Therapy which is already in the article. May I also kindly add that if you're unfamiliar (as you claim) with this subject, you should first educate yourself on it, instead of introducing ridiculous statements based on your uneducated opinions or ideas because this is not a personal blog but a public encyclopedia.

Dear Qwyrxian, thanks for your advice. In regard to your edit, I don't see anything wrong in quoting verses from the Bukhari. In fact if you look at the "Rome" section, you'd also find something similar there. These things, I'm sure you're aware, are common in Wikipedia and they, in my opinion add a lot of credibility to an article or statement. Many "star" articles contain such primary references. One example that I can remember is Adolf Hitler, a very well written article. I agree with the fact that secondary sources are imperative for any well sourced article and I would be happy to provide the necessary secondary sources as far as this issue is concerned:

1. Nigro, S.A. (2011). Everybody for Everybody - Vol. 2, p.743. (Bloomington: Xlibris Corporation). ISBN 1456842587

2. Morgan, D. (2010). Essential Islam: a comprehensive guide to belief and practice, p. 186. (Santa Barbara - ABC CLIO). ISBN 0313360251

3. Abu Bakar Marghinani, A. (1870). The Hedaya, or Guide: a commentary on the Mussulman laws, p. 595. (Oxford: Oxford University).

4. Umar Kathir, I. (2000). The life of the prophet Muḥammad: a translation of al-Sīra al-Nabawiyya, p.244. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan / Garnet). ISBN 1859640095

With your approval can I reintroduce 1 or 2 of the shorter Bukhari verses in a "quotation" form, backed by these sources where relevant? Thanks. Inai09 (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Inai, stop the personal attacks against NarSakSasLee immediately, or I will request that you be blocked. Period. Don't tell people to educate themselves or claim that their statements are ridiculous. While NarSakSasLee's points are not perfect, many of them may be amenable for inclusion. You are wrong to day that he has to quote Hindu texts--in fact, that would be exactly the wrong way to prove that Hinduism supports urine therapy. Rather, he should find reliable secondary sources, and then provide proper attribution and context for those (something like "Hindu Scholar X has argued that urine therapy is forbidden/wonderful." And regarding the primary sources, I completely disagree--good articles quote only sparingly from anything, and even more sparingly from primary sources. I can live, I suppose, with one primary quotation, as long as its relevance is confirmed by a secondary source. This latter issue, of course, is one of editorial judgment, and I accept that you may disagree with me. And I even accept that consensus overall may disagree with me, so if you can get consensus to have those primary quotes, then fine, they can stay. And on the ROme part....I think it should probably come out, too, with just commentary from the secondary source. Seem reasonable? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Qwyrxian, firstly, with regard to NarSakSasLee - well, I agree I may have been a bit rough and regret if it has caused anybody any pain. That topic is closed.

Secondly, if there are reliable sources from Hindu scholars or texts that support Urine Therapy, fine with that, I've no problems with it being included. As long as it's factual, you have my fullest support. Of course, if some noteworthy Hindu scholar argues in favour / against it in the context of Hinduism, he would be basing his argument on some material linked to Hinduism and if so, fine. But political / nationalist organisations making some urine drink or Indian PM drinking his own urine cannot be considered reliable sources to support such a section.

I read Wikipedia's policy on Primary Sources and I find my inclusion of such sources is perfectly in line with the policy, and so is the Primary Source in the "Rome" section. I reproduce the extract from the Primary Sources page:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

The limitations, reproduced:

Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

The primary sources in this context are not being misused, and I have the necessary secondary sources to interpret them in the context of this article. And the secondary sources used are undoubtedly reliable as some have been published by well-known Islamic authors / Universities. Furthermore, a quick check led me to many notable pages using such Primary Sources in consistance with Wikipedia's policy, e.g. Quran. Muhammad & Hijab both have verses from the Bukhari. Non related to Islam: Stalin, Hitler & J. Robert Oppenheimer are just a few articles that I've read in full that came to my mind. In view of this I see no wrong (or policy related ambiguity) in the inclusion of those verses and I will go ahead with it - by reinserting those verses with the interpretation referred from secondary sources mentioned above - within a reasonable time unless someone can point out to be what's wrong (as per Wikipedia's policy - and not personal opinions) with such an inclusion.

In regard to consensus, there have been no edit wars or (logical) arguments other than this conversation between me and you about how the inclusion is wrong / questionable / not in compliance with WP policies. After those edits, NarSakSasLee has not demonstrated how "weasel words" come into picture. So, with all things constant, what's the need? Inai09 (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE, a part of WP:NPOV, a core policy. Putting in 3 very lengthy quotations with two from one source gives far too much emphasis to this source. Additionally, it over-emphasizes the Islam section, by making it significantly longer than the other religion sections, making it seem like urine therapy is some sort of really important topic in Islam, which it is not. There is definitely absolutely no reason to include number 794 and 797, since they're about the same event. If we're going to include one, which I guess I can live with, it needs to be stopped after the phrase "recovered from their ailment (became healthy)", because the rest of that has nothing to do with the topic of this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Qwyrxian, you seem to be referring to many policy pages, first Primary Research, now the other 2 above, just based on your personal opinons / perceptions. But that's alright, lets push that behind. I too feel a compromise can be reached. We'll include the verse from 79:590 and write: "in addition, verses xxx and xxx also ... ...". I'll get started soon. Cheers. Inai09 (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't think we should quible over something that's on the internet. I do this primarily because I obtain a great interest in something and then edit articles on that topic. There's nothing wrong with that. I can edit any article I wish to. As for the Islam section, I do agree with Qwyrxian that you do seem to want to over emphasise the Islam section (are you Hindu by any chance?). The confusion is that in Hinduism it seems relatively common to use urine on food and drink it - thats not to say all Hindus do it but there is sufficient evidence to suggest it is widely practised and not only by nationalists and extremists ([7] and [8] show this - there are many articles to suggest it is a cultural practice). The Islam section is slightly different. I can't seem to find any sources that say Muslims do it or practice it in their religion although it is mentioned in their hadiths in a few lines but widely condemned. As a suggestion I would reccommend a section on Islam and a section on Hindusim to be brought together to explain religious significance and cultural significance. The over emphasis leads to POV issues. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not urine therapy is common in India and uncommon in the Islamic world, I have pointed out verses in the Bukhari clearly showing Muhammad ordering his followers to Drink camel urine. I have also pointed out a verse from the Hayatus Sahaba, a notable Shia book. And each of my sources are reliable and unbiased. These are all noteworthy to be included under Islam. There's no confusion here. Argument is below. Inai09 (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Islam

This is a further edit that I am going to comment upon the following sources for the Islam section don't mention about urine but instead redirect to the Centre For Muslim-Jewish Relations:

• [9]
• [10]

And this source directs to a Christian website that cannot be trusted (since it promotes Christianity as is their job to and directs to the above links):

• [11]

The following source seems to indicate that urine is considered impure and is punished under Muslim law, although Abu Yusef says camel urine can be drunk if its boiled:

• [12]

The Shahi Bukhari source was being heavily misused as was the book above, urine is only mentioned twice in the Hadith section and this section alone.(Ctrl+F to find the quote on urine)

• [13]

I've re-written the Sunni section but the Shia section no doubtedely contains the same mistakes. I've re-written it to the following:

In Islam drinking urine is forbidden and is considered "khamr" and is punishable as in the same as if "exposed to the penalty of apostasy" due to its toxicity, with the willing drinker not being considered Muslim anymore.[17] Sunni Islamic commentators find urine to be something that is "filth in an extreme degree".[17] However scholars such as Abū Ḥanīfa have said that "it's disliked" ("makruh" or "almost" haram) but "not forbidden, to drink the urine from camels".[17] In one of the Hadith's written by Sahih Bukhari it states that the Prophet Muhammad allowed his followers to drink camel urine for the purposes of "recovery" but didn't encourage or discourage his followers.[18] Abu Yusuf has said that urine from camels can be consumed for medicinal purposes but only if they are boiled but is considered forbidden to consume.[17]

I've removed some references which are obviously false and gave a false impression. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Further information regarding the Islam section. I've deleted the section where a book is mentioned but is not scholarly. It seems to be under WP:UNDUE with regards to urine therapy in that it just tells a story of Muhammed saying "she's been saved from hell" and nothing more specifically relating to the benefits of urine therapy. This has little to do with the therapeautical beliefs of urine therapy. NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I generally like the new version. I think it could use a little grammar cleanup, but i'll wait to make sure the substance is going to remain before doing so. I am a little uncomfortable with how you characterized the Bukhari; I think that in this case a limited quotation might be better, rather than making a decision about recommending vs. allowing, especially since that could be a translation issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bukhari, from the source that I gave, doesn't expressly say that Muhammad said they must drink it (because milk is also mentioned) for the purposes of just having a rest after his men would later kill a farmer (that section of the hadith just seems to talk about one of those caravan raids and isn't about urine therapy per se). There wouldn't be much point in quoting it since its just a casual mention. He neither commands it nor condemns it. It's quite neutral. However it does seem like a good idea to find another well known interpretation. NarSakSasLee (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The new version is completely unacceptable.

1. Regarding the ambiguity about the Sahih Bukhari source, please refer to [14]. Let me quote from your own source 7:71:590, or from Sahih Bukhari.com:

Narrated by Anas: The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they followed the shepherd that is the camels and drank their milk and urine till their bodies became healthy.

8:82:794 & 797 both corroborate this and use the words "The Prophet Ordered". I don't know why you're referring to Book 6 when in the past this book was never mentioned in the first place in earlier revisions.

8:82:797: Narated By Anas bin Malik : A group of people from 'Ukl (or 'Uraina) tribe... but I think he said that they were from 'Ukl came to Medina and (they became ill, so) the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) she-camels and told them to go out and drink the camels' urine and milk (as a medicine).

There expressely is a verse (in fact 3 verses) in the Bukhari where Muhammad "ordered" his people to drink Urine from camels. This should be prominently mentioned because according to the Sahih al-Bukhari article, it is considered by Sunni Muslims as the most authentic book after the Quran. The way it is mentioned in NarSakSasLee's version clearly shows it's being sidelined. As such I will edit so that the Bukhari is first quoted, and then the comments of the scholars.

2. You write: "In one of the Hadith's written by Sahih Bukhari it states that the Prophet Muhammad allowed his followers to drink camel urine for the purposes of "recovery" but didn't encourage or discourage his followers.".

How did you interpret it this way? What's your source? Clear-cut case of WP:OR. Neither the Primary nor Secondary sources support this interpretation.

3. The Shia section no doubtedely contains the same mistakes.

Please explain. I referred to the Hayatus Sahaba and there sure is such a verse Please refer. I have given a secondary reference too. Please refer to the older version of the page. What makes you say the Hayatus Sahabah is not scholarly? It was authored by a notable Islamic scholar! (but surprisingly about.com seems scholarly to you to use as a ref!). About "therapeautical beliefs", the Bible verse that is mentioned too does not clearly display any such thing too, but yet there is consensus to include it. There is absolutely no standing to remove the verse from the Hayatus Sahabah.

4. Now let's move on to the scholars.

You say "Abu Yusuf has said that urine from camels can be consumed for medicinal purposes but only if they are boiled, but is generally considered forbidden to consume.." Let me quote the source given: Abu Yusuf says there is no harm is using the urine of camels, if used medicinally. (The World of Islam, pg. 98). Please enlighten me where you got the other information from (i.e. if boiled). In P.103 (as given by you above), only the boiling of Grapejuice is mentioned. Likewise the one on Hanifa too is inaccurate (Haram, Makruh, etc.)

About Urine being equated to Khamr, (P. 103), the author of the book does not give a source to this. Who said Urine is equated to Khamr? I'm not sure if this is a worthy source to back that statement, because it is just mentioned in passing in the page. Can an admin please refer to the source & confirm? ref. I have made minimal changes there until I can get a confirmation.

Based on the foregoing, edits will be made now. Please share your concerns, if any.

Qwyrxian, please share your balanced opinion once done... Inai09 (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please condense you're argument? it greatly seems like you're trying to add synthesis to the article, and original research. It's very hard to understand what points you're making and what exactly you want changed. Placing walls of text is simply confusing and very unhelpful.

1. The source in the Bukhari quoted says he ordered them to follow the shephard but does not say for the purposes of drinking camel urine alone like you're making it out to be. He did not order them specifically to go after urine drinking, that would place WP:UNDUE weight to the article as milk was involved. What I've written simply reads in the same way - that it was done for the purposes of recovery or health purposes only or medicinal if you will - which is relevant to the article. "Ordered" is only mentioned once in the hadith you quoted ([15]) from and from the other 4 verses it doesn't say whether he "ordered" them to to drink it ([16] [17]). Additionally it is only mentioned once more that he told them to drink it (again for medicinal purposes). He didn't order his "people" to drink it, but rather those warriors who were committing a raid. It doesn't seem common that he went about willingly ordering everyone to drink camel urine for no reason.
2. The previous version was heavily biased - it mentioned animal urine instead of camel urine and the hadith source was being abused so much in that section. The other three verses refer to the same thing (ie medicine - see [18] again for the 3 verses) so it shouldn't be mentioned more than once - as it was for medicine only and shouldn't be construed as "he commanded them to drink it" - from that verse it just seems like he told them to drink it for medicinal purposes only. We have to make it neutral as possible.
3. As for the Hayatus Sahabah - I've mentioned above why I removed it - it has nothing to do with urine therapy per se, except the mad ramblings of "she's going to go to hell or heaven" for drinking it - what precisely does that have to do with urine therapy? Again it is WP:UNDUE weight as it's irrelevant, mentioning nothing of therapeutic value. NarSakSasLee (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
4. For the Abu Yusef source, the text should read "Abu Yusuf has said that urine from camels can be consumed for medicinal purposes" the boiling reference should be used in the first sentence when it talks about the punishment. However the part where it says "but is generally considered forbidden to consume" refers to the person who wrote the book and not Abu Yusef, quotation marks should have been used for what Abu Yusef said and that was my error.
5. The author does not need to give a source since he's written it and is the expert. We have to go by what the source says. It's dubious to question now, the reliability when its perfectly acceptable. Furthermore, Khamr is equated to urine on page 103. Also
6. Please do not accuse me of being biased, as the admin has already said stop making personal attacks. I talk about the about.com source below and it has no concern on this section (see below about the reliability). This is the second time you've accused me of doing something I'm not doing - being biased.

NarSakSasLee (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

In Islam drinking urine is forbidden and is considered "khamr" and is punishable as in the same as if "exposed to the penalty of apostasy" due to its toxicity, with the willing drinker not being considered Muslim anymore.[16] Sunni Islamic commentators find urine to be something that is "filth in an extreme degree".[16] However scholars such as Abū Ḥanīfa have said that "it's disliked" ("makruh" or "almost" haram).[16] In one of the Hadith's written by Sahih Bukhari it states that the Prophet Muhammad told his followers to drink camel urine and milk for the purposes of "recovery" to use "medicinally".[17] Abu Yusuf has said that "urine from camels can be consumed for medicinal purposes", but is generally overall considered forbidden to consume in Islam.[16]

Having re-read the sources again from the hadith I'm going to change the wording of "allowed" to "told" because he did say that. The reason we shouldn't put "ordered" is because he only said that once out of 5 times from the 5 passages and at most simply told them to go and drink it. Also I've made a few minor edits to the article (see the edit summaries for why), here's what it looks like now (see above quote). NarSakSasLee (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me give you a short argument in your sequence:

1. "Prophet ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine)". In English, the word "ordered" applies to both "follow his shepherd" and "drink their milk & urine". 797 says: the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) she-camels and told them to go out and drink the camels' urine and milk. 794 says: so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine. It is contained in the Bukhari in 3 places that Muhammad ordered and so it will be included. The word "Allowed" is unwarranted.

Update: The word ordered has been used in 8:82:794, 8:82:797 & 7:71:590.

2. Yes, this has been agreed. Only 1 verse will be quoted in the article as a Primary Source.

3. I answered this above. The Bible verse that is mentioned too does not clearly display any theraputic value too, but yet there is consensus to include it. Further, how is what Abu Hanifa / Abu Yusuf - calling urine Khamr - related to theraputic value? In conclusion there is absolutely no standing to remove the verse from the Hayatus Sahabah, a reliable Islamic text.

4 & 5. The page does not say specifically state that "In Islam it is forbidden to drink Urine". It just equates Urine with Khamr and alcohol. This is WP:OR

5. Where in my latest comment did I call you biased? Pls point out. Inai09 (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Ordered is only mentioned once in the hadith, with the rest saying that he told them to do it. Better to say told rather than "ordered". I've added another reference on the authenticity part being disputed.
2. No, none of the verses should be quoted, only linked. Since you want place in the ordered quote, this would violate WP:UNDUE.
3. The Bible verse implies theraputic value whereas that book (Hayatus Sahabah) does not (furthermore its from a website that violates copyright). The author called it Khamr, I didn't write if they said it. The author is implying its considered khamr generally.
4. It equates urine with Khamr which makes it forbidden (re read the book please, the author does mention Khamr being equated with urine).
5. It's clearly not OR, on page 103 it Khamr is equated with urine. On page 102 it equates khamr as being forbidden (ie haram).
6. You were suspicous about a reference - why did you mention it if you didn't want to imply I was being biased?

In Islam drinking urine is forbidden and is considered "khamr" and is punishable as in the same as if "exposed to the penalty of apostasy" due to its toxicity, with the willing drinker not being considered Muslim anymore.[16] Sunni Islamic commentators find urine to be something that is "filth in an extreme degree".[16] However scholars such as Abū Ḥanīfa have said that "it's disliked" ("makruh" or "almost" haram).[16] In two of the Hadith's written by Sahih Bukhari it states several times that the Prophet Muhammad told his followers to drink camel urine and milk for the purposes of "recovery" to use "medicinally".[17][18] However the authenticity of these verses are disputed by many scholars, with the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a representative body of scholars, commenting that the prophet recommended drinking camel milk only with the consumers drinking camel milk along with urine which was later placed in the hadiths as some of Muhammad's sayings (which were compiled years after his death) as "throughout the history of the Companions there is no reference to the uses of camel urine for theraputic purposes".[19][20] Abu Yusuf has said that "urine from camels can be consumed for medicinal purposes".[16] However drinking camel urine is generally overall considered forbidden to consume in Islam as it is an intoxicant.[20][16]

I added in some extra information on authenticity to balance the section.

NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

1. No, Ordered is mentioned 3 times. How many times do I have to repeat this? Refer to: 8:82:794, 8:82:797 & 7:71:590. The Sahih Bukhari will be on top since it is the most authoritative text in Sunni Islam after the Quran. What other scholars / authors say come second.

2. No. Many featured articles such as Quran, Muhammad both use such verses. So it is NOT WP:UNDUE. Qwyrxian has agreed that 1 verse can be included.

I have given a secondary reference. Also, the verse "she has erected a solid barrier against hell" can easily imply a benefit.

3. Yes, I agree. Khamr is equated to Urine. Khamr is dirty / filth to an extreme degree. This is retained. But the sentence "In Islam it is forbidden to drink Urine" has been removed

4. Suspicious about the quality of a reference has nothing to do with you since you didn't author it.

5. The questioning of the Sahih Bukhari is by the International Institute of Islamic Thought which is an organisation that has been raided by FBI numerous times. My source is only the Bukhari in its present form and I have provided sufficient secondary sources by Islamic Scholars to as reference. Sunni Muslims view this as one of the three most trusted collections of hadith. In some circles, it is considered the most authentic book after the Qur'an. Inai09 (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Whoops, my mistake you're kind of right. Its only done in two sources of the five four - thats still not enough. It's clearly better to have it as references (which is what I've done).

• Its mentioned in Volumn 008, Book 082, Hadith Number 797.
• It's mentioned in Volumn 008, Book 082, Hadith Number 794
• But not in Volumn 008, Book 082, Hadith Number 796.
• But not in Volumn 006, Book 060, Hadith Number 134.

It's better to have them as references. We'll wait for the administrators opinion he hasn't commented yet.

1. 2 As per above, this whole article isn't based on Islam only on urine therapy, and should be limited not over inflated and unrepresentative with one quote (we would have to include another one for balance and thats just making it an even bigger section.
2. 3 No, that needs to be restored otherwise it doesn't make any sense. There are conflicting opinions on it which I've included.
3. 4 It's reliable, how can it not be? Just because it doesn't say what you want it to say doesn't mean its wrong
4. 5 Who cares if its been raided by the FBI? Some have been arrested. Its still representative on scholarly (Islamically) opinion according to their website. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

1. It is three. That is more than enough.

• It's mentioned in Volume 007, Book 071, Hadith Number 590.
• Its mentioned in Volumn 008, Book 082, Hadith Number 797.
• It's mentioned in Volumn 008, Book 082, Hadith Number 794

2. The issue of including it has been agreed with Qwyrxian.

3. How can you restore something that is not supported by refs? My version includes STRICTLY what's found in the refs, and for neutrality, that has to be the way.

4. It does not say what you have written.

5. Who else says that they represent mainstream Islamic thought other then they themselves? Inai09 (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No the issue hasn't been resolved with Qwyrian, since he agreed with me on the neutrality issue. If you want to include it include in the version that I made. Don't simply revert back when consensus agreed with me. The sources do say what I've said. You're just POV pushing now. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No he didn't. Anyway, I'm reverting to Qwyrian's last version. I have also requested help from Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. Please leave it this way and let the editors make a decision. Until that, we shall not edit. Ok?

Last version by NarSakSasLee: here

Last version by Inai09: here Inai09 (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to leave it to the last version agreed upon by Qwyrian then revert to the one me and him agreed to, otherwise leave it as it is (and I've tried my best to make it NPOV), I have no idea why your reverting back to the version that you, specifically created. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Shia source doesn't have anything to do with urine therapy just some crackpot saying she'll get to heaven. Thats got nothing to do with urine therapy only spiritual beliefs that this reference seems to disagree with your source being reliable [19]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inai09 (talk • contribs)

Inai09, at the moment, it looks like NarSakSasLee's edits are much more solid than yours. I think the problem is that you are under the mistaken belief that because the primary religious document says something, that that automatically trumps all of the later commentary. In fact, on Wikipedia, the exact opposite is true. Wikipedia relies primarily on secondary sources, not primary sources, to determine what to include. This is because primary sources are open to interpretation, while a secondary source is an interpretation. And when that secondary source is an authority of some type (i.e., what we call "reliable sources"), that is what we want to include. If modern, authoritative commenters consider the meaning or authenticity of that particle verse to be in question, then that's what Wikipedia should say, and we shouldn't quote the "original" as that gives it undue weight. Of course, if you had other reliable sources that disagreed with that interpretation, they could be included.

Also, please don't just revert back to an older version. At the moment, I think that the present version is far far better, which leaves a very simply 2-1 majority. Of course, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so I don't mean to say that 2 automatically "beats" 1. What it does mean, though, is that said "majority" version should remain in the article while we pursue dispute resolution. Inai09, do you think that you have a focused, main concern? Like, is your main desire to get the Bukhari quote into the article? If that's the case, then I think a Request for Comment is the easiest way to go. If the issue is more complicated, then we might want to consider a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. If you need help setting either of those up, I'd be happy to do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I have time and again repeated that there are 4 secondary sources that interpret the Bukhari in a way that Muhammad advocates drinking camel urine. They are provided above. My question is how can 3 verses from the Bukhari (which is the 2nd most authoritative text in Sunni Islam), together with numerous secondary sources in that regard, be sidelined? I don't know why you're ignoring those secondary sources and all my arguments? In fact even if you refer, the (secondary) source that is quoted in the present version DOES NOT specifically say that Urine Drinking is forbidden in Islam. Furthermore, the refs I gave is an interpretation of the Bukhari, while the present refs DO NOT comment on the Bukhari statement, but just says "alcohol is filthy, like urine". And this has been interpreted to be "In Islam, urine drinking is forbidden" in the present version. How is this correct? Yes, my main desire is to include the verse from the Bukhari at the beginning of the article (remember, I have both primary and secondary sources that support Muhammad advocating drinking camel's urine). Next is to remove statements from questionable quarters who discredit those particular verses (as found in the present version). Further, dismissing the verse from the Hayatus Sahabah, which is an authoritative Shia text needs examination. And yes, please go ahead with WP:DRN since this seems to be heading nowhere. Inai09 (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hinduism

I've renamed the India section to Hinduism as it clearly talks about religious texts belonging to the Hindu religion and belongs better in the religious section. NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've re-written this section somewhat mainly because it mentions Hinduism and is a part of Hinduism per the following references on ayurvedic or Hindu science:

• [20]
• [21]
• [22]
• [23]

In Hinduism a religious Sanskrit text called the Damar Tantra contains 107 stanzas on the benefits of "pure water, or one's own urine".[11] In this text, urine therapy is referred to as Shivambu Kalpa.[11] This text suggests, among other uses and prescriptions, massaging one's skin with fresh, concentrated urine. In the Ayurvedic tradition, which is fundamentally taken from the Hindu scriptures called the Vedas, urine therapy is called amaroli which when practised requires some dietry requirements such as mixing it with water to "cure cancers" and other "diseases" along with "raw food and certain fruits like banana, papaya and citrus fruits" which are claimed to be "very good in the practice of amaroli".[12][13][14][15] One of the main aims of this system is to "prevent illness, heal the sick and preserve life".[14][16]

I've tried to make this as neutral as possible again talking strictly in terms of urine therapy only. NarSakSasLee (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

About.com is basically never a reliable source, because it's impossible to distinguish user submitted content from content that's under the control of an editorial board. I'm also concerned about religionfacts, ayurvedic-medicines, and yogamag--do we have any evidence that they meet WP:RS? BBC, of course, is OK. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll investigate that about.com quote more but its more or less saying the same thing as the BBC source is. Perhaps it can act as a tertiary source (with the BBC being a secondary source?). Religion facts seems quite reliable since its unlike other religious websites in that its not biased towards atheism, Christianity or Islam and seems quite genuine. Yogamag seems to represent one Swamis opinion - I'll introduce his writing as scholarly advice since he is a scholar and re-tweak that section. As for ayurvedic - that was only placed there to confirm what ayurvedic medicine is. So the only one that needs deletion seems to be about.com - unless you've spotted something which doesn't look right in the other sources? NarSakSasLee (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Islam section

Here is my proposed version:

In Sunni Islam, the Sahih Bukhari, which forms one of the six major Hadith collections quotes the Prophet Muhammad ordering his followers to drink camel's urine as a medicine in three verses. [note 1]

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 590:

Narrated Anas: The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). [note 2]

In Shia Islam, the Hayatus Sahabah, a collection about the companions of the Prophet Muhammad contains a narration about the consumption of the Prophet's urine and the Prophet's reaction. [note 3]

Hayatus Sahaba, Volume 2, Narration of Hadhrat Hakeemah bint Umaymah Concerning the Drinking of Rasulullaah's Urine:

Hadhrat Hakeemah bint Umaymah narrates from her mother that Rasulullaah (i.e. the Prophet Muhammad) had a wooden cup in which he used to urinate. He kept this cup beneath his bed. When he looked for it one day and could not find it, he asked where it was. He was then informed that Surrah the maid servant of Hadhrat Ummu Salamah who had come with her from Abyssinia had drunk it. Rasulullaah said, "She has erected a solid barrier against the Fire (of Jahannam).[note 4]

Some scholars have termed urine as "filth in an extreme degree" (khamr) and those who consider it lawful are punishable in the same way as apostasy. Abū Ḥanīfa has said that the consumption of urine is "disliked". Abu Yusuf on the other hand has said that "there is no harm in using camel urine as a medicine".[note 5]

Note 1: Primary Sources are 8:82:794, 8:82:797 & 7:71:590. Secondary sources that interpret it in a way that Muhammad advocated drinking camel urine:

1. Morgan, D. (2010). Essential Islam: a comprehensive guide to belief and practice, p. 186. (Santa Barbara - ABC CLIO). ISBN 0313360251

2. Abu Bakar Marghinani, A. (1870). The Hedaya, or Guide: a commentary on the Mussulman laws, p. 595. (Oxford: Oxford University).

3. Umar Kathir, I. (2000). The life of the prophet Muḥammad: a translation of al-Sīra al-Nabawiyya, p.244. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan / Garnet). ISBN 1859640095

In all refs, the word "ordered" has been used. In the English translation of the Bukhari too the word Ordered has been used. The Bukhari is Sunni Islam's 2nd most authoratative text after the Quran, hence it should take precedence. If you refer to the present version, the author DOES NOT say specifically that Urine is forbidden in Islam.

Note 2: Primary source (as given above) is included as I've previously explained to Qwyrxian.

Note 3: An interpretation of the particular verse from the Hayatus Sahabah (an authoritative Shia text) is provided in the Sahih al-Jami al-Sagheer, which is a later commentary on Islamic texts and laws. That is a secondary source. Furthermore, there has recently been a fatwa that was issued by Dar al-Ifta’ al-Masriyya (The Egyptian House of Religious Edicts) that stipulates that the urine of Prophet Muhammad could be sought for blessing and healing (baraka). This was fatwa subsequently withdrawn, with scholars dismissing that verse as "false", but nonetheless it remains in the Hayatus Sahabah and is noteworthy.

Note 4: The Primary reference from the Hayatus Sahabah has been provided.

Note 5: You be the judge and determine who's version is in line with that ref, and whether the author specifically states that "Urine drinking is forbidden in Islam". p. 103.

Now please tell me what's wrong or where do you think I'm only relying on primary sources. Each of my statements are backed by multiple, solid sources, unlike what you find in the present version. :

In the mean time, please go ahead with WP:DRN as we need more opinions. Inai09 (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This version is a non-starter. You're putting 90% of the emphasis on the primary source, not on the secondary sources. This isn't even a debatable point. If you want it to change, start with secondary sources, and add the primary only where strictly necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Qwyrian, you do seem to be relying to heavily on primary sources whereas I've given balanced scholarly opinion on the text that its forbidden and considered a misintrepretation by two secondary sources. Again the Hayatus Sahabah is irrelevent (how do you interpret some woman drinking a mans urine as therapeutic when it just says she's blocked from the fire? Its ridiculous because it doesn't mention the therapeatic benefits - which is what this article is about). If it does contain information on the therapeutic values I'm all for it being incorporated within the text as a reference on health benefits. Furthermore that source by the NYTimes and Islamopediaonline.com just discredits your notion that its an "authoratative text" if the majority of scholars have rejected and renounced this text and have had it removed. The interpretation (or fatwa, as you say) has been removed and taken to mean false (which is a secondary source that disproves your point that its reliable - its not reliable). This is non-issue. Furthermore to clarify as above I've done countless times, the book which is cited as saying in Islam its forbidden is per this source. On page 103 the author makes the comment that "Khamr is filth to an extreme degree, like urine" where he explicitly and blatantly equates khamr with urine. And then proceeds to go on and say "A Muslim who says it is lawful becomes an infidel [exposed to the penalty of apostasy]. It may not be put to use in any way [eg medicine]. One who drinks it in large quantities, recieves a legal penalty, eighty lashes, unless it has been boiled." This is all on pg 103 however it does give other accounts from scholars such as Abu Yusef and Abu Hanif who dispute that its forbidden which is already in the version that I made (making it thus, neutral as it represents everyone's opinion on the issue). Furthermore another secondary source on the authenticity of the hadith sections mentioning urine is from the The International Institute of Islamic Thought where they give their account saying Muhammad meant camel milk and his followers went and drank camel milk with urine and this eventually came into the hadiths and imply it was a mistake on part of Sahih Bukhari to include it. As proof they state "throughout the history of the Companions there is no reference to the uses of camel urine for theraputic purposes" (page 80). No one is disputing the fact that Muhammed didn't say drink camel urine from the hadiths, indeed as you say inai09, its in the hadiths. He told his followers to drink it (sometimes ordering them) per 8:82:794, 8:82:797 and 7:71:590 (590 does explicitely state he ordered them to drink urine but to follow a shephard and then it stipulates that drinking urine is the purpose for why they followed the shephard - its too ambiguous) and sometimes not 82:796, 60:134 where he just gives a mention. But what you're saying is to just include primary sources which would be highly misleading to the reader. The primary sources prove camel urine is in the hadiths but the reliabilty is disputed by Islamic Scholars in secondary sources, who have different opinions on it, but generally its equated by everyone to mean its forbidden in Islam like Khamr is in terms of therapeautic value only from the book by John Alden Williams. NarSakSasLee (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, fine. If the emphasis is supposed to be on secondary sources, I think I can include these two sources (which specifically mentioned the use of camel urine is permitted in Islam for medicinal purposes).

• Here's the first - "it is allowed to use the Urine of camels for medical purposes" - very first line of the page

• here's the second - "the statement that it urine is impure is of recent origins, none of the companions held that it is impure" - Para. 3.

So do these qualify as secondary sources for inclusion Qwyrxian? It disproves the whole "Urine is forbidden in Islam notion BECAUSE this does not explicitly state Urine is forbidden while my refs clearly state that it is allowed. Inai09 (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• [24] This just says camel urine is allowed for medicinal purposes only. Nothing wrong with this source. I would include it.
• [25] This does not disprove that urine is forbidden in Islam since it is just another interpretation/opinion on the matter and since the Hadiths are contested to be true or false (see below for contested opinions). However I would incorporate something like "however this scholar say this in his book". But do we really need more than the 2 already mentioned? NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually since these books are about Islamic law, then we could say under Islamic law (to differentiate it from Islam) that it is permitted to consume camel urine but under Islam it is not. Islamic law is something which is different from Islam itself (and indeed they do contradict each other so it would only make sense to say "under Islamic law" - I'm all for incorporating that into the paragraph). NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, John Alden Williams was discussing Islamic law too, but his version of Sharia seems to contradict your sourced Sharia. There must be different types of Sharia then. Anyway this issue is far too confusing so I've informed the people who can tell us most about Islam, Muslims from Wikiproject: Islam. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Allowed or Not Allowed in Islam?

Okay there seems to be some confusion as to whether or not its allowed in Islam or under Islamic Sharia. Islamic Sharia drinking camel urine is allowed but only camel urine from the sources Inai09 presented. However in Islam since its considered an intoxicant its not allowed. The two are different things and should be differentiated when mentioned. I think this will definitely sort out all the confusion.

Islam

Inai09 you say these sources say Muhammad encouraged drinking camel urine or are topical on the subject. This is false. They just quote hadiths (sources I've already used in the neutral version anyway that say Muhammad told his followers to drink it) and they never comment upon urine drinking specifically.

1. Morgan, D. (2010). Essential Islam: a comprehensive guide to belief and practice, p. 186. (Santa Barbara - ABC CLIO). ISBN 0313360251

It just quotes the Hadith (from which translation is not known) and does not comment upon camel urine drinking practices [26]

2. Abu Bakar Marghinani, A. (1870). The Hedaya, or Guide: a commentary on the Mussulman laws, p. 595. (Oxford: Oxford University).

Again just repeats the hadiths quote. Nothing new here nor talks about urine drinking being compulsory. Comments more on the fact that the Muhammad killed a shephard.

3. Umar Kathir, I. (2000). The life of the prophet Muḥammad: a translation of al-Sīra al-Nabawiyya, p.244. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan / Garnet). ISBN 1859640095

Again, it just quotes one of the Hadith translations and does not at all comment upon the practices of drinking urine, merely goes on to talk about other things.[27]

The problem here is that the sources have 'nothing to do camel urine drinking (they merely confirm what the hadiths say by quotation and are hence irrelevant). There are Muslims and Islamic website that dispute the authenticity of the Hadiths, but overall if you look at all the secondary sources they say in Islam camel urine drinking or any type of urine drinking is forbidden because it comes under the heading of "intoxicant".

• John Alden Willams - Confirms this by equating Khamr with urine and then goes to explain Khamr is haram (punishment for apostasy and whatnot in Islamic law), while explaining beforehand that some scholars regard it with some disdain and confusion but overall says its forbidden in Islam (page 103 (and before it)).
• This one looks reliable and comments on the nature of camel urine in Islam since it states on its website that it's "An Islamic site covering a wide range of topics and issues relating to Islam" and comments on many issues ranging from the history of the Quran to menial things like camel urine. Here is the post discussing camel urine. It seems like a secondary source and along with the IIIT source seems to expand upon the ideas of the hadiths authenticity with respect to camel urine drinking.
• This is another Muslim website that comments upon the Hadith sayings of drinking camel urine. It's a Muslim website. This one could definitely be used as a secondary source as it comments upon translation of the hadith with respect to camel urine drinking.

NarSakSasLee (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Islamic Law

• [28] This just says camel urine is allowed for medicinal purposes only. Nothing wrong with this source. I would include it.
• [29] This does not disprove that urine is forbidden in Islam but rather that it is allowed in Islamic law. Since these books are about Islamic law, then we could say under Islamic law (to differentiate it from Islam) that it is permitted to consume camel urine but under Islam it is not. Islamic law is something which is different from Islam itself (and indeed they do contradict each other so it would only make sense to say "under Islamic law" - I'm all for incorporating that into the paragraph). NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• [30] - However this source seems to contradict it being permissable in Islamic law and its an Islamic Law book commentary! NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Islamic law is anyhow based on Islam. How can Islam "forbid" something and Islamic law approve it? There are only 2 sources of Islamic law - the Quran and examples set by Muhammad. Anyhow I have refs below that specifically say "ISLAM PERMITS".

Now as such, I think the whole sentence "Drinking of Urine is forbidden in Islam" is no longer tenable - more so as an opening statement - as there are enough sources to disprove it. It's a clear case of WP:UNDUE. The opening sentence has to be edited to read something like "it is unclear whether the drinking of urine is permitted in Islam" - then the supporting and opposing views are to be included. Here are some more sources that quote drinking camel urine being allowed for medicinal purposes.

In addition to the 2 above, the following books:

Note: refs 1&2 don't use the word Islamic law, but rather "ISLAM permits".

• Note No.7 says "Islam allowed the drinking of urine of animals that one was permitted to eat"

• says Islam encourages and permits the drinking of Camel Urine as a medicine

• says it is permissible to drink camel's urine (and the purity of urine of urine of animals that can be eaten

• says Muhammad prescribed fresh cows milk together with its urine as a medicine - p28, para.3 (pdf document).

The 4th source mentions camels urine not cow urine page.28 para.3 . NarSakSasLee (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Inai09 (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Kindly point out the pages please. Its difficult to find some of what you're saying (also see the point below about changing "Islam permits" to ambiguity). NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to look at all of these sources right now, but, assuming they're all reliable, it sounds like the article needs to say, "Islamic sources disagree about whether drinking urine is permitted, particularly with reference to camel urine. Scholar X says A, while Scholar Y says B." It's quite common for articles to reflect multiple opinions like this. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Qwyrxian. You've not disproven anything. We have to go by what the sources say and I have provided 3 sources which say or imply its forbidden in Islam and you have several. That's entirely okay. If you have an issue with their religion then I suggest you work out on the Islam talk page - we're not here to interpret anything. Adding contesting opinions on secondary sources is allowed however choosing ones over the other blatantly violates WP:NPOV and adds WP:SYNTHESIS to the article to make it one sided. Adding both opinions would be viable for a final consensus. Furthermore we cannot say or refute what Islam allows (in light of the evidence you have supplied and the additional opinions I've gathered). For example some define Islam as just the Quran and others incorporate the hadiths or additional texts. That's not for us to decide. Urine therapy is not mentioned in the Quran once and urine clearly is an intoxicant as many doctors will tell you, however the sources you've provided say otherwise. Again that's fine. We'll have to incorporate additional and all evidence given this new knowledge and say its ambiguous in Islam because the Quran doesn't mention it but some forms of Islamic law says X and Y. "X" being my point and "Y" yours. That's a very suitable compromise. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We will write "it is unclear whether the consumption of urine is permitted in Islam". According to xxx & yyy, it is allowed to drink urine from camels (or any animals that can be eaten). Furthermore it is stated in the Bukhari ... .... However these are contested by ... ... who claim it is forbidden ... ... (you can continue)". This is perfectly neutral. Just like how you did not seek the opinion of Wikiproject Islam to include the "forbidden" part, I don't need anybody's permission to elaborate that it is "allowed" since I now have 5 reliable sources that say it is allowed.

By the way the refs AUTOMATICALLY LINK YOU to their PAGE. But to remove any ambiguity,

• PAGE431 Note No.7 says "Islam allowed the drinking of urine of animals that one was permitted to eat - PAGE "

• TOPIC 6.2.2.1 - Camel Milk - Para. 2 - says Islam encourages and permits the drinking of Camel Urine as a medicine

• PAGE 379 - says it is permissible to drink camel's urine (and the purity of urine of urine of animals that can be eaten)

• says Muhammad prescribed fresh CAMEL's (my mistake) milk together with its urine as a medicine - p28, para.3 (pdf document)

Agreed? We shall include both arguments. I will work on the "Islam allows part (since there are sufficient primary & secondary sources to support this)", and in a separate paragraph we can include your part "on the other hand .. ...". Qwyrxian? Sounds fair? Inai09 (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good but there are still some problems to sort out. Thanks anyway for the page references, it helps. They didn't organise on my browser properly (took me to the top of the book page). I'll investigate them further and see what they're talking about properly so we can reach a generalised consensus. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Before We Begin...

Before we can begin on writing the newer version with more neutrality lets place some ground rules to sort out which references we're going to use from the mess above. We need to summarise and seperate irrelevant references from the relevant. For both parties (that includes me and Inai09) lets write down below which sources we've found and are going to use. From this it will be decided where exactly we're going to use them. For example reference catagories will be split down to the following:

• Quran allows/doesn't allow:
  • [31] [NOT ALLOWED] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • [32] [NOT ALLOWED] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • [33] [NOT ALLOWED] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • [34] [NOT ALLOWED] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • [35] [NOT ALLOWED] ("urine" search reveals only one verse where urine in mentioned. No mention of drinking urine). NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • [36] [NOT ALLOWED] (similar to above). NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Hadith quotes: -although the Hadith verses are the same everywhere, the site "luvu4luv" is not in my opinion scholarly. We should follow [www.sahih-bukhari.com/ sahihbukhari.com]
  • [37] [ALLOWED] - [NOT RS] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • [38] [ALLOWED] [RS] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • [39] [ALLOWED] [NOT RS] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Hadith allows/doesn't allow + contested reliability of hadiths (ie some say its reliable others don't)
  • [40] [NOT ALLOWED] + [CONTESTS HADITH] [RS - This should be the main source in the contesting Hadith part] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • [41] [NOT ALLOWED] + [CONTESTS HADITH] [NOT RS] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • [42] [NOT ALLOWED] + [CONTESTS HADITH] [NOT RS] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • [43] [NOT ALLOWED] + [CONTESTS HADITH] [RS] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • [44] [NOT ALLOWED] + [CONTESTS HADITH] [NOT RS] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • [45] [NOT ALLOWED] + [CONTESTS HADITH] [NOT RS - this website is blocked in some countries] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Islamic Law allows/doesn't allow
  • [46] [NOT ALLOWED] [RS, but I am uncomfortable with it because it only equates wine with urine and does not directly say it is forbidden] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • [47] [ALLOWED] and [NOT ALLOWED] (gives both imams arguments) [?? - the content is very good but how notable are those imams is a question] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• Islam allows/doesn't allow
  • [48] [NOT ALLOWED] [NOT RS] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • [49] [NOT ALLOWED] NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

To save space, under the bullet points please write out the references that we're going to use that you think are reliable. For example I've sorted out mine under the relevant topic. Please also state which argument catagory it belongs to and place in square brackets. Additionally the main reasons for this order is because the Quran is the first most important text, the hadiths the second, Islamic law third (since its derived from both the 1st and 2nd texts) and lastly the more ambigous references that generalises what Islam allows and doesn't. Also remember to timestamp and sign the bullet points to make it more organised please NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention that you can place the reference in more than one catagory if it applies. This will help in the writing of the section. NarSakSasLee (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If you notice, apart from the Primary Sources (i.e. Bukhari), I did not use websites to back my points because in my opinion most do not fall within the category of WP:RS.

Here are some quotations from WP:RS:

Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.

While many websites claim to be authoritative on Islam, we cannot just take into consideration what's written in their "about us" page.

Furthermore, it is imperative that, before we start, you find reliable sources that should directly support the information as it is presented in an article - as stated in the WP:RS page. The Quran DID NOT specifically mention that Urine is forbidden. So it is inappropriate to mention that.

We can however use the John Alden source about Urine being considered Khamr, but yet again, please look for some reliable sources that specifically say "consumption of urine is forbidden in Islam". Google books is a good place to start. The refs that I have presented specifically say that "Urine is allowed in Islam". In fact some even talk about Urine from all "halal" animals being allowed, which can be considered for inclusion.

I have identified what I think is a WP:RS. I don't quite agree with the "Quran section" since it "doesn't directly support".

PS - Other browsers don't work very well with Google Books other than Chrome. In Chrome, in 1 click you will go directly to the page and the necessary section highlighted for your ease of reference. It may save you time. Inai09 (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Inai, could you kindly seperate your comments from mine, I don't like my own comments edited by other users because its misleading. Furthermore I dispute your claim about it being "not RS" - we'll have to let Qwyrxian deal with that. I still think those sources are reliable since they are giving their opinions on the sources. WP:RS says all significant minority opinions must be represented as well and since they are secondary sources we'll have to include them. As for the whole Quran thing, I actually meant that we should say the Quran doesn't mention urine drinking at all but does mention not to drink toxic materials, but toxic materials is ambiguous. After this then we'll talk about the Hadiths since its next in line of text importance which do mention that drinking camel urine for medicine is okay and then Islamic law (since the sources you've provided talk about Islamic law specifically in the context of Islam). NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It was you who wrote "To save space, under the bullet points please write out the references that we're going to use that you think are reliable."!! And that's what I did! About minority sources, yes they can be included but they cannot be used to entirely support a claim. I mean in that case I can include many weblinks that are critical of Islamic practices in regard to urine therapy, whereby they are also giving their (author's) "opinion on sources"! About Islamic law - I repeat what already said above - Islamic law is based on Islam. How can Islam "forbid" something and Islamic law approve it? There are only 2 sources of Islamic law - the Quran and examples set by Muhammad. Anyhow I have provided refs that specifically say "ISLAM PERMITS". Inai09 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did write that but I didn't say you could edit my comments. I said place your sources in bullet points - not edit mine. Your reasoning of minority opinion is flawed in that those sites are authoritative (ie represent Muslim opinion). That does not make them unreliable. You've provided references for ISLAMIC LAW not ISLAM. Islamic law is derived from the Quran and the Hadiths but they contradict one another - haven't you noticed nearly all religions do? The Quran says toxins are not to be taken but the hadiths clearly reccommened camel urine. You CANNOT generally just say "Islam permits" because that's a broad statement. If you're still in doubt we'll wait for Qwyrxian to reply and see what he says. In the meantime clear up the list - I signed the bullet points the least I would expect from someone who's accidentally edited my comments is to re edit them to their original form. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)