Talk:Islamic military jurisprudence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Islamic military jurisprudence was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: January 18, 2008
Peer review Islamic military jurisprudence has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Islam
Islam Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been assessed as mid-importance on the assessment scale.


Who wants to recommend sources to cite here from different denominations? as it stands now we're quoting and thus forcing interpretation from a translation of a primary text... which is selective quotation; a policy commonly used in anti-Islamic and Islamic propaganda. gren 22:42, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


.... WHY is there no page for the christian rules of war? Look in the bible, it condones all sorts of wartime attrocities.

Because nobody decided to write one? If you want it so bad, go ahead and write it.

Contents

[edit] Not in practice

Rules, regulations, morals and ethics are enshrined in words not in deeds. More so, with Islam.

[edit] This is a joke, right?

This comment is bigotry, pure and simple. There's no place for this uninformed cultural bias (and anonymous, no less) in Wikipedia. --Erielhonan 06:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

yup. as such, I have erased it!

Kiumars

I agree with the above comment to some extend, whoever wrote these rules wants to get the Muslims killed in the war!

Imagine you decide to blow up a bus full of military personnel but there is also one civilian on that bus. So you want to be sport and ask the bus driver to stop the bus and let the civilian get off the buss then kick the shit out of the rest. But what if the soldiers on board of the bus try to take advantage of the situation and attack you! Surely you have not gone through all that trouble to be killed so easily! This is a good example where the text books don’t have an answer for.

The enemy is not always sport either, the military base knowing that you will not attack the civilians may decide to share the bus with the nearby school! How would you deal with that trick then? .... um in that case, the military has committed a war crime.


The main idea of guerrilla war is to create panic and unrest behind the enemy lines and weaken their moral! This type of rules only gets you killed like a chicken in the cage! It is like trying to play a clean football these days when everybody else is cheating and pulling shirts and shorts and pushing you! The result will be 15-0 before the half time!

Cheers, Kiumars

Reply by Alex: You are not practicing a true Islamic principles. Please repent. Islam never asks for its believers to bomb a bus. There so many ways to overcome discrepancies in Islam other than violence. May god bless you.

[edit] Merge

I have removed the merge because they are different concepts. War is not only Jihad and Jihad is not only war. Part of their spheres intersect but they are not one and the same. gren 03:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"War is not only Jihad" gren, then what else is Islamic holy war, if it is "not only Jihad?" --Zeno of Elea 05:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Kiumars Zeno, I think Gren is right when he says "war is not only jihad", Jihad is holly war (war with non-Muslims and for the sake of saving the religion (more or less like the crusades)), other wars e.g. war between Muslims are not Jihad and and I think taking part in those wars is not mandatory for Muslims (my nuderstanding is that Jihad is not optional, it is mandatory and that is the main difference).

Kiumars

"The term 'jihad' is often rendered in western languages and non-Islamic cultures as 'holy war', but this 'physical' struggle, which encompasses warfare, only makes up part of the broader meaning of the concept of jihad. The denotation is of a struggle, challenge, difficulty, or (frequently) opposed effort, made either in accomplishment or as resistance." -Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia Philolexica 03:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem for Westerners, particularly Christians and Jews, is the longterm perception of Muslims as willing to use force to gain converts. Several U.S. conservative authors accuse "radical Islam" or "Islamists" of harboring an ideology that insists on dominating the entire world.
To them, this view (or hypothesis) seems amply confirmed by the behavior of Arabs (who are, overwhelmingly, Muslim) in the Middle East. In what many call "Pan-Arabism", the Islamic countries (and Arab population) seem determined to drive Israelis out. Overtures regarding plans to live together in harmony are rarely heard, and indeed generally drowned out by threats to those making them.
Now, as both a reader of Wikikpedia (and a contributor to it), I wonder how much of this perception or hypothesis is really true.
Are there many Arabs who are harshly intolerant of other ethnicities in their midst? Does a religious element fuel this intolerance? Does the Koran itself (or any historical or modern interpretation) or any current within Islamic religion permit or advise intolerance of non-Muslims?
Does "jihad" mean that Muslims may (or ought to) conquer "infidels" (non-Muslims)? If so, are there any limits to the degree of force to be used in this?
I'm well aware of the Western concept of "laws of war", and the article is not bad (though incomplete). I'm even better acquainted with U.S. military ethics, both through personal (peacetime, I must admit) experince, military classes and independent study. One major aspect, which seems to be a glaring difference, is that U.S. military is utterly forbidden to influence the religious beliefs of conquered peoples or POWs. And even those "stateless fighters", who wore the uniform of no country when captured, are permitted to pray and provided with the Holy Qu'ran in their own language.
Can we make a plan for the improvement of this article together? Where would you other contributors like to take it?

[edit] Totally Disputed

There are NO sources anywhere in the entire article, except for a handful of few selectively chosen (read POV) quotes from the original sources. The editor must provide sources for this newly created article. Wikipedia is place to do original research and push particular points-of-view. --Zeno of Elea 09:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zeno -- let's work together on this

Seriously -- you have one perspective on what Islam's rules of war say, I have another. What about a 'short summary of key points that we could both agree on? Why not present a draft of what you think this short article should look like on this page, and I'll develop a draft of my own, and we'll find some way to meet in the middle? (Rather than turning this article into yet another tug of war.)

Hopefully, BrandonYusufToropov 13:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we ought to resolve the POW issue first, which is in fact a subset of the "Rules of war in Islam" as is discussed in the Jihad article (which I believe is the appropriate place for it). My perspective is supported by published sources. If you can support your perspective with published sources, then we can meet in the middle on the POW issue. Once that is resolved, other aspects of Islamic law on Jihad can be considered. --Zeno of Elea 09:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q'uran is not Q'uran in English

If the folks who edit this page (or merge it) want to keep the Q'uran quotes or cite other ones, it might be a good idea to include the original passage (the Arabic) and a contemporary English interpretation (preferably written by a scholar not an ecclesiast). I think in general that's a fair standard for any article that references the Q'uran, since that's the respect that the religion requires. --Erielhonan 03:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the point of including the Arabic text of the Qur'an in English Wikipedia. Only Arabic speaking people can understand the Arabic text, and they can easily find the referenced verses in an Arabic copy of the Qur'an. I'm afraid that you are making a demand for a rather unreasonable amount of respect for Islam (something akin to demanding that Wikipedia including "p.b.u.h." or "s.a.w." after the name Muhammad). Such unncessary Arabic text would only bloat the article without being of any use to English speaking readers. --Zeno of Elea 12:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
What's the sense in including the Arabic (or Chinese or whatever) 'spelling' and pronunciation for any foreign-word entry in the English Wiki?
So that you can look the word up in its original spelling (e.g. in a dictionary) and know how to properly pronounce it, obviously. These don't bloat the article as much as entire passages. I would suggest and encourage choosing a good online source of the Arabic text and directly linking to the relevant, referenced passages. This would be a good compromise in terms of convenience and the point about the difficulty of finding the relevant passages woule be rendered moot.
It's because those items don't have origin in the English speaking world, and can only be defined truly by referring to them in their source language. Same thing here.

Being an expatriat American living in Finland, and coping with a international marriage and bilingual children, I can tell you that although translations may work well between languages that are closely related grammatically and geographically, NO translation between divergent langauges will ever come close to giving the MEANING of a phase or sentence...DEFINITION, perhaps, but meaning, never. If you could read a English translation of the Qur'an that was translated by a 86 year old muslum who lived most of his life isolated from western influences, then somehow managed to learn to read and write English and translated the Qur'an, you might be getting close to understanding the "meaning" of the text....J. from Suomi

My original intent was to recommend finding an interpreted source (in English) that wasn't full of "thee" and "thou", since that hints at an old or otherwise Christian-bent translation, which is inappropriate and probably inaccurate. But Islam provides a perfect solution for avoiding this problem, by way of its tenet against the authenticity of the Q'uran in translation.
It's not just a question of respect, it's a question of neutrality too. You can't claim to be speaking about the Q'uran if your only source is a translation. Unlike the Bible, the Q'uran ceases to be the Q'uran when it's translated. If an author needs to collaborate with someone who can provide them the correct passages, then so be it. Articles dealing with Islam tend to be very politicized I believe. One way to preserve neutrality is to stick close to the source when providing Q'uranic quotes.
Also, I don't know so much about the "they can easily find the referenced verses in an Arabic copy of the Qur'an." Perhaps, perhaps not. Depends on how well-referenced and how well-translated the passage. A mangled English translation might leave a Muslim guessing.
And lastly, Wikipedia is a ployglot project. Interlingual references should be encouraged. There are PLENTY of Arab speakers who are also Wikipedians.
--Erielhonan 19:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I would like to point out, as a non-christian non-muslim user here, that the Q'uran is traditionally held to be complete only in Arabic. Also, Arabic has many concepts and shades of concept in Philosophy that English has no counterpart words for. Translating any document from Arabic to English is like trying to measure centimeters with an inch-gradiated ruler, all you can do is compare and get pretty close. With a document as sensitive and meaningful as the Q'uran, it is especially important to respect these translations. I for one think that if it is too much to ask that the Arabic phrases be posted next to the translations provided, that at the least all the translations should be coming from a translation done by a native Arabic speaker, respected in Q'uranic knowlage. At least then the translations would be as close as possible.

Kiumars

Guys Quran is written in a poetic way it is not a straightforward day to day Arabic. My understanding is that even ordinary Arabs have difficulties getting the message easily (because of the poetic nature of the Quran). There are PHD courses in interpreting Quran! Farsi is my mother tong and I have come across a few translation of the Rubaiyat of Khayyam but must tell you they are not even close to the Persian version. I think it will be dangerous to try to use the English translation or a bad Arabic translation of Quran here. The consequences of a mistake can be huge!

Kiumars

[edit] Moved from Jihad

[edit] Excerpts from the Qur'an on warfare

The Qur'an uses the term jihad in a military setting only four times (9:24, 22:78, 25:52, 60:1), none of which refer definitively to armed struggle. However, the concept of holy Islamic war was not itself a latter day invention, and the Qur'an does contain passages that correlate to specific historic events ... and that may help to illuminate the theory, and practice of armed struggle (qi'tal) for Muslims. A few examples are as follows:

“Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.” (2:190)
“And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"” (4:76)
“Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies.; 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).” (8:60-61)
“What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers. Fight them, and Allah will punish (torment) them by your hands, cover them with shame.” (9:13-14)
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.” (9:5-6)
“Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (9:29)
"Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed ... those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. "(22:39-40)
" O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;--in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (33:50)
"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God,- He will never let their deeds be lost." (47:4)

The general count of such totals varies; certain investigators put the count of verses concerning warfare at 164 out of 6346. All pertain to battles fought during Muhammad's mission. [1]


Excerpts from the Q'uran on warfare=islam and warfare not jihad--Tznkai 17:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

A link has been added explaining all excerpts and many more and refuting the claims of Anti-islamists. [2] Muwahid 19:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zeno keeps deleting information

And I will keep adding it back in. -unsgined

If he is violation 3RR, its not the first time, take a look at Maria al-Qibtiyya --Striver 12:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

He is in violation of 3RR. I counted over 12 reverts made within 24 hours. He keeps accusing you of being the anon proxies, but the funny thing is that he's using them too. This is ridiculous. We should get an admin on this.Heraclius 22:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

He has also violated it on User:Saduj al-Dahij userpage and he has vandalized my Userpage. --Striver 08:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Zeno removed some vandalism from Saduj al-Dahij's userpage one time, and that is not a violation of 3rr. Striver, making untrue claims is considered incivil and a violation of Wikipedias policies. Heracilus, your allegations about Zeno using open proxies reverting on this page is very serious. So far I have only seen open proxies being to add the PoV back to the page again, so I don't think that you have any reason to make such claims. -- Karl Meier 09:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
If Zeno was removing vandalism, then he was vandalizing himself (in the same page but in another way). Whadever, i take back the statement about Saduj, however, Zeno have broken 3RR on several occasions and he has vandalized my userpage. --Striver 10:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean by "several occations"? He's broken 3rr only at one other occasion, and this was because of of a genuine mistake, that he as a new user made. The admin that was dealing with this, recognized this fact. And regarding what you call "vandalism" on your talkpage, what Zeno did was simply to answer a question that you have posted there. I don't think anyone can call that "vandalism" by any stretch of imagination. If you want to see something that is closer to vandalism, go see the history of Zeno's userpage. -- Karl Meier 11:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Err..

both the POV and info on this are off. Recommend reading this for a NPOV article on a similar subject.. I tried to help but it needs a complete rewrite --Irishpunktom\talk 14:40, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

The BBC is not a scholarly source on this subject. It is you who are misinformed. I suggest you specify the exact points of disagreement before embarking on some "rewrite" which, if experience is any indicator, will amount to you whitewashing "problematic" facts about Islam. --Zeno of Elea 23:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The BBC is significantly more scolarly than most sources given here, furthermore, that they are over a thousand years older than the Geneva Conventions is far from anecdotal. Also, why is so very little of this entire article sourced? --Irishpunktom\talk 08:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Why does the anon/Irishpunktom insist on having a POV template on this article? Could these editors please make a list of specific reasons why it should be there, so that the editors can work on these issues? If they can't I suggest that the template should be removed. -- Karl Meier 08:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
The entire article is written in an anti-islamic POV, thus breaching the NPOV, also, as so very little of it is sourced it's findings are disputed. As such, rather than having a {{pov}} and {{disputed}} I put up a {{totally disputed}} .. because thats what it is there for. I suggest you go looking for actual sources for everything cited rather than just damning any changes made. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
"The entire article is written in an anti-islamic POV, thus breaching the NPOV" Do you care to justify your claims, Irishpunktom? Or do you think that your word should be taken as gospel, here at Wikipedia? --Zeno of Elea 19:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing sourced sections by William Muir, HE IS NOT AN ISLAMIC APOLOGIST, HE IS WILLIAM MUIR. I have created my account as you asked now please stop deleting them. Malek1 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The Willium Muir quote is completely out of context. Its inclusion here is annecdotal evidence being used to push an extreme apologetic POV. -- Zeno of Elea 01:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

WILLIAM MUIR IS NOT AN EXTREMELY APOLOGETIC POV. Malek1 02:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again, this is not about William Muir, it is about quoting William Muir in the proper context and in an NPOV way. -- Zeno of Elea 02:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
How do you "quote" in a "NPOV" way? Malek1 02:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
How do you "quote" in a "NPOV" way? You could write books on that question. But in this specific case, the Muir quote is actually a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote, etc. Muir is quoting a Muslim tradition about a pagan Arab who was taken prisoner by the Muslims and then the prisoner later converted to Islam and years later he allegedly described the kind treatment that his captors had given him. Leaving aside the fact that the Muslim traditions are full of exagerative biases, the fact is that this prisoner's testimony does not say anything about Shariah, in particular the rules of war in Islam. This is not a dawa pamphlet. If you want to insert statements about the rules of war in Islam then you should refer to shariah and fiqh not a lone, questionable annecdote quoted by a lone Western orientalist, supposedly proving that the rules of war in Islam with regards to POWs are all rosey and have nothing to do with slavery, rape, kidnapping, etc. The Muir schtick does not belong here. -- Zeno of Elea 02:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
"Malek1", "Yuber", "Heraclius", "Alberuni" or whatever you want us to call you... Could you please log into your main account and quit violating the decisions that has been made by the ArbCom? Including using open proxies? -- Karl Meier 18:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Its amazing "Leaving aside the fact that the Muslim traditions are full of exagerative biases." I laughed when I read this, considered the extreme attention to accuracy that the Muslim historians devoted. Apparently when something is quoted that this user thinks will portray Islam negatively, he fully supports it and adds it, when not, well the double standard is shown--Mike

[edit] Protected

I have protected this page to stem the endless, sterile revert war taking place on it. There has been no discussion for 5 days (at least). If you can try hard to carry on a civil discourse here, then, once you have settled your differences, I will unprotect. Try to see which parts of the page are really worth disagreeing long-term over and if you can fix them, or if you can't, if you can simply agree to disagree. -Splashtalk 23:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations

According to the article Qur'an, Islamic scholars assert that only the original Arabic text is considered the actual Qur'an; translations are merely interpretations. For the purposes of Wikipedia, at the very least the source that provided the translation should be cited. There may be considerable variation between translations, and such differences may be important in disputes over original meaning. -- Beland 20:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup request

As a matter of style, it would be nice if supporting quotes immediately followed a claim, instead of being aggregated at the end of the article or section. -- Beland 04:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion request

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

So far, there are only two sections - one on civilians (which is very short), and one on POWs. It seems that there are other aspects of war also regulated by Islam. For example, Offensive jihad and Defensive jihad discuss the need for a declaration of war. New sections should be added to cover additional domains of regulation, whatever those might be. Once a canonical list is compiled, that can be added to the intro, to help indicate that the article is comprehensive in that respect. -- Beland 04:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jihad v. War

The article is reinforcing the somewhat ignorant Western idea that Jihad is war. Key points to remember are that Islam is an innately peaceful religion (consider when Mohammed marched into the conquered Mecca, he carried out no retributions on the people who had been for years trying to destroy him), and that Jihad is often taken to mean a personal struggle toward self improvement. One can have a jihad against ice cream, if one feels they eat too much of it, or a jihad to eat more vegetables etc. Lent is a sort of Christian version of Jihad. Holy war can be Jihad, but we should be careful not to equate the two ideas. MrPMonday 07:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Islam is not innately peaceful. It has its peaceful and violent manifestations. It is in the end an ideology filtered through human mind regardless of what is "true". While I agree the article has some problems and needs to be better referenced we cannot represent it as you seem to want. Another aspect is that liberal Muslims don't typically have a "rules of war" in their beliefs. gren グレン 07:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why I bolded not... gren グレン 07:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the "Westerners translate as Holy War" precept is founded exclusively in ignorance and is not part of the Islamic religion whatsoever, I deleted that phrase. Misconceptions should not be included in the encyclopedia, even if certain segments of western society popularly believe it. Amibidhrohi 04:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Grenavitar, to a point you're correct. I'd go as far as to say there are entirely different Islams altogether. The Islam followed by moderate Sunnis in Indonesia is a far cry different from the Salafi Islam followed by many arabs. The "Jihad is Holy War" misunderstanding isn't held exclusively by American Christians, but many Muslim groups as well. When Hizb Ut Tahrir speaks of Jihad, they exclusively speak of the armed fighting variety. The information in this entry needs to be founded on fact and research, as well as a fair-minded approach. The apologists, while well-meaning, may end up implying that the idea of Jihad as a offensive war movement is completely an abberation. This isn't true for all sects, as we've seen with the Salafis and some Deobandis. On the other hand, there are Islamophobes here who are also trying to imply that ALL sects of Islam accept this offensive war concept when in fact only a tiny minority do. The vast majority of Muslims believe Jihad is only defensive, and can only be justified when a muslim community is threatened by a domestic or foreign force. Amibidhrohi 05:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Although today the phenomenon has become so well-known that for most no translation is necessary, jihad has been "commonly translated" as "holy war" - the wording here takes no stance as to whether this translation is accurate, while the preceding note that jihad means "struggle" makes it clear that this translation is contextual and thus inherently debatable. "Mistranslated" is needlessly POV. If you think this isn't enough, why not add an "although" clause which represents your proposed alternative interpretation, rather than defacing the original true statement?Timothy Usher 05:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not an issue of "translation". The word has several meaning (I speak Arabic) one common meaning is "inner struggle" the "war within one's self" (as in to overcome the evil inside us all) and the other is holy war against the infeddle. There is logic behind it as both are struggles of "holy" against "evil". Zeq 05:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that the literal, rather than typical contextual meaning of "jihad" is more than merely "struggle", for example is there necessarily a connotation of righteousness? Further, is there necessarily a religious connotation? Finally, would you agree that what appears as of my last edit is truthful and NPOV, or not?Timothy Usher 06:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to say it in a delicate way so i will say something which is too broad, yet it is true:
There is no such thing as "literaly" in Arabic, there is meaning, sometimes to translate a word will take 10 words. Arabic is what linguistics call "highly compact langauge" Zeq 06:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Jihad is a term subject to change as is all of the Quran. This principle is called the "Law of Abrogation." This doctrine allows Muslims to change what the Quran says to suit what they want... originally, the Quran call for Jihad against none Islamists and only in the sense of "holy war." Check this site for facts on the whole issue. [[3]]

[edit] a note...

...must be added that these rules of war are seldom followed, atleast in the modern age. A cursory glance at the wars which involved Islamic nations in the recent past reveals that they don't. I could come with specific examples, but that would be pointing fingers. So would it be POV if one added that these "rules of war" is hardly given that much weightage as before given the impracticality of a few of the rules? Idleguy 08:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Prisoner's of War

"Men, women, and children may all be taken as prisoners of war under traditional interpretations of Islamic law. Generally, a prisoner of war could be (at the discretion of the military leader): freed, enslaved for the purposes of labor, or sold on the slave market. Female prisoners may be enslaved as concubines " It states in the Qu'ran that one should free slave's, the excrept above contradict's this. Im pretty sure that the POW's can only be used for manual labor, set free, or held for ransom, as long as they are treated humane. The part that "Women" prisoner's can be used as 'comcubines' is not only insulting to me, but inaccurate, it states in the 'Muhammud as a warrior' article that you should leave children, women, and the elderly alone. (I dont have any exact quotation's from the Qu'ran, so this "argument" is pretty weak)--71.116.65.241 21:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing mediation

There is currently an ongoing mediation involving the contents of this article. Anyone who has been involved in the recent disputes over this article's contents is requested to attend to help achieve consensus. --Cyde Weys 02:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There need s to be a total re-write of the "Prisoners" section

Firstly, its waaay too long,; needs to be summarised. Secondly, there needs to eb some sort of order given to it, which I will do soon.Bless sins 03:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


I've not gone through the original article, but to destroy someone else's work and replace it with pastes from IslamOnline.net is absurd. This is not even a remotely sincere use of wikipedia. Why not just a page redirect to a suitably pious site? At least that way you're not tricking the wiki user into thinking there is something new or objective here.
Timothy Usher 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Nothing has been destroyed , its all there in the article , with more information ( Quran, hadith, history) from Islamonline , which is a site that is run by people who are scholars on Islam . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 11:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
For the sake of your ease , here is the comparision , tell me what have I deleted or destroyed . [4] . Thanks . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 11:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
There is really nothing to discuss. IslamOnline own the copyright to the text that you insist on copy/pasting into this article, and there is nothing that indicate that they allow Wikipedia to use it under a GFDL license. Copyright violations is not appreciated or accepted here. But I think you know that, so stop this nonsens. -- Karl Meier 13:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The islamonline copy & paste is a copyvio and comprises about 60% of the article's text - this is ludicrous. Besides it contains ahistorical and outright uninformed statements. Just to mention a few:
  • "It is interesting to mention that when Muslims fought the Romans in Egypt...": No "Romans" were present anymore in that time, only Byzantines, called "Romans" by the Arabs of that era - and blatant laymen of today's.
  • "The Second World War for example was sparked by Germany's invasion of Poland, and drew into the fighting countries that were not direct parties to the conflict...": An apologetic, ahistorical tu quoque comparison, unsuitable for this subject.
The text copied is of poorest quality and a copyvio. F.a.y.'s comportment is unacceptable. --tickle me 13:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constant reverts by Timothy et al

My edits for NPOV and accuracy have constantly been reverted by Timothy Usher and a couple of other editors such as Karl Meier without so much as an explanation or even a comment here. This behavior is uncalled for and there are such things as "manners" and "etiquette." Furthermore I will no longer engage in senseless edit wars, but I do believe the introduction of other editors here is necessary, particularly those who are able to keep their POV in check. SouthernComfort 08:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article is lacking relevant scholarly information regarding this topic. Considering the scope of this subject, balance is key. That a couple of other editors oppose factual and neutral edits is very curious indeed. SouthernComfort 08:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, "mujahid" means "one who struggles" - "deen" means "religion" or "faith." 2+2 = ? SouthernComfort 08:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Dear SouthernComfort,
You are wrong to say there has been no comment. You are only now joining the discussion which I'd been asking you to join. Thank you for doing so.
So you are saying this word is a compound? Okay, then why not, "one who struggles for the [muslim] faith?" That would seem accurate.
Since you have added the totally disputed tag, what are you saying is disputed?
(please excuse my typo in the edit summary)
Timothy Usher 08:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Deen indeed mean religion (or law if we go to the naciant acadic origin of the word) but mujahdeen could be just "those who struggle" "those who fight". ('een' being just a sufix for plural) Zeq 08:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, Jeez, that's what I thought. Thank you.Timothy Usher 08:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've asked another editor to verify if my information is correct, as I could very well be wrong concerning "mujahideen." I don't think I am, however. But concerning "jihad" I believe quite strongly in the validity of my argument and this has been dealt with before in Talk:Jihad when BrandonYusefToropov was still around. "Jihad" as in "holy war" is not a correct translation, but an interpretation (it could legitimately be argued that it is an incorrect interpretation as well). SouthernComfort 08:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The issues with the rest of the article are numerous, clearly evident in the fact that scholarly sources have not been used to clarify these precise issues and present what is POV, as POV. SouthernComfort 08:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
SouthernComfort, your last edit, eliminating "Muslim" from context brackets on the translation, is fine with me. I'd get rid of the whole bracketed phrase - Zeq is right, it only means "those who struggle" - but though I am acting in good faith, as you see, I am mindful of the three-revert rule. It's not that big a deal.Timothy Usher 09:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Zeq didn't state that as fact. As for whether or not it's a big deal, you certainly seemed to think so whenever reverting me - without comment, I might add. If your interest here is in NPOV and factual accuracy, such reverts are certainly unusual, especially when done without bothering to explain or comment. This subject is already convoluted and sensationalized to an extreme in the popular media and it would be nice if WP articles could actually adhere to the actual meanings and classify interpretations as being what they clearly are. SouthernComfort 11:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POW

In section on POW, it says:

Other opinions include killing all prisoners (regardless of religion), or all killing all prisoners who are neither Muslim, nor Jewish nor Christian. These opinions are not endorsed by any of the popular school of Islamic jurisprudence.

The above facts are attested to by a number of scholarly sources coming from medieval and modern, Muslim and non-Muslim sources:

However, none of the sources given say this. I think it would be better to remove it unless it can be proved. Ackie00 03:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Rules

I've added moder rules of war, as declared by most of the OIC at the Cairo Decaration of Human Rights in Islam. This represents the opinion of the majoirty of Muslim states. I don't know why this is constantly being deleted (by Pecher).Bless sins 20:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

First, learn the correct name of the declaration that you're talking about; then, observe that the article is about Islamic law, not about a non-binding declaration. Please spare me the trouble of reverting these irrelevant insertions in the future. Pecher Talk 20:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is prepared by Muslim countries in a way to be in accordance with Islamic Law. --Aminz 20:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not a part of Islamic law, just a declaration that was not even ratified. Pecher Talk 20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam mentions that "The declaration was adopted on August 5, 1990 by 45 foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to serve as a guidance for the member states in the matters of human rights." --Aminz 20:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, so what? Pecher Talk 20:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
So, it represents the opinions of the vast majority (atleast 45 of 57 countries) of the Muslim World.Bless sins 03:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
This was a declaration on "Human Rights in Islam". It is prepared by Muslim countiries themselves in a way to be in accordance with Islamic Law. So, it is at least in accordance with "a" possible interpretation of Islamic Law. That's all we need to add this to the article. --Aminz 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
No, Islamic law is formed by the consensus of Muslim scholars, not by declarations of foreign ministers. Pecher Talk 21:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The intro of that article reads: "The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) is a declaration of the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which affirms Sharia — Islamic law — as the sole source of human rights." So, it is based on "a non-unpopular" interpretation of Islamic Law.
My POV is that "Islamic Law" by itself has not external existence; what has external existence is a series of interpretations of Islamic Law. The five schools of Law are of course five of the most important interpretations of Islam (that are actually interpretations of five persons.) And I do agree that an unpopular interpretation of "Islamic Law" should not mentioned in wikipedia. But if the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam was based on an unpopular interpretation of "Islamic Law", Islamic countries in which state and religion are not separated were opposing to it. Especially since it is declared to be based on Islamic Law. --Aminz 21:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Aminz, I just cannot understand your argument. Pecher Talk 21:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry for not expressing myself well. I am really swamped now (because of the school work) but will come back soon. Thanks --Aminz 22:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Aminz is trying to say that there is no such thing as ONE SINGLE "Islamic Law", there are only interpretations of it. Different people in different eras have interpreted it in various ways, hence the large "Prisoners of War" section. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is an interpretation of Islamic Law. It states the way majority of Muslims see their religion today. Bless sins 03:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Pecher, The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights is very much related to the Shariah, as explained by Aminz and I. Pls. stop giving the excuse "been there, done that", and actually discuss this issue.Bless sins 01:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Not so For the non relevant material please use the article about this exact subject. This is about Islam laws. Unrelated info will be removed. Zeq 09:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Correct, and the declaration, as it states, "affirms Sharia — Islamic law — as the sole source of human rights". Therefore the declaration is example of a modern interpretation by Muslims of the Islamic laws. Moreover, this interpretation is accepted by atleast 45 Muslim nations.Bless sins 10:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The Quran is a holi book. No one can replace it not even some declaertion of human rights. There is already an article on that declaration and your excellent contribution should be added to that article. Zeq 10:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
So you are saying that nothing but the Quran should be quoted? That would mean the removal of all those quotes in Rules of war in Islam# Prisoners of War section. Please reconsider what you have said.Bless sins 10:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The declaration represents the views of Muslim countries on Islam. That is why it is called "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam". Furthermore I don't need to repeat the fact that the decaration itself states that it "affirms Shariah - Islamic law...". The Declaration is also a popular one, ratified by atleast 45 Muslim countries. Does anyone have any arguments regarding this rationale.Bless sins 12:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm already tired of repeating that foreign ministers have no authority in setting or interpreting Islamic law, a point that you, Bless sins, have so far steadfastly refused to adrsess. If the declaration affirms sharia as the sole source of law, then it's one more reason to refer directly to sharia and bypass the declaration. Pecher Talk 13:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I too am tired with arguing with you. The foreign ministers were just representatives of their respective governments. (No foreign minister does anything contrary to the prime minister/king/president etc..) That is why the declaration starts with "The Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference...". The declaration was put togethor by the "State" not the foreign minister.
WHat right does the state have in interpreting Islamic Law?? Tell that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan etc.... where "Islamic Law" is part of the constitution and supposedly adhered to by the government. Infact, many Islamic countries have scholars to advise them on religious matters, (an example bieng Wahabbi scholars maintaining influence over Saudi Arabia).
Therefore this is not just a secular interpretation of Islamic Law, rather a popular belief amongst the majoirty of the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide.
Also, according to Dr. Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri*, "the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, issued by the 19th Islamic Conference of Foreign Affairs Ministers ... truly presents the view of Islam on human rights ".
  • He is the Director General of the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and his work has been recognized by Dr. Koïchiro Matsuura, the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.Bless sins 17:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken or the Egg??

This is a fairly heavy and deep discussion of a religious nature. Aren't all religions open to interpretation and therefore ongoing discussion and enlightenment? Can any one (or 1000) person(s) accurately decipher what the Author of such a work really meant? It's a good article.. I got the gist of it.. to argue any finer of a point might just be splitting hairs. I'm not Muslim but if I chose to be I'm sure I could argue a finer point as well. Does any one happen to know if there may be a Muslim council of such where questions may be posed and discussed and agreed upon.... or is the Koran written in stone? I'm not being facetious or ignorant, I truly do not know much and quest to change that.

A Muslim council? I'm sure there's at least one for every country claiming to implement Sharia. There are also many independent groups of scholars, for instance running fiqh websites. Its a bit more complicated than just reading the Quran on its own as the sayings and actions of our prophet also have to be taken into consideration.
Unlike Christianity there is no central institution in Islam. There's no equivalent to the Vatican for example. There are moderate institutions that would insist that a humane approach is always preferable and war is always to be avoided, but there are also extremists for whom warfare is the ends to which all else are means. Amibidhrohi 17:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
"Unlike Christianity there is no central institution in Islam. There's no equivalent to the Vatican for example." I guess misunderstanding and ignorance flow in two directions. There is no central institution in Christianity, either. And the Vatican is recognized as authoritative only by Roman Catholics. Orthodox Christians, for example, are as different from Roman Catholics as Shia are from Sunni. And Protestants are equally distinct. Notably, among various Protestant denominations, one will find both the most liberal and the most fundamentalist strains in Christianity. And, especially for fundamentalist Protestants, references to the Vatican as authoritative may be taken as fighting words.
-- Bob

[edit] Placing disputed content on talk page - proposal for mediation

In accordance with wikipedia policy I place this disputed content on talk page. I call both parties to file medaition on this issue.

The reason for the dispute is that there is already an article on this subject and it is impossible to accpt that even a group of 45 forign minsters can decide how to interprest Islam. Islam only comes from Quran and the words of the prophet.

[edit] the disputed content

Currently, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, accepted by the majority of Islamic countries signifies the stance of most Muslims on the treatment of humans in times of war.

Article 2 states:

"(b) It is forbidden to resort to such means as may result in the genocidal annihilation of mankind."

"(d) Safely from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. "

Article 3 states:

"(a) In the event of the use of force and in case of armed conflict, it is not possible to kill non-belligerents such as old men, women and children. The wounded and the sick shall have the right to medical treatment; and prisoners of war shall have the right to be fed, sheltered and clothed. It is prohibited to mutilate dead bodies. It is a duty to exchange prisoners of war and to arrange visits or reunions of the families separated by the circumstances of war."

"(b) It is prohibited to fell trees, to damage crops or livestock, and to destroy the enemy's civilian buildings and installations by shelling, blasting or any other means."

Zeq 06:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


There might be reasonable grounds to oppose mention of the Cairo Declaration (like that almost nobody knows it exists), but your reason isn't amongst them. Islamic law is derived from many sources, including the consensus of religious authorities (ijma), analogy to sunnah or qur'anic teachings (qisas), and the Qur'an and Sunnah directly. ALL of what's in the Cairo declaration comes from one of those sources, even though the document as a whole may not have been drafted by a religious authority. For me to add the scholarly basis for every individual article would constitute original research, so I'm not introducing that into the article. Nothing in the article is derived simply from the personal views of the 'foreign ministers' you speak of. On the matter of genocide, for instance, it's clear Islamic law that women, children and the elderly are not to be killed under any circumstance. Nor are those devoted to monastic service to be harshly treated. The bit on not destroying agricultural property of the enemy is also directly from Hadith. Amibidhrohi 16:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

you may disgaree with me but that is what the mediation is all about. After the mediation conculdes we will decide (together) what should be added to the page. Or, if we don't reach decision we will scalte this. Wikipedia operates by consensus and dispute resolution mechanisms. What you have done is impose your view. Please remove the disputed content. (or i can do it if you refuse). I hope that you will accept the mediation. Zeq 16:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with mediation. How exactly do I "file" mediation? You say that :"The reason for the dispute is that there is already an article on this subject..."

Response:so what?? Should this section be removed because there is already an article on the subject.

"...and it is impossible to accpt that even a group of 45 forign minsters can decide how to interprest Islam. Islam only comes from Quran and the words of the prophet."

Response:If Islam comes ONLY from Quran and words of Prophet, then pls. remove all the opinions of different scholars and maddhabs. AS long as the opinions of Islamic scholars remain, the Cairo Declaration (which represents the opinions of Islamic States) should also remain.


Also see my last response in this section.Bless sins 19:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Also note: the article Islam and anti-Semitism, contains sections such as Islam_and_anti-Semitism#Anti-Semitism_by_extremist_groups. How exactly do Hamas and Al-Qaeda (as mentioned in this section) represent Islam???Bless sins 19:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hamas is an Islamic movment, led by religious figures. This is why i did not remove also the part you wrote froma religious figure. But the forigen ministers have there own article. Zeq 19:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please remove the disputed content. Wikipedia opretae by consenus and discussion. let's go to mediation. Zeq 19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the request for mediation to make the issue at hand more clear. Please indicate your acceptance of the mediation here: the agreement of all the parties involved is required for the mediation to proceed. Pecher Talk 19:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Bless sins

Please note that while you continued the edit war , Pecher has accepted the request for mediation. I hope that you will remove the disputed content and join our mediation effort to resolve the dispute. Zeq 19:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

ZEQ, you have added:"However, this rule is not adheerede to by Islamic warriers (Mujahadeen in Iraq who riutinly beheading civilians hostages. [5],[6]". Question:Why is it OK for you to mention the actions of "Islamic warriers (Mujahadeen in Iraq", but not OK for me to mention the declaration representing the majority of the Muslim World?Bless sins 11:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You have added something about use of swords, surly you know how the muslim mujahadeen use swords in the name of Islam. Have you seen the Daniel Pearl beheading video where also while calling "Alla Hu Akbar" they behead him ? So if the rules prevent use of swords on an armed civilians it is important to show how applicabale are those laws. maybe you prefer to just remove all present day issues and keep this articvle to it's original form ?Zeq 14:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the amalgame you make between these terrorists and Muslims is offending ? Alithien 14:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
They are Muslims, they are obying Islam laws (as they see them) and they operate in the name of Islam. Zeq 14:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
What is worthy of notice is that the "terrorists" are "Muslims". They also "operate in the name of Islam."
On the other hand the declaration drafted by governments of 45+ Muslim nations (representing the vast majority of the Muslim World) is somehow unworthy of mentioning??? Why?Bless sins 21:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The declaration is a piece of paper without any validity, while terrorism is for real. Pecher Talk 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It is true that terrorism is action and delaration is just words, but words are more important than action. EX. Bible, quran, guru grant sahib etc. are all words (or pieces of paper but very powerful).

What you wrote is islamophobia. You should think about that. The fact there are muslim terrorist and terrorist that claim to defend islamic values do not mean that Muslims are terrorist or that Islam is a religion of war. Jewish genocided canaan nation. Does it mena they are all genocidar ? You behave like those who promoted Protocoles. You should think about that. Alithien 10:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read what was writen. It is not about muslims as a whole but about rule of war in islam. For that subject the behaviour of mujahadeen is legitimate. Nothing in the article or the talk page was about all muslims. Zeq 11:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
So the behaviour of some "Mujahadeen" is relevent, but the actions of 45 Muslim nations (in drafting a declaration) is not? Bless sins 14:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You have yet to respond-->.
In any case this article is about what the "Rules of war in Islam" are, not whether they are upheld or not.Bless sins 14:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
We are not here to judge, we are here to report. The application of "islam rule of war" by people who proclaim to represent Islam is naturaly applipable to this article. For NPOV you are free to bring examples in which these rules are actually respected and applied. Happy search. Zeq 16:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not Muslims apply some aspect of Islam in their lives, is not what this article is about. It is about what a rule of war in Islam is. It is also about how general muslim percieve what their religion teaches them. The "mujahadeen" could be doing what they do for whatever reason, perhaps at the order of secular Baathists. Only if some Muslims declare a rule of war in Islam (and are notable enough), only then does it become a rule of war.Bless sins 20:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I do think the cario declaration should get a few lines about it, including that it is not binding in any way. This declaration is about the rules of war that "should" be followed by these modern islamic states, so has some relivence in the bottom section of the artical.Hypnosadist 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, (finally someone agrees). However, you must realize that the laws of Islam aren't binding in anyway. If I don't do what the Quran says, no one can force me to, not in a secular western country anyways.Bless sins 10:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I also mostly agree with you. However the issue of whether the Cario (sp?) declaration is binding is an interesting one. While I'm not an expert on international law and haven't even read the Cario decleration article or the mention of it on this page, I believe technically if you've signed the declaration, it means you officially recognise the declaration and in that respect, it is binding (until you withdraw your recognition). However should you fail to follow the declaration, there is little that can be done, unless there is an existing international framework for dealing with those who fail to respect the declaration. But if you also subsequently ratify the the declaration, that is you introduce new laws or changes existing laws to ensure they are fully complaint with and fully recognise the declaration it should be binding in your country. Failure of the government (or other people) to abide by the laws of the country (which should include the details declaration if you've ratified it) is illegal, although obviously if the government does it and the courts are unwilling or unable to stop it, then not much can be done. Some similarities perhaps can be seen to the UDHR in that it is also binding. There is technically a framework to deal with those who fail to abide by it but obviously, the implementation of this framework has a lot of dispute. However a number of countries have enacted laws which in theory fully recognise all elements of the declaration. Although of course, the interpretation of the declaration and what is required to abide by it varies greatly. As said earlier, I don't know much about the Cario declaration but it would be interesting whether and how this declaration is recognised by the states that signed it... Nil Einne 15:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, I should add that in terms of the application, the actions of mujaheeden should only be a minority issue. AFAIK, no Muslim country has been involved in a formal war since the declaration was signed. The actions of these governments (and their soldiers etc) in war is of far more relevance then the actions of the mujaheeden. I'm not saying the actions of mujaheeden are completely irrelevant but we need to keep things in perspective. It would be wrong to point out the actions of mujaheeden if we fail to point out that these are only a minority. Talking of mujaheeden, we also need to keep things in perspective when it comes to them. Pointing out cases such as Daniel Pearl without considering the actions of other mujaheeden, and whether they support such actions would be quite wrong. Just because some people may do certain actions doesn't mean they are supported or considered acceptable behaviour by other people who go under the same banner. (For example, it would be wrong to say Americans don't respect the rules of war because of the Hadiytha incident alone). Also, we need to keep things in perspective in terms of what kind of climate they occured in. I don't personally think the actions of Bosnian Muslims or Checnya Muslims in war is of much relevance but should it be decided they are, we need to consider them in the climate they occured in...
The fact that neither the Cairo Declaration or the Sharia rule of war have any structure for implimentation is very important. It means they are effectivly meaningless bits of paper. Rules only count if they are enforced, these are apperantly not. Let it be understood that Muslims believe these rules will be enforced by GOD. I think that why these rules will not be enforced should be mentioned. As a second point should this artical be linked with the Geneva Convention in a comparison with ratification and enforcement.Hypnosadist 15:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The fatwas of scholars, and opinions of the ulema are also bits of paper, and they are rules that ae never enforced (except maybe in Iran and Saudi Arabia). Should we exclude from this article all opinions of Muslim scholars and limit it to the Quran and Hadith only???Bless sins 00:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It must be noted, by everyone, that delaration itself states,

The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.

Bless sins 17:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting info

One traditional opinion is that no prisoners of war may be executed; this is the most widely accepted view. This is upheld by the Hanafi Maddhab. However, the opinion of the Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali and Jafari Maddhabs is that adult, male prisoners of war may be executed at the discretion of the Islamic supreme leader, or those legally deputized by him.[citation needed] This opinion was also upheld by the medieval Muslim judge, Sa'id bin Jubair (665-714 AD). These opinions are the most widely held in the Muslim world.

There are two conflicting claims here. One says that the most widely accepted view is that no POWs may be executed. The other says that the most widely held view is that that adult, male POWs may be executed at the discretion of the Islamic supreme leader or those deputised by thim. Neither of these is cited/referenced and as such, I suggest both of these be removed. (In any case, I'm skeptical of such claims, how exactly do you get an idea of what is the most widely accepted view with such a complex issue for such a large, widespread and heterogynous population). We should of course leave discussion of the known viewpoints. Nil Einne 15:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

These contradictory claims for most muslim opinion should be deleated, leaving the factual information on which schools of sharia say.Hypnosadist 15:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which quotes need citations?

So, which quotes need ciatitions? Place them here (with an indication to the section they are in), and I will try to back them up with sources. Even better, put [citation needed] tags in the article where you think a ciation is needed, and i'll provide a ciatation or remove the quote.Bless sins 12:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you cite a book, always provide page numbers; otherwise, the citation is useless because it cannot be verified by other editors. Pecher Talk 12:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of interest

I served 5 years active duty in the US Army, and I'm interested in ethical issues. A chief tenet of Western ethics is not to hurt helpless people: like POWs; surrendering troops; women, children and other non-combatants. Of course, it gets messy when enemies use civilian labor (do you bomb the weapons factories?) or hide among civilians (No Gun Ri incident is still page protected).

In light of the huge worldwide protests over US treatment of enemy combatants from Afghanistan and Iraq - and the "barely a whimper" over Saddam's treatment of his own civilians (ears and tongues cut off, women raped, Kurds gassed, etc.) many readers likely be interested in a comparison and contrast between Western and Islamic perspectives on the laws of war or military ethics.

It seems everyone expects America to be 10 times better than anyone else, which is actually not hard because its enemies are many thousands of times worse! --Uncle Ed 20:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, WIKI is neither a chat room nor a forum; if you have guilty conscience and want to discuss it, you better take it to a chat room or forum where people will be more than happy to answer you appropriately.
Thanks. Kiumars
-Kiumars you seemed like a fair and logical person at first, but reading this i've changed my mind. This man voiced his opinion on Western ethics and those of Afghanistan and Iraq, which you may disagree with. So you told him to take his feelings and comments elsewhere, understandably, the tone is quite ethnocentric and anti-islamic.
But then you implied that he committed war crimes with your "if you have guilty conscience" comment. That's not only incredibly insensitive, but bitter and mean-spirited. Qa Plar

I plead guilty to ethnocentrism, but I actually have nothing against Islam. I'm just as much opposed to Christian ethical violations as I am to Muslim ones.

But actually my comments were about the article. I would like to know more about Muslim ethics in general, as well as how Islam regards war. Like most Americans, I know nothing about concepts like jihad (it means Muslims kill anyone who won't convert?) but I feel I have a fairly good understanding of Islamic laws of hospitality: Muslims must not kill anyone had as a guest under their roof, provided food and drink.

How have modern Islamic states, such as Iraq and Iran, treated POWS such as downed American pilots? Better or worse than Americans treated uniformed POWs in either of the Gulf Wars? Or how about compared to Guantanamo? --Uncle Ed 00:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Howdie Ed.I think the big role that the US assumes in the World, particularly it's domination relative to other countries in the UN, has the World in response having high expectations of the US. It isn't necessarily a different perspective on what constitutes moral behavior. In Islamic rules of warfare, one isn't to take a life out of anger, and this is reflected in a tradition in which Ali (Muhammad's nephew) forced himself to refrain from killing a man whom he defeated in battle, simply because he realized that anger would motivate his action. Of course, Saddam isn't much of a Muslim. For whatever reason, there's an atmosphere of chaos and apathy in many of the Arab states. Maybe it's a vacuum left after European control, who knows. It's politics, not religion. His Excellency... 15:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Hi Uncle Ed in june of 2004 eight british servicemen were arrested and held for a few days by the security services in Iran. He are some links that should give you the info you want. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3834723.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3855251.stm hope that helps you.Hypnosadist 14:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Hypnosadist. I read both web pages. Seems like a routine border incident, taking place in peacetime. The blindfold thing is technically a violation (Geneva Convention doesn't allow "display of prisoners" like that, right?) but otherwise the troops don't seem to have been mistreated.
Does Wikipedia have an article on border incidents or border incursions? --Uncle Ed 16:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I would not call it peacetime exactly, it was a very tense situation with us being "illegaly" in Iraq, could have gone pear shaped real quick and real nasty.Hypnosadist 17:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I meant peace between UK and Iran. --Uncle Ed 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone. (You too Ed.) Ive volunteered to mediate for this article, but I see that Ed has jumped in and helped out. Im doing some background reading, and will chime in when I think I understand enough more. But my first impression of the general topic is that the problem seems to break down into familiar dualities/paradoxes:

  • One, the common interest in establishing a common (international, global, universal) law, versus the local interest in maintaining local dominance.
  • Two, the local (ie. Western culture) formulation, definition, and description of "common" law, versus a different local (Islamic culture) formulation, definition, and description of "common" law.

Note that the real difference between these is the difference in language and their relative differences in their concept of language expressiveness. The basic "human rights" disagreement itself, though influenced by religious concepts, does not appear to be religious in nature and instead seems to be simply an issue of translation. But if its simply an issue of how to include a particular formulation of the human rights concept, then there is no debate, as our doctrines are inclusive -- provided a sufficient context is applied. If there is disagreement with this, or with the basic concept of religion as belonging to particular local human beings, groups, and cultures and not the other way around (ie. all are charachters in some particular religious story), then those are differences with the community's policy itself, best discussed at wikien). I will try to catch up on discussion. -Ste|vertigo 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which is the "lesser?"

In the lede, it says:

"The rules of war in Islam are the basic religious laws of war governing the military conduct of the mujahideen [those who engage in Islamic holy war–jihad ("struggle")]. These rules are part of a broader Islamic military doctrine encompassed by what some Muslims call "Lesser Jihad."

The text above appears to state that the "broader" doctrine is the "lesser." Forgive my ignorance of this custom, but, it seems that the "broader" concept should be the greater. In English, "broad" carries the connotation of being larger, more expansive, more relevant to more people and therefore more... great.

This text is also confusing in that as I understand the concept, "holy jihad" is a battle of spirit, and not one of hostility. The text seems to be referring to two concepts of military jihad and though it uses the term "holy", it does not seem to refer to the jihad of spirit. Is that correct? The concept of "lesser" seems to imply "one which is less holy," wheras the concept of "holy" is presumably the more important concept. The text is confusing, as it appears to refer to the "broader" as the "lesser," and to the lesser as the "holy." Can someone explain this in clearer terms? I think this would go a long way toward improving the article and clearing up the debate. -Ste|vertigo 18:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vertigo, there are two types of jihad, "lesser" and "greater", both are holy to Muslims. Lesser concerns struggling/fighting/working in the physical world to make it better and Greater concerns the internal/mental/spiritual struggle to be better/more holy. Jihad translates best as struggle hence why I used it, and should show the meaning as best as possible. Hope that helps you. Hypnosadist 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
PS the lesser in the name indicated the more base physical world not a definite value judgement. The realm of the spirit being Greater, this I think caries over from Zoroastrianism.Hypnosadist 18:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Well that would clear things up - if that were in the lede, and if in fact that was the broadly accepted definition. Again were are in the language paradox here, where the use of "holy" to apply to both spiritual and material world struggles would seem to basically apply to 'anything anywhere as long as its struggling.' Im not sure thats the proper distinction, if matters of spirit are indeed regarded as "Greater" than matters of matter. Im not sure if we want to get into Zoroastrianism here - its complicated enough to try to deal with its historical influence on Judaism and Christianity. (!) Im off to read some more Mencken and maybe some Rumi. -Ste|vertigo 19:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam is the religion.

hello friends. I just want to inform you, that Islam wasnt always respected by Muslims. this topic explains how the war SHOULD be according to Islam (the religion). what actually happened or what the "Muslims" did is often totally different.

you think that the facts are different from what is said on this topic? then it's normal. there is indeed a huge difference between what have done the Muslims and what they should have done as Muslims.

think again, we are not talking about facts here, but about what the religion asks to do in such conditions. and it's pretty clear not?

This article is about what islam says should be the rules and it does that, it also provides the islamic reasons some muslims give to "get around" these rules. In fact new fatwas of Al-Qaeda that shia's are apostates and christians are no-longer people of the book because they believe in the Trinity and so are polytheists should also be noted.Hypnosadist 14:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I disagree, this article should be on the traditional Sunni and Shia Islamic fiqh of war, not what Muslims have done (which is usually not even claimed in the name of Islam - e.g. Saddam vs the Kurds or vs Iran), and not what a lone, fringe, and excommunicated sect (al-Qaida et al) say or do. That is a different article which possible belongs in al-Qaida or Takfiri. Using Al-Qaida etc in this article is like using the Branch_Davidians to describe christian views on a particular topic Aaliyah Stevens 14:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

excommunicated!!!!! i can't even comment on that statement without violating policy so i won't.Hypnosadist 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No that is not correct. This article is about what the scholars say about Islam and warfare. If an al-quida member is a scholar, they can be included. Same thing with scholarly critics of Islam. But only scholars.--Sefringle 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Female Slaves and Sex

it's ok now i have changed sex to marriage, it's written marriage in quran also not sex,some bastard have written. The Wiki article [7] says it is allowed for a master to have sex with his female slave. If this is incorrect then corrections need to be made to both articles. NN 04:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nayan, you need to source any edits to secondary reliable sources. I will not remove the statement you inserted but will tag it. Please find a reliable secondary source that says this and add it soon.Bless sins 00:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Wiki policy says primary sources are acceptable as "descriptive", which is exactly what the sentence is. If you say "we don't use primary sources" you are setting your own standard, not Wiki's. If you tag the sentence you are challenging the primary source, which doesn't make sense as the link is provided. NN 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Nayan this is a true fact, though most people would naturally find it so shocking that they think it is vandalism/inaccurate as you did. Female prisoners of jihad can be enslaved as sex slaves and such acts of rape are not considered to be infidelity if one is married. Also the use of primary sources is one of the biggest arguments in the whole "islam" area on wikipedia, i support there much heavier use as most secondary sources are muslim theologians and as such biased.Hypnosadist 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hypnosadist thanks for agreeing with me. I can't understand Blessed sins position. The Wiki policy on primary sources says clearly "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge". It seems to me that the sentence I put in there was in complete conformity with this. If you believe I am correct you can revert the edit. Regards, NN 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Done, this is a very clear verse. Hypnosadist 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
PS this is likely to be reverted! Remember wp:3rr and that you have equal rights on here to make good faith reverts. Hypnosadist 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. I try to stay well within the 3RR. I find all kinds of inaccuracies or attempts to suppress truths. For example, though I am a huge admirer of the ancient Greeks, I am also currently engaged in trying to have a reference to Sparta as a "world power" removed. And a few editors over there think I must be Muslim! NN 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see this. The section says "The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted." Similarly any verse in the Quran can be interpreted in different ways. Thus please find a secondary source.Bless sins 15:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
We are not saying the Koran or Muhammad advocated anything. We are saying this is what the translations say. As the specific translations have been mentioned, it is proper use of primary sources. NN 15:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of noting the translations? Ultimately the only reason we consider the translations is to note what the Quran actually says. In any case, if your argument that Islam justifies rape etc. is valid, why are you haivng such a hard time finding a scholar that explicitly says this?Bless sins 15:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason we are not looking for secondary sources is because we are not interested in interpretations of the Koran. We are interested in what the actual Koran says, which is fine by Wiki's policy of using primary sources as long as it is descriptive. If you wish to add interpretations from secondary sources, that is fine, but do not remove material from primary sources that are consistent with Wiki policy. NN 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If wish to quote the Quran then we must do that exactly. Quote it verbatim. In any case can you show that this verse is indeed related to prisoners of war and military jurispudence. I have already given to you the bible example. We can't interpret the verse of the Quran. It is OR.Bless sins 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Bless sins don't be silly you know as well as i that anyone who says the the truth about islam is islamophobic. Hypnosadist 19:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Think about what you just said. We should talk again after you adopt a more civil behaviour geared towards solving the problem instead of creating more.Bless sins 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the Wiki policy on primary sources does not say it has to be verbatim. Check for yourself if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources . What it needs to be is accurate. If a primary source says "John looked up and saw a blue sky" I can write it as "John saw a blue sky on looking up". This is fine though not verbatim. If I write "John saw a red sky on looking up" that would be a wrong use of a primary source. So only way in which you can challenge my use of a primary source is if I describe it to be something it is not. As I refer to 3 translations, I am naturally going to write it once what they report, rather than repeating myself 3 times. Accept the truth, the Koran is being reported accurately. If you cannot accept the truth, then I cannot help you. NN 20:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll repeat myself: look at the bible example wikipedia gives. Your edits are clearly violating the message conveyed by that example.Bless sins 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Just your saying so doesn't prove anything. If you offer objective proof and explanation of how my edits "are clearly violating the message" then I will agree with you. NN 23:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
(Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) is a metaphor, thats why its used as an example of when you can't use a primary source. If you don't know the bible you probably don't know why that particular verse was picked Bless sins. Hypnosadist 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll repeat "The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted." Thus the Quran cannot be used as a source for the claim that Islam advocates sex with prisoners (...), because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted.
To Hypnosadist: the Quranic verses in question are also possibly a metaphor. You need to show with RS that these verses are taken literally in Islam and not otherwise.Bless sins 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Its patently not a metaphor its a list of whom it is legal for the prophet to wed and how many, the end of the verse talks about whom the believers may have as their wives. Here's the quote below;

033.050 YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Bless sins find me one source (not even up to full wikistandards) that says this a metaphor not a legal tract writen in plain arabic. Hypnosadist 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The beauty of wiki policy is that I don't have to find you anything. On the contrary, you are under the burden to provide sources to support your POV. WP:ATT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."Bless sins 05:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins your bad faith use of wikipolicies is very boring now, you know its not a metaphor and i'm not going to waste my time even looking for sources that say that. Hypnosadist 09:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're required to abide by wiki policies regardless of my faith. Since you make it clear that you are not about to provide sources, then I shall remove your claims.Bless sins 02:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins wrote "You need to show with RS that these verses are taken literally in Islam and not otherwise." WRONG. The text does not say that "Koran says this, and this it is taken literally". The text only says "Koran says this". If you wish you can add text saying that the "Koran is not taken literally" provided you have references saying so. Of course there are enough Muslim clerics who believe that is a cop out, and the Koran should be taken literally. NN 04:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I once again point you to the bible reference used in WP. You need a reliable source to show how Muslim interpret this verse.Bless sins 04:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And once again I repeat to you, the text is not about "how Muslims interpret this verse". The text is an accurate description of what the translations say, so it is permitted under Wiki policy. The text is not about "how Muslims interpret the verse". NN 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is. Your statement reads "It is lawful to have extramarital sex with those "that your right hand possess" (women captives) according to the translations of the Quran ". THus you are saying that the Quran says it is lawful... You need secondary sources for that.Bless sins 04:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying the "Quran says it is lawful". I am saying "translations of the Quran by x, y and z says it is lawful". That is a descriptive statement. NN 04:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

When I first read this paragraph about "sex with captives" I wondered what this has to do with "jurisprudence". Anyway, as a jurist and one of the main editors of the law article, who wrote almost entirely the part about islamic law, I was intrigued by the whole issue, and tried to look at some sources. One book I found in Googlebook and looks very interesting is "The Position of Women in Islam" by Mohammad Ali Syed. In page 35 I read, "Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1946) says that 'those whom your right hand possesses' refers to captives of religious war, or wars led by righty-guided leaders against the persecutors of faith. This is why, pines Yusuf Ali, the previous marriage of these female captives are dissolved and they become eligible for marriage with their Muslim captors. Yusuf Ali's opinion on this matter is supported by 4:24".
According to the above analysis by a secondary source, and the explaining Yusuf gives to his own translation, I think that it is inaccurate just to say that "Islam allows extra-marital sex with captives according to translations of Quran ..." etc. The editor of this section should clarify that according to (at least some these) translators, the marriage of these captives is regarded by Islam as dissolved (and the relation is not regarded as extra-marital) and, that is why sex is allowed. Otherwise, the "legal" (if we accept that there is a legal aspect) analysis is incomplete and inaccurate. This further explanation is thus IMO necessary, and, since interest in this issue has been expressed by NN who laudably tried to analyse the whole issue, it would be also nice if the same editor could try to make the relevant section a bit less stubby. Its current status is encyclopedically "ugly".

Hence, my opinion is: a) cite secondary sources as I did (it is not that difficult to find them, you know - research in Google Book is a convenience), b) don't rely only on the vague argument "trnslations of Quran", c) provide further explanation of this expert, d) clarify that for Islamic religion marriage of captive women is regarded as dissolved - otherwise the current reference is IMO incomplete, lacking the necessary scholar backing, and possibly one-sided not quoting the Islamic interpretation of the whole matter.--Yannismarou 09:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What you say about "extramarital" is true. I stand corrected and am changing the article accordingly. Islam indeed regards the previous marriage dissolved. A more accurate way would be to say that Islam regards the previous marriage dissolved, but with or without the woman's consent. That is it enables the man to avoid having sex to a woman not married to him (which no doubt Islam regards as a sin) by saying she is no longer married, but her consent in this is not material. I believe in matters of sex it is always important to discuss whether it has the woman's consent or not. To say otherwise is to say that rape is not a crime.
I also agree that "sex" is blunt, maybe "sexual intercourse" is more suitable. NN 14:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As for primary and secondary sources, there are a few issues. While the primary sources are few in number (translations) the secondary sources are numerous. If all secondary sources are to be given then the article would become huge. Hence summarizing of secondary sources is necessary and opens much argument about whether they are accurate or not. Primary sources as long described accurately seem to serve a useful purpose. So I would say that an informative article would rely on both primary and secondary sources. It is useful to tell the reader what X, Y and Z think the Koran means. It is also useful to tell him/her what the Koran actually says. I understand that many editors (particularly those sympathetic to Islam) believe that the only proper way to look at the Koran is through the interpretations of "scholars", but I do not agree with that, nor is that required by Wiki policy. NN 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that these changes are to the correct direction, and it is nice to see such a rational attitude by editors in Wikipedia. I also hope that those involved this section will improve it, by researching, and then expanding it, properly citing it, and "washing" it from its current stubbiness (it would be nice to know, for instance, why such relations are not regarded as "extra-marital" by the Islamic religion, and it would be nice to have this explanation in the section in question). I hope that those interested in the improvement of this section and, of course, of the whole article will proceed to these encyclopedically necessary additions.--Yannismarou 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Yannismarou, I appreciate your enabling me to correct the error I made about "extramarital". I had mistakenly thought the word to mean "between those not married" rather than the correct "between those married to others". NN 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


It may be a good thing to break up articles on Islam into two parts: 1) Primary Sources: This is what the Koran says according to translations 2) Secondary Sources: This is the meaning of the Koran according to "scholars", "theologians", "experts" etc. Surely both provide information to the reader and are allowed by Wiki policy. Also the reason I included "translations of Koran" in the text was to clearly identify which primary source was being used, so that there would be no controversy or allegations that I was offering my personal interpretations. NN 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
NN, the article is fine as it is. I see you still have not provided any secondary soruces per wiki policy. As time passes by, I am getting more and more convinced that perhaps you don't have a secondary source for the POV you are imposing. Please insert your statements only after finding a source.Bless sins 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
For some reason you seem to believe that according to Wiki policy secondary sources ONLY are acceptable, primary sources are not. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources. It says "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge". So what exactly is your problem with my edits? NN 21:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
For the nth time, look at the Bible example! You can't use a religious scripture to further a POV. You may definetly use a secondary source to do that. The fact that you can't find a secondary source that furthers the POV you are trying to insert, means that not too many people agree with you.Bless sins 19:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Its an F'n metaphor thats why that verse is used, aaargggh! There is no need for secondary sources for a clear list of who the prophet(1st list) and his followers(2nd list) can marry. One is a list of legally defined states of being such as Ma malakat aymanukum and the other is a discriptive metaphor that most (but not all) scholars agree is not allowing sin to go on in front of you, as opposed to the schizophrenic's who often (and i do mean that) rip thier own eyes out because they have seen a sinful act. Hypnosadist 12:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1) You vulgar language violates WP:CIVIL. 2) Please find RS that say that the bible verse is a metaphor, but the quran verse isn't, and can be quoted without nay theological interpretation. Until then the quote stays out.Bless sins 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Help me out here. "Jurispridence" implies a judicial assessment, does it not? Why exactly are we excluding such assessments from this section? Would we really insist that only English-language Bible verses be cited to explain technical points at, say, College of Cardinals? BYT 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your question needs to be viewed in context. Maybe before your question is answered you could answer why you persistently delete descriptive material from primary sources, i.e. translations of the Koran. NN 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistently? I think I've made two three edits on this section.

You may view Marmaduke Pickthall's translation of the Qur'an as a primary source, but no qualified Islamic scholar on the face of the earth does.

Howsabout we quote (translations of) the Qur'an in addition to actual jurisprudence -- which is, I believe, the stated topic of the article? BYT 12:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. Using the Quran in addition to reliable secondary sources woiuld be good.Bless sins 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I also agree. Both primary and secondary sources are useful sources for creating an article that gives an accurate picture to the reader. NN 07:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance tag

I tagged the section "Commencing hostilities" with balance because is very POV pushing and one sided.--Sefringle 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please outline the exact problems with the section. Also quote the relevent wiki policy that the content violates.Bless sins 17:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
"Islamic jurisprudence prohibits surprise attacks and invasions. The Quran[16] commands Muslims to make a proper declaration of war prior to taking military action against trangressing enemies. However, this rule is not binding if the adversary has already started the war. The Quran had similarly commanded Muhammad to give his enemies, who had violated the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, a time period of four months to reconsider their position and negotiate.[18]Javed Ahmad Ghamidi writes in his book Mizan that after Muhammad and his Companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam. The only valid basis for Jihad through arms is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. Islam only allows Jihad to be conducted by a Government[19] with at least half the power of the enemy.[20][21][22] Some Islamic scholars consider the latter command only for a particular time.[23]"

This is all POV. It presents the pro-Islam bias, but not the anti-Islam bias See WP:NPOV#Bias. The balance tag is there for that reason. --Sefringle 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

According to NPOV all sources have bias. Our job is to present all biases. Firstly, how do we know that anti-Islam bias (sourced to reliable sources) exists in the first place. What if no serious scholar has criticized Islam (in this particular field)? In order to show that there is an alternate POV, would require your to present that POV. BUt once you find that POV you can add it in the article, and thus the POV tag would be useless. In anycase, the POV tag should not be there. The POV tag would be well suited if you were prevented from adding alternate POVs.
BTW, I am removing the POV tag from the header, as one POV tag (specific to the section of alleged POV) is enough.Bless sins 17:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In no Islamic country, and at no historical point of Sharia law, has Qur'an been sole source of jurisprudence

Please append appropriate supporting legal judgments when you reference legal opinions in this article. This is an article about JURISPRUDENCE, not about non-Muslim interpretations of the Qur'an. BYT 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a basic problem I see with many editors. The distinction between "Muslim" and "non-Muslim" interpretations. As per Wiki policy both are equally valid. This is a very good thing to keep in mind. NN 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Presumably you feel an "Indonesian interpretation" of War Powers Act of 1973 would be of equal importance to an "American interpretation" of legal principles in that article? Presumably you feel that a discussion of Indonesian principles of warfare should be granted equal weight there within an article section dealing with the constitutionality of the War Powers Act? BYT 18:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Generally speaking analogies prove nothing. They are at best illustrative, to help understanding. Your "Presumably you feel" is a presumption, and in fact incorrect as I have no opinion on War Powers Act of 1973. The fact remains that "non-Muslim" interpretations are not invalid as per Wiki policy. I am not saying a case cannot be made for excluding "non-Muslim" interpretations, but not under Wiki policy. NN 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Missed your answer here. Can a case be made, under Wiki policy, for excluding Indonesian interpretations of American law in articles that focus only on American law? A simple yes or no will do. BYT 19:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Define "Indonesian" interpretation? If you mean an interpretation by an "Indonesian" then the answer is No, a case cannot be made. NN 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on whether it is necessary to cite judicial sources in this article

[8] BYT 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a more appropriate way to ask the question would be "Can the Koran be cited/quoted?" I think BYT is arguing that quoting/citing/describing the Koran without an accompanying "judicial source" is improper. NN 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not at all an appropriate description of what's under dispute here. No one in this discussion is arguing against including citing the Qur'an, which is what your proposed question implies. Question is whether it is necessary, in an article about jurisprudence, to actually, you know, quote jurisprudence when making a point. BYT 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You miss the "Islamic" when you talk only of "Jurisprudence" in "Islamic Jurisprudence". That is what makes describing what the Koran says or does not say appropriate. NN 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • With respect, you seem to miss the "Islamic" when you avoid citing any opinion from any recognized Islamic authority. Is it because you think your opinion about what the Qur'an says is more relevant than theirs?
  • I thought the Koran would qualify as a "recognized Islamic authority". Also it is not "my opinion" of what the Koran says, it *is* what the Koran says. I am only describing. NN 19:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Would your opinion of the meaning of the Magna Carta be more relevant than a scholar of the Magna Carta?
  • See above. NN 19:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why are you so squeamish about quoting judicial authorities in this article, or indeed making any discenrably specific reference to any one of them, given what this article is about?
  • Maybe I don't want my brain addled by reading too many "scholarly" opinions. The Koran seems sufficient for my purposes. NN 19:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you believe to constitute "Islamic jurisprudence," exactly, if it's not the opinions and precedents of judicial authorities? BYT 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It is indeed all that, but the Koran is also relevant. NN 19:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you respect the Koran, why are you working so hard to hide what it says or doesn't say about a slave woman's consent to sex? NN 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Re: your "not wanting your brain addled by too many 'scholarly' opinions" -- if that is the case I want to respecfully suggest that Wikipedia may not be the project for you.
  • Re: "the Qur'an is also relevant" -- of course it is, and I'm not saying, and have never said, the Qur'an is not "relevant" -- I'm saying that you appear to envision a variety of "jurisprudence" that relies only on the Qur'an. Citing verses from it independent of Sharia is, in this article, wholly inappropriate. Yet that's what your edit pattern is showing -- despite repeated attempts here on the talk page to actually get the article to focus on its stated topic, namely, Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., precedent) with regard to warfare. BYT 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "respecfully suggest that Wikipedia may not be the project for you." Is there a Wiki policy saying that an editor needs to read a minimum number of "scholarly" opinions, or did you just make that up? NN 07:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Point, which I can't imagine you didn't grasp, is that this article is about "scholarly opinions." That's what Islamic law is based on -- the opinions of judges and scholars. If you don't want to clutter your mind with their opinions, this is not a good article to work on.
  • Now then -- I have offered a citation demonstrating Islamic jurisprudence requiring consent from females captives before sexual activity takes place. Will you remove same when I reinsert it, and insist that the article focus, not on judicial precedent, but on whatever Qur'anic verses you select? If so, I believe our next stop here will be mediation. BYT 12:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why I have to explain the same point repeatedly. The Koran is a valid primary source. Whether some citation by someone who is not Muhammad says that "consent from females captives before sexual activity takes place" does not invalidate or make irrelevant what the Koran says. Mediation would be good. NN 13:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


But here's the problem -- you're not talking about what the Koran says, but what it doesn't say -- and (as I have just turned up in research) you are fast-forwarding what it actually does say about this topic.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 6, Number 2304:
Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity)."

That's referencing Qur'an 24;33, by the way. Can you clarify for me, given the above citation, how you believe the passage under dispute in the article should read? (As in , what sequence of words would you recommend putting in the article?) This is, I think, a clearly focused and relevant question for you, NN. Perhaps if it can be addressed directly mediation won't be necessary. BYT 13:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The qur'an alone is not a valid primary source for wikipedia. The qur'an does not say anything on its own. People interprit it. It is full of contradictions, and can easily be interprited as saying something else. For purposes on wikipedia, provide a secondary source that agrees with your interpritation. Otherwise it is WP:OR. See here.--Sefringle 23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Like, for instance, the hadith I just quoted above? BYT 00:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
yes. alone, it is WP:OR.--Sefringle 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle wrote "The qur'an alone is not a valid primary source for wikipedia." Can you clarify why this is not so? I understand that you say that "it is full of contradictions". But this is what Wiki policy says specifically about primary sources "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." Note that it doesn't say anything like the primary source should not be self-contradictory. It appears that you are setting a special standard for the Koran. Has there been any prior vote, mediation, arb com etc. which has decided that the use of the Koran as a primary source is invalid? I think this is an important question as it affects many Islam related articles. Would you, for example, want to exclude a direct quote from the Koran because it "is not a valid primary source"? NN 06:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
We both understand that we are not trying to just randomly quote the quran in this article. We are writing an encyclopedia. To talk about what the quran says about Islamic military jurisprudence is to interprit the qur'an. And as you said the policy says about primary sources, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source."--Sefringle 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You need not to burden me with your "understanding", that is speak only for yourself and not me. There are two obvious problems with your position:
  • Who is to decide what is "randomly quote"? Apparently you believe that the disputed text is that, however there has to be an objective standard.
  • You write "To talk about what the quran says about Islamic military jurisprudence is to interprit the qur'an." To quote is to interpret? Interesting!
NN 02:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the disputed text is "descriptive" and "can be verified by a non-expert". To help come to a resolution of this matter I am offering a compromise of changing the text "There is no mention in the Qu'ran for the master to require consent of the female captive for sex" to "The Qu'ran does not address the issue of the master requiring or not requiring a slave woman's consent to sex". If you find this insufficient we should move on to other means of dispute resolution like mediation and arb com. Please also see the discussion between Grenavita and me on the same subject at [9]. NN 05:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request made

Those who said they were open to mediation should accept the opportunity to engage in it to resolve this matter. [10]

Please do not insert text for which there is no consensus. Please do not insert text that does not cite actual jurisprudence. BYT 08:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fine, use Arlandson -- at least he's an external source

Arlandson is not a reliable source, searching religious text for reason to attack is does not make you a scholar. Read his work, and follow what he covers. He is more than "bias", James Arlandson bases his opinion on anything he can find to feed his anger and hate. This is obvious when you read the rest of his papers. James shows absolutely no criticism of his own religion, and has no positive view of Islam.

Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for attacking a religion you oppose, there is not related text to offer an alternative view, because it is not a subject, or part of the religion.

James Arlandson writes articles and blogs on several websites such as, answering-islam.org, www.americanthinker.com, www.muslimhope.com,www.islam-watch.org, www.jihadwatch.org, and www.dinocrat.com, all with a similar anti-Islam theme. Many other site like, theamericanmuslim.org, www.quransearch.com, www.muslim-responses.com, offer Rebuttal to the articles written by James Arlandson. James Arlandson does not offer an objective view of Islam as a scholar, he in fact aggressively searches for anything offensive in Islam, while at the same time feverishly defends Christianity, as seen in all his "articles", and noted by his students..


http://www1.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=539179 Mt. San Jacinto College:Philosophy 12/7/06 phil104 "A good teacher if you want an easy class, not so good if you want to learn about religions. I found him a bit to biased, presenting a Christian point of view rather than an objective one. I wouldn't recomend him unless you are looking for an easy filler class."

http://www1.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=867557 Riverside Community College: Humanities 8/25/06 Hum10 "Attend class,complete homework,study a bit = A! This teacher wants ALL his students to Pass & He is extremely Helpful. You won't know everything about Religion after this class, but a better understanding."

http://www1.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=643123 Riverside Community College - Moreno Valley Campus: English 8/15/05 ENG "If you are a good writer but concerned about grammar and the rules, take this teacher. He will teach you how to write a academic paper. He's very very laidback, really funny, not too strict. He's often late to class. Really cool, take him."


http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/10/slavegirls_as_sexual_property.html " The Quran in Sura 23:5—6 says:

5 [Most certainly true believers] . . . guard their private parts scrupulously, 6 except with regard to their wives and those who are legally in their possession, for in that case they shall not be blameworthy. (Sayyid Abul A'La Maududi, The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 3, p. 237)

The key words are 'those who are legally in their possession.' Maududi (d. 1979) is a highly respected commentator on the Quran, and he interprets the plain meaning of the clause, saying that sex with slave—girls is lawful. "

The claim of the key words here, is only an attempt to justify Maududi's interpretation and distracts from the huge jump he makes in his claim from "guard their private parts scrupulously" to "sex with slave-girls".


Sura 24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/why_i_write_hardhitting_articl.html

The roots of his studies, expose his bias view. James Arlanson: "Maybe a few readers wonder why I bother to write about Islam. After all, 9/11 is so long ago." ..."Before 9/11, I had not paid much attention to Islam"

Conflict of Interest. James Arlandson:"Why I write hard-hitting articles on Islam"... "Christianity must be defended and explained."..."The New Testament disagrees, so I disagree. That's why I write my articles."

Bias Spin. James Arlandson:"Two Muslