Talk:Jihad/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Misc Discussions

I am sorry, but I am calling the objectivity of this article into question. Jihad is primarily a military, aggressive construct. This definition is pro-religious propaganda. -- By 68.252.234.73

You seem to have a preconceived idea on what Jihad is, prehaps from what mass media in the West and popular culture repeats day after day. This repetition is not necessarily accurate, nor fair, much less being based in facts, no matter how often it is repeated, nor how many think it is true. If you have firm evidence to the contrary, then please present it, otherwise, do not let biases shape your view of reality. --KB 23:39, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

Oops, I edited too hastily. I mixed up the quote on "defending against aggression" with the quote on "suicide is forbidden". You can revert, or help me correct my error.

Some commentators, quoting the Koran selectively, insist that Muslims feel a divine mandate to attack non-believers, apparently either to convert or exterminate them. Here is one the larger context of the first such "quote" I researched (Ed Poor):

[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. [2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors. [1]

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that this passage authorizes only "fighting back" in response to an initial attack; but only for the purpose of eliminating persecution of Muslim believers. Does anyone else know anything about this topic? --Ed Poor 13:55 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)

I know this about Abrahamic religions. Each one has a main holy text, and a peripheral oral/written culture to expedite interpretation and dissemination of doctrine. While fundamentalism's definition can be debated, I find it useful to constrain the meaning to those that endore sola scriptura, or the concept that the primary text contains all of the relevant religious doctrine. What Ed's doing, in my opinion, is take a sort of Socratic-analytical approach to investigating Islam. This is most useful when debating philosophical issues, like theology, but I think it's not helpful towards understanding millitant religion. For example, Ed's approach is fairly Talmudic - building arguments or investigations by examining the primary text. The doctrine of sola scriptura does not endorse a Talmudic method: G-d's literal word is manifest, self-consistent, and only corruptible by the intervention of humans. There is a culture of violence that interprets the Koran and recastes the interpretation of the quotes above. Jihad is, itself, a sophisticated concept. The ten commandments, central to Abrahamic religions, prohibit murder, yet these religions are historically violent. When G-d commands the Hebrews to take a city, and to leave no prisoners, this is Jihad. The juxtaposition of violence and prohibitions against it present a self-inconsistency to ancient Judaism's underpinnings. Christianity partially transcends this issue through its doctrine of nonviolence, of turning the other cheek. Islam suffers from no such inconsistencies in this regard, and its practitioners are free to make war in the name of G-d. I think it's more useful to discuss, why does any religion shift from moderate and nonviolent to fundamentalist and violent? I think all Abrahamic religions have demonstrated this cultural shift. rmbh 19:27, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

From the article:

Although not unique to Islam and the Islamic culture; such ideas have proven to gruesome to even consider thinking about in non-theocratic and non-dictatorial states as bigotous and greedy (yet re-occuring) horrors like the holy crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, holocaust, slavery, Khmer Rouge, Chechnya,japanese occupation of korea, suggest that any central or broad or unspoken advocation or allowance of separatism (religious, cultural, ethnic, educational,linguistic...) is very harmful for establishing stable society that is reflective of a worldy and tolerating government, and the culture of its denizens.

I'm not trying to suppress the above -- I just can't parse its syntax! What was the contributor trying to say here?

Please rewrite the above in several complete sentences. I will be happy to help with grammar or spelling. Then re-insert the text into the article. --Ed Poor

From the article: It is considered a mandatory and fundamental principle of Islam.

This seems like a very strong claim. Surely it is only considered mandatory by some muslims, particularly in the sense of "combat", as opposed to "striving"? Could someone who knows more about the topic please qualify this sentence correctly? -- Pde 01:56, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)


All the sources I have read, including those by Muslim authors, all say precisely the same thing. It is obligatory for all Muslims to engage on internal and extrenal forms of Jihad, at all times. There are significant disputes, of course, as to when an external form of Jihad (armed war against non-Muslims) is considered mandatory. Since there has never been any one religious authority to which all Muslims defer, different groups of Muslims have developed interpretations of when to fight. The same is still true today. RK
Okay, well the article seems to me to be a little misleading -- because when the reader is told that it is "mandatory and fundamental", they are probably not considering jihad to mean "engage in external jihad, but only when you are under direct attack" (which seems rather similar to "an eye for an eye" to me). -- Pde 04:36, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

User User:68.13.34.210 edited out a statement that I added, saying: Removed the statement "It is important to note that although this conquest did indeed happen, there were no forced conversions to Islam as a result" as it is an unprovable generalization. For anyone who read history, it was well known that before waging war on any region, the Muslim armies gave three choices to the people of that region: 1) Accept Islam as a religion, 2) Retain their religion, and pay tribute jizyah, and finally, 3) Go into battle to impose jizyah. This is clearly stated in hadiths by Muhammad, and is well documented in many historical accounts. Forced conversion was contrary to Islamic law. -- KB 00:44, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

I moved the following text from the article because I couldn't find any information to back it up. If someone has a citation for this feel free to move it back:

"For these [fringe Islamic groups such as Al Qaeda and Hamas], the act of saying that women should vote, or that Jews and Christians should be given equal rights, itself is an act of violence against Islam, and thus all of Western society is a target for a Jihad. Other Muslims consider such views to be extremist and a violation of the intent of the Quran." Wmahan 20:36, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


The terms "inner Jihad" and outer Jihad seem to be used inconsitently on this page. In the definitions section inner jihad is defined as military struggle, but in the final paragraph it is used to mean "internal struggle" of a jurist.

I know nothing about jihad so I won't try to fix this. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of more knowlegeble editors. Zeimusu 01:11, 2004 May 6 (UTC)


I removed the following passage because it is apparently based on a false hadith, although I know it's often quoted by muslims. If anybody wants to put it back, please state an authoritative reference:

"The word has two connotations in Islam:

  1. "lesser (outer) jihad"—a military struggle against aggressors
  2. "greater (inner) jihad"—the struggle of personal self-improvement against the self's base desires"

--Aidfarh 13:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The hadith has two chains of narration, and is widely quoted, so it's worth keeping. Some people do argue against it[2], but I find their motivations rather suspicious. Mustafaa 19:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The asnad is weak, so the passage shouldn't be put at the top of the page. You could mention it, but the way you say it, excludes other actions that are considered jihad e.g. speaking out against an oppressive ruler, going to haj. For these two examples, there are sahih hadiths. --Aidfarh 23:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

That's a useful addition you just made; I wasn't aware of those hadiths. Thanks! As for the placement, I'm not sure; the hadith is weak, but it's also very commonly cited. - Mustafaa 23:36, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Crusade

I heard that Arabic speakers use the word Jihad in much the same way English speakers use the word "crusade", and visa versa. For example, Jihad to english speakers means holy war, just like crusade to arabic speakers means holy war. In english, a crusade can be used to mean to further a cause, which is from what I understand what jihad means in arabic. Just some notes. Earl Andrew 06:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

what does this mean?

Note: Jihad in the term of War (Arabic: qital) today only applied as a self-defense action against any states (or any institution) that attack or waging war on the Islam states. The terrorism against civillians itself is denounced by Islam. The jihad against State of Israel performed by Palestinians is permitted as the self defense act.Quran 22:39-40

I'm not sure exactly what this line means and I'm not sure how it adds anything to the discussion above it. I am removing it.

out-of-context quotations: good encyclopedia material or malarkey?

Removed
“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. ” Surah 8:60

This one is at least relevant: it is from a section outlining the Muslim theory of warfare. However, without the next ayah, this quotation is misleading to say the least:

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)." Surah 8:61

Was this rather crucial omission intentional or accidental?

Notice the "and trust in Allah" requirement. In the case of the Jews, they would rather be killed a Jew than convert to Islam. What this is actually saying is "convert or die".
Actually it is not. See People of the Book. —No-One Jones (m) 12:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Furthermore the admonition to "trust in Allah" follows from the previous statement ("do thou (also) incline towards peace") and is addressed to the same group: the Muslims. —No-One Jones (m) 21:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Removed
“I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them It is not ye who slew them it was Allah.” Surah 8:12, 17

because of another rather crucial omission: the first part is indirect discourse in the original but that fact is obscured here. The original says: "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.' " And again, this is ripped from its context—instructions for how to make war on the pagans of Arabia—and taken to apply generally, which may or may not be the case.

The others appear, to my limited knowledge, to be on-target. —No-One Jones (m) 11:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, after reading the last sentence of the intro, I removed all of the quotations. If what the article says is true—that "the word Jihad appears in the Qu'ran a total of 4 times but is never used in a militant context. The term used for militant struggle is Qi'tal"—then none of these are at all relevant. —No-One Jones (m) 11:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This vandal 168.209.97.34 has a history of vandalising Islamic articles by inserting anti-Islamic twists. The guy even vandalized my user page. It was funny :)) but I think the vandal needs to be banned for a few days. OneGuy 12:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More malarkey

"Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah and have gone out for Jihad (holy fighting). Some have completed their vow to extreme and have been martyred fighting and dying in His Cause, and some are waiting, prepared for death in battle."” Surah 33:22

When checked against three English translations, this is revealed to be bullshit. First, Surah 33:22 says (Yusuf Ali's translation):

"When the Believers saw the Confederate forces, they said: "This is what Allah and his Messenger had promised us, and Allah and His Messenger told us what was true." And it only added to their faith and their zeal in obedience."

The next ayah is similar to the quotation here, but the phrases "and have gone out for Jihad (holy fighting)", "and have been martyred fighting and dying in His Cause", and "prepared for death in battle" do not appear in three major English translations. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself. —No-One Jones (m) 12:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

removed "Jihad in the Qur'an" section

My remarks from above, repeated here for the anonymous editor's benefit:

After reading the last sentence of the intro, I removed all of the quotations. If what the article says is true—that "the word Jihad appears in the Qu'ran a total of 4 times but is never used in a militant context. The term used for militant struggle is Qi'tal"—then none of these are at all relevant. They might be relevant to an article on qi'tal, or Islamic theories of warfare, but they do not belong here. —No-One Jones (m) 12:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(p.s. since you wanted a "NON-Muslim" to look at the section, I suppose I should state for the record that I'm Roman Catholic. —No-One Jones (m) 13:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC))

The Koran and the Hadith especially is FULL of links between war and Jihad. Do you deny this? Perhaps I should change the subject from "Jihad in the Qu'ran" to "Jihad in the Scriptures". Then your arguement will get a lot more difficult
It would help if you could quote the original, in the original Arabic, rather than trawling quotations off of trashy hate sites; as you should have seen by now, such sources can contain severe inaccuracies, whether they were inserted intentionally or were simply the result of poor translations. But since you're using such crappy sources, I doubt you have the knowledge of Arabic that that would require. (I don't, so don't ask.) Next best would be citing a source written by someone who speaks Arabic and has some familiarity with the varying interpretations of the relevant scriptural passages—and neither prophetofdoom.net nor MEMRI are such, though Reuven Firestone's Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam is decent. —No-One Jones (m) 13:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why are you reverting these? Go look it up.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran

The verses are out of context. So you are still denying you are not just a vandal with an agenda?

It's out of context because the very NEXT verse gives the opposite meaning to what leaving the context implies. For example you quote "Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies," but if you read the context, the very next verse, it says, "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)."

That's clearly out of context quote. Now please explain here why you are posting out of context verses before you revert. OneGuy 08:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What the next verse says is that you can be saved only by converting to Islam
It doesn't say that, but if you think it says that, then why not post it and let others judge, instead of hiding the context? OneGuy 08:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Concepts require context

168.209.97.34, in an edit summary you wrote can any NON-Muslim please have a look at this section and comment? -- I am not a Muslim. A co-worker let me borrow his copy of The Qur'an to check the verses. The exact words of the translation vary slightly, but the meaning is clearly the same. If these quotes are eventually kept, it is important that they be in context. Concepts often take more than a single sentence to convey. If you take only one sentence, out of context, that single sentence could seem to imply something different than, or even opposite from, what was communicated in the concept. For example, Surah 8:60,61 taken together communicate a concept (when to go to war, when to end the war). Quoting only the first part hides from the reader a very important part of the total concept involved. Ommissions of context cannot help accurately portray the ideas presented in any text and should be especially guarded against where religious texts are concerned. SWAdair | Talk 09:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not Muslim either. 168.209.97.34 apparently thinks that anyone who is not viciously making the articles anti-Islamic must be Muslim. I have told 168.209.97.34 several times that I am not Muslim. The guy ignored that and started vandalizing my user page, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:OneGuy&oldid=7215232 OneGuy 09:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1400 years of Imperialism?

Either the 1400 year figure is evidence of bias, or it is in error. The imperialistic expansion of Islamist rule can be said to have come to an end at the greatest extent of the Ottoman empire, approximately 1900, probably not earlier.

Corrected to 1,300 years. Muhammad started actively invading and conqueroring lands around 620 CE (as discussed in the article) and so Islam's imperialism began with him. Islamic empires existed continuously from that time until 1924 CE, when Atatuk abolished the Ottoman Caliphate. That's a period of time spanning about 1,300 years (1924 - 620 = 1304). --Pename
Of course, not the entire period of that 1400 can be classified as "imperialism." There were centuries in between when the empire was not expanded (in some cases it even shrinked for centuries). By your definition of imperialism, Europeans are still carrying out "imperialism" because they are still occupying North America OneGuy 08:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A shrinking empire is still an empire, and wherever there is an empire there is imperialism. Contrary to your idiotic statement, this does not imply that north america is part of a european empire. Empires no longer exist in the modern world. For 1300 continuous years, Islamic Empires exists in the world, and thus Islamic Imperialism existed in the world for approx. 1,300 years. --Pename
Not true. Iraq was conquered by Arabs a few years after Muhammad died, so when exactly Arabs stopped being an "imperial" power of Iraq and Iraq became Arab itself? Are the United States and Canada still "imperial" countries of Europeans? 14,000 years is clear exaggeration. Actually, Arab domination ended around 1200. After that, Turks were ruling Arabs (by defeating them and taking Iraq, Egypt, Palestine etc.) and they expanded their own empire in East Europe. They also started declining around 17th century. Unless, you are claiming that Istanbul is still an imperial city of Turks? OneGuy 09:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


iraq stop being part of the Islamic empire when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled after WWI. Also, as an Arab Muslim you might think of the Ottoman Empire as "their own empire in East Europe" but the fact is that the Ottoman Empire was an ISlAMIC empire. Just because the Ottoman empire was not dominated by Arabs does not mean that it was not an ISlamic empire.
the 1,300 year figure is not an exaggeration. islamic empires existed from around 620 CE till 1924 CE, a period of about 1,300 years. this is clearly an historical fact. this historical fact does not assume nor does it imply that "istanbul is still an imperial city of Turks". Today Istanbul is part of the secular nation-state of Turkey, founded by Kemel Ataturk, who abolished the Ottoman empire. --Pename
I am neither Arab nor Muslim. There were several "empires" in these 1300 years; Abbasid, Umayyad , Mameluk, Ottoman, Seljuk, Fatimid, Safavid, and on and on,. In most cases they were fighting against each other. Your logic of paining all that history into "Islamic imperialism lasted 1300 years" doesn't make any sense. What Islamic imperialism? OneGuy 13:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Such comments probably belong in "example" section of Islamophobia or Orientalism. --Alberuni 17:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OneGuy: You said: "There were several "empires" in these 1300 years; Abbasid, Umayyad , Mameluk, Ottoman, Seljuk, Fatimid, Safavid, and on and on," ... I dont know why you out "empires" in quotation marks. These were real empires. And usually not more than two existed simultaniously at one time. For example, the Abbasids, Ummayads, etc were just dynasties who ruled the same empire at different times. IN any case, you openly admit that the Muslim world was governed by empries for 1300 years. Then why do you dispute that the Muslim world has imperialism for 1300 years? How the hell can you have empires without imperialism? (134...)
Why would "empire" be necessarily imperialism? And why would that be "Islamic imperialism" (and not ethnic) when all these so-called empires/dynasties are fighting each other? OneGuy 19:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By the way, sign your comments using ~~~~ OneGuy 19:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Why would "empire" be necessarily imperialism?" <-- OneGuy, it's not my fault if you are an Arab Islamic apologist with a poor grasp of the English language. Anyone with the least bit of critical thinking skills is aware that empires are imperialism and imperialism is the existance of empires. --Pename
It's not my fault that you are anti-Islamic bigot. Your claim is false and will be deleted, as I did. Rest of your one-sided anti-Islamic insertions, like POW will be revised too. This is not a place to spew your anti-Isamic propaganda OneGuy 07:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OneGuy claims that Islamic civilization has no history of imperialim, yet admits that Islamic civilization has a 1,300 year history of Islamic empires. This is completely ridiculous. "Imperialism" can be defined as follows:
"Imperialism: The drive toward the creation and expansion of a colonial empire and, once established, its perpetuation. (de Blij & Muller, 1996) www.yorku.ca/lcode/clew/courses/course1/definitions/g_l.html
Therefore it is totally illogical for OneGuy to at the same time admit that Islamic civilization has a history of empires but deny that Islamic civilization has a history of imperialism. As such, the phrase "1,300 years of Imperialiasm" has been re-inserted into the article section titled "Offensive Islam as a Method for the Propogation of Islam" --Pename 01:17, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Debate Re: The Tribes that Left Islam Soon After Muhammad Died

The following part of this article is being contiually sabatoged without explanation or defense:

"The Sira (biography of Muhammad) also mentions the wars against entire Arab tribes who were followers of Islam while Muhammad lived, but tried either to defect from the religion when its prophet died. In the same spirit, today in several Islamic countries, Muslims who are known to have left the religion are accused of apostasy and are given an ultimatum to either convert back to Islam or face execution; though in modern times, such executions have been rare to nonexistent in some Muslim countries."

The Sira explains that immediatly after Muhammad died, large numbers of bedoin tribes defected from Islam, the religion that they had recently joined while its prophet was still alive. The leadership of the growing Islamic theocracy that Muhammad left behind could not afford to allow such a thing to happen, and so tribes who had already convered to Islam but obstenantly refused to adhere to Islam were massacred (the women and children of such tribes would be enslaved and not massacred, as was common medieval Arabia). This is what I was discussing in first excerpt above, from the article. I then went on to describe the modern day analog of this Islamic practice, namely the executing of apostates (apostates being Muslims who leave the religion). In traditional Islam, once a person is a Muslm (whether a convert or a born Muslim) that person is not allowed to leave Islam. If the person is found to have left Islam, he or she is supposed to be executed, as explained above.

Now, someone keeps changing this part of the article to:


The Sira (biography of Muhammad) also mentions the wars against entire Arab tribes who were followers of Islam while Muhammad lived, but tried either to defect from the religion when its prophet died or refused to pay the Jizya. In the same spirit, today in several Islamic countries, Muslims who are known to have left the religion are accused of apostasy and are given an ultimatum to either convert back to Islam or face execution; though in modern times, such executions have been rare to nonexistent in some Muslim countries.


It is blatently false that the first Caliph (Abu Bakr) allowed apostate tribes to pay jizya instead of returning to Islam. The Sira makes it very clear that these tribes were given one two options: return to Islam, or die. The same ultimatum that apostates were given for 1,400 years after the first Caliph, the same ultimatum that continues to be given out by some Muslim governments, even today, to Muslims who leave Islam. They were not given the options to leave Islam but pay jizya, or return Islam, or die. Their options were simply death or returning to Islam. Even if this did not occur with every single tribe that left Islam after Muhammad died, it is an absolute certainty* that this "death or Islam" ultimatum was given to many apostate tribes. Therefore the insertion of "or refused to pay the Jizya" (above) is blatently false.

  • I will provide a concrete source of this from Guillame's translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sira, when I have more time.


--Pename

Unfounded claims about non-Permisability of Collateral Damage

I wikipedia contributor is repeatedly inserting the claim into this article that the Qur'an is somehow opposed to the concept of "collateral damage." This is entirely unfounded. No such verses of the Qur'an accompany this claim. Furthermore, Section 2.2 Islamist terrorism, an entire paragraph is dedicated to explaning the legitimacy and place of collateral damage in the religion of Islam, as interpreted by its traditional scholars and jurists. Thus even though this article explicitly proves that collateral damage is allowed in Islam, a certain wikipedia contributor is inserting a contradictory claim that Islam and its holiest book are somehow opposed to collateral damage. Let this certain contributor bring some concrete evidence if he doesn't want to see his insertion from being deleted. --Pename

I am new to this discussion, but here are some thoughts. While the Qur'an itself might not mention collateral damage, the rules laid down for War by The Prophet, Abu Bakar and others do enjoin against causing collateral damage.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:55, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Can you provide any evidence for your claims? Can you refute the claims made in the article regarding the permissability of collateral damage (e.g. Muhammad's use of catapults during the invasion of Ta'if)? --Pename Nov 20, 2004

Use of Forged Hadiths

Wikipedia contirbutor OneGuy is constantly trying to mislead readers by deleting any sort of elaborations on what it means of a hadith to have a "weak isnad." He is continually pushing the hadith about warfare being a "lesser jihad" and general struggle being a "greater jihad." This is concidered to be a fabricated hadith by mainstream Islam, and it is caterogized as fabricated in very the book of hadiths in which it is recorded. OneGuy is misleading readers into believing that orthodox Muslims view holy war as some sort of lowly and "lesser" activity, while the reality is that orthodox Muslims relish in the idea of holy war, and concider it to be the greatest thing a man could do in Islam. --Pename

Can you explain that how a hadith with weak isnad makes it a "forged" hadith? "Forged" hadith and "weak" isnad are not the same thing. Please look this up on the internet. OneGuy 22:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have not attempted to completely remove this fabricated hadith, as others have, because whether or not it's fabricated doesn't seem to matter to the modern, Westernized, liberal, progressive, so-called "moderate" Muslims. As such, there are a sizable number of Muslims (at least on the Internet) who take this "lesser Jihad" and "greater Jihad" business seriously. Perhaps it helps them rationalize their opposition to jihadist activities, even though jihad is the "6th pillar" of Islam. Whatever the case, I think it violates the NPOV policy if hadiths with "weak isnads" are used to define jihad, without giving due warning to readers.

Does anyone know what kind of action can be taken if OneGuy contines to delete any cavets regarding this fabricated hadith? --Pename

Umm... slightly off topic, but if you're going to move the "Jihad as spiritual struggle" section to near the bottom, should the headings in between that and "Jihad as Holy war" be made less significant, as they are 'parts' of this topic? If you disagree, change it back ;) Estel 19:57, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Well, the guy is claiming that a hadith is forged because it's isnad is weak. Let him post evidence from that. If he knew anything about this topic, he would have known that some skeptical scholars think that hadith with strong isnad are forged!! Anyway, "weak" isnad and "forged" is not the same thing. for examples see
http://www.abc.se/~m9783/n/vwh_e.html
http://www.islamworld.net/hadith.html
Hadith are categorized as by Muslim scholars, as "sahih (sound), hasan (good), da'if weak) and maudu' (fabricated, forged)"
Notice the forged is a 4th category, differennt from "weak" OneGuy 23:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Once again, please read this article on the opinion of classical Muslim scholars on the use of weak hadith
http://www.abc.se/~m9783/n/vwh_e.html
The guy is inserting factual errors in the article about what orthodox Muslim believe then complaining that I reverted them OneGuy 23:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

134.22.70.218's edits

Much of this person's edits are copyright violations. Unfortunately, there have been several other people who have edited his/her changes since he/she first began editing this page. Unless somebody objects, I am going to revert the entire page to prior to 134.22.70.218's first edits. RickK 08:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Please explain clearly where the copyright violations are occuring. everything I have copied from another website is quoted and properly referenced, with due credit given where credit is due. Quoting other sources is not called copyright violation, it is protected by FAIR USE LAWS. Explain yourself. --Pename
Rick, I do have a problem with that. There is stuff in that page that isn't copyright violation, and now the page has at least one weasel term in it. Please, by all means remove the copyrighted material (and please tell us where the copyright violation is!), but leave the rest of the text alone. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


what copyright violation? there WAS no copyright violation. Your friend Rick there does not know the difference between copyright violation and fair use. And now he has run off instead of explaining himself, instead of explaining where exactly it is that he thinks these copyright violations took place --Pename
You know anon, you aren't helping your case by having a go at RickK. In the case of his revert, I agree that he needs to provide evidence of copyright violations before doing a revert like that one. Stop swearing, calm down and stop making personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK, anon. I think you might like to have a look at the article fair use a bit more carefully before you accuse RickK of making unfair edits. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Maybe you should be telling Rick to read the "Fair Use" article so that he can identify WHEN AND WHERE EXACTLY the "copyright violations" took place, so that the situation can be rectified. It's not Rick who is being accused here, it's me who is being accused of copyright violation, and nobody is bothering to even say WHERE this supposed "copyright violation" occured - instead a 3 day's worth of editing has been reverted, and now I have no way to accessing the original source code. --Pename

My reversions had nothing to do with content, and solely to do with the multiple edits that the anon made which were copyright violations. One is from http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/7822. One which is still there, which I have not deleted, is from http://www.theglobaltimes.com/new_page_87.htm. RickK 09:21, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


I quoted from http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005708 not http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/7822. http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/7822 is a copy of the original Wall Street Journal Editorial at http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005708 ... I clearly put quotation marks on the copyrighted material, properly referenced the author, article, and the Wall Street Journal, numbered my reference, provided a URL link in the references section and next to the quations in the article, and was merely quoting another party in order to support my claims. This is called FAIR USE, not copyright infrigenment.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial was quoted in a newly created section about PRionsers of War. WHy did you delete the entire section about PRisoners of War? It is clearly not neccessary to delete the whole section in order to fix whatever so-called "copyright infringement" you have imagined.
As for your claim that I was illegally using copyrighted material from http://www.theglobaltimes.com/new_page_87.htm -- I have never even see this URL before, and you have STILL not specifified exactly WHERE you believe this copyright infringement is occuring. --Pename


Check the section titled Verdict of the Qu'ran. RickK 09:51, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
OH I see. But the thing is, I did not copy that stuff from "Verdict of the Qur'an," someone else did. That's why it's still there, even after you reverted my edits. --Pename
Anon, have you considered getting an account with Wikipedia? Also, I would suggest you put back the non-copyrighted material. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How can I put back the "non-copyrighted material" when I don't know where the these infringements are taking place? I think Rick should take the article back to before he reverted my work, and then he should carefully look at where the quoation marks are in the article. All material copied from anywhere else has been put in quoations marks. If he thinks that one of these quoations is copyright infrigement, then let him delete the quote instead of the delete the whole sub-section, along with things that I wrote (i.e. the stuff outside the quotation marks)! --Pename
There is still copyrighted material there. I'm waiting for responses from other people to take that out. RickK 09:51, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Rick do you realize that you reverted 3 days of editing? it's extremely difficult to put back all that editing. Most of it was not even quoting other sources, most of it was my own work. "Ta bu shi da yu's" attempt to put back the lost text was not much, since so much else was lost as well. --Pename
Rick: you say "there is still copyrighted material there" but you still cannot explain to us where it is, and why it constitutes a copyright infringement that is not covered by fair use. I agree that the "Verdit of the Qur'an" stuff is directly plagerized, but that was a bit of Islamist apologia which some other contributor stuck in the article - it was not my doing, and I would be glad if you deleted it. But other than that, I don't see any infringement of copyright. I understand that you are consulting with other moderators and waiting for their response, but it seems unfair to me that you cannot tell us all, in this talk, where you think these infringement took place which led you to revert 3 days of editing. If you would tell me where the infrigement took place, I would gladly rectify it myself - there would be no need for a lengthy wait for a response from whomever you are consulting. --Pename

Rick: I'm still waiting for your explanation of when and where the supposed copyright violations took place. --Pename 22:24, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Disputed now

134.22.70.218 has crammed so much irrelevant stuff into this article (stuff that belongs to different articles). Plus, some of the stuff inserted, such as prisoners of war, is clearly disputed. He only inserted one interpretation into the article. Many people would dispute these claims, for example, see:

and many more if 134.22.70.218 searches ...

It's safe to say that now the article has reached the status of "disputed" OneGuy 08:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If there are specific parts of the article which you believe are irrelevant, then pleace specify the section and paragraph, and it can be discussed. That is what it means to dispute something. You provide evidence and be specific about what it is you are disputing. If there is anyting you hold to be false, then you should demonstrate it with references, just as I try to reference everything. Posting a bunch of disorganized URLs does not amount to disproving anything in the article. One uses URLs to cite references - simply posting a URL is not a legitimate argument or disputation. --Pename
The prisoner of war section was not only irrelevant but also disputed. For example, after the battle of badr, a few prisoners were killed for supposedly committing crimes against Muslims earlier, but the rest were given many choices (1) convert to Islam, (2), Slavery, (3)pay ransom, (4) or teach 10 Muslims to read and write to get freedom. (Some who were too poor to pay ranson were freed too). Historically, many other examples can be cited, like Saladin treatment of the prisoners, especially after he conquered Jerusalem. You inserted very narrow and anti-Islamic version in the article, like most of the other stuff you inserted OneGuy 09:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


The prisoner of war section is not irrelevant. This article is about the ideology and laws of Jihad, i.e. Islamic Holy War. The issue of Prisoners of War is an integral part of the issue of war itself.
The "debate" over the apostate tribes who left Islam after Muhammad died is discussed at the top of this talk, in the section titled "Debate Re: The Tribes that Left Islam Soon After Muhammad Died" --Pename


As I said, you crammed disputed one-sided not relevant claims in the article. What happened during Abu Bakr time cannot be described simply as wars against apostates. A number of tribes refused to pay taxes (Jizya or Zakat). This is also a fact. Others, like Musailma, were not just apostates but were claiming to be prophets AND actively involved in war against Muslims, just like other apostate tribes. Look it up. You are claiming that wars against these tribes were not justified. That's your personal opinion. Not everyone agrees with you OneGuy 13:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"happened during Abu Bakr time cannot be described simply as wars against apostates" <--- yes it can. And I will soon document this thoroughly. Many tribes converted to Islam when Muhammad was alive, and then tried to leave Islam when Muhammad died. But when they tried to leave, they were told by the Islamic state (headed by Abu Bakr at the time) to either convert back to Islam or face death. This is war against apostates.
"A number of tribes refused to pay taxes (Jizya or Zakat)" <--- Jizya and Zakat are not the same thing. Those tribes that refused to pay Zakat are the apostate tribes described the paragraph above. Those tribes who never converted to Islam while Muhammad was alive were forced to either pay the jizya tax, convert, or face war against them by the Islamic state. Clearly there is a difference between tribes who converted and then trying to leave Islam (by not praying or paying zakat or anything), and never have converted and then refusing to pay the jizya tax. The latter case is irrelevant to the discussion about the fact that in Islam once a person is a Muslim he is never allowed to leave Islam, and if he tries, then he is to be executed. The same rule applied to entire tribes that tried to leave Islam when Muhammad died. The justification for this, made by the Muslims, was that Islam was that so many tribes tried to leave Islam after Muhammad died that Islam would have disappeared in a few centuries if the Islamic state had not threatened people with death if they tried to leave Islam. --Pename
I hope your evidence is not as selective as you did with anti-Islamic selective "prisoners of wars" section. The article needs to be balanced, not one-sided anti-Islamic OneGuy 19:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And what is wrong with war against tribes who refused to pay taxes (zakat or Jizya)? What will happend if someone refuses to pay taxes in the US? I see nothing wrong there anyway. Also from this site: http://www.ymofmd.com/books/abas/chapter3.htm .. these apostates not only refused to pay taxes but attacked first. OneGuy 19:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"I hope your evidence is not as selective as you did with anti-Islamic selective "prisoners of wars" section." <--- if you believe that some evidence has been selectively left out, then I encourage you to bring this evidence and add it to the Prisoners of War section. I look forwarding to seeing what additional evidence you add (please rememeber to provide a source for your claims).
"And what is wrong with war against tribes who refused to pay taxes (zakat or Jizya)? What will happend if someone refuses to pay taxes in the US?" <--- a group of tribes converted to Islam while Muhammad was alive, and then tried to leave Islam when he died. Paying "zakat" is something that people of the Islamic faith do - it should not be imposed on those who do not wish to follow the Islamic religion. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. By attacking tribes who refused to practice Islam (i.e. refused to obey the 5 pillars: zakat, fasting, prayer, etc.), the budding Islamic state denied these tribes the freedom of religion. The justification made by the state was that if these Muslim tribes were allowed to freely choose their religion (and thus allowed to abandon Islam), then the ranks of the Muslims would shrink substantially, and the Islamic state would lose power, and perhaps Islam would even have disappeared in a matter of centuries. Thus they felt that the very existance of Islam was in danger, and under these circumstanced they felt justified in massacring tribes that attempted to exercise the freedom of religion by defecting from Islam. Whether or not there is something wrong with this is was something "wrong" is for the reader to decide - the purpose of an encylopedia entry such as this one is to lay out the known historical facts. The purpose is NOT to make ethical judgements regarding those historical facts, however it is sensable to point out when and where traditional Islamic practices of warfare conflict with modern international law, such as the Charter of Human Rights, or the Geneva Conventions.
It seems that you trying to argue that no traditional Islamic practices of warfare conflict with any aspects of modern international law, such as the Charter of Human Rights, or the Geneva Conventions. Such an assertion is false. Any medieval practices of warfare conflict with such modern humanitarian laws, whether they are medieval Islamic practices of war, or medieval Christian practices of war, or any other medieval war practices. Muhammad and his followers were a medieval warriors, and as such their practices of warfare agreed with the norms of their time. The norms of the medieval age are not the norms of the modern age. It is therefore no surprise that Muhammad's followers practiced some things that would, today, be concidered violations of (for example) the human right of freedom of relgion. --Pename

Vanadalism by 217.42.185.5 / 81.156.1.71

217.42.185.5 (the anon is also connecting to wikipedia from the IP 81.156.1.71 and making the exact same edit) is repeatedly deleting most of the "Islamist terrorism" section. Without explanation, he has deleted any mention of modern Jihad theorists such as Syyed Qutb, he has removed any mention of Osama bin Laden. He has deleted the entire discussion about terrorist killings and death threats against critics of Islam, such as Theo van Gogh and Salman Rushdie. He has deleted the paragaph discusssing the fact that in order to expand an empire one must slaughter innocent people. He has deleted the entire discussion about the abiguity and disagreement that exists within the Muslim world over who can and cannot be killed in a state of war. All this, he has replaced all this by the following claim which has already been debunked:

"But the Qur'an, the unquestionable source of authority in Islam, vehemently denounces the killing of any person who has not committed at least one of two acts:
"Whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the earth - it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (5:32)
According to this verse of the Qur'an, if one human being has not
1) murdered another person
2) created conflict and disorder in the world
Then that human being is innocent. To kill one of such an innocent human being would be the equivalent to the massacre of the entire human race, which is an inconceivably barbaric crime, and a monumental sin. This verse is clear and unequivocal as to who should be regarded as an innocent human being. Moreoever, there is no declaration in the history of all religions that can match the gravity of this condemnation. (1)"

This verse is discussed at length in the paragraphs which 217.42.185.5 deleted. 217.42.185.5 is not debating any of the claims in the article, he is simply deleting the claim and replacing them with a diamaterically opposite claim, (i.e. that "This verse is clear and unequivocal as to who should be regarded as an innocent human being") without any justification or evidence (how is the verse clear and unquivocal? 217.42.185.5 has no explanation - we are merely supposed to take it as an tenant of faith that it is "unequivocally clear" as he does). 217.42.185.5 is clearly an Islamist who is only interested in supressing the truth. As such I am reverting his edits, and hereby request that something be done about this constant vanadalism by the anon.

(By the way, 217.42.185.5, I can prove that verse 5:32 is copied from a passage in the Talmud. A Rabbi wrote that killing a single person is like killing all humans, in the Talmud. So it's ludicrous and clearly a case of extreme pro-Islam bias to state that "there is no declaration in the history of all religions that can match the gravity of this condemnation.")


This situation has become a pointless revert war. The anon is not responding to any attempts to engage in debate or comprimise, and is indifferent to repeated requestions for explanation of his actions. Instead, he is making the exact same edit to the "Islamist Terrorism" section and has been doing so for several days.

(1) 217.42.185.5's edit, quoted above, is a copyright violation. It s a verbatim plagerism of the article "Verdict on the Qur'an", which he has inserted into his edit of the "Islamist Terrorism" section. This copyright violation was discussed in the discussion titled #134.22.70.218's edits


--Pename

Vandalism by Alberuni

Alberuni is also engaged in deleting huge portions of the article. He (or she) claims that these sections are irrelevant and are "islamaphobe rants."

There are three main sections under dispute:

1. Islamist terrorism section. In this section, there is a disucssion regarding Islamist terrorists murdering or threatening the lives of critics of Islam. Examples of such people who have been threatened or murdered are Theo Van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, and Irshid Mangie. Death threats and violence against innocent civlians, who criticize extremist Islam, is a form of Islamist terrorism. As such, it belongs in the article about Jihad. The article also goes into details about Muhammad having poets murdered, because the poets wrote against Islam; this is concidered a form of Jihad by traditional Islamic legal scholars, and is relevant to the modern day problem of terrorists murdering and threatening the lives of film makers, TV producers, artists, and authors who criticize extremist forms of Islam. Such discussion is not irrelevant to the subject of Jihad, and such discussion is neither "islamaphobia" nor is it mere "ranting."

2. There is a paragraph (in the Islamist terrorism section) regarding the fact that in order to carry out a program of imperialism, it is neccessary to wage wars of aggression and kill people who are innocent (as Muhammad and his followers did indeed do). Nobody would dare to claim that Western imperialism did not take the lives of countless the innocent and the defenseless. It is equally illogical to claim that Islamic imperialism did not take the lives of the innocent and the defenseless. This is not "islamaphobia," this is simple fact. It is obvious that this discussion is relevant to Jihad, especially to the discussion on who is "innocent" and who is "guilty" when it comes Islamic laws about making war against non-Muslims.

3. The Prisoners of War Section. It should be blatently obvious to everyone that when disucssing the Islamic laws of Jihad, it is neccessary to disucuss the Islamic laws regarding treatment of Prisoners of War. The issue of POWs is highly related to the issue of war. It is ludicrous of Alberuni to suggest that a disucussion of Islamic laws regarding prisoners of war must be irrelevant to a discussion on Jihad. Furthermore, the accusation that the disucssion on POWs is an "islamaphobe rant" is equally false.


As such I am reverting Alberuni's deleting of these substantial parts of the article. If Alberuni believes that something has been left out in the discussions about POWs, assasinating critics, or launching wars of aggression against non-Muslims, or that something is incorrect, then Alberuni should add his comments to the article, and should debate the issue in the talk page, instead of ham-handedly dismissing the entire topic of POWs and assasinations of critics of Islam. If he feels that someonethign is completely irrelevant, then he should make a rational argument for his case in this discussion page, instead of thinking that he can delete half a Wikipedia article if for some reason he has failed to see the relevance of the sections in question.


NOTE: Alberuni is a known pro-Islamist on Wikipedia. As such, the neutrality of Alberuni's judgements is immediatly suspect. This suspect nature of Alberuni's brutish "edits" is exasperated by the fact that Alberuni refused to actually debate anything, contribute anything to the article, or merely explan why he/she believes that some aspect of the article is an "irrelevant islamaphobe rant" (as Alberuni calls it). --Pename

Your rambling Islamophobic rant is not relevant to an encyclopedia article explaining the various interpretations of the Islamic concept of Jihad. In addition, your biased and slanted POV edits and bigoted source material references are akin to a neo-Nazi editing an article about Shulkhan Arukh using Jew Watch as his source material. If you check the edit history, you will see that I have contributed to this article, so your allegation against me is as false as just about everything else you have written. If you can add relevant NPOV material that adds to the topic of Jihad, that would be welcome. Your POV campaign may be more appropriate in another article, like Islamism, Theo van Gogh, or Islamophobia. You might also want to consider registering an account rather than editing under an anonymous IP. Thanks. --Alberuni 22:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Your rambling Islamophobic rant is not relevant to an encyclopedia article explaining the various interpretations of the Islamic concept of Jihad." <--- please explain clearly and concisely what paragraphs are not relevant, and why they are not relevant.
"In addition, your biased and slanted POV edits and bigoted source material references are akin to a neo-Nazi editing an article about Shulkhan Arukh using Jew Watch as his source material." <--- please clearly and concisely explain which sources I have used which you deem to be unreliable (for your convenience here is list of the sources I used: a BBC documentary, a Wall Street Journal article by a famous Iranian born researcher who has beenw writing books about Islamic terrorism since 1988, and an entry from the Encylopedia Britannica, the oldest and most prestigeous English language resource). Which of these sources is akin to neo-Nazi material? PLease explain. --Pename
Answering-Islam is a very hostile and biased source. [3]. I am reviewing your edit history and many of the numerous edits you have made are appropriate. There are numerous minor spelling errors ("payed" instead of "paid" but the worst parts are when you go off on tangents about the interpretation of Islamic traditions or hadiths that reflect your own hostile POV. If you could substantiate your edits with reference to independent sources that would be helpful. It would be best to take each of your controversial edits and discuss them in Talk so that we avoid pointless revert wars. You shouldn't feel oppressed by having to justify your edits. If they are not just your personal editorial opinion and can be substantiated in independent sources, there should be no problem including them with attribution to source. --Alberuni 22:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I linked to Anwering-Islam.org in reference to the murder of of the poetess Asma bint Marwan by Muhammad, as well as another poet Abu 'Afak. I will agree that this source can be hostile and biased. Therefore, I agree that the links to Answering-Islam.org should be removed. Instead, I will create two new wikipedia entries about Asma bint Marwan and Abu 'Afak, and link to those instead. I hope that this is a satisfactory comprimise.
Furthermore, I do not think that I have imposed my own unique interpretations of Islam. I am citing the tradtional interpretations of the four Madhabs - nothing less, and nothing more. --Pename 22:33, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Well, it's good that material not relevant to Jihad is taken out of this article. --Alberuni 22:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Which material currently in the article is not relevant to the subject of Jihad? --Pename 23:42, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


"You might also want to consider registering an account rather than editing under an anonymous IP." <--- i've taken up your advice, and am now registered under the alias "Pename." --Pename 22:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Defensive and Offensive Jihad is a false distinction

The article states: "The Islamic legal tradition identifies two types of armed religious warfare, namely the defensive jihad and the offensive jihad." Is this a reference to Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam? If so it is a misinterpretation. Jihad is purely defensive, never offensive. Here is a good Islamic source refuting the Islamophobic interpretation [4]. What tradition and what specific sources can be cited to support the "offensive war" contention? --Alberuni 01:06, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No this is not a reference to Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, though the concepts are related.
"Jihad is purely defensive, never offensive." This is false. According to the four Madhabs, offensive Jihad is mandatory. Offensive Jihad was the basis of justification for the wars that the Muslims waged against non-Muslims in order to expand the territories of the Islamic empire. It is because of offensive Jihad that the Islamic empire expanded until it became the second largest empire in history. Here are some relevant links about Offensive Jihad:
South African imam approves offensive jihad
Jihad can be offensive or defensive
Offensive Jihad, Futuhat and Islamic Conquests. quotes from islamic websites
I can also bring you quotes from a book written by Abdullah Azzam, in which he described the position of the four Madhabs in regards to Offensive Jihad. --Pename 02:33, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Haha, JihadWatch.org is your source. I can teach you about Judaism with quotes from Jew Watch too! Did you bother to read what real Muslim scholars write on the subject or are you happy with the Islamophobic sources that reinforce your bias? [5] --Alberuni 02:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars are provided above as evidence for offensive Jihad. --Pename 03:26, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

What do Zakat and Jizyah have to do with Jihad?

These concepts are not related to jihad and they have their own pages so these sections should be deleted and, perhaps, Related Pages links can be included: "Historians dispute whether forced conversion was or was not carried out during the era of Islamic imperialism which lasted approximately 1,300 years. Whether or not "conversion by the sword" was systematically carried out, it is established that the jizyah (a tax laid exclusively on non-Muslims whose proceeds go to the government) created a kind of economic and social apartheid in which non-Muslims were economically and socially punished by the state for not converting to Islam. Non-Muslims payed jizya while Muslims, under the empire, payed a taxed called the zakat (a so-called "charity tax" which all Muslims pay even today, but instead of paying to the state they now pay zakat to charities of their choice). The zakat is a 2.5% tax, while the jizyah was about a 10% income tax; as explained in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on jizyah, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax." [1] (http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9368576) Non-Muslims were also usually denied entry to high-ranking military and civil service positions, although there were historical exceptions such as the Mughal Empire where non-Muslims did reach high-ranking positions." --Alberuni 01:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jizya is related to Jihad in many ways. The Muslim used to expand their empire by offering non-Muslim countries three choices: convert and come under Islamic rule, pay jizya and come under Islamic rule, or face war. When the topic of Islamic imperialism comes up, the question of whether there were forced conversions always comes up. The discussion on jizya is part of this question about forced conversions during the offensive jihads during the era of the Islamic empire and the Caliphate. As the Encylopedia Britannica entry on jizya explains, many non-Muslims converted to Islam to avoid the jizya. They had to avoid the jizya because the Muslims had waged offensive jihad agains them and imposed their rule and their taxes on the non-Muslim territories. Thus jizya is a part of offensive jihad, and offensive jihad is a part of the disucssion on jihad. The reason zakat is mentioned is that somebody said that, yes, non-Muslims had to pay jizya but Muslims had to pay zakat. Thus a brief discussion of zakat was neccessary. --Pename 03:20, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Sixth Pillar of Islam

To my knowledge, Jihad is never referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam by Muslims. This is disinformation and should be deleted: "Jihad is sometimes referred to as "The sixth pillar of Islam" in honor of its religious status and in reference to the Five Pillars of Islam, although no verse of the Qur'an or hadith describes jihad as a sixth pillar." --Alberuni 01:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your knowledge of Islam is very shallow. I did not put the info about the "sixth pillar of Islam" in there, someone else did. But I too have read that Jihad is sometimes referred to as the "sixth pillar of Islam." In due time, the a source for this information will be provided. In the meantime, I think it should be left as it, since hadiths with "weak isnads" that are rejected by most orthodox Muslim scholars are being used to water down the fundamental importance of jihad in Islam by calling physical warfare the "lesser Jihad." Thus the two claims balance eachother, and the reader can decide which view of jihad is more prevelant amongst the Muslim masses. --Pename 02:26, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Section titled "Islamist terrorism" is POV

The title of the section reflects the author's POV. The text actually points out that Islamists do not consider it terrorism. "To non-Muslims, militant attacks under the rubric of jihad may be perceived as acts of terrorism. Two Islamist groups call themselves "Islamic Jihad": Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Supporters of these groups perceive a strong religious justification for a militant interpretation of the term jihad as an appropriate response to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip." You forgot Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaida. --Alberuni 01:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A discussion of Islamist terrorism is appropriate in an article about Jihad. Therefore a section titled "Islamist terrorism" is appropriate. --Pename 01:56, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Just declaring your biased opinion as fact is not sufficient. You interpret Jihad as terrorism and want to impose your POV on an article that is about Jihad. --Alberuni 02:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A discussion of Islamist terrorism is appropriate in an article about Jihad. Many Muslims do not see terrorism as Jihad, but many Muslims DO see terrorism as Jihad. The aim of this article is to present all the different views about Jihad in the Muslim world. That's why there is a sectonn on terrorism. --Pename 03:29, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

72 virgins is an Islamophobe misinterpretation

The article has been seeded with Islamophobic hyperbole: "To many Muslims, a person who dies as a part of struggle against oppression is a shahid (martyr) and is assured a place in Janna (Paradise) where they will have 72 virgins, rivers of wine and fresh fruit." The 72 "virgins" are pure spirits who attend the deceased in Paradise. They are not virgins for sex like sex-obsessed westerners love to contemplate and ridicule.

"If the death of the person is certain, some consider the act martyrdom rather than suicide, which is a hell-worthy sin under Islamic religious law." This makes no sense. It should read, "Even if death is a certain outcome of the struggle against oppression, militants consider it an act of martyrdom. Suicide is a hell-worthy sin under Islamic religious law." --Alberuni 01:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is false. It is widely known that the Qur'an paints a picture of a carnal paradise, where there is wine, fresh fruit, thrones to sit on, garment of silk, and women to have sex with. Perhaps Alberuni has some sort of fringe belief about Islamic paradise, but the vast majority of Muslims believe that the fair maidens of paradise describe in the Qur'an, and the 72 virgins for martrys in paradise, described in the hadith, refer to a carnal paradise involving sex. This is a very common interpretation, both amongst Muslims and non-Muslims, and amongst common people and academic scholars; it is not an "Islamaphobe" interpretation. --Pename 02:00, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Provide references to Islamic sources to substantiate your "it is widely known" ruse. Where is the carnality of Paradise described in the Qur'an? It is widely known in Islamophobic circles. That's about it. --Alberuni 02:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Here is an Islamic source that describes the virgins in the carnal paradise described in Islam: http://www.muslim-forum.de/index.php?showtopic=467&pid=3271&st=0&#entry3271
Here is a specific quote:
"There is nothing but joy and happiness in Paradise; there is no room for hatred and rancour in the hearts of the people of Paradise. Al-hoor al-‘iyn are something which Allaah has created to honour the people of Paradise and to increase their delight. Moreover a man will be given the strength of one hundred men for intercourse, so the large number will not have any effect on a woman, and her feelings towards her co-wives and her husband’s concubines will not be like her feelings in this world."[6]
As you can see, both Muslims and non-Muslims interperet the "72 virgins" given the martyrs in Islamic paradise as being virgins for carnal intercourse in a carnal paradise. --Pename 02:20, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Apparently, there is a Muslim "scholar" on a bulletin board in Germany who is as confused as you. Good job finding that obscure source to substantiate your generalization about what "many Muslims" believe. Are there descriptions of the carnality of Paradise in the Qur'an or hadith? --Alberuni 02:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Evidence from hadiths:
Narrated by Ahmad, 18827; classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan, 16/443; and by Shaykh al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 1627:
It was narrated from Anas that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The believer in Paradise will be given such-and-such strength for intercourse.” It was said, “O Messenger of Allaah, will he really be able to do that?” He said, “He will be given the strength of a hundred (men).”
End of discussion. This hadith is concrete evidence that the Islamic paradise can be interpreted as a carnal paradise, and in fact is interpreted as such by most Muslims. --Pename 03:10, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, Pename copied the wrong citation from the German bulletin board. This hadith is not Narrated by Ahmad, 18827; classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan, 16/443; and by Shaykh al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 1627. The bulletin board writer cites hadith Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 2536; classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan, 16/413; and by Shaykh al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 8106 but I have not been able to locate this hadith or independently confirm it. --Alberuni 00:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The "72 virigins of paradise" are called Houris in Arabic. There is already a Wikipedia article about this issue. But since you insist that the Islam does not say that Muslim men will have sex with the houris, here is proof from the Qur'an that Islamic paradise is carnal and involves sex (at least for the Muslim men in paradise):
"So [it will be] and We shall marry them to Houris with wide lovely eyes." [Qur'an 44:54]
The words "marry" in conjunction with "wide lovely eyes" are sexually suggestive. Combined with the Wikipedia entry on "houris" it can no longer be denied that Islam promised martyrs a carnal paradise involving sex with 72 virgins. --Pename 01:41, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

My recent edit

I intended to delete the absurd timeline, which - as I pointed out - constitutes POV propaganda in favor of terrorism, insofar as it classifies a variety of terrorist acts starting with the bizarre Hashshashin as "jihad". However, I accidentally deleted rather more than that, and find the software won't currently let me restore it. Without in any way implying that the rest of what I deleted is any good - I haven't read it yet - I do not object to restoring it apart from the timeline. - Mustafaa 01:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The timeline has been renamed to "Timeline of Islamist Military History" so as not to imply that all events listed in the timeline are universally concidered to be "legitimate Jihad" -Pename 01:56, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Under such a title, it belongs in the Islamism article, not here. - Mustafaa 02:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You think that a timeline of the miilitary history of Muslims does not belong in an article titled Jihad? THat's laughable. You just want to suppress any negative information about your religion. --Pename 02:04, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed I don't think it belongs here. For one thing, this is not a history article. For another thing, it is certainly not Wikipedia's place to define which wars constitute "jihad", and which "hirabah" - and the new title, far from alleviating the difficulty, merely highlights the timeline's irrelevance to this article. - Mustafaa 02:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are trying to assert that a timeline of the miilitary history of Muslims does not belong in an article titled Jihad. THat's laughable.
"it is certainly not Wikipedia's place to define which wars constitute "jihad", and which "hirabah"" <--- the timeline includes any military conflicts or terrorist attacks perpretrated under the banner of Jihad. whether or not you, or anyone else, approves of what happened does not mean that it did not happen. --Pename 02:14, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

"the timeline includes any military conflicts or terrorist attacks perpretrated under the banner of Jihad." No it doesn't - not remotely. If it did, it would be many times longer than the article itself. I don't see the Algerian War of Independence, or Emir Abdelkader's struggle, or World War I, or the struggle against the Taliban, or Usman dan Fodio, or the GIA, or any of the Hui's battles... you get the idea. Nor do I see evidence that many of these have ever even been claimed to be jihad; they include secular organizations like the PLF and the PFLP, among others. Completeness is impossible, and incompleteness on the order of this clearly biased. And - more generally - no; a "timeline of the military history of Muslims" belongs in, unsurprisingly, an article on the military history of Muslims - which this is not. - Mustafaa 03:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Timeline is a joke. The guy has collected every terrorist attack and called it a timeline of Islamic military history. What a joke. Is terrorism and military history the same? This makes as much sense as someone would collect every terrorist attack and massacre committed by Israelis (such as Goldstein, Qana massacre etc) and sticking that in Judaism page as, "Timeline of Jewish military history." OneGuy 07:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This list is found on many Islamophobic websites, where this fellow cribbed most of his material. He is a real scholar of hate. --Alberuni 00:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If it's "suicide bombing", no cleric approves of it

Muslim clerics approve of legitimate resistance attacks, not suicide bombings or homicide bombings or terrorist attacks. The editor is mixing terms to make the clerics look like terrorist promoters. It is a different definition, similar to the likes of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell applauding US Marines engaging in suicidal missions.

"There are Muslim clerics who authorize suicide bombing as a valid form of jihad, especially against Israel, her allies, and her supporters, believing that such attacks are legitimate responses to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza [2] (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=SP54203). One of these so named is the United States."

The link provided does not name the United States.

"However, there is also a significant number of Muslims residing in the United States and the United States gives more foreign aid to all Muslim countries together than it does to Israel, the largest single recipient of such aid."

This is the editor's complete editorial fabrication without independent source. To refite the content, it should be pointed out that Israel is provided more aid in total than any other country. Israel receives far more per capita than all Arab countries combined. Most of the US aid to Arab countries is part of a payoff for making peace with Israel, so in a way it is also aid to Israel. Israel is guaranteed military superiority by the US. etc etc. --Alberuni 01:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


It is widely known that many Islamic clerics approve of suicide bombings, especially against Israelis. Of course they do not refer to them as "suicide bombings," instead they refer to such attacks as "martrydom operations." The links and references in the article give explicit examples of clerics approving of suicide bombings. --Pename 02:02, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
"It is widely known" doesn't cut it in an neutral encyclopedia. If the cleric approves martyrdom operations, why do you continue to translate it as suicide bombings? That's MEMRI's interpretation/translation. MEMRI was established by "retired" Israeli Mossad officers. Their POV is as obvious as answeringislam.com although they do a better job of providing documentation to substantiate their slanted perspective. If the allegations are to be included they will be NPOVed and MEMRI will be cited as the source. --Alberuni 02:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"If the cleric approves martyrdom operations, why do you continue to translate it as suicide bombings?" <--- because "marytrdom operation" is a euphamism for "suicide bombing" --Pename 02:26, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
That's your (and MEMRI's) interpretation. This is an encyclopedia article. You can't switch words and meaning to suit your editorial desire. What if I take the meaning of US Defense Department and switch it for US Imperialism Department because "it is widely known" that in the US "defense" is a euphemism for stealing oil, oppressing other countries and killing people to support US imperialism. No, it doesn't work that way. And neither do your edits to Jihad. Facts must be substantiated by references, not by opinions and interpretations. --Alberuni 02:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Every informed and rational person in the world knows that there are Muslim clerics who approve of suicide bombings, especially against Israel. This is so commonly known that it is beyond question. The appropriate sources have been given and the evidence is ample. The wikipedia entry on suicide bombing also confirms that a large number of Muslims support suicide bombings, and that suicide bombings are often called "martyrdom operations" by Muslims. --Pename 02:58, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Muhammad had no poets murdered

This is a typical Islamophobic smear. In fact, everything in the article from this line forward has nothing to do with Jihad and is mainly editorial "original research" by an Islamophobe editor. See Talk:Abu 'Afak and Talk:Asma bint Marwan "However, it is not entirely clear who is and who is not an "innocent person," nor is it entirely clear what qualifies as "creating disorder in the land." Muhammad concidered poetry against his new religion to be a form of "creating disorder in the land" and silenced a number of great poets of his day by having them murdered. " The excerpts from the Qur'an are not related to Jihad as even the editor admits: "The Qur'an uses the term jihad only four times, none of which refer to armed struggle. As such, the use of the word jihad, in reference to holy Islamic war, was a latter day invention of Muslims. However, the concept of holy Islamic war was not itself a latter day invention, and the Qur'an does contain passages laying out the theory and practice of armed struggle (qi'tal) for Muslims." These sections are all irrelevant to Jihad (except as it is misinterpreted by Islamophobes) and so it will all be deleted or moved to appropriate articles for NPOV sake. --Alberuni 02:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, he did. it's written clearly in the sira. your fringe beliefs do not reflect what most believes beleive. even today people are executed for criticizing islam, so what are you talking about? You are an extreme apologist, and therefore your point-of-view is completely non-neutral and not fit for an enclylopedia entry. --Pename 02:10, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
The story is a well-known fraud, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, seized upon by bigots to smear the Prophet Muhammad. This source completely refutes it. [7]. The subject matter is irrelevant to Jihad anyway. These encyclopedia articles need to be NPOV, not the Franklin Graham hate-speech POV version that you are pushing. --Alberuni 02:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


"The story is a well-known fraud, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" <--- the stories of Asama bint Marwan, Abu Awf, and others like them, appear in the Sira (biography of Muhammad) written by the early Muslim historian Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Ishaq's Sira is the earliest written biography about Muhammad. It doesn't get anymore reliable than that. Every other biography written about Muhammad is based on what Ibn Ishaq wrote in his Sira. The Sira is a reliable source of information about Muhammad, while Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a reliable source of information about Jews. Both common people and academics, both Muslim and non-Muslim, believe that Ibn Ishaq's Sira is quite reliable. Why would Ibn Ishaq, a devout Muslim, smear Muhammad? Ibn Ishaq and his contemporaries did not see these stories as smears against Muhammad, they saw these stories as illustrations of Muhammad's strength, success, and manliness, because in medieval Arabia it was very common and completely acceptable to assasinate poets (poetry was the primary medium of political discourse in medieval Arabia). --Pename 02:54, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Fixing Pename's mess

This will take some time... starting with the section I just edited:

"Orthodox Muslims do not see this as logically sound, and believe that it is Islam's goal to establish a global theocratic empire. Such Muslims wish to return to the days when a single Islamic Empire was ruled by a single Caliph. Islamists see this as a pious and important ambition, and they find justification for their imperialist beliefs in the mainstream Islamic legal tradition of the four Madhabs, which was codified in the early centuries of the budding Islamic empire.

Uh, no. Have you been reading too much LGF or something? "It is Islam's goal to establish a global theocratic empire" indeed!

"Mainstream Muslim scholarship continues to see its historical imperialism, such as when Islamic armies conquered Spain, marched half way into France, laid siege to Vienna, and invaded large portions of Eastern Europe, as blessed and legitimate occurrences of jihad."

Not quite. The conquest of Spain would be widely accepted as legitimate Jihad; the Ottoman Empire's deeds are considerably more disputed.

"The conquest of Spain would be widely accepted as legitimate Jihad" <---you have admitted that Muslims widely view wars of conquest, even conquests of European lands, as "legitimate Jihad." This means you have no grounds on which to dispute the claim that Muslims widely view wars of conquest as legitimate Jihad. --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
I like that "even conquests of European lands" touch - I assume your implication is that it's always OK to conquer African and Asian lands. And "Muslims widely view wars of conquest as legitimate Jihad"? More accurately, "Muslims widely view some wars of conquest as legitimate Jihad" - if they were carried out to end religious oppression, or (as is believed to have been the case in Spain) they were invited in by people within the kingdom.
Historians dispute whether forced conversion was or was not carried out during the era of Islamic imperialism which lasted approximately 1,300 years. Whether or not "conversion by the sword" was systematically carried out,

Actually, they don't and it wasn't.

Historians do, in fact, dispute whether or not conversions by the sword took place and if so how widespread such practices were. Almost everyone has heard of this dispute. You cannot deny that the dispute itself doesn't exist, that no historian has ever concidered whether or not such practices took place. --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
No - almost everyone has heard of this claim, which originated as Christian propaganda. If historians dispute this, I assume you can name a few examples? - Mustafaa 03:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
it is established that the jizyah (a tax laid exclusively on non-Muslims whose proceeds go to the government) created a kind of economic and social apartheid in which non-Muslims were economically and socially punished by the state for not converting to Islam. Non-Muslims payed jizya while Muslims, under the empire, payed a taxed called the zakat (a so-called "charity tax" which all Muslims pay even today, but instead of paying to the state they now pay zakat to charities of their choice). The zakat is a 2.5% tax, while the jizyah was about a 10% income tax; as explained in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on jizyah, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax." [8] Non-Muslims were also usually denied entry to high-ranking military and civil service positions, although there were historical exceptions such as the Mughal Empire where non-Muslims did reach high-ranking positions.

This entire section couldn't be more irrelevant to the article if it tried, even if it were NPOVed. This has nothing to do with jihad.

The paragraph on jizya IS relevant, and its relevance is explained in the discussion here titled #What do Zakat and Jizyah have to do with Jihad? --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
In the same spirit, today in several Islamic countries, Muslims who are known to have left the religion are accused of apostasy and are given an ultimatum to either convert back to Islam or face execution; though in modern times, such executions have been rare to nonexistent in some Muslim countries.

So is this.

The issue of apostacy, and history of the apostate tribes in the early days of Islam, relates to debate about whether or not forced conversions took place while the Muslims were waging their Jihads of conquests in order to expand the Islamic empire and the rule of the Caliph (a debate which you apparently think does not exist). --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Economic motivations - as the theorists of capitalism constantly remind us - do not constitute "force". Nor do taxes - or executions for apostasy - constitute any part of jihad. The wider debate on why so many people in the Islamic empire ultimately converted to Islam is interesting, but is not relevant to this article, which at most would describe the nature of the conquest itself, not its possible consequences centuries later. The explanation above may have convinced whoever you were arguing with, but it does not convince me. - Mustafaa 03:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Economic discrimination based on relgion is a form of oppressive force. --Pename 03:34, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
No, force is a form of force. Economic discrimination is a form of differential taxation. I guess you think rich people are being subject to "oppressive force" if they pay higher tax rates than poor people... - Mustafaa 03:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thoughts on this article

I have a few questions I'd like to have answered about this article, mainly so we can tighten it up a bit and reduce edit wars and bias.

As Islamic "Holy War"

"The Islamic legal tradition identifies two types of armed religious warfare, namely the defensive jihad and the offensive jihad. Most Muslims consider armed struggle against foreign occupation or oppression by domestic government to be worthy of defensive jihad. In colonial times, Muslim populations often rose up against the colonial authorities under the banner of jihad (examples include Daghestan Chechnya against Russia, the Indian Mutiny against Britain, and the Algerian War of Independence against France). In this sense, defensive jihad is no different from the right of armed resistance against occupation that is sanctioned under the UN and International Law, though armed resistance against one's own domestic government is not sanctioned by international humanitarian law."

What Islamic legal tradition? References to this?

  • A quick search on google for "offensive jihad" will bring up many, many sources, both Muslim adnd non-Muslm. I have edited the article and added a source: http://i-cias.com/e.o/jihad.htm (Enclyopedia of the Orient). --Pename 03:43, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
"Offensive jihad is the waging of wars of aggression and conquest against non-Muslims in order to bring them and their territories under Islamic rule."

Reference to either where this is stated in doctrine, or who has stated this? If we can't provide a scholar or commentator who says this, then I think this is getting to be original research. Please note that I'm not saying that this is not the case, but I would like some external verification from a reasonably well-known and respectable source.

A reference to the Enclyopedia of the Orient entry on Jihad has been added as a reference to the claim regarding offensive jihad. Offensive Jihad is mentioned in the Enclyopedia of the Orient: " offensive jihad, i.e. attacking, is fully permissible in Sunni Islam" --Pename 03:55, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
And on what basis is the Encyclopedia of the Orient an authority? Indeed, how do we know that it's any more reliable than Wikipedia? Its self-description is scarcely convincing. Better and more detailed sources are clearly called for. - Mustafaa 03:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've added more sources and evidence of Offensive Jihad in the Offensive Jihad section --Pename 08:30, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
"Liberal Muslims, today, dispute its necessity."

Who are "Liberal Muslims"? Who in particular is disputing this?

"Liberal Muslims" refers to liberal minded, progressive Muslims who say that the offensive Jihads are not longer needed, even though the traditonal Islamic law say that it is mandatory. These people are liberal because they are willing to break away from long standing traditions. It is common sense that there are Muslims do reject the traditional imperialism of their religion; there is no need to say who in particular. --Pename 03:51, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
"Some say that it was practiced only to preserve Islam from destruction, and that the concept is now obsolete because freedom of religious practice is present in most of the world. "

Warning! Weasel words! Who says this?

This has been edited. This refers to what the "liberal Muslims" say about Islam's traditional imperialism. One could also say that this is the argument made by apologists for Islam, but I decided against exhibiting such hostility against progressive liberal Muslims who try to ideologically break away from traditions such as Islamist imperialism. --Pename 03:55, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
"Others argue that it is questionable whether Muslims established the second-largest empire in the history of the world, through war and conquest, only to preserve Islam from destruction. Orthodox Muslims do not see this as logically sound, and believe that it is Islam's goal to establish a global theocratic empire. Such Muslims wish to return to the days when a single Islamic Empire was ruled by a single Caliph."

Are the "others" Orthodox Muslims? Who or what are Orthodox Muslims?

"Orthodox" is a word used to describe the traditionalist faction within a major religion. Anyway, this section has been largely rewritten to address your concerns. --Pename 08:29, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
"Islamists see this as a pious and important ambition, and they find justification for their imperialist beliefs in the mainstream Islamic legal tradition of the four Madhabs, which was codified in the early centuries of the budding Islamic empire."

Can we have specific examples of Islamists and what they have said?

this has been rewritten. everyone knows that the muslim masses yearn for the glory days of Islam when the ISlamic empire was the world's superpower. Muslims do not see their imperial past as unethical and unfortunate, as many Westerners (especially liberals) have come to see their imperial past as unfortunate and unethical. --Pename 08:29, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
"Mainstream Muslim scholarship continues to see its historical imperialism, such as when Islamic armies conquered Spain, marched half way into France, laid siege to Vienna, and invaded large portions of Eastern Europe, as blessed and legitimate occurrences of jihad."

Define "mainstream Muslim scholarship". Please give examples of where "mainstream Muslims" have said this... though we can't until we define what is meant by mainstream.

this has been written --Pename 08:29, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


"Historians dispute whether forced conversion was or was not carried out during the era of Islamic imperialism which lasted approximately 1,300 years."

Which historians? Which historians are disputing this? Can we have references to such disputes?

i've elaborated on this, and described which historians --Pename 08:29, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
"Whether or not "conversion by the sword" was systematically carried out, it is established that the jizyah (a tax laid exclusively on non-Muslims whose proceeds go to the government) created a kind of economic and social apartheid in which non-Muslims were economically and socially punished by the state for not converting to Islam. Non-Muslims payed jizya while Muslims, under the empire, payed a taxed called the zakat (a so-called "charity tax" which all Muslims pay even today, but instead of paying to the state they now pay zakat to charities of their choice). The zakat is a 2.5% tax, while the jizyah was about a 10% income tax; as explained in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on jizyah, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax." [9] Non-Muslims were also usually denied entry to high-ranking military and civil service positions, although there were historical exceptions such as the Mughal Empire where non-Muslims did reach high-ranking positions. The Sira (biography of Muhammad) also mentions the wars against entire Arab tribes who were followers of Islam while Muhammad lived, but tried either to defect from the religion when its prophet died. In the same spirit, today in several Islamic countries, Muslims who are known to have left the religion are accused of apostasy and are given an ultimatum to either convert back to Islam or face execution; though in modern times, such executions have been rare to nonexistent in some Muslim countries."

Uh... this appears to be getting away from Jihad. How is this relevant to the article? Could we have an explanation of why this is important and relevant to Jihad? Otherwise it may have to go.

this is indeed relevant to the subject of Jihad. For clarity, this paragraph has been put into subsection 2.2.1: "Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propagation of Islam" --Pename 08:29, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
"Jihad is sometimes referred to as "The sixth pillar of Islam" in honor of its religious status and in reference to the Five Pillars of Islam, although no verse of the Qur'an or hadith describes jihad as a sixth pillar."

When has Jihad been referred to as "the sixth pillar of Islam"? Who by? Not everyone refers to it as such it seems. This is very unclear. Could we have this clarified?

i've deleted the "sixth pillar" comments. i've already read that jihad is sometimes called the "sixth pillar of islam" but the person who inserted this into the wikipedia article did not bother to provide a source, and i dont have a source. it's also unimportant anyway, so i deleted it. --Pename 08:29, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

(more to come)

Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you agree with so many of my points. See my edits for my answers to a lot of these issues. - Mustafaa 03:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do agree with many of your points, though I am not a Muslim. I dislike it when people mischaracterise my faith (I'm a Christian) and I dislike it when they mischaracterise yours! I hope you will be able to help us constructively NPOV and clarify information in this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Political military authority

"Muslims hold that an "Offensive Jihad" can only be declared by a lawful and legal Muslim authority, traditionally the Caliph. However, no authority is needed for the "Defensive Jihad" to become effective in Islamic traditional law, which holds that when Muslims are attacked then it becomes obligatory for all Muslim men of military conscription age, within a certain radius of the attack, to take up arms against the attackers. If the attacker is not defeated, then the "radius of obligation," so to speak, continues to expand, until it may encompass the whole world and every Muslim male of military conscription age."

Again, an earlier part of the article needs to clarify where it states that there is such a thing as an "Offensive Jihad" and a "Defensive Jihad". Also, a reference to the information about "radius of obligation" needs to be provided, as there is a risk that this will be accused of being original research. This definitely needs tightening.

"The question of which Muslim authority, if any, may carry out duties such as declaring Jihad has been problematic since March 3, 1924 CE, when Kemal Atatürk abolished the Caliphate, which the Ottoman sultans had held since 1517. There is no longer a single Muslim authority, which is considered a violation of the shariah (see Caliph). Sunni Islam (the largest denomination) has no religious hierarchy comparable to that of many Christian churches (although Shi'a Islam, which was historically persecuted by the Islamic state, does); its religion and government have been at times tightly woven into a political system known as the Caliphate, or khalifah. (Many of those termed Islamists in contemporary political rhetoric wish to return to this system of government.) Due to this lack of clerical organization amongst the vast majority of Muslims, any adherent may proclaim himself an "ulama" (Islamic scholar) and proclaim a defensive jihad by way of fatwa. Recognition is at the discretion of the listener."

Seems OK.

"In the absence of a Caliph, the only remaining "de facto" Islamic leaders would be the heads of the Islamic nation-states. However, due to the rampant corruption plaguing governments in the Muslim world and the view amongst some Muslims that the democratic or monarchic nation-state is an un-Islamic institution, there is widespread distrust of these heads of state. As a result Islamist movements (such as Al Qaida or Hamas) have declared jihad themselves, thus attempting to bypass (and even overthrow) the de facto authority of the nation-state."

Rampant corruption? Please expand and clarify! Also, another weasel word alert: "the view amongst some Muslims". Which Muslims please. Is the article referring to Al Quaida or Hamas exclusively, or is it referring to these and other movements? Or is it referring to other organisations entirely? - Ta bu shi da yu

I would add:

  • (although Shi'a Islam, which was historically persecuted by the Islamic state, does)" : the "historically persecuted by the Islamic state" bit is both vague (Shia have established their own states many times, starting with the Idrisids, and done their own fair share of persecuting too) and explains nothing (Kharijites were persecuted and developed no such structure.)
  • "Due to this lack of clerical organization amongst the vast majority of Muslims," - "lack of clerical organization" is a decided oversimplification of a complex issue. - Mustafaa 03:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please, feel free! Be bold, and try to write from a neutral point of view. Please also cite external sources :) - Ta bu shi da yu 04:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I have - although this guy reflexively reverted it. - Mustafaa 04:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Islamist terrorism

To non-Muslims, militant attacks under the rubric of jihad may be perceived as acts of terrorism. Two Islamist groups call themselves "Islamic Jihad": Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Supporters of these groups perceive a strong religious justification for a militant interpretation of the term jihad as an appropriate response to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

OK, this seems OK. It's specific, seems pretty accurate and just attempts to state facts.

To many Muslims, a person who dies as a part of struggle against oppression is a shahid (martyr) and is assured a place in Janna (Paradise) where they will have 72 virgins, rivers of wine and fresh fruit.

I've heard this also, however where does this information come from? I've always wanted to know. Can we have a citation for this information?

If the death of the person is certain, some consider the act martyrdom rather than suicide, which is a hell-worthy sin under Islamic religious law. If non-combatant Muslims perish in such attacks, they are also considered shahid and thus have also secured a place in paradise. Hence, the only true victims are the kaffir, or unbelievers.

More weasel words! "some consider the act martydom rather than suicide". Who considers this martydom? Not only that, but for this whole paragraph I don't know where the writer is getting this information from. Sources for this information, please!

This section has been elaborated on. Sources are now given. --Pename 08:17, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Those Muslims who disagree with the militant interpretation believe instead that suicide and killing civilians remain sins, since neither suicide nor attacks against civilians are considered legitimate outcomes of jihad.

Which Muslims disagree with the militant interpretation? Also, tighten up the language (I'll probably do this) in the last sentence.

I didn't write this paragraph and I'm not sure what to do with it. If someone else can improve upon it, it would be appreciated (e.g. if someone could elaborate on arguments by Muslim Islamic scholars AGAINST suicide bombings) --Pename 08:17, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
The basis of shahid can be traced back to the words of Muhammad prior to the battle of Badr where he stated:
"I swear by the One in whose hand Muhammad's soul is, any man who fights them today and is killed while he is patient in the ordeal and seeks the pleasure of Allah, going forward and not backing off, Allah will enter him into Paradise."
There are Muslim clerics who authorize suicide bombing as a valid form of jihad, especially against Israel, her allies, and her supporters, believing that such attacks are legitimate responses to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza [10]. One of these so named is the United States. However, there is also a significant number of Muslims residing in the United States and the United States gives more foreign aid to all Muslim countries together than it does to Israel, the largest single recipient of such aid.

Do we have specific instances of Muslim clerics who authorize suicide bombings? The link may talk about this, I haven't had a chance to check this... perhaps we could clarify this.

Yes, the link gives a specific instance of such a Muslim cleric. Other such instances are mentioned in the Wikipedia entry on suicide bombing.
Many Islamic legal rulings view any killing of civilians (whether through combat or any other such militant activity) as against the ethics of Islam.

Good to hear, however can we have specific instances of these rulings so we can verify the validity of this statement?

I dont have any on me. I wish the person who wrote that sentence had given a reference. Maybe someone else can do this (e.g. a moderate Muslim contributor)?
Moreover, since terrorist organizations do not constitute any autonomous state or de facto authority, and because targets of jihad can only be recognized military targets, most Muslims do not consider terrorism to be an extension of jihad.

OK... this statement might be OK, but I think that we could clarify this.

I dont agree with this statement. I agree it needs clarification. It also needs references. It also has a Weasal Word. But I won't delete it for now; maybe someone can clean it up. --Pename 08:17, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Islamist proponents of terrorism argue, on the other hand, that economic targets can be seen as military targets, and often cite Muhammad's numerous caravan raids (see Battle of Badr for a description of one such caravan raid and the war that it led to).

Which proponents is the article referring to?

The Qur'an specifically forbids attacking women, children, elderly people, and civilian buildings during a military campaign.

Where does it say this in the Qur'an? I am not an expert, and I would like specific information so that I can verify this claim (I'm not saying this info is wrong, it just needs to be clarified).

I don't think that the Qur'an actually forbids these things, I believe they are forbidden in the hadiths. The person who wrote this statement should have provided a verse number. Now we don't know what he or she was talking about. --Pename 08:17, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
However, there can be exceptions. Just as Western philosophies of war permitted harm to civilians and categorized it as "collateral damage," so too did Muhammad and his followers devise similar justifications.

OK, dangerous ground. Which Western philosophies is the article referring to? How is it relevant to Jihad? Are we comparing the same things? Islam is more than a philosophy, after all. It's a religion. This bit most definitely needs clarifying!

Western philosophies such as the modern study of ethics, and secular humanism. In Western philosophical thought on ethics, the concept and legitimacy of collateral damage is well-established. For example, droppings bombs that might killed civilians is not concidered wrong in the Geneva Conventions. I don't think it needs much clarifying - I think it's common knowledge that the concept of "collateral damage" has legitimacy in conteporary western thought and discourse. --Pename 08:17, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
In 630 CE Muhammad led the Siege of al-Ta'if, where the Muslims first discovered catapults. Muhammad deemed it permissible to use the catapults against the enemy, despite the fact that women and children would be put at risk of being killed by the boulders and burning missiles launched from the catapults. Muhammad deemed this to be a sort of permissible collateral damage.

Very specific info, something this article lacks. Look OK to me.

One hadith discusses the circumstances in which military action may be taken against the enemy, even if it is known that fellow Muslims taken prisoner by the enemy would be killed as a result of such military action; the essential message is that it is permissible to take the life of an innocent person (even a fellow Muslim), during war, if it is demonstrably for the greater good.

Which hadith? Again, we need to verify this information.

I'm trying to locate this hadith. I've read it before, but must locate it. --Pename 08:17, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
The Qur'an denounces the killing of any person who is not guilty of at least one of two crimes:
"Whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land - it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (5:32)
However, it is not entirely clear who is and who is not an "innocent person," nor is it entirely clear what qualifies as "creating disorder in the land." Muhammad considered poetry against his new religion to be a form of "creating disorder in the land" and silenced a number of great poets of his day by having them murdered. One such silenced poetess was Asma bint Marwan. Another such poet was Abu 'Afak.

Specific information is included here, so that's good. Seems OK to me.

In a similar spirit, "Theo van Gogh (47), a Dutch filmmaker who had made a movie critical of some aspects of Islamic society and culture, has been shot dead in an Amsterdam street on November 2 [2004]. The late great-grand-nephew of famous Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh had received many death threats after releasing Submission last August, a short film detailing the treatment of Muslim women. He shrug off the threats, saying there was nothing offensive in his movie. The killer, a 26-year-old Moroccan residing in Holland, was wearing a long beard and Islamic garb when he shot and stabbed van Gogh in broad daylight. He was arrested after a shootout with the police." 3

Uh... we don't need the whole report quoted verbatim. We can just state what happened and point people to the referenced information, also to the Theo van Gogh article. Perhaps clarification of the specific reasons for him being shot due to Jihad could be given also.

I removed the sentence about Theo Van Gogh "shrugging off" the death threats. As for the specific reason for his murder - it's stated right there above: he "had received many death threats after releasing Submission last August, a short film detailing the treatment of Muslim women." --Pename 08:17, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Another famous incident of this kind was the death fatwa against Salman Rushdie, issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, in which Khomeini called upon any Muslim in the world to murder Salman Rushdie, because of the books which Rushdie wrote about Islam.

Fair point I think.

Today, most publicly known Western critics of Islam recieve a constant stream of death threats from Islamic fanatics seeking to silence them, and have to employ constant the service of body guards (Canadian TV producer and publicly known Muslim critic of orthodox Islam, Irshad Manji, is sometimes cited as the "new Salman Rushdie" and employs the service of a number of Israeli trained body guards). In the Muslim world, those who dare to publicly criticize Islam are usually executed or imprisoned by their governments, under laws against "spreading disorder through the land" and apostasy.

Seems OK, however someone may disagree.

Other examples of this ambiguity as to who is an "innocent person" and who is a "guilty person," and thus must be killed, are found in the discussion above suicide bombers in Israel (and their ideological supporters) who view all Isrealies as guitly persons who can legitimately be killed. Yet another example of this ambiguity can be found in the discussion above regarding the issue of apostasy in Islam, and the fact that traditionally Muslims who defected from Islam were guitly persons who had to be executed for their beliefs. Clearly, there are instances where Islam's and Islamists' views of who is innocent and who is guilty differ from modern secular democratic ideals. Also discussed earlier was Islam's 1,300 year history of imperialism and expansionism, a practice that started with Muhammad himself. Traditional Islamic jurists did not concider it a sin to aggressively make war against non-Muslims in order to conquer their lands; thus countless innocent lives were taken by Islam's imperial armies as they spread their empire, but the Islamists saw these non-Muslims as guilty persons who could legitimately be killed. The Qur'an explicitly outlaws many "crimes" which modern secular society sees as fundamental rights or civil liberties. The point being that the concept of who is an "innocent person" and who is a "guilty person" can vary widely between different cultures, nations, religions, and eras in history. Hence a solitary verse of the Qur'an declaring that "whosoever kills an innocent person or creates disorder in the land will burn in Hell" is not by any means the complete Islamic legal framework about who can and cannot be killed and under which circumstances.

I've done a bit of a copyedit already, but I think the piece needs tightening. Perhaps instead of saying "are found in the discussion above about" could be rephrased. This whole section seems to be arguing a point to convince the reader something. I think that this needs a whole lot of work, because we don't argue for or against anything, we only characterise and describe situations, facts and opinions. I think this clearly comes out in words like "the point being" (we're trying to make a point? Why?). This bit needs significant tightening!

The pargraph is not arguing for or against anything, it is describing the disparity between modern notions of "innocent persons" and the traditional Islamic (i.e. medieval Arab) notions of "innocent persons." In past centuries, Muslims deemed it permissible to aggressively wage wars of imperialism against non-Muslims. Normally, if somsone tries to kill you then that person is "guiltly" and can justifiably by killed. BUt if someone is not bothering you, and you kill that person, then most people would say that you've killed an "innocent person." But Islamic imperial ideology is not compatable with this notion of "innocent person" because imperialism requires attacking and killing people who are not bothering you. I think it's pretty a obvious fact and common sense fact that Islam's notions of "innocent" and "guilty" are different from modern secular liberal democratic ideas of about who are "innocent people" and who are "guilty." This is not an argument for against anything, it's a description of the state of current affairs as far as Islamic law compares to modern secular law. That's what this paragraph conveys. --Pename 08:18, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


This ambiguity and disagreement, within Islam, over who are "innocent persons" and who are "guilty persons" is most clearly evident in the modern history of Jihad and the theories of warfare that its modern proponents wrote. One of the most well known contemporary Jihad theorists was Sayyid Qutb (an Egyptian who was one of the founders of contemporary militant Islamic ideology) who wrote a series of books, while in prison, in which he declared that all people who participated in any form of government that was not an Islamic theocracy (either by participating in the councils of such a form of government, or campaigning for a political party in democratic system, or even encouraging people to vote in a democratic form of government) could be considered guilty persons who could justifiably be killed. In a recently aired documentary by BBC, titled "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear," in its second eposide, it was explained that "The implication [of Qutb's belief] was that these leaders could justifiably be killed, because they had become so corrupted, they were no longer Muslims, even though they said they were." [11]. One of Sayyid Qutb's followers was to become Osama bin Laden's personal mentor; he was an Egyptian named Ayman al-Zawahiri, who wrote (like Qutb, while in prison) an even more radical framework for the contemporary militant Islamic ideology. In the first eposide of the BBC documentary, it was explained that "The mystery, for Zawahiri, was why the Egyptian people had failed to see the truth and rise up [against their un-Islamic secular leaders]. It must be because the infection of selfish individualism had gone so deep into people’s minds that they were now as corrupted as their leaders. Zawahiri now seized on a terrible ambiguity in Qutb’s argument. It wasn’t just leaders like Sadat who were no longer real Muslims, it was the people themselves. And Zawahiri believed that this meant that they too could legitimately be killed. But such killing, Zawahiri believed, would have a noble purpose, because of the fear and the terror that it would create in the minds of ordinary Muslims. It would shock them into seeing reality in a different way. They would then see the truth." [12]

Interesting information, however the paragraph starts by saying "This ambiguity and disagreement, within Islam, over who are "innocent persons" and who are "guilty persons" is most clearly evident in the modern history of Jihad and the theories of warfare that its modern proponents wrote." Then two proponents of an extreme view are given a large amount of coverage, from one source (a BBC series). There is nothing written about the disagreement that others have with their views, nothing about ambiguity over... something. Ambiguity over what? This seems biased to me, and should be expanded, clarified and NPOVed.

Ambiguity over who is an "innocent person," who is a "guilty person," who is a "real muslim," who can be killed and under what circumstances. There is a great deal of disagreement over these issues amongst Muslims, due to the ambiguity, in the Islamic ideology and legal theory, regarding these issues. But I agree that that the opposite point of view should also get more coverage in the article, like I said above, a moderate Muslim contributor could perhaps explain the arguments that moderate Muslims have against Islamist terrorism. --Pename 08:18, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu 03:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Muhammad had no poets murdered

This is a typical Islamophobic smear. In fact, everything in the article from this line forward has nothing to do with Jihad and is mainly editorial "original research" by an Islamophobe editor. See Talk:Abu 'Afak and Talk:Asma bint Marwan "However, it is not entirely clear who is and who is not an "innocent person," nor is it entirely clear what qualifies as "creating disorder in the land." Muhammad concidered poetry against his new religion to be a form of "creating disorder in the land" and silenced a number of great poets of his day by having them murdered. " The excerpts from the Qur'an are not related to Jihad as even the editor admits: "The Qur'an uses the term jihad only four times, none of which refer to armed struggle. As such, the use of the word jihad, in reference to holy Islamic war, was a latter day invention of Muslims. However, the concept of holy Islamic war was not itself a latter day invention, and the Qur'an does contain passages laying out the theory and practice of armed struggle (qi'tal) for Muslims." These sections are all irrelevant to Jihad (except as it is misinterpreted by Islamophobes) and so it will all be deleted or moved to appropriate articles for NPOV sake. --Alberuni 02:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, he did. it's written clearly in the sira. your fringe beliefs do not reflect what most believes beleive. even today people are executed for criticizing islam, so what are you talking about? You are an extreme apologist, and therefore your point-of-view is completely non-neutral and not fit for an enclylopedia entry. --Pename 02:10, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
The story is a well-known fraud, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, seized upon by bigots to smear the Prophet Muhammad. This source completely refutes it. [13]. The subject matter is irrelevant to Jihad anyway. These encyclopedia articles need to be NPOV, not the Franklin Graham hate-speech POV version that you are pushing. --Alberuni 02:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


"The story is a well-known fraud, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" <--- the stories of Asama bint Marwan, Abu Awf, and others like them, appear in the Sira (biography of Muhammad) written by the early Muslim historian Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Ishaq's Sira is the earliest written biography about Muhammad. It doesn't get anymore reliable than that. Every other biography written about Muhammad is based on what Ibn Ishaq wrote in his Sira. The Sira is a reliable source of information about Muhammad, while Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a reliable source of information about Jews. Both common people and academics, both Muslim and non-Muslim, believe that Ibn Ishaq's Sira is quite reliable. Why would Ibn Ishaq, a devout Muslim, smear Muhammad? Ibn Ishaq and his contemporaries did not see these stories as smears against Muhammad, they saw these stories as illustrations of Muhammad's strength, success, and manliness, because in medieval Arabia it was very common and completely acceptable to assasinate poets (poetry was the primary medium of political discourse in medieval Arabia). --Pename 02:54, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Fixing Pename's mess

This will take some time... starting with the section I just edited:

"Orthodox Muslims do not see this as logically sound, and believe that it is Islam's goal to establish a global theocratic empire. Such Muslims wish to return to the days when a single Islamic Empire was ruled by a single Caliph. Islamists see this as a pious and important ambition, and they find justification for their imperialist beliefs in the mainstream Islamic legal tradition of the four Madhabs, which was codified in the early centuries of the budding Islamic empire.

Uh, no. Have you been reading too much LGF or something? "It is Islam's goal to establish a global theocratic empire" indeed!

"Mainstream Muslim scholarship continues to see its historical imperialism, such as when Islamic armies conquered Spain, marched half way into France, laid siege to Vienna, and invaded large portions of Eastern Europe, as blessed and legitimate occurrences of jihad."

Not quite. The conquest of Spain would be widely accepted as legitimate Jihad; the Ottoman Empire's deeds are considerably more disputed.

"The conquest of Spain would be widely accepted as legitimate Jihad" <---you have admitted that Muslims widely view wars of conquest, even conquests of European lands, as "legitimate Jihad." This means you have no grounds on which to dispute the claim that Muslims widely view wars of conquest as legitimate Jihad. --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
I like that "even conquests of European lands" touch - I assume your implication is that it's always OK to conquer African and Asian lands. And "Muslims widely view wars of conquest as legitimate Jihad"? More accurately, "Muslims widely view some wars of conquest as legitimate Jihad" - if they were carried out to end religious oppression, or (as is believed to have been the case in Spain) they were invited in by people within the kingdom.
Historians dispute whether forced conversion was or was not carried out during the era of Islamic imperialism which lasted approximately 1,300 years. Whether or not "conversion by the sword" was systematically carried out,

Actually, they don't and it wasn't.

Historians do, in fact, dispute whether or not conversions by the sword took place and if so how widespread such practices were. Almost everyone has heard of this dispute. You cannot deny that the dispute itself doesn't exist, that no historian has ever concidered whether or not such practices took place. --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
No - almost everyone has heard of this claim, which originated as Christian propaganda. If historians dispute this, I assume you can name a few examples? - Mustafaa 03:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
it is established that the jizyah (a tax laid exclusively on non-Muslims whose proceeds go to the government) created a kind of economic and social apartheid in which non-Muslims were economically and socially punished by the state for not converting to Islam. Non-Muslims payed jizya while Muslims, under the empire, payed a taxed called the zakat (a so-called "charity tax" which all Muslims pay even today, but instead of paying to the state they now pay zakat to charities of their choice). The zakat is a 2.5% tax, while the jizyah was about a 10% income tax; as explained in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on jizyah, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax." [14] Non-Muslims were also usually denied entry to high-ranking military and civil service positions, although there were historical exceptions such as the Mughal Empire where non-Muslims did reach high-ranking positions.

This entire section couldn't be more irrelevant to the article if it tried, even if it were NPOVed. This has nothing to do with jihad.

The paragraph on jizya IS relevant, and its relevance is explained in the discussion here titled #What do Zakat and Jizyah have to do with Jihad? --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
In the same spirit, today in several Islamic countries, Muslims who are known to have left the religion are accused of apostasy and are given an ultimatum to either convert back to Islam or face execution; though in modern times, such executions have been rare to nonexistent in some Muslim countries.

So is this.

The issue of apostacy, and history of the apostate tribes in the early days of Islam, relates to debate about whether or not forced conversions took place while the Muslims were waging their Jihads of conquests in order to expand the Islamic empire and the rule of the Caliph (a debate which you apparently think does not exist). --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Economic motivations - as the theorists of capitalism constantly remind us - do not constitute "force". Nor do taxes - or executions for apostasy - constitute any part of jihad. The wider debate on why so many people in the Islamic empire ultimately converted to Islam is interesting, but is not relevant to this article, which at most would describe the nature of the conquest itself, not its possible consequences centuries later. The explanation above may have convinced whoever you were arguing with, but it does not convince me. - Mustafaa 03:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Economic discrimination based on relgion is a form of oppressive force. --Pename 03:34, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
No, force is a form of force. Economic discrimination is a form of differential taxation. I guess you think rich people are being subject to "oppressive force" if they pay higher tax rates than poor people... - Mustafaa 03:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please review the American Revolution. The advocates of American independence from Great Britain felt they were being forced to pay otherise unnecessary taxes. I think a good argument could be made for Pename's position, although it wouldn't be restricted to religion. --Viriditas 08:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great New Article Feature: TIMELINE!

I have added a great new feature to the article. I am developing a timeline of all major military activities ever waged under the banner of Jihad. Of course many different sects of Muslims disagree with eachother of which of these activities were Jihad and which were not, but one thing is clear: the Muslims who took part in these activities truly believed they were taking part in Jihad, and they gave their lives for their belief (they also took the lives of many others, due to their belief and militant actions). The people who did these things believed they were taking part in Jihad. Whether or not they really were taking part in Jihad is a theological debate that has no place on an NPOV encylopedia - it is a subtle issue that is highly disputed amongst Muslims themselves, and the proper place for such arguments are Islamic website where Muslims argue for and against whether or not organizations such as Hizbullah and Hamas are really taking part in Jihad. The purpose of Wikipedia is simply to observe, record, and categorize these events. Military actions under the banner of Jihad belong in the timeline of Islamist military history, featured in this article.

One important thing to note about the timeline is that it is a WORK IN PROGRESS. Every single terrorist incident has been covered, but there is a lot of other history that is missing, especially the history of wars fought by the Islamic empires.

Why is this a great feature? Because if someone is trying to research the history of Jihad, all he or she has to do is come to the Wikipedia entry on Jihad, and s/he will find a convenient timeline that lists every major military incident in the entire history of Jihad.

--Pename 08:39, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

But are all Islamic military conquests necessarily Jihad? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Any military campaign carried out by Muslims under the banner of Jihad should be categorized under the phenomenon of Jihad. Wikipedia should observe this phenomenon, including its more extremist manifestations, and simply observe, record, categorize, and report these incidents. Wikipedia is not the right place for Islamic theological debates over which of these manifestations of Jihad is approved by Allah and which are not approved by Allah. --Pename 20:39, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
If you add any terrorist attack as "Islamic military history", it will be deleted. It's as simple as that OneGuy 13:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of the kind of brutish ignorance that dominates the edits of this article. OneGuy, maybe you can convince your little Islamic brain that no terrorist incident in history was ever related to Jihad. But when terrorists groups with names like "Islamic Jihad" carry out their deeds, the world knows that their actions are deeply related to Jihad and Islam. --Pename 20:42, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
A "perfect example of the kind of brutish ignorance that dominates the edits of this article"? Are you also refering to your own?! You can't be for real... - Ta bu shi da yu 05:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No timeline at all is acceptable in this article; it cannot be a comprehensive list of every self-proclaimed jihad for practical reasons, nor can it be Wikipedia's place to choose which ones count as jihads and which ones don't. The timeline Peniel actually tried to insert is even less acceptable: apparently, in his mind the Algerian War of Independence (1 million Algerian martyrs) and the Mahdi and Imam Shamil pale into insignificance beside such enormous battles as "1975: Tel Aviv Savoy Hotel guest attacked by Palestinian PLO terrorists". This issue was already covered at #My recent edit. However, I note with approval that it seems to have gone, and comment on it here merely for the benefit of future editors. - Mustafaa 00:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article has been turned into an anti-Islam screed by an arrogant hatemonger

This is not acceptable. If Pename attacked a Jewish page like he is doing here, his edits would be blocked and he would be forced to bring each one to Talk page for pre-approval by obstinant Jews who would allow only one or two after severely altering and NPOVing each sentence. --Alberuni 17:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"obstinant Jews" <--- Albundi is an anti-semetic Arab Islamist fanatic who knows less about Islam than most non-Muslims. And SHE is apparently now setting the Wikipedia standard for what is an NPOV article on Jihad. Wikipedia is cracked out; the system needs to be overhauled. --Pename 20:34, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Goodbye and good riddance. See how far you get editing Jew article with the attitude you brought here. --Alberuni 21:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pename, any revisions to this article should be discussed in Talk FIRST

Your wholesale edits to this article are not appropriate as are your Talk page insults and assertions of superior knowledge. Some of your contributions are valid but many are not. The way articles are produced here is through discussion on Talk page not by bullying arrogance. Substantiate your edits and make sure they conform to the Wikipedia:NPOV policy. Then we can all agree to insert it. No one owns this article, it is a collaborative project. If you can't work by consensus, you should leave. --Alberuni 20:22, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This was partly my fault, because I forgot to protect the talk page and the main article. Sorry guys. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Haha! As if you discussed your edits before you made them! The most you do is throw around comments like "this is irrelevant you islamaphobe" and then go delete 60% of the article!
My contributions are far more NPOV than Albundi's. She's a typical Muslim apologist. Why did she delete the whole Islamist terrorism section? She didn't debate anything, she just deleted it (e.g. the sections about Salman Rushdie, van Gogh, et al). And why did she delete the Qur'an quotes on warfare section? She claims that quotes in the Qur'an about holy war don't belong in the Jihad article? I don't think that's very logical. Albundi should be banned.
I'm sick and tired of all these Islamic fanatics and apologists constantly trying to delete half the article, in their attempts to cover up the doings of their prophet, their religious leaders, and their fellow coreligionists. Wikipedia is best for articles about science and mathematics, where only rational and informed people are likely to edit. But when any delusional fanatic can come and wildly edit any "encylopedia" article about his or her cult or religion, then clearly the articles will never be NPOV. This is why I hereby resign from editing this page. Go wild, Albundi! Spew as much apologia onto the Jihad article as you can. Here's an idea: why don't you go delete any mention of war or violence from JIhad article, and tell everyone that that sort of thing belongs in the "Qital" article, and tell everyone that Jihad is not really "holy war," that it's really a "spiritual struggle," and that no terrorist attack in the history of the world ever had ANYTHING to do with Islam or Jihad. That also goes for the two other Islamic apologists that have been supposedly making this article "NPOV," OneGuy and Mustafaa. These people are so far gone that they don't even want anyone to write about the "72 beutiful virgins" of Islamic paradise. They claim that there is no sex in Islamic paradise, and that the "72 beutiful VIRGINS" are for "taking care of the deceased." Yeah. OKAY. I've never seen a band of Muslims less informed about their own religion than this bunch. The Wikipedia system does not work well with articles on religion - members of the respective cult will always come and try to suppress any embaressing information, and will try their utmost to transform the entire article into dribbling apologetics. goodbye --Pename 20:27, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
You are a delusional hatemongering Islamophobe. You can't expect to promote your hate-filled garbage in a collaborative project that includes people with a modicum of reason and cultural sensitivity. --Alberuni 21:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Islam is not a culture, it is a [[[religion]]. Honest, rational and NPOV wikipedia contributors do not supress the truth just because it offends somebody. It's inevitably that speaking the truth about Islam is going to offend some Muslims, especially the liberal, apologetic, Westernized ones, who don't want anybody to know what Sha'riah really says. But of course Islamists like albundi are not interested in the truth; anyone who proclaims the facts about Islam is a "hatemongering Islamaphobe." As if this ridiculous new word "islamaphobe" has any meaning, depth or gravity.
I'll admit that I don't give a damn about "cultural sensitivity" when it comes to explaining the facts about Islam, because (for one thing) Islam isn't a culture to begin with - it's a medieval religion. But it is you (albundi) who lacks sound reasoning skills, not me. --Pename 02:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sure, sure, we've seen your type before. "Islam is a cult. Muslims need to be killed and subjugated and converted to a civilized religion. They are bloodthirsty, sexist, primitive animals." Thank you Ann Coulter, Osama loves your work. Keep it up. --Alberuni 02:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edits to this article should be discussed in Talk first

Some anon Islamophobe came in and tried to rewrite the whole article. Much of the garbage was deleted. If you, Viriditas, or anyone else wants to reinsert any of it, you should discuss it here first. --Alberuni 00:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


OneGuy Introduces new rule: NO QUOTING MILITANT MUSLIMS!

OneGuy has started a campaign of deleting any quotations about JIhad made by militant Muslims, such as Dr. Abdullah Azzam (who was not even a terrorist, but merely a freedom fighter during the Afghan Jihad, i.e. a person who fought the defensive Jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan). So according to OneGuy, any Muslim who takes part in defending Muslim lands is automatically disqualified as a source of information about Islamic laws regarding Jihad, even if the person in question is holds a Master's degree in Islamic Law from the oldest and most prestigeous Islamic University in the world (University of Al-Azhar), and even if the Grand Mufti (highest religious authority) of Saudi Arabia agrees with the person in question. Moreover, in the quotes that OneGuy deleted, Dr. Azzam was merely paraphrasing the famous classical Islamic scholars such as Ibn Kathir and the legal rulings of the four madhabs. Yet we are to believe that anything Azzam says about Jihad must be false because OneGuy has called Azzam a "militant Muslim." This means that according to OneGuy only "Muslims" who completely reject armed Jihad (i.e. miliant Islam in all its forms) are legitimate sources of information about what traditional Islam really says about Jihad. So long as OneGuy and Alburundi are allowed to edit this article, it will never come anywhere close to NPOV - it will just be an extremly misleading series of Islamic apologetics, unworthy of inclusion in a resource that calls itself an "encylopedia." --Pename 03:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

The lies you inserted were refuted by the quotes from the Qur'an and Islamic scholars. Have you read Ibn Kathir or were you believing anything Amir Taheri said about Kathir? Even if Ibn Kathir said that, he is not the only classical scholars, as the quotes from the Qur'an and consensus among scholars (as links posted by me) proves it OneGuy 05:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"were you believing anything Amir Taheri said about Kathir?" <--- NOTE that this talk section has absolutely nothing to do with Aamir Taheri. This talk section is about Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, and your attempts to delete all quotes by him used to support any claims in the article. --Pename 08:40, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
I don't care about Amir Taheri or Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. Whatever they claimed has been contradicted by the verses I posted from the Qur'an, the ultimate source on Islam. Further links to Al Azhar confirmed I was right. OneGuy 16:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Angry Frustrated Hate-Filled Anon User

If you would present and discuss your material rationally, your edits would be more likely to be accepted in the article. If you think you should be able to write whatever you want without external editing or attempt at neutral point of view, perhaps you should start your own blog. --Alberuni 03:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the last thing you are capable of contributing is a neutral point of view. what you contribute is an Islamic apologetic point of view. That sort of thing does not belong in encylopedias. Perhaps you should start your own Islamic website. --Pename 03:30, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
From your extremely hostile perspective, anyone who has any respect for Islam is an apologist. So, coming from you, that's a compliment. You attacked this article with a wholesale Islamophobic assault that was completely lifted from hate sites. Don't expect that to go unnoticed. --Alberuni 03:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"From your extremely hostile perspective, anyone who has any respect for Islam is an apologist. " <--- This is false. Please do not puts words in my mouth. There are many devout Muslims who have an immense amount of respect for Islam and can speak honestly about Islam without being apologetics. Also, are you suggesting that encylopedia articles are requred to "have respect for Islam" ? --Pename 08:44, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Banu Qurayza Were not Prisoners of War?

The Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza was defeated in war by the Muhammad's army when the Banu Qurayza surrendered to Muhammad's army. The Banu Qurayza were then made prisoners (of war). THEN the all men in the Banu Qurayza tribe were executed because they refused to fight against Muhammad's enemies (which Muslims claim was an act of treason). The women and children of the Banu Qurayza were turned into slaves (i.e. enslaved PRISONERS of WAR). Therefore, contrary to OneGuy's idiotic claim, the Banu Qruayza were in fact POWs. --Pename 03:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

No, the Jewish tribe committed a crime treason by aiding the enemy at the time of war. Thus, they were executed by the order of Saud Ibn Maud, an arbiter chosen by them for the crime of treason. That' not prisoner of war. OneGuy 06:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What of the crimes they committed against Muhammad earlier? Should they not have been punished for their treachery? --Alberuni 03:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Before Muhammad came around, Medina was a Jewish oasis town. There were three Jewish tribes, and two Arab tribes. The Bani Qurayza were one of the Jewish tribes. Muhammad left his birthplace of Mecca and arranged with the Arab tribes to proclaim himself as the sole dictator of the city of Medina. The people of Medina did not elect Muhammad, he imposed himself upon them. Certainly, not everyone agreed with him being their dictator. But dictator of Medina Muhammad did become, and soon after arriving to Medina, he expelled two of the Jewish tribes and took their land and homes. Then the Meccans attacked Medina, and the Banu Qurayza refused to fight on anyone's side.
This then was the crime of the tribe of the Banu Qurayza: their tribal leaders refused to fight for either the Meccans or for Muhammad. Muhammad defeated the seige of Medina, and as soon as the Meccans retreated, Muhammad launched an attack on the Banu Qurayza. The Banu Qurayza surrendered to Muhammad, and Muhammad took the captured males of the Banu Qurayza and beheaded every one of them that was older than 14 years of age. Muhammad had no legitimate right to be dictator over the Banu Qurayza and the rest of Medina, in the first place. On top of that, the Banu Qurayza had no ethical obligation to fight in the cause of their dictator. Finally, there is no justification for beheading a 15 year old child, because the leaders of his tribe decided not to fight against Muhammad's enemie. Such bloodshed is called collective punishment, and under international law it is concidered to be a crime of war. --Pename 03:47, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Wow, your biased account is straight out of answering-islam.com. Historical innacuracy aside, even you are intelligent enough to realize that there was no international law 1500 years ago. If there was, what do you think they would have made of the Romans, the Crusades and the Aztecs? Sheesh, what a twisted perspective. --Alberuni 03:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
actually it was not straight of any website, it was straight out of my mind. of course there was no international law 1,400 years ago. that doesn't mean that islamic laws regarding prisoners of war do not conflict with international law. it's impossible for any medieval system of laws to be compatable with modern international law. The world has changed a lot in 1,400 years. Unfortunately Islamic law has not changed one iota in all those centuries. --Pename 04:16, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
It's a good thing the Jews and Christians are showing the Muslim world how to abide by international law in Palestine and Iraq. --Alberuni 04:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I thought that you said you were neither a Muslim nor an Arab. Yet here you are (a) speaking on behalf of "the Muslim world" and (b) you sound an awful lot like a Muslim Arab extremist when you blame the very broad category of "Jews and Christians" for the wars and strife in the Middle East, also (c) you are way off topic, this talk section is about whether or not the Banu Qurayza were ever made prisoners of war by the Muslims, it is not about the current events in Palestine or Iraq. Way to show your NPOV skills, albundi. --Pename 05:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
I never discussed my background with you. The quote above does not purport to speak for the Muslim world. I referred to Christians and Jews to turn your critique of Islam law and international law around and show you the hypocrisy of it. NPOV does not have anything to do with Talk pages. It has to do with the article. That's why you are permitted to express Islamophobia here but not as objective fact in the article. But you are right the whole section has gone off-topic. There's no point engaging in long theological debates about general issues. You obviously will only agree with other Islamophobes. If you want to bring in specific sections of text for the article, I suggest bringing in a paragraph or section at a time and we can review it, edit and re-edit before inserting it in the article. --Alberuni 05:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"There's no point engaging in long theological debates about general issues." <--- You are again dragging this discussion offtopic. This talk section is neither a theological debate nor does it concern general issues. It only concerns a very simple and specific question, namely, where the Banu Qurayza prisoners of war before the tribe was massacred by Muhammad. --Pename

Here is a hadith that contradicts the lie he posted from answering Islam

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280: Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri: When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."

Notice the judgement on Bani Quraiza was made by Sad (not Muhammad). Banu Quraiza (who were living in Medina) had agreed to defend the city from foreign attacks, but instead they aided the enemy at the time of war. Thus, they were rightly ordered to be killed by an arbiter chosen by them. This has nothing to do with POW OneGuy 06:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. I did not post anything from Answering Islam.
2. "Notice the judgement on Bani Quraiza was made by Sad (not Muhammad)." <-- the hadith explains that Muhammad told Sad to decide what to do, Sad told Muhammad that his decision was too kill all 800 or so able bodied male prisoners of war of the Banu Qurayza tribe, and then Muhammad approved of Sad's decision by announcing that Sad's decision was the same as King Allah's decision. Therefore Muslims believe that it was not merely Sad's decision, but Allah's decision.
3. What exactly does this hadith contradict? How does it prove that the Bani Qurayza were not prisoners of war, as you claimed? The topic of this talk section is whether or not the Bani Qurayza were prisoners of war. It has nothing to do with Answering-Islam.org. --Pename 08:37, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
No, the hadith affirms that it was the decision by Sad. Qurayza were not executed because they were POWs. They lived in Medina. They were executed rightly for committing treason during the time of war that would have completely wiped out the Muslims. This has nothing to do with POWs. OneGuy 16:23, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Qurayza were not executed because they were POWs." <--- nobody is saying that the Banu Qurayza were massacred BECAUSE they were POWs. I am merely asserting the historical fact that the Banu Qurayza were massacred WHILE they were POWs. When you deleted the paragraphs about the Banu Qurayza (in the Prisoners of War section) your justification for this was as follows (from the main article edit history):
06:55, Nov 21, 2004 OneGuy (Banu Quriza were not POW .. they were killed for the crimes of trerason by the order of Saud ibn Muad -- not Muhammad)
Thus the crux of your argument was that the Banu Qurayza were not prisoners of war. But when you said "Qurayza were not executed because they were POWs" (above) you implicitly admitted that the Banu Qurayza WERE prisoners of war. You are contradictiong the crux of your own argument for deleting any mention of the Banu Qurayza from the "Prisoners of War" section. --Pename 01:53, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Dude , The People Of Banu Qurazya Werent Made POW'S ,They Were Executed Before That ....

saad.ghauri 23 Nov 2004

Alburundi's latest lie: executing prisoners of war forbidden by the QUr'an!

Instead of addressing any of the evidence in the article, Alburundi has deleted the original Prisoner's of War section and replaced it with some misleading quotes from the Qur'an. She does not allow anyone else to make any edits, and insists that every edit be first discussed in the Talk Page. Yet she herself refuses to discuss any of the edits, she refuses to debate or debunk the material that she deletes from the article. The central question is ARE MUSLIMS ALLOWED TO KILL PRISONERS OF WAR? The unequivocal answer is no. Whether or not they encouraged to free prisoners is a seperate issue. The real question is what is allowed and what is prohibited in Islam. Killing prisoners is absolutely allowed. Scores of Islamic scholars have spoken up about this, after all the beheadings in Iraq, and they have made it very clear that executing prisoners of war is perfectly acceptable under Islamic law. But of course being the lying apologists that albundi and oneguy are, they deleted this fact from the article without any debate or justification, as usual. --Pename 03:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. Please provide your sources for this information. I must caution you that the highly immoderate language you are using on this page is causing unnecessary controversy and is not condusive to rational discussion of highly emotive and controversial topics! Perhaps you could also read how to write with a Neutral point of view? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is that the wayyou discuss things with your co-workers? What is your source for the claims you are making? Could you provide a reference? I have these sources with numerous citations to Qur'an and hadith. [15] [16] [17] --Alberuni 03:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"What is your source for the claims you are making?" <--- the source of my claims is in the section titled "Execution of Prisoners of War" (the contents of which you keep deleting and replacing with your lies). Note that you are deleting sections with information that is completely referenced, and you are deleting said sections without any discussion. And yet you are the one running around telling everyone that everything you say is NPOV and that they must first discuss with you any edit they wish to make. --Pename 03:51, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
It's not just me, edits on controversial subjects are achieved through consensus. I've learned this Wikipedia process by working with the hardest headed crowd you can imagine. If you want to continue editing the article, you should bring the section here so it can be discussed. There's no rush. You don't get to insert anything you think is accurate and neutral until it has been reviewed and accepted. Sorry, if you think you are better than everyone else, you should find another place to ply your wares. --Alberuni 04:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


update: there are now three (3) sources in the POW section (two non-Muslim sources and one Muslim) confirming that Muslims are allowed to behead prisoners of war. --Pename 04:02, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Amir Taheri? What is the exact quote you want to insert? Bring specifics, not vague claims. --Alberuni 04:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Amir Taheri is not a scholar of any kind. His claims are contradicted by other refernces posted in the section, including links to Al Ahzar statement OneGuy 05:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Notice that Pename linked to hate site muhammadanism.org from prisoners of war section , and he removed the quotes from the Qur'an and Al Azhar statement. This is like linking to neo-Zazi sites from Talmud page. What a joker. The guy has now completly lost his credibilty. OneGuy 06:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The link to this particular website has been deleted. Also statements made by Al Azhar have been put back. But please note for future reference that arguing against the source is a logical fallacy known as argumentem ad hominem. --Pename 08:27, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Chechen Sex Slaves!

The most recent attempt at undocumented POV editing by the hatemonger Pename. --Alberuni 04:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. Sources are most definitely need for these claims. I'm considering filing an RFC on this page, some of the things I'm seeing on the page are quite simply ridiculous! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've reworded this part of the article, and added many sources. --Pename 07:17, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Attempting to End the Reversion War

I have tried to come to a comprimise with Alberundi's edits and the article before Alberundi's edits. It would help to scale down the revert war if everyone would explain their objections and edits in the talk section before editing the article.

A worthy course of action. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alberundi's Quest to Quietly Delete Two Important Subsections

Excerpts from the Qur'an on warfare

Alberuni keeps deleting the Qur'an quotes about war. She claims that they belong in an article titled "Qital" and not in the Jihad article. "Qital" is the Arabic word of war, and one of the meanings of Jihad is "war." Therefore, the Qur'an quotes on warfare belong in the Jihad section.

Alberundi: since you disagree with this, please discuss your point of view in this talk section before you go and delete it the Qur'an quote section again.

Qital is not the same as Jihad, that's why they are two different words. --Alberuni 15:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I already acknowledged that they are two different words. TO REPEAT: "Qital" is the Arabic word of war, and one of the meanings of Jihad is "war." Therefore, the Qur'an quotes on warfare belong in the Jihad section. --Pename 22:41, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propagation of Islam

Alberundi is also quietly deleting tthe section called "Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propagation of Islam". She has yet to explain why she is deleting this section from the article. Alberundi, please follow your own advice and DISCUSS YOUR EDITS IN THE TALK PAGE BEFORE DELETING SECTIONS OF THE ARTICLE

(NOTE: i changed this section; all mention of apostacy of "the apostate tribes" has been removed)

---Pename 07:10, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

The edits must be discussed in Talk before being entered intio the article, not vice versa. That is standard Wikipedia policy for controversial articles. I suggested that you bring them here but you keep inserting them into the article without discussion. That's not acceptable. --Alberuni 15:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"The edits must be discussed in Talk before being entered intio the article" <-- If you are referring to my note "i changed this section; all mention of apostacy of "the apostate tribes" has been removed" then the note itself is proof that I started discussion about the edit in Talk and THEN made the edit. Anyway, that is completely off-topic. This talk section is not about my edits, it is about YOUR edits. Specifically, this talk section is about YOUR attempts this two important sections from the article, WTIHOUT EVEN MENTIONING YOUR EDITS IN THE TALK PAGE. This talk section was initiated by me to give you a chance to explain to us why you keep deleting these sections. So far you have not made any mention of your attempts to delete the "Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propagation of Islam" section. You have also been deliberately neglecting the debate about your deletion of the "Excerpts from the Qur'an on warfare" section (the debate I'm referring to is directly above, in the appropriate subsection of this talk section). --Pename 00:56, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

More twisting from Pename

He inserted this verse in the article:

"It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise. Were it not a previous ordainment from Allah, a severe torment would have touched you for what you took." (8:67-68)

Now, where did get this translation. None of the other official online translations use the phrase "made a great slaughter" The answer: he got this from this site: http://users.mo-net.com/mcruzan/pows_01.htm

However, if you read the article, the guy who wrote the article actually is claiming that the verse refers to freeing the prisoners without ransom! In other words, Pename used this translation (not used in any other place) but took that part off.

It should be very clear by now that this guy, Pename, has no credibility and honesty. He is only interested in inserting twisted facts where ever he finds them OneGuy 17:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"where did get this translation. None of the other official online translations use the phrase "made a great slaughter" <--- there's no such thing as "official translation" of the qur'an, but in any case the words "made slaughter in the land" appear i Pickthal's world famous translation which is available online:
PICKTHAL: It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise. (8:67) [18] --Pename 21:43, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Doesn't change the fact that you took the translation from that page. Pickthal doesn't have "(and free them with ransom)" in parenthesis. That page does. Everything what I wrote above stands. You took the verse from that page and used it to imply something completely opposite to what the author was saying OneGuy 00:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nor does Pickthal have "made a great slaughter". - Mustafaa 00:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ugh

Well, now that so much work has been done on this since I put in my request, it's going to be virtually impossible to untangle all of the copyvios, isn't it? RickK 21:29, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

No. Point out the copyvio's, point out the copyvio sources and we'll remove accordingly. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


RickK: The first time around, you only idenfified ONE concrete example of a copyright violation ("Verdict on the Qur'an"), which (granted) was a direct plagerism inserted by an anon. That plagerism was deleted before you even pointed it out. When you were repeatedly asked, in the talk section titled #134.22.70.218.27s edits, where you thought the copyright violations occured (in so much other content that you deleted), you simply left the discussion without explaining yourself.
Now here you are AGAIN making vauge accusations of copyright violations without explaining WHERE AND WHEN the alleged copyright violations occured. Please keep such accusations to yourself until you are able to specify exactly where the copyright violations are and where they have been copied from. Next time you decide to delete content from the article on the basis of copyvios, please indicate in the talk section EACH paragaph and sentence you are deleting and explain specifically why you believe that those sentences are copyright violations. --Pename 21:53, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu: (What part of "take to talk" didn't you understand? rv (again))

Ta bu shi da yu, Alburundi's made many many edits yesterday, over my last edit, and WITHOUT ANY TALK. I have incorporated Alburundi's edits into the version of the article which INCLUDES the sections that were removed WITHOUT ANY TALK. For example, the titled "'Offensive Jihad as a method of propogation of Islam," the numerous paragraphs about slavery and POWs, the section titled "Quotations from the Qur'an about warfare,", as well as the entire discussion regarding assasinations against critics of Islam (e.g. Asma bint Marwan, Theo van Gogh, et al), and others sections, have been ALL deleted by Alburundi WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER. The titles of subsections have been changed by her without any debate, for example "Islamist terrorism" was changed to "Militant Islamist martyrdom operations," once again WITHOUT ANY TALK. You (Ta bu shi da yu) seem to be okay with this, you don't seem to object to the fact that all this editing by Alburundi took place over the past 24 hours without any talk. And yet when anyone tries to put back the sections that were deleted without talk, you insist that we must first talk about redoing the unjusfitied edits that Alburundi made without first discussing them! This is an unfair double standard. Many objective readers agree that my version is more accurate and comprehensive. I also included all of Alburindi's additions to the article, and changed much of it to agree with her arguments.

I am reverting the article to the edit that incorporate Alburundi's/OneGuy's corrections and contributions to the factual information of the article with the sections that Alburundi deleted without any discussion. The purpose of this is try to to PUT AN END OF THE REVERT WAR. I therefore propose that after this edit, Alburundi et all should DEBATE why they want to rename or delete whole sections of the article before they do so! --Pename 22:24, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

"Many objective readers" - which readers?! "I am reverting the article...to PUT AN END TO THE REVERT WAR" - excuse me? Please, read NPOV before reverting. I'm filing an RFC on this page. Your edits are ridiculously POV, and you have an axe to grind. I also notice you seem to have taken advantage of a locked talk page (my mistake for not locking the main article page) to incorporate a great many POV edits. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


""Many objective readers" - which readers?! "<--- here:
16:10, Nov 22, 2004 Cphka (rv. back to Penames's version. No reason to removed a lot of useful content.)
18:50, Nov 21, 2004 Viriditas m (Reverted changes by Alberuni to last version by Mellum. Please refrain from deceptive edit summaries. You removed a lot of useful content for no reason. Bring your objections to Talk.)
15:59, Nov 21, 2004 Stereotek (rv. [Alburundi's edit] to last (and IMHO better) version [i.e. Pename's last edit])
That's 3 readers. They are objective in the sense that they have not been previously involved in editing this article. Maybe you should pay more attention to what goes on here, "Ta bu shi da yu" --Pename
I have been "Pename". I am also an objective author, in the fact that I have not been previously involved in editing this article (except for a few copyedits). I have noticed your edits have not been writing from the enemies point of view, something we suggest on NPOV. Perhaps you would like to read this document. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"I have noticed your edits have not been writing from the enemies point of view" <--- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC IN YOUR ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME. If you dispute a certain aspect of the article, then start a new talk section about it, and discuss your objections in a coherent, complete and specific manner. --Pename 00:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
""I am reverting the article...to PUT AN END TO THE REVERT WAR" - excuse me? Please, read NPOV before reverting." <--- please do not take my words out of context. This is no way to address the issue that I have raised. Here is what I said:
"I am reverting the article to the edit that incorporate Alburundi's/OneGuy's corrections and contributions to the factual information of the article with the sections that Alburundi deleted without any discussion. The purpose of this is try to to PUT AN END OF THE REVERT WAR. "
Did you discuss those edits on the talk page? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First and MOST IMPORTANTLY, I started the this talk section BEFORE I made the latest reversion and said "I am reverting the article...to PUT AN END TO THE REVERT WAR." I started this talk section ABOUT the edits, and THEN made the edits. But even before today, I have been trying to make the exact same edits, and have started multiple talk sections at the following times and places:
As anyone can see, I have done my utmost to engage in debate over this most recent major edit as well as any and every past edit made to the article. If you have not noticed, the majority of recent talking in the talk sections is done by me - almost half of the talk sections in this page were initiated by me. --Pename 00:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
"Your edits are ridiculously POV" <--- if you disagree with any part of the article, then PLEASE DISCUSS YOUR SPECIFIC DISAGREEMENTS IN THE TALK PAGE.
Your sources leave something to be desired. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Your sources leave something to be desired" <--- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC. If you want to dispute a particular source, then start a talk section about it, and explain which sources are not legitimate and why. Also please note very carefully that arguing against the source itself is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad hominem; you must argue against the CONTENTS of the source. --Pename 00:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


"you have an axe to grind." <--- please refrain from Personal attacks.
Not a personal attack. It's a general comment, based on the edits you've been doing on this article. Sorry you took it this way. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Saying that I "have an axe to grind" it is categorically a personal attack. According to the WIkipedia article regarding the policy against Personal Attacks, "Negative personal comments" constitute a personal attack. By suggesting that "I have an axe to grind" you are using an idiom to insinuate negatively about my personal motivations for editing this Wikipedia article. This is clearly a Personal Attack, not a "general comment." Therefore I repeate: refrain from personal attacks. --Pename 00:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
"I also notice you seem to have taken advantage of a locked talk page (my mistake for not locking the main article page) to incorporate a great many POV edits." <--- I don't know what you are talking about. I don't understand what page has been locked, nor do I understand why you are locking the talk page and the main article page. And again, if you believe that any part of the article is POV, then DISCUSS IT BEFORE DELETING IT!
--Pename 23:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
OK, I might have been unfair to you about this point. But while I had locked the page you made a vast amount of edits during that time. Again, I take responsibility for this as I should have locked the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I still have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have a link that explains what a locked page is? --Pename 00:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Furthermore, "terrorism" is a POV term in this article, I don't blame Alberuni for changing this to "martydom operations" ... - Ta bu shi da yu 22:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) [ This discussion is off-topic and has therefore been moved to its own talk section: #Debate over Replacing "Terrorism" with "Martyrdom Operation" ]
I notice all your sources are from either extremist websites or extremely POV sources. All so far have been from websites. I could do the same thing, and you wouldn't like it one little bit. Learn to pick your sources better! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"all your sources are from either extremist websites or extremely POV sources." <--- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC. If you want to dispute a particular source, then start a talk section about it, and explain which sources are not legitimate and why. Also please note very carefully that arguing against the source itself is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad hominem; you must argue against the CONTENTS of the source.
--Pename 23:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
OK, let me double-check my facts and get back to you. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When do you get back to me, I recommend that you start a new talk section about disputed sources, as opposed to carrying out multiple side conversations in this particular talk section. --Pename 00:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Debate over replacing "Terrorism" with "Martyrdom Operation"

The subsection title "Islamist terrorism" (now changed to "Terrorism by Islamist Extremists") was changed to "Militant Islamist martyrdom operations" by Alburundi without any discussion. Therefore this talk section has been initiated, so that this issue can be debated and hopefully decided upon. --Pename

"terrorism" is a POV term in this article, I don't blame Alberuni for changing this to "martydom operations". - Ta bu shi da yu 22:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Here is what the article says:
"In the 20th century, the spectre of terrorism carried out by extremist fundamentalist Muslims began to haunt the Muslim world ... The vast majority of Muslims reject the wanton killing of innocent civilians. Only a fringe element of extremists are responsible for terrorist incidents"
How exactly is this POV? Are you suggesting that we are not allowed to talk about terrorst acts carried out in the name of Jihad in an article about Jihad? --Pename
Spectre of terrorism is a POV term. Firstly, there is no need for the word "spectre". Don't use emotive adjectives in articles. "haunt the Muslim world" is your point of view. This can be rephrased, it seems like you are trying to make a point. The other examples are sweeping statements, don't appear to be qualified. We discourage sentences like this on Wikipedia. Also, with regards to terrorism, I'm not saying don't talk about terrorism, however you need to balance your article with reasons why terrorism happens. Incidently, if you read carefully I was talking about, it was the title that refered to Terrorism that was changed to martyrdom operations. - Ta bu shi da yu
* "Spectre of terrorism is a POV term. " <--- okay this has now been reworded.
* "Also, with regards to terrorism, I'm not saying don't talk about terrorism" <--- this seems to contradict your earlier statement (above) that " "terrorism" is a POV term in this article, I don't blame Alberuni for changing this to "martydom operations".
* "Incidently, if you read carefully I was talking about, it was the title that refered to Terrorism that was changed to martyrdom operations. "<--- no, you said " "terrorism" is a POV term in this article --Pename 01:19, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Then I didn't make myself clear. I was referring to the only section I can see in the edit history that refers to "martrydom operations", which was a section title. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Problem with Islamophobes

They use the most militant interpretions of the Qur'an and hadith and the most extreme definitions to imply that this is the meaning of Islam. It is akin to taking Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham and the abortion clinic bombers to claim that they represent the true meaning of Christianity as practiced by a billion+ Christians in the world. It is false, malicious, twisted and POV as can be. Even the sections that have been allowed to remain (temporarily) are completely false and twisted. The depiction of Jihad as an offensive campaign of violence to propagate the faith is straight out of Daniel Pipes propaganda. There are many sources that interpret jihad as a personal struggle and an obligation to defend Islam against aggression. There are militant Islamists like Shaikh Abdullah Azzam, Sayyid Qutb and al-Qaida that interpret defense of Islam in a militant way. These interpretations are not the interpretations of most Muslims. If these extremsits views are presented they should be presented in context, with attribution, and the the mainstream interpretation of Jihad should be more prominent. The minority extremist views are being presented prominently as the "true" meaning of Jihad because it serves the POV purposes of the obsessively hostile Islamophobic editor. I will come back and work with reasonable editors to fix this article after the attempted hatchet job is concluded. --Alberuni 02:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Far and away the most mainstream interpretation of jihad is as a defensive campaign against attackers. Every proclamation of the outer jihad that I'm aware of this century has been accompanied by a claim (often correct) that the target was attacking and/or occupying the mujahidin's country - even the most extremist, such as al-Qaeda's. Alberuni, don't give up! (Though I can't blame you.) Your impressive editing energy is better spent fixing a true piece of junk like the article Peniel is pushing than dissipated on a million Israeli-Palestinian conflict-related edit wars. - Mustafaa 02:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Every proclamation of the outer jihad that I'm aware of this century has been accompanied by a claim (often correct) that the target was attacking and/or occupying the mujahidin's country " <--- that's very true. But the article already implicitly includes this information. The section on "Political military authority" clearly states that the only the ruling Caliph can declare an offensive Jihad; no one else in the world has the right to declare an offensive Jihad, accoridng to shar'iah. And, as the article explains, the Caliphate was abolished by Ataturk in 1924. SO it's obvious that offensive Jihad is a relic of the past, in the absense of any Islamic empire, Caliphate, or Caliph. The article also explains that NO ONE needs to declare defensive Jihad in order for it to become effective - as soon as an infidel enemy attacks, defensive Jihad goes into effect. The article explains al of this. So what is your complaint? I think the real issue here is that you don't want anyone to know that Islam has juristic support for imperialism; you to keep the whole existance of offensive jihad a secret, and the supposed justification for this is that no one in recent times has declared offensive jihad. --Pename 03:44, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Disputed sources

I'll add to this, as others have expressed concerns please add your comments here. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Who is Abudllah Yusuf Azzam? Perhaps Pename could make an article about him? How do I know where he stands on issues? How do I know that he represents all Muslims (you appear to me to make out that all Muslims beleive what this man says), can you create an article on him?
Should be Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. Just another typo by the unilateral editor..
  • The Encylopedia of the Orient - what is this? Why should I beleive its contents are accurate as an outside editor? How do I know it is an authoritative source? Who publishes it? Is this widely consulted by Muslims in regards to religious material?
Clearly an Orientalist source, not an Islamic source, but relevant text could be quoted with attribution, in my opinion. --Alberuni 03:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Azzam is widely viewed as the father of modern Islamism. He was an extremist and his views have been influential to the militant movement. There is no such thing as "Orthodox" Islam. That's another Orientalist misconception, applying terms from Christian and Jewish sects and hierarchies on Islam. Like the comparisons between Jihad and the terms Pename mixes together incorrectly: "international humanitarian" "law of war". If Anti-Christians were to apply Pename's method to Christian concepts, they could extract the Bible's brutal passages about stoning adulterers, for instance, and claim that Christianity is a primitive and barbaric religion that violates human rights and has no place in the modern world. The guy is a bad joke. --Alberuni 03:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More questions for Pename!

To Muslims, a person who dies while fighting Jihad is a shahid (martyr) and is assured a place in Janna (Paradise) where they will have 72 virgins, rivers of wine and fresh fruit called the Houris.

  • Where does it say this?! Who assures this? Who beleives this — do all Muslims beleive this, or are they only specific groups? Do some Muslims oppose this view? Is this the only reason a Muslim is willing to be a martyr, or are there other significant cultural or social pressures that compells a Muslim to die while performing Jihad?

If non-combatant Muslims perish in such attacks, they are also considered shahid and thus have also secured a place in paradise.

  • What is your source? Do all Muslims beleive this?

Hence, the only true victims are the kaffir, or unbelievers. The basis of the concept of shahid can be traced back to the words of Muhammad prior to the battle of Badr where he stated:

"I swear by the One in whose hand Muhammad's soul is, any man who fights them today and is killed while he is patient in the ordeal and seeks the pleasure of Allah, going forward and not backing off, Allah will enter him into Paradise."
  • Where is your source for this information? I see no external citation here! How do I know this isn't original research? What are you quoting from?! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Liberal Muslims - progressives who seek break away from the traditional imperial ideology in Islam - dispute the neccessity and obligation of the offensive Jihad; they say that offensive was practiced only to preserve Islam from destruction, and that the concept is now obsolete because freedom of religious practice is present in most of the world.

  • Who are Liberal Muslims? I think I've asked this already on this talk page, to either no response or no clarification from anyone. Can we define who they are?

Their more traditional ideological opponents question whether the Muslims established the second-largest empire in the history of the world, through war and conquest, only to preserve Islam from destruction.

  • Which opponents? (without knowing who a "Liberal Muslim" is, its a bit hard to say who their "traditional ideological opponents" are now, doesn't it?

As Azzam's fatwa showed, such orthodox Muslims believe that it is Islam's goal to establish an ever-expanding theocratic empire. Such Muslims wish to return to the days when a single Islamic Empire was ruled by a single Caliph. Islamists see this as a pious and important ambition, and they find justification for their imperialist beliefs in the mainstream Islamic legal tradition of the four Madhabs, which was codified in the early centuries of the budding Islamic empire. The Muslim masses continue to see their imperial past, such as when Islamic armies conquered Spain, marched half way into France, laid siege to Vienna, and invaded large portions of Eastern Europe, as blessed and legitimate occurrences of jihad.

  • Isn't this just your POV and your interpretation of events? Does this apply to all Muslim "masses", or are you misrepresenting a people group here.

Ta bu shi da yu 03:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please do not appeal to the fallacy of nothing but objections. You may want to read the article on the Hadith, as that is where the concept of the shahid is developed. [19] --Viriditas 03:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I was under the impression we were trying to make this article objective. Are you implying that I shouldn't be asking for these questions to be clarified? (that "fallacy" is not even on Wikipedia - sheesh) Also, if the information is needed for me to understand this article then I would suggest this article needs a lot of work! Besides this, it is the contributor who must justify his edits (which Pename seems willing to do), it is not up to me to justify my questioning! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How are my comments in any way suggesting that you are not making the article objective? How have I implied that questions shouldn't be asked? Are you saying that if something is not on Wikipedia, it isn't true or relevant? Questioning is good, but appealing to nothing but objections is not. There is a difference. --Viriditas 03:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
P.S. I beleive that you were implying this when you asked me to stop appealing to the fallacy of nothing but objections. You implied that I was just asking a barrage of questions to make Pename be quiet. What else would you be implying? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And where was I saying that? What I'm asking for is clarifications that would make this article significantly more NPOV. You seemed to be implying that I'm only making objections for the sake of it, which I think is misrepresenting me. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In the context of the original discussion, yes, you appeared to be making objections for the sake of doing so. As for clarifications, all that is needed is for Pename to cite sources. If he refuses, then there is no reason to discuss or include his content. --Viriditas
Then you have assumed something that did not happen. I am asking because I beleive we need to clarify this article. I think you should read assume good faith. My questions stand. I would also like to have the sources clarified in what they mean, why they are useful to describe the article and the context in which they are written. I strongly disagree with you that the sources should just stand by themselves: I could also include lots of sources that would not be relevant or reliable and that anyone would hesitate to include! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The sources are relevant to clarification. I never said the sources stand by themselves, so please stop putting words in my mouth. I said, all that is needed is for Pename to cite his sources. Once he has done that, clarification becomes possible for everyone, not just you. Being able to read the source documents helps answer your questions as to why Pename's claims are useful or not. Thank you for your suggestion regarding the assumption of good faith. Although I feel that I have done just that, I think I will read it again just to make sure I understand it. In turn, I suggest you read please do not bite the newcomers. Pename has been here for less than three days, and as such he is considered a new contributor. I see by your harsh comments on his user page that you may need to review this basic policy. He (or she) needs to be made to feel welcome, and I feel that you have failed to do that. --Viriditas 06:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What harsh comments?! Please substantiate your claims! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please assume good faith on User:Ta bu shi da yu's part. He has questions that need answering. Perhaps you can help your Pename. The Wikipedia article hadith contains nothing about shahid and neither does the link you provided. If you can't be helpful here, I'm sureUser:Jayjg can use you. --Alberuni 03:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The link contains quite a lot, actually. I suggest you read it. And your attempt to engage in a personal attack is noted. I suggest you read your talk page, too. --Viriditas 03:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Maybe I used the link incorrectly but all I got was a blank page and when I used the search engine, I could find nothing about shahid. --Alberuni 04:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I apologize for my mistake. Go here [20] and search for "martyr". Then, compare it to the arabic link at the bottom of the page. Does it use the word, shahid or shuhada, in place of martyr? --Viriditas 04:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Works now, thanks, but gives limited search results. The collections are good, like the one for Jihad [21] but for genera search, I think this one is more comprehensive. [22] --Alberuni 04:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alberuni gets it. He's correct — I am asking for clarification on the article, in fact I would ask either himself or OneGuy the same questions if he added the sort of material that Pename added to this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Alberuni gets what? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Appealing to nothing but objections does not address the questions of authenticity. --Viriditas 03:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can't beleive I'm having this conversation, but allow me to spell it out to you: if we are trying to come up with an accurate article, from a neutral point of view, then we must clarify certain statements, consider the sources we use, correct factual errors, modify or remove obvious points of view and generally make the article as thorough and unbiased as we can. This is the reason that I'm asking the questions! You then came out with a "fallacy of nothing but objections" (objections? maybe, but I like to think of these as clarifications) which I've never heard of before (and which you linked to - I notice there is no such Wikipedia article!) and can't understand why you bothered to raise on this talk page. As Alberuni says, however, I would ask you to assume good faith in my questions. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I take offense at your tone, so you might want to read your comments to see how they sound to other users. Thank you for your proposal, but I do not need you to "spell" anything out for me, nor is it required. I have already asked Pename to cite sources. I'm sorry that you've never heard of the fallacy of nothing but objections before. I have only assumed good faith, which is why I responded to your objections to Pename in the first place. There is a big difference between objecting to evidence and asking someone to cite their sources, which I have done. --Viriditas 04:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, as did I take offense to your tone when you made a link to a non-existent article and appeared to make the assumption that I was only making objections! Perhaps if you had addressed most of my objections (sigh - I'm getting tired... as I said, I mean clarifications and questions) — you addressed one of them, which I am grateful for you doing — then I might not have taken offense quite so easily. Your point on my tone is taken, however, and I will modify my talk in discussions accordingly. I appreciate your advice. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further:

Whether or not "conversion by the sword" was systematically carried out, it is known that the jizyah (a tax laid exclusively on non-Muslims whose proceeds go to the government) created a kind of economic and social apartheid in which non-Muslims were economically and socially punished by the state for not converting to Islam. Non-Muslims paid jizya while Muslims, under the empire, paid a taxed called the zakat (a so-called "charity tax" which all Muslims pay even today, but instead of paying to the state they now pay zakat to charities of their choice). The zakat is a 2.5% tax, while the jizyah was about a 10% income tax; as explained in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on jizyah, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax." [23] Non-Muslims were also usually denied entry to high-ranking military and civil service positions, although there were historical exceptions such as the Mughal Empire where non-Muslims did reach high-ranking positions.

  • What exactly does this have to do with Jihad? (I've asked this in the talk page, and noone ever responded so don't tell me that I haven't added a section asking for clarifications!) - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


The extreme levels of ignorance and bias exhibited by the Alberuni, OneGuy, Ta bu shi da yu, RickK, and Mustafaa is too much for one person (me) to handle. It's simply too time consuming, and Wikipedia needs a system of expert review before Wikipedia can have an article about Jihad that is not dominated by clowns like OneGuy, Alberuni and Mustafaa who only excel in presenting a completely biased and distorted view of Islam, rife with ommisions and out-right lies. Here are some of the most ridiculous things that these clowns have said:
  • In defiance of simple logic, OneGuy claims that Islamic civilization has no history of imperialism yet admits that Islamic civilization has a 1,300 year history of Islamic empires in #1400 years of Imperialism?
  • In the section #Disputed now OneGuy claims that the section of "Prisoners of War" is completely irrelevant to Jihad and must be deleted.
  • In #Great New Article Feature: TIMELINE!, OneGuy claims that terrorist incidents carried out by Islamists groups are not part of the military history of Muslim civilization. In the same section, Mustafaa declares that any sort of timeline of military activity is entirely inappropriate for an article on Jihad.
  • In the section #If it's "suicide bombing", no cleric approves of it, Alburundi claims that no Muslim cleric who ever lived has ever issued a statement in support of suicide bombings. She also goes on to deny that contemporary militant Islamists who talk about "martyrdom operations" are in fact referring to suicide bombings.
  • In the article itself, one of the clowns has inserted a statement which claims that Qur'anic verse, "Whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the earth - it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (5:32) makes it "unequivocally clear" as who is an "innocent person" and who is a "guilty person" even though the verse itself says anything in this regard.
  • In the section #72 virgins is an Islamophobe misinterpretation Alburundi repeatedly denies that Islamic paradise involves sex, despite multiple hadiths and Qur'an quotations proving the well known fact that Islamic paradise does in fact involve sex with virgin wives called Houris. Alburundi then goes on to sabatoge the Wikipedia article on Houris in order to be able to continue denying that Islamic paradise is described as involving sex.
  • In #Fixing Pename's mess, Alburundi admits that Spain was not invaded by Muslims, but rather the Spanish invited the Islamic empire to come and occupy Spain for some 700 years!! (see Al Andalus for history of the Islamist invasion of Spain).
  • In this section, "Ta bu shi da yu" questions the assertion that Muslims concider those who die while fighting Jihad to be shahid. Note that shahid is the Arabic for martyr and that martyrdom simply means dying in the cause of God. In the same section, "Ta bu shi da yu" asks what a liberal is. He also claims that he cannot understand what a traditionalist opponent of liberalism is. A comment is made about "the Muslim masses" and "Ta bu shi da yu" asks the profoundly stupid question "does this apply to all Muslim masses?" He claims that he cannot comprehend what the subject of "Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propogation of the Islam Faith" has to do with a quoation from Enclyopedia Britannica entry on jizya that reads, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax."
  • In #More twisting from Pename, OneGuy claims that the Qura'nic verse, "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land" (8:67) actually "refers to freeing the prisoners without ransom."
Just to answer one element of your whining diatribe. Any objective reader can see that the verse refers to the importance of achieving victory in battle first before exchanging prisoners (ransom). I don't even understand how anyone can read this to mean that the Qur'an advocates executing POWs. There's not much point trying to educate an incorrigible bigot who thinks they already know everything. This hatchet job was a case study in Islamophobic hate. --Alberuni 05:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • and so on and so forth
With four or five of these morons ganging up against one person, all at the same time, it's impossible to win in the face of ignorance stupidity. I quit. --Pename 04:44, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Please show some honor and keep your word this time. --Alberuni 05:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I don't appreciate being called a moron. I also don't appreciate you asking us numerous times to take discussion of your edits to the talk page, and then have you attack me for asking questions! As you have asked me not to do, please do not make personal attacks. The cookie crumbles both ways Pename. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm extremely sorry to have to tell you this, but you're not exactly the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. --Pename 05:23, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
I find such immoderate, insensitive, insulting and belittling comments to be extremely unhelpful for either getting consensus on this article, in resolving conflict and in fact shows a good deal of ignorance on the part of the one doing the insulting. No personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the burden of proof is heavy, but it rests on the editor who is making claims. You are required to substantiate your claims with appropriate, credible citation. I am willing to help you if you would like. You may email me here. Please consider changing your tactics and allowing other editors to verify your sources. That is the policy of Wikipedia. --Viriditas 04:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You don't understand. It has nothing to do with sources or evidence. When I first started editing this article, a few days ago, it had four references. My latest version of the article has 18 references. No matter how meticulously you document the information, no matter how true it might be, the fanatics will quietly delete any information about Jihad that might be embaressing to Westernized liberal Muslims. If you try to put such information back, they will delete it again. I encourage you to try to improve upon the article, but I doubt you will get very far unless you tow the Islamist apologia line. Good luck. --Pename 05:16, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Aloha. First off, it's not a good idea to tell people "you don't understand". Although it doesn't bother me, many people will take offense at that statement. It's best to be as neutral as possible with language. Perhaps you could write, "Let me explain my position", instead. If you write (speak) carefully, you will get better results. Secondly, IMO, this has everything to do with citing sources. The claims in general, need to be associated with claimants. We can't just say, "Pename said..." That wouldn't work in the article, nor would it be valid, unless you were a notable author or claimant. If you need to repeatedly provide people with sources, then create a sub-page on your User page (ask me how and I'll show you) or document your sources on the main page and point to them by name. You will find yourself repeating yourself alot, so get used to it. It's also not a good idea to call people names like "fanatics". Try to stick to non-confrontational language. I know it's hard, but that's policy. Again, I would be very pleased to help you with the article. Just email me at the links I've provided here and on your user page. --Viriditas 05:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You describe yourself perfectly: One who "only excel(s) in presenting a completely biased and distorted view of Islam, rife with ommisions and out-right lies. " --Alberuni 05:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Pot. Kettle. Black. --Viriditas 07:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks and List of clichés. --Alberuni 03:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My response to Pename

In this section, "Ta bu shi da yu" questions the assertion that Muslims concider those who die while fighting Jihad to be shahid. Note that shahid is the Arabic for martyr and that martyrdom simply means dying in the cause of God. In the same section, "Ta bu shi da yu" asks what a liberal is. He also claims that he cannot understand what a traditionalist opponent of liberalism is. A comment is made about "the Muslim masses" and "Ta bu shi da yu" asks the profoundly stupid question "does this apply to all Muslim masses?" He claims that he cannot comprehend what the subject of "Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propogation of the Islam Faith" has to do with a quoation from Enclyopedia Britannica entry on jizya that reads, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax."

Firstly, I note one of your most recent edits has the following edit summary: "ONEGUY: PLEASE DISCUSS EACH SPECIFIC SECTION THAT YOU EDIT IN THE TALK PAGE BEFORE EDITING". Well, I asked before editing a section, and you haven't addressed my questions yet!

Allow me to continue: I'm sorry, but I did not ask a profoundly stupid question. I am asking this because I am (obviously) not an expert on this article, and your edits appeared to make sweeping statements not backed up by an external source. Also:

  • you have not stated why "jizya" is related to this article. You might note that I haven't said that it has nothing to do with the article, I am merely asking you to clarify your statements. They seemed POV to me.
This is exactly the sort of reasons that I have stopped editing the article. Section 15 of this talk page is titled #What do Zakat and Jizyah have to do with Jihad?. I started this section a LONG time ago. Yet here you are, declaring that I have not stated why jizya is related to this article. Jizya is related to the subsection on "Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propogation of Islam." The Muslims used to invade non-Muslim countries, impose Muslim imperial rule, and then impose a relatively hefty tax for non-Muslims only, called jiyza. As the Encylopedia Brtiannica explains, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax." Thus jiyza was a central part of the system that allowed Muslims to use Offensive Jihad as a method for the propogation of the Islamic faith. This is clearly spelled out in the article itself, and in numerous places in the talk page. Yet instead of arguing against the actual content, you are here ONCE AGAIN asking what jiyza has to do with Jihad. Either you are incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest. Either way, it's enough reason for me to abandon the editing effort. --Pename 05:05, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • "He claims that he cannot comprehend what the subject of "Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propogation of the Islam Faith" has to do with a quoation from Enclyopedia Britannica entry on jizya that reads, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax."" Yes, and I still do! Perhaps you could address my question directly instead of dodging the question?
  • you still haven't explained by what you mean by a liberal Muslim. How am I meant to know what you are talking about? I know next to nothing about Islam! Perhaps you would like to actually address my concerns rather than call my comments "profoundly stupid"?
  • Try not to make personal attacks when I ask seemingly stupid questions: if I'm asking them I'm sure others are also. Your assumption that everyone will understand this material is quite wrong: Wikipedia articles should accessible to most people who have no prior knowledge of the topic they are reading about. You will be asked to clarify your edits if you continue to make edits where what you say is not clear to the reader! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your questions are not stupid. His whole perspective is insanely bigoted and twisted. He can't read and interpret anything accurately because he is full of hate and bile. If he wants to discuss each edit individually we will be here forever because nothing can sway him from his obsessive phobia. I hope he keeps his promise this time. --Alberuni 05:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I would prefer it if he would write from a neutral point of view, treat the opinions of others fairly and address the questions I have of this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Personally, I would prefer it if he would write from a neutral point of view" <--- what makes you think you know what a neutral point of view regarding Jihad IS? You yourself admit that you know "next to nothing about Islam." So who made you the final authority on what what the objective facts about Islam are? --Pename 05:33, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Because you use words like "terrorism", you quote from German bulletin boards (sources lead something to be desired), and because you don't ever try to understand the POV of the other side. That's why. I've been editing here for quite a while now, and I know POV when I see it. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are the final authority on what what the objective facts about Islam because I referred to those who carry out politically or religiously motivated indiscriminant murders of random civilians (e.g. suicide bombers on public buses) as terrorists, and because I linked to a post on a Muslim forum based in Germany - a forum post that was actually just a copy-paste of a fatwa from islam-qa.com???? WHAT? What do I have to do with YOU? How does the fact that I used the word "terrorism" in the article prove that all of my contributions are "ridiculously POV?" And what in hell do you have against the nation of Germany?
I think Wikipedia contributors should be required to pass some sort of test of intelligence characteristics before they can edit Wikipedia enclylopedia entries. Your claim, that if someone uses the word "terrorism" then all of his/her Wikipedia edits are automatically POV, borders on insanity. --Pename 07:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Pename

I strongly suggest that you read Wikipedia:Cite sources. If you do not cite sources, then your information, whether credible or not, will probably be removed. This has been copied to your user page. --Viriditas 04:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Warning: This article got many sections duplicated numerous times. It got to 734KB in size, and became impossible to edit. I locked the page and have attempted to fix it as best I can, all the duplicated sections are now removed. However, some comments may have gone missing in the fixup (which was messy). This was not intentional. If you have your comments missing then please just readd them! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, an archive of this page can be found at Archive1. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Misc Discussions

I am sorry, but I am calling the objectivity of this article into question. Jihad is primarily a military, aggressive construct. This definition is pro-religious propaganda. -- By 68.252.234.73

You seem to have a preconceived idea on what Jihad is, prehaps from what mass media in the West and popular culture repeats day after day. This repetition is not necessarily accurate, nor fair, much less being based in facts, no matter how often it is repeated, nor how many think it is true. If you have firm evidence to the contrary, then please present it, otherwise, do not let biases shape your view of reality. --KB 23:39, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

Oops, I edited too hastily. I mixed up the quote on "defending against aggression" with the quote on "suicide is forbidden". You can revert, or help me correct my error.

Some commentators, quoting the Koran selectively, insist that Muslims feel a divine mandate to attack non-believers, apparently either to convert or exterminate them. Here is one the larger context of the first such "quote" I researched (Ed Poor):

[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. [2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors. [24]

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that this passage authorizes only "fighting back" in response to an initial attack; but only for the purpose of eliminating persecution of Muslim believers. Does anyone else know anything about this topic? --Ed Poor 13:55 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)

I know this about Abrahamic religions. Each one has a main holy text, and a peripheral oral/written culture to expedite interpretation and dissemination of doctrine. While fundamentalism's definition can be debated, I find it useful to constrain the meaning to those that endore sola scriptura, or the concept that the primary text contains all of the relevant religious doctrine. What Ed's doing, in my opinion, is take a sort of Socratic-analytical approach to investigating Islam. This is most useful when debating philosophical issues, like theology, but I think it's not helpful towards understanding millitant religion. For example, Ed's approach is fairly Talmudic - building arguments or investigations by examining the primary text. The doctrine of sola scriptura does not endorse a Talmudic method: G-d's literal word is manifest, self-consistent, and only corruptible by the intervention of humans. There is a culture of violence that interprets the Koran and recastes the interpretation of the quotes above. Jihad is, itself, a sophisticated concept. The ten commandments, central to Abrahamic religions, prohibit murder, yet these religions are historically violent. When G-d commands the Hebrews to take a city, and to leave no prisoners, this is Jihad. The juxtaposition of violence and prohibitions against it present a self-inconsistency to ancient Judaism's underpinnings. Christianity partially transcends this issue through its doctrine of nonviolence, of turning the other cheek. Islam suffers from no such inconsistencies in this regard, and its practitioners are free to make war in the name of G-d. I think it's more useful to discuss, why does any religion shift from moderate and nonviolent to fundamentalist and violent? I think all Abrahamic religions have demonstrated this cultural shift. rmbh 19:27, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

From the article:

Although not unique to Islam and the Islamic culture; such ideas have proven to gruesome to even consider thinking about in non-theocratic and non-dictatorial states as bigotous and greedy (yet re-occuring) horrors like the holy crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, holocaust, slavery, Khmer Rouge, Chechnya,japanese occupation of korea, suggest that any central or broad or unspoken advocation or allowance of separatism (religious, cultural, ethnic, educational,linguistic...) is very harmful for establishing stable society that is reflective of a worldy and tolerating government, and the culture of its denizens.

I'm not trying to suppress the above -- I just can't parse its syntax! What was the contributor trying to say here?

Please rewrite the above in several complete sentences. I will be happy to help with grammar or spelling. Then re-insert the text into the article. --Ed Poor

From the article: It is considered a mandatory and fundamental principle of Islam.

This seems like a very strong claim. Surely it is only considered mandatory by some muslims, particularly in the sense of "combat", as opposed to "striving"? Could someone who knows more about the topic please qualify this sentence correctly? -- Pde 01:56, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)


All the sources I have read, including those by Muslim authors, all say precisely the same thing. It is obligatory for all Muslims to engage on internal and extrenal forms of Jihad, at all times. There are significant disputes, of course, as to when an external form of Jihad (armed war against non-Muslims) is considered mandatory. Since there has never been any one religious authority to which all Muslims defer, different groups of Muslims have developed interpretations of when to fight. The same is still true today. RK
Okay, well the article seems to me to be a little misleading -- because when the reader is told that it is "mandatory and fundamental", they are probably not considering jihad to mean "engage in external jihad, but only when you are under direct attack" (which seems rather similar to "an eye for an eye" to me). -- Pde 04:36, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

User User:68.13.34.210 edited out a statement that I added, saying: Removed the statement "It is important to note that although this conquest did indeed happen, there were no forced conversions to Islam as a result" as it is an unprovable generalization. For anyone who read history, it was well known that before waging war on any region, the Muslim armies gave three choices to the people of that region: 1) Accept Islam as a religion, 2) Retain their religion, and pay tribute jizyah, and finally, 3) Go into battle to impose jizyah. This is clearly stated in hadiths by Muhammad, and is well documented in many historical accounts. Forced conversion was contrary to Islamic law. -- KB 00:44, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

I moved the following text from the article because I couldn't find any information to back it up. If someone has a citation for this feel free to move it back:

"For these [fringe Islamic groups such as Al Qaeda and Hamas], the act of saying that women should vote, or that Jews and Christians should be given equal rights, itself is an act of violence against Islam, and thus all of Western society is a target for a Jihad. Other Muslims consider such views to be extremist and a violation of the intent of the Quran." Wmahan 20:36, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)


The terms "inner Jihad" and outer Jihad seem to be used inconsitently on this page. In the definitions section inner jihad is defined as military struggle, but in the final paragraph it is used to mean "internal struggle" of a jurist.

I know nothing about jihad so I won't try to fix this. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of more knowlegeble editors. Zeimusu 01:11, 2004 May 6 (UTC)


I removed the following passage because it is apparently based on a false hadith, although I know it's often quoted by muslims. If anybody wants to put it back, please state an authoritative reference:

"The word has two connotations in Islam:

  1. "lesser (outer) jihad"—a military struggle against aggressors
  2. "greater (inner) jihad"—the struggle of personal self-improvement against the self's base desires"

--Aidfarh 13:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The hadith has two chains of narration, and is widely quoted, so it's worth keeping. Some people do argue against it[25], but I find their motivations rather suspicious. Mustafaa 19:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

The asnad is weak, so the passage shouldn't be put at the top of the page. You could mention it, but the way you say it, excludes other actions that are considered jihad e.g. speaking out against an oppressive ruler, going to haj. For these two examples, there are sahih hadiths. --Aidfarh 23:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

That's a useful addition you just made; I wasn't aware of those hadiths. Thanks! As for the placement, I'm not sure; the hadith is weak, but it's also very commonly cited. - Mustafaa 23:36, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Crusade

I heard that Arabic speakers use the word Jihad in much the same way English speakers use the word "crusade", and visa versa. For example, Jihad to english speakers means holy war, just like crusade to arabic speakers means holy war. In english, a crusade can be used to mean to further a cause, which is from what I understand what jihad means in arabic. Just some notes. Earl Andrew 06:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

what does this mean?

Note: Jihad in the term of War (Arabic: qital) today only applied as a self-defense action against any states (or any institution) that attack or waging war on the Islam states. The terrorism against civillians itself is denounced by Islam. The jihad against State of Israel performed by Palestinians is permitted as the self defense act.Quran 22:39-40

I'm not sure exactly what this line means and I'm not sure how it adds anything to the discussion above it. I am removing it.

out-of-context quotations: good encyclopedia material or malarkey?

Removed
“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. ” Surah 8:60

This one is at least relevant: it is from a section outlining the Muslim theory of warfare. However, without the next ayah, this quotation is misleading to say the least:

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)." Surah 8:61

Was this rather crucial omission intentional or accidental?

Notice the "and trust in Allah" requirement. In the case of the Jews, they would rather be killed a Jew than convert to Islam. What this is actually saying is "convert or die".
Actually it is not. See People of the Book. —No-One Jones (m) 12:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Furthermore the admonition to "trust in Allah" follows from the previous statement ("do thou (also) incline towards peace") and is addressed to the same group: the Muslims. —No-One Jones (m) 21:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Removed
“I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them It is not ye who slew them it was Allah.” Surah 8:12, 17

because of another rather crucial omission: the first part is indirect discourse in the original but that fact is obscured here. The original says: "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.' " And again, this is ripped from its context—instructions for how to make war on the pagans of Arabia—and taken to apply generally, which may or may not be the case.

The others appear, to my limited knowledge, to be on-target. —No-One Jones (m) 11:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, after reading the last sentence of the intro, I removed all of the quotations. If what the article says is true—that "the word Jihad appears in the Qu'ran a total of 4 times but is never used in a militant context. The term used for militant struggle is Qi'tal"—then none of these are at all relevant. —No-One Jones (m) 11:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This vandal 168.209.97.34 has a history of vandalising Islamic articles by inserting anti-Islamic twists. The guy even vandalized my user page. It was funny :)) but I think the vandal needs to be banned for a few days. OneGuy 12:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More malarkey

"Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah and have gone out for Jihad (holy fighting). Some have completed their vow to extreme and have been martyred fighting and dying in His Cause, and some are waiting, prepared for death in battle."” Surah 33:22

When checked against three English translations, this is revealed to be bullshit. First, Surah 33:22 says (Yusuf Ali's translation):

"When the Believers saw the Confederate forces, they said: "This is what Allah and his Messenger had promised us, and Allah and His Messenger told us what was true." And it only added to their faith and their zeal in obedience."

The next ayah is similar to the quotation here, but the phrases "and have gone out for Jihad (holy fighting)", "and have been martyred fighting and dying in His Cause", and "prepared for death in battle" do not appear in three major English translations. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself. —No-One Jones (m) 12:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

removed "Jihad in the Qur'an" section

My remarks from above, repeated here for the anonymous editor's benefit:

After reading the last sentence of the intro, I removed all of the quotations. If what the article says is true—that "the word Jihad appears in the Qu'ran a total of 4 times but is never used in a militant context. The term used for militant struggle is Qi'tal"—then none of these are at all relevant. They might be relevant to an article on qi'tal, or Islamic theories of warfare, but they do not belong here. —No-One Jones (m) 12:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(p.s. since you wanted a "NON-Muslim" to look at the section, I suppose I should state for the record that I'm Roman Catholic. —No-One Jones (m) 13:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC))

The Koran and the Hadith especially is FULL of links between war and Jihad. Do you deny this? Perhaps I should change the subject from "Jihad in the Qu'ran" to "Jihad in the Scriptures". Then your arguement will get a lot more difficult
It would help if you could quote the original, in the original Arabic, rather than trawling quotations off of trashy hate sites; as you should have seen by now, such sources can contain severe inaccuracies, whether they were inserted intentionally or were simply the result of poor translations. But since you're using such crappy sources, I doubt you have the knowledge of Arabic that that would require. (I don't, so don't ask.) Next best would be citing a source written by someone who speaks Arabic and has some familiarity with the varying interpretations of the relevant scriptural passages—and neither prophetofdoom.net nor MEMRI are such, though Reuven Firestone's Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam is decent. —No-One Jones (m) 13:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why are you reverting these? Go look it up.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran

The verses are out of context. So you are still denying you are not just a vandal with an agenda?

It's out of context because the very NEXT verse gives the opposite meaning to what leaving the context implies. For example you quote "Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies," but if you read the context, the very next verse, it says, "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)."

That's clearly out of context quote. Now please explain here why you are posting out of context verses before you revert. OneGuy 08:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What the next verse says is that you can be saved only by converting to Islam
It doesn't say that, but if you think it says that, then why not post it and let others judge, instead of hiding the context? OneGuy 08:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Concepts require context

168.209.97.34, in an edit summary you wrote can any NON-Muslim please have a look at this section and comment? -- I am not a Muslim. A co-worker let me borrow his copy of The Qur'an to check the verses. The exact words of the translation vary slightly, but the meaning is clearly the same. If these quotes are eventually kept, it is important that they be in context. Concepts often take more than a single sentence to convey. If you take only one sentence, out of context, that single sentence could seem to imply something different than, or even opposite from, what was communicated in the concept. For example, Surah 8:60,61 taken together communicate a concept (when to go to war, when to end the war). Quoting only the first part hides from the reader a very important part of the total concept involved. Ommissions of context cannot help accurately portray the ideas presented in any text and should be especially guarded against where religious texts are concerned. SWAdair | Talk 09:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not Muslim either. 168.209.97.34 apparently thinks that anyone who is not viciously making the articles anti-Islamic must be Muslim. I have told 168.209.97.34 several times that I am not Muslim. The guy ignored that and started vandalizing my user page, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:OneGuy&oldid=7215232 OneGuy 09:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1400 years of Imperialism?

Either the 1400 year figure is evidence of bias, or it is in error. The imperialistic expansion of Islamist rule can be said to have come to an end at the greatest extent of the Ottoman empire, approximately 1900, probably not earlier.

Corrected to 1,300 years. Muhammad started actively invading and conqueroring lands around 620 CE (as discussed in the article) and so Islam's imperialism began with him. Islamic empires existed continuously from that time until 1924 CE, when Atatuk abolished the Ottoman Caliphate. That's a period of time spanning about 1,300 years (1924 - 620 = 1304). --Pename
Of course, not the entire period of that 1400 can be classified as "imperialism." There were centuries in between when the empire was not expanded (in some cases it even shrinked for centuries). By your definition of imperialism, Europeans are still carrying out "imperialism" because they are still occupying North America OneGuy 08:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A shrinking empire is still an empire, and wherever there is an empire there is imperialism. Contrary to your idiotic statement, this does not imply that north america is part of a european empire. Empires no longer exist in the modern world. For 1300 continuous years, Islamic Empires exists in the world, and thus Islamic Imperialism existed in the world for approx. 1,300 years. --Pename
Not true. Iraq was conquered by Arabs a few years after Muhammad died, so when exactly Arabs stopped being an "imperial" power of Iraq and Iraq became Arab itself? Are the United States and Canada still "imperial" countries of Europeans? 14,000 years is clear exaggeration. Actually, Arab domination ended around 1200. After that, Turks were ruling Arabs (by defeating them and taking Iraq, Egypt, Palestine etc.) and they expanded their own empire in East Europe. They also started declining around 17th century. Unless, you are claiming that Istanbul is still an imperial city of Turks? OneGuy 09:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


iraq stop being part of the Islamic empire when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled after WWI. Also, as an Arab Muslim you might think of the Ottoman Empire as "their own empire in East Europe" but the fact is that the Ottoman Empire was an ISlAMIC empire. Just because the Ottoman empire was not dominated by Arabs does not mean that it was not an ISlamic empire.
the 1,300 year figure is not an exaggeration. islamic empires existed from around 620 CE till 1924 CE, a period of about 1,300 years. this is clearly an historical fact. this historical fact does not assume nor does it imply that "istanbul is still an imperial city of Turks". Today Istanbul is part of the secular nation-state of Turkey, founded by Kemel Ataturk, who abolished the Ottoman empire. --Pename
I am neither Arab nor Muslim. There were several "empires" in these 1300 years; Abbasid, Umayyad , Mameluk, Ottoman, Seljuk, Fatimid, Safavid, and on and on,. In most cases they were fighting against each other. Your logic of paining all that history into "Islamic imperialism lasted 1300 years" doesn't make any sense. What Islamic imperialism? OneGuy 13:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Such comments probably belong in "example" section of Islamophobia or Orientalism. --Alberuni 17:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OneGuy: You said: "There were several "empires" in these 1300 years; Abbasid, Umayyad , Mameluk, Ottoman, Seljuk, Fatimid, Safavid, and on and on," ... I dont know why you out "empires" in quotation marks. These were real empires. And usually not more than two existed simultaniously at one time. For example, the Abbasids, Ummayads, etc were just dynasties who ruled the same empire at different times. IN any case, you openly admit that the Muslim world was governed by empries for 1300 years. Then why do you dispute that the Muslim world has imperialism for 1300 years? How the hell can you have empires without imperialism? (134...)
Why would "empire" be necessarily imperialism? And why would that be "Islamic imperialism" (and not ethnic) when all these so-called empires/dynasties are fighting each other? OneGuy 19:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
By the way, sign your comments using ~~~~ OneGuy 19:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Why would "empire" be necessarily imperialism?" <-- OneGuy, it's not my fault if you are an Arab Islamic apologist with a poor grasp of the English language. Anyone with the least bit of critical thinking skills is aware that empires are imperialism and imperialism is the existance of empires. --Pename
It's not my fault that you are anti-Islamic bigot. Your claim is false and will be deleted, as I did. Rest of your one-sided anti-Islamic insertions, like POW will be revised too. This is not a place to spew your anti-Isamic propaganda OneGuy 07:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OneGuy claims that Islamic civilization has no history of imperialim, yet admits that Islamic civilization has a 1,300 year history of Islamic empires. This is completely ridiculous. "Imperialism" can be defined as follows:
"Imperialism: The drive toward the creation and expansion of a colonial empire and, once established, its perpetuation. (de Blij & Muller, 1996) www.yorku.ca/lcode/clew/courses/course1/definitions/g_l.html
Therefore it is totally illogical for OneGuy to at the same time admit that Islamic civilization has a history of empires but deny that Islamic civilization has a history of imperialism. As such, the phrase "1,300 years of Imperialiasm" has been re-inserted into the article section titled "Offensive Islam as a Method for the Propogation of Islam" --Pename 01:17, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Debate Re: The Tribes that Left Islam Soon After Muhammad Died

The following part of this article is being contiually sabatoged without explanation or defense:

"The Sira (biography of Muhammad) also mentions the wars against entire Arab tribes who were followers of Islam while Muhammad lived, but tried either to defect from the religion when its prophet died. In the same spirit, today in several Islamic countries, Muslims who are known to have left the religion are accused of apostasy and are given an ultimatum to either convert back to Islam or face execution; though in modern times, such executions have been rare to nonexistent in some Muslim countries."

The Sira explains that immediatly after Muhammad died, large numbers of bedoin tribes defected from Islam, the religion that they had recently joined while its prophet was still alive. The leadership of the growing Islamic theocracy that Muhammad left behind could not afford to allow such a thing to happen, and so tribes who had already convered to Islam but obstenantly refused to adhere to Islam were massacred (the women and children of such tribes would be enslaved and not massacred, as was common medieval Arabia). This is what I was discussing in first excerpt above, from the article. I then went on to describe the modern day analog of this Islamic practice, namely the executing of apostates (apostates being Muslims who leave the religion). In traditional Islam, once a person is a Muslm (whether a convert or a born Muslim) that person is not allowed to leave Islam. If the person is found to have left Islam, he or she is supposed to be executed, as explained above.

Now, someone keeps changing this part of the article to:


The Sira (biography of Muhammad) also mentions the wars against entire Arab tribes who were followers of Islam while Muhammad lived, but tried either to defect from the religion when its prophet died or refused to pay the Jizya. In the same spirit, today in several Islamic countries, Muslims who are known to have left the religion are accused of apostasy and are given an ultimatum to either convert back to Islam or face execution; though in modern times, such executions have been rare to nonexistent in some Muslim countries.


It is blatently false that the first Caliph (Abu Bakr) allowed apostate tribes to pay jizya instead of returning to Islam. The Sira makes it very clear that these tribes were given one two options: return to Islam, or die. The same ultimatum that apostates were given for 1,400 years after the first Caliph, the same ultimatum that continues to be given out by some Muslim governments, even today, to Muslims who leave Islam. They were not given the options to leave Islam but pay jizya, or return Islam, or die. Their options were simply death or returning to Islam. Even if this did not occur with every single tribe that left Islam after Muhammad died, it is an absolute certainty* that this "death or Islam" ultimatum was given to many apostate tribes. Therefore the insertion of "or refused to pay the Jizya" (above) is blatently false.

  • I will provide a concrete source of this from Guillame's translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sira, when I have more time.


--Pename

Unfounded claims about non-Permisability of Collateral Damage

I wikipedia contributor is repeatedly inserting the claim into this article that the Qur'an is somehow opposed to the concept of "collateral damage." This is entirely unfounded. No such verses of the Qur'an accompany this claim. Furthermore, Section 2.2 Islamist terrorism, an entire paragraph is dedicated to explaning the legitimacy and place of collateral damage in the religion of Islam, as interpreted by its traditional scholars and jurists. Thus even though this article explicitly proves that collateral damage is allowed in Islam, a certain wikipedia contributor is inserting a contradictory claim that Islam and its holiest book are somehow opposed to collateral damage. Let this certain contributor bring some concrete evidence if he doesn't want to see his insertion from being deleted. --Pename

I am new to this discussion, but here are some thoughts. While the Qur'an itself might not mention collateral damage, the rules laid down for War by The Prophet, Abu Bakar and others do enjoin against causing collateral damage.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:55, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Can you provide any evidence for your claims? Can you refute the claims made in the article regarding the permissability of collateral damage (e.g. Muhammad's use of catapults during the invasion of Ta'if)? --Pename Nov 20, 2004

Use of Forged Hadiths

Wikipedia contirbutor OneGuy is constantly trying to mislead readers by deleting any sort of elaborations on what it means of a hadith to have a "weak isnad." He is continually pushing the hadith about warfare being a "lesser jihad" and general struggle being a "greater jihad." This is concidered to be a fabricated hadith by mainstream Islam, and it is caterogized as fabricated in very the book of hadiths in which it is recorded. OneGuy is misleading readers into believing that orthodox Muslims view holy war as some sort of lowly and "lesser" activity, while the reality is that orthodox Muslims relish in the idea of holy war, and concider it to be the greatest thing a man could do in Islam. --Pename

Can you explain that how a hadith with weak isnad makes it a "forged" hadith? "Forged" hadith and "weak" isnad are not the same thing. Please look this up on the internet. OneGuy 22:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have not attempted to completely remove this fabricated hadith, as others have, because whether or not it's fabricated doesn't seem to matter to the modern, Westernized, liberal, progressive, so-called "moderate" Muslims. As such, there are a sizable number of Muslims (at least on the Internet) who take this "lesser Jihad" and "greater Jihad" business seriously. Perhaps it helps them rationalize their opposition to jihadist activities, even though jihad is the "6th pillar" of Islam. Whatever the case, I think it violates the NPOV policy if hadiths with "weak isnads" are used to define jihad, without giving due warning to readers.

Does anyone know what kind of action can be taken if OneGuy contines to delete any cavets regarding this fabricated hadith? --Pename

Umm... slightly off topic, but if you're going to move the "Jihad as spiritual struggle" section to near the bottom, should the headings in between that and "Jihad as Holy war" be made less significant, as they are 'parts' of this topic? If you disagree, change it back ;) Estel 19:57, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Well, the guy is claiming that a hadith is forged because it's isnad is weak. Let him post evidence from that. If he knew anything about this topic, he would have known that some skeptical scholars think that hadith with strong isnad are forged!! Anyway, "weak" isnad and "forged" is not the same thing. for examples see
http://www.abc.se/~m9783/n/vwh_e.html
http://www.islamworld.net/hadith.html
Hadith are categorized as by Muslim scholars, as "sahih (sound), hasan (good), da'if weak) and maudu' (fabricated, forged)"
Notice the forged is a 4th category, differennt from "weak" OneGuy 23:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Once again, please read this article on the opinion of classical Muslim scholars on the use of weak hadith
http://www.abc.se/~m9783/n/vwh_e.html
The guy is inserting factual errors in the article about what orthodox Muslim believe then complaining that I reverted them OneGuy 23:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

134.22.70.218's edits

Much of this person's edits are copyright violations. Unfortunately, there have been several other people who have edited his/her changes since he/she first began editing this page. Unless somebody objects, I am going to revert the entire page to prior to 134.22.70.218's first edits. RickK 08:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Please explain clearly where the copyright violations are occuring. everything I have copied from another website is quoted and properly referenced, with due credit given where credit is due. Quoting other sources is not called copyright violation, it is protected by FAIR USE LAWS. Explain yourself. --Pename
Rick, I do have a problem with that. There is stuff in that page that isn't copyright violation, and now the page has at least one weasel term in it. Please, by all means remove the copyrighted material (and please tell us where the copyright violation is!), but leave the rest of the text alone. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


what copyright violation? there WAS no copyright violation. Your friend Rick there does not know the difference between copyright violation and fair use. And now he has run off instead of explaining himself, instead of explaining where exactly it is that he thinks these copyright violations took place --Pename
You know anon, you aren't helping your case by having a go at RickK. In the case of his revert, I agree that he needs to provide evidence of copyright violations before doing a revert like that one. Stop swearing, calm down and stop making personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
OK, anon. I think you might like to have a look at the article fair use a bit more carefully before you accuse RickK of making unfair edits. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Maybe you should be telling Rick to read the "Fair Use" article so that he can identify WHEN AND WHERE EXACTLY the "copyright violations" took place, so that the situation can be rectified. It's not Rick who is being accused here, it's me who is being accused of copyright violation, and nobody is bothering to even say WHERE this supposed "copyright violation" occured - instead a 3 day's worth of editing has been reverted, and now I have no way to accessing the original source code. --Pename

My reversions had nothing to do with content, and solely to do with the multiple edits that the anon made which were copyright violations. One is from http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/7822. One which is still there, which I have not deleted, is from http://www.theglobaltimes.com/new_page_87.htm. RickK 09:21, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


I quoted from http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005708 not http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/7822. http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/7822 is a copy of the original Wall Street Journal Editorial at http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005708 ... I clearly put quotation marks on the copyrighted material, properly referenced the author, article, and the Wall Street Journal, numbered my reference, provided a URL link in the references section and next to the quations in the article, and was merely quoting another party in order to support my claims. This is called FAIR USE, not copyright infrigenment.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial was quoted in a newly created section about PRionsers of War. WHy did you delete the entire section about PRisoners of War? It is clearly not neccessary to delete the whole section in order to fix whatever so-called "copyright infringement" you have imagined.
As for your claim that I was illegally using copyrighted material from http://www.theglobaltimes.com/new_page_87.htm -- I have never even see this URL before, and you have STILL not specifified exactly WHERE you believe this copyright infringement is occuring. --Pename


Check the section titled Verdict of the Qu'ran. RickK 09:51, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
OH I see. But the thing is, I did not copy that stuff from "Verdict of the Qur'an," someone else did. That's why it's still there, even after you reverted my edits. --Pename
Anon, have you considered getting an account with Wikipedia? Also, I would suggest you put back the non-copyrighted material. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How can I put back the "non-copyrighted material" when I don't know where the these infringements are taking place? I think Rick should take the article back to before he reverted my work, and then he should carefully look at where the quoation marks are in the article. All material copied from anywhere else has been put in quoations marks. If he thinks that one of these quoations is copyright infrigement, then let him delete the quote instead of the delete the whole sub-section, along with things that I wrote (i.e. the stuff outside the quotation marks)! --Pename
There is still copyrighted material there. I'm waiting for responses from other people to take that out. RickK 09:51, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Rick do you realize that you reverted 3 days of editing? it's extremely difficult to put back all that editing. Most of it was not even quoting other sources, most of it was my own work. "Ta bu shi da yu's" attempt to put back the lost text was not much, since so much else was lost as well. --Pename
Rick: you say "there is still copyrighted material there" but you still cannot explain to us where it is, and why it constitutes a copyright infringement that is not covered by fair use. I agree that the "Verdit of the Qur'an" stuff is directly plagerized, but that was a bit of Islamist apologia which some other contributor stuck in the article - it was not my doing, and I would be glad if you deleted it. But other than that, I don't see any infringement of copyright. I understand that you are consulting with other moderators and waiting for their response, but it seems unfair to me that you cannot tell us all, in this talk, where you think these infringement took place which led you to revert 3 days of editing. If you would tell me where the infrigement took place, I would gladly rectify it myself - there would be no need for a lengthy wait for a response from whomever you are consulting. --Pename

Rick: I'm still waiting for your explanation of when and where the supposed copyright violations took place. --Pename 22:24, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Disputed now

134.22.70.218 has crammed so much irrelevant stuff into this article (stuff that belongs to different articles). Plus, some of the stuff inserted, such as prisoners of war, is clearly disputed. He only inserted one interpretation into the article. Many people would dispute these claims, for example, see:

and many more if 134.22.70.218 searches ...

It's safe to say that now the article has reached the status of "disputed" OneGuy 08:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If there are specific parts of the article which you believe are irrelevant, then pleace specify the section and paragraph, and it can be discussed. That is what it means to dispute something. You provide evidence and be specific about what it is you are disputing. If there is anyting you hold to be false, then you should demonstrate it with references, just as I try to reference everything. Posting a bunch of disorganized URLs does not amount to disproving anything in the article. One uses URLs to cite references - simply posting a URL is not a legitimate argument or disputation. --Pename
The prisoner of war section was not only irrelevant but also disputed. For example, after the battle of badr, a few prisoners were killed for supposedly committing crimes against Muslims earlier, but the rest were given many choices (1) convert to Islam, (2), Slavery, (3)pay ransom, (4) or teach 10 Muslims to read and write to get freedom. (Some who were too poor to pay ranson were freed too). Historically, many other examples can be cited, like Saladin treatment of the prisoners, especially after he conquered Jerusalem. You inserted very narrow and anti-Islamic version in the article, like most of the other stuff you inserted OneGuy 09:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


The prisoner of war section is not irrelevant. This article is about the ideology and laws of Jihad, i.e. Islamic Holy War. The issue of Prisoners of War is an integral part of the issue of war itself.
The "debate" over the apostate tribes who left Islam after Muhammad died is discussed at the top of this talk, in the section titled "Debate Re: The Tribes that Left Islam Soon After Muhammad Died" --Pename


As I said, you crammed disputed one-sided not relevant claims in the article. What happened during Abu Bakr time cannot be described simply as wars against apostates. A number of tribes refused to pay taxes (Jizya or Zakat). This is also a fact. Others, like Musailma, were not just apostates but were claiming to be prophets AND actively involved in war against Muslims, just like other apostate tribes. Look it up. You are claiming that wars against these tribes were not justified. That's your personal opinion. Not everyone agrees with you OneGuy 13:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"happened during Abu Bakr time cannot be described simply as wars against apostates" <--- yes it can. And I will soon document this thoroughly. Many tribes converted to Islam when Muhammad was alive, and then tried to leave Islam when Muhammad died. But when they tried to leave, they were told by the Islamic state (headed by Abu Bakr at the time) to either convert back to Islam or face death. This is war against apostates.
"A number of tribes refused to pay taxes (Jizya or Zakat)" <--- Jizya and Zakat are not the same thing. Those tribes that refused to pay Zakat are the apostate tribes described the paragraph above. Those tribes who never converted to Islam while Muhammad was alive were forced to either pay the jizya tax, convert, or face war against them by the Islamic state. Clearly there is a difference between tribes who converted and then trying to leave Islam (by not praying or paying zakat or anything), and never have converted and then refusing to pay the jizya tax. The latter case is irrelevant to the discussion about the fact that in Islam once a person is a Muslim he is never allowed to leave Islam, and if he tries, then he is to be executed. The same rule applied to entire tribes that tried to leave Islam when Muhammad died. The justification for this, made by the Muslims, was that Islam was that so many tribes tried to leave Islam after Muhammad died that Islam would have disappeared in a few centuries if the Islamic state had not threatened people with death if they tried to leave Islam. --Pename
I hope your evidence is not as selective as you did with anti-Islamic selective "prisoners of wars" section. The article needs to be balanced, not one-sided anti-Islamic OneGuy 19:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And what is wrong with war against tribes who refused to pay taxes (zakat or Jizya)? What will happend if someone refuses to pay taxes in the US? I see nothing wrong there anyway. Also from this site: http://www.ymofmd.com/books/abas/chapter3.htm .. these apostates not only refused to pay taxes but attacked first. OneGuy 19:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"I hope your evidence is not as selective as you did with anti-Islamic selective "prisoners of wars" section." <--- if you believe that some evidence has been selectively left out, then I encourage you to bring this evidence and add it to the Prisoners of War section. I look forwarding to seeing what additional evidence you add (please rememeber to provide a source for your claims).
"And what is wrong with war against tribes who refused to pay taxes (zakat or Jizya)? What will happend if someone refuses to pay taxes in the US?" <--- a group of tribes converted to Islam while Muhammad was alive, and then tried to leave Islam when he died. Paying "zakat" is something that people of the Islamic faith do - it should not be imposed on those who do not wish to follow the Islamic religion. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. By attacking tribes who refused to practice Islam (i.e. refused to obey the 5 pillars: zakat, fasting, prayer, etc.), the budding Islamic state denied these tribes the freedom of religion. The justification made by the state was that if these Muslim tribes were allowed to freely choose their religion (and thus allowed to abandon Islam), then the ranks of the Muslims would shrink substantially, and the Islamic state would lose power, and perhaps Islam would even have disappeared in a matter of centuries. Thus they felt that the very existance of Islam was in danger, and under these circumstanced they felt justified in massacring tribes that attempted to exercise the freedom of religion by defecting from Islam. Whether or not there is something wrong with this is was something "wrong" is for the reader to decide - the purpose of an encylopedia entry such as this one is to lay out the known historical facts. The purpose is NOT to make ethical judgements regarding those historical facts, however it is sensable to point out when and where traditional Islamic practices of warfare conflict with modern international law, such as the Charter of Human Rights, or the Geneva Conventions.
It seems that you trying to argue that no traditional Islamic practices of warfare conflict with any aspects of modern international law, such as the Charter of Human Rights, or the Geneva Conventions. Such an assertion is false. Any medieval practices of warfare conflict with such modern humanitarian laws, whether they are medieval Islamic practices of war, or medieval Christian practices of war, or any other medieval war practices. Muhammad and his followers were a medieval warriors, and as such their practices of warfare agreed with the norms of their time. The norms of the medieval age are not the norms of the modern age. It is therefore no surprise that Muhammad's followers practiced some things that would, today, be concidered violations of (for example) the human right of freedom of relgion. --Pename

Vanadalism by 217.42.185.5 / 81.156.1.71

217.42.185.5 (the anon is also connecting to wikipedia from the IP 81.156.1.71 and making the exact same edit) is repeatedly deleting most of the "Islamist terrorism" section. Without explanation, he has deleted any mention of modern Jihad theorists such as Syyed Qutb, he has removed any mention of Osama bin Laden. He has deleted the entire discussion about terrorist killings and death threats against critics of Islam, such as Theo van Gogh and Salman Rushdie. He has deleted the paragaph discusssing the fact that in order to expand an empire one must slaughter innocent people. He has deleted the entire discussion about the abiguity and disagreement that exists within the Muslim world over who can and cannot be killed in a state of war. All this, he has replaced all this by the following claim which has already been debunked:

"But the Qur'an, the unquestionable source of authority in Islam, vehemently denounces the killing of any person who has not committed at least one of two acts:
"Whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the earth - it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (5:32)
According to this verse of the Qur'an, if one human being has not
1) murdered another person
2) created conflict and disorder in the world
Then that human being is innocent. To kill one of such an innocent human being would be the equivalent to the massacre of the entire human race, which is an inconceivably barbaric crime, and a monumental sin. This verse is clear and unequivocal as to who should be regarded as an innocent human being. Moreoever, there is no declaration in the history of all religions that can match the gravity of this condemnation. (1)"

This verse is discussed at length in the paragraphs which 217.42.185.5 deleted. 217.42.185.5 is not debating any of the claims in the article, he is simply deleting the claim and replacing them with a diamaterically opposite claim, (i.e. that "This verse is clear and unequivocal as to who should be regarded as an innocent human being") without any justification or evidence (how is the verse clear and unquivocal? 217.42.185.5 has no explanation - we are merely supposed to take it as an tenant of faith that it is "unequivocally clear" as he does). 217.42.185.5 is clearly an Islamist who is only interested in supressing the truth. As such I am reverting his edits, and hereby request that something be done about this constant vanadalism by the anon.

(By the way, 217.42.185.5, I can prove that verse 5:32 is copied from a passage in the Talmud. A Rabbi wrote that killing a single person is like killing all humans, in the Talmud. So it's ludicrous and clearly a case of extreme pro-Islam bias to state that "there is no declaration in the history of all religions that can match the gravity of this condemnation.")


This situation has become a pointless revert war. The anon is not responding to any attempts to engage in debate or comprimise, and is indifferent to repeated requestions for explanation of his actions. Instead, he is making the exact same edit to the "Islamist Terrorism" section and has been doing so for several days.

(1) 217.42.185.5's edit, quoted above, is a copyright violation. It s a verbatim plagerism of the article "Verdict on the Qur'an", which he has inserted into his edit of the "Islamist Terrorism" section. This copyright violation was discussed in the discussion titled #134.22.70.218's edits


--Pename

Vandalism by Alberuni

Alberuni is also engaged in deleting huge portions of the article. He (or she) claims that these sections are irrelevant and are "islamaphobe rants."

There are three main sections under dispute:

1. Islamist terrorism section. In this section, there is a disucssion regarding Islamist terrorists murdering or threatening the lives of critics of Islam. Examples of such people who have been threatened or murdered are Theo Van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, and Irshid Mangie. Death threats and violence against innocent civlians, who criticize extremist Islam, is a form of Islamist terrorism. As such, it belongs in the article about Jihad. The article also goes into details about Muhammad having poets murdered, because the poets wrote against Islam; this is concidered a form of Jihad by traditional Islamic legal scholars, and is relevant to the modern day problem of terrorists murdering and threatening the lives of film makers, TV producers, artists, and authors who criticize extremist forms of Islam. Such discussion is not irrelevant to the subject of Jihad, and such discussion is neither "islamaphobia" nor is it mere "ranting."

2. There is a paragraph (in the Islamist terrorism section) regarding the fact that in order to carry out a program of imperialism, it is neccessary to wage wars of aggression and kill people who are innocent (as Muhammad and his followers did indeed do). Nobody would dare to claim that Western imperialism did not take the lives of countless the innocent and the defenseless. It is equally illogical to claim that Islamic imperialism did not take the lives of the innocent and the defenseless. This is not "islamaphobia," this is simple fact. It is obvious that this discussion is relevant to Jihad, especially to the discussion on who is "innocent" and who is "guilty" when it comes Islamic laws about making war against non-Muslims.

3. The Prisoners of War Section. It should be blatently obvious to everyone that when disucssing the Islamic laws of Jihad, it is neccessary to disucuss the Islamic laws regarding treatment of Prisoners of War. The issue of POWs is highly related to the issue of war. It is ludicrous of Alberuni to suggest that a disucussion of Islamic laws regarding prisoners of war must be irrelevant to a discussion on Jihad. Furthermore, the accusation that the disucssion on POWs is an "islamaphobe rant" is equally false.


As such I am reverting Alberuni's deleting of these substantial parts of the article. If Alberuni believes that something has been left out in the discussions about POWs, assasinating critics, or launching wars of aggression against non-Muslims, or that something is incorrect, then Alberuni should add his comments to the article, and should debate the issue in the talk page, instead of ham-handedly dismissing the entire topic of POWs and assasinations of critics of Islam. If he feels that someonethign is completely irrelevant, then he should make a rational argument for his case in this discussion page, instead of thinking that he can delete half a Wikipedia article if for some reason he has failed to see the relevance of the sections in question.


NOTE: Alberuni is a known pro-Islamist on Wikipedia. As such, the neutrality of Alberuni's judgements is immediatly suspect. This suspect nature of Alberuni's brutish "edits" is exasperated by the fact that Alberuni refused to actually debate anything, contribute anything to the article, or merely explan why he/she believes that some aspect of the article is an "irrelevant islamaphobe rant" (as Alberuni calls it). --Pename

Your rambling Islamophobic rant is not relevant to an encyclopedia article explaining the various interpretations of the Islamic concept of Jihad. In addition, your biased and slanted POV edits and bigoted source material references are akin to a neo-Nazi editing an article about Shulkhan Arukh using Jew Watch as his source material. If you check the edit history, you will see that I have contributed to this article, so your allegation against me is as false as just about everything else you have written. If you can add relevant NPOV material that adds to the topic of Jihad, that would be welcome. Your POV campaign may be more appropriate in another article, like Islamism, Theo van Gogh, or Islamophobia. You might also want to consider registering an account rather than editing under an anonymous IP. Thanks. --Alberuni 22:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Your rambling Islamophobic rant is not relevant to an encyclopedia article explaining the various interpretations of the Islamic concept of Jihad." <--- please explain clearly and concisely what paragraphs are not relevant, and why they are not relevant.
"In addition, your biased and slanted POV edits and bigoted source material references are akin to a neo-Nazi editing an article about Shulkhan Arukh using Jew Watch as his source material." <--- please clearly and concisely explain which sources I have used which you deem to be unreliable (for your convenience here is list of the sources I used: a BBC documentary, a Wall Street Journal article by a famous Iranian born researcher who has beenw writing books about Islamic terrorism since 1988, and an entry from the Encylopedia Britannica, the oldest and most prestigeous English language resource). Which of these sources is akin to neo-Nazi material? PLease explain. --Pename
Answering-Islam is a very hostile and biased source. [26]. I am reviewing your edit history and many of the numerous edits you have made are appropriate. There are numerous minor spelling errors ("payed" instead of "paid" but the worst parts are when you go off on tangents about the interpretation of Islamic traditions or hadiths that reflect your own hostile POV. If you could substantiate your edits with reference to independent sources that would be helpful. It would be best to take each of your controversial edits and discuss them in Talk so that we avoid pointless revert wars. You shouldn't feel oppressed by having to justify your edits. If they are not just your personal editorial opinion and can be substantiated in independent sources, there should be no problem including them with attribution to source. --Alberuni 22:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I linked to Anwering-Islam.org in reference to the murder of of the poetess Asma bint Marwan by Muhammad, as well as another poet Abu 'Afak. I will agree that this source can be hostile and biased. Therefore, I agree that the links to Answering-Islam.org should be removed. Instead, I will create two new wikipedia entries about Asma bint Marwan and Abu 'Afak, and link to those instead. I hope that this is a satisfactory comprimise.
Furthermore, I do not think that I have imposed my own unique interpretations of Islam. I am citing the tradtional interpretations of the four Madhabs - nothing less, and nothing more. --Pename 22:33, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Well, it's good that material not relevant to Jihad is taken out of this article. --Alberuni 22:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Which material currently in the article is not relevant to the subject of Jihad? --Pename 23:42, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


"You might also want to consider registering an account rather than editing under an anonymous IP." <--- i've taken up your advice, and am now registered under the alias "Pename." --Pename 22:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Defensive and Offensive Jihad is a false distinction

The article states: "The Islamic legal tradition identifies two types of armed religious warfare, namely the defensive jihad and the offensive jihad." Is this a reference to Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam? If so it is a misinterpretation. Jihad is purely defensive, never offensive. Here is a good Islamic source refuting the Islamophobic interpretation [27]. What tradition and what specific sources can be cited to support the "offensive war" contention? --Alberuni 01:06, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No this is not a reference to Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, though the concepts are related.
"Jihad is purely defensive, never offensive." This is false. According to the four Madhabs, offensive Jihad is mandatory. Offensive Jihad was the basis of justification for the wars that the Muslims waged against non-Muslims in order to expand the territories of the Islamic empire. It is because of offensive Jihad that the Islamic empire expanded until it became the second largest empire in history. Here are some relevant links about Offensive Jihad:
South African imam approves offensive jihad
Jihad can be offensive or defensive
Offensive Jihad, Futuhat and Islamic Conquests. quotes from islamic websites
I can also bring you quotes from a book written by Abdullah Azzam, in which he described the position of the four Madhabs in regards to Offensive Jihad. --Pename 02:33, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Haha, JihadWatch.org is your source. I can teach you about Judaism with quotes from Jew Watch too! Did you bother to read what real Muslim scholars write on the subject or are you happy with the Islamophobic sources that reinforce your bias? [28] --Alberuni 02:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars are provided above as evidence for offensive Jihad. --Pename 03:26, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

What do Zakat and Jizyah have to do with Jihad?

These concepts are not related to jihad and they have their own pages so these sections should be deleted and, perhaps, Related Pages links can be included: "Historians dispute whether forced conversion was or was not carried out during the era of Islamic imperialism which lasted approximately 1,300 years. Whether or not "conversion by the sword" was systematically carried out, it is established that the jizyah (a tax laid exclusively on non-Muslims whose proceeds go to the government) created a kind of economic and social apartheid in which non-Muslims were economically and socially punished by the state for not converting to Islam. Non-Muslims payed jizya while Muslims, under the empire, payed a taxed called the zakat (a so-called "charity tax" which all Muslims pay even today, but instead of paying to the state they now pay zakat to charities of their choice). The zakat is a 2.5% tax, while the jizyah was about a 10% income tax; as explained in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on jizyah, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax." [1] (http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9368576) Non-Muslims were also usually denied entry to high-ranking military and civil service positions, although there were historical exceptions such as the Mughal Empire where non-Muslims did reach high-ranking positions." --Alberuni 01:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jizya is related to Jihad in many ways. The Muslim used to expand their empire by offering non-Muslim countries three choices: convert and come under Islamic rule, pay jizya and come under Islamic rule, or face war. When the topic of Islamic imperialism comes up, the question of whether there were forced conversions always comes up. The discussion on jizya is part of this question about forced conversions during the offensive jihads during the era of the Islamic empire and the Caliphate. As the Encylopedia Britannica entry on jizya explains, many non-Muslims converted to Islam to avoid the jizya. They had to avoid the jizya because the Muslims had waged offensive jihad agains them and imposed their rule and their taxes on the non-Muslim territories. Thus jizya is a part of offensive jihad, and offensive jihad is a part of the disucssion on jihad. The reason zakat is mentioned is that somebody said that, yes, non-Muslims had to pay jizya but Muslims had to pay zakat. Thus a brief discussion of zakat was neccessary. --Pename 03:20, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/i/h/Talk%7EJihad_Archive2_5b34.html"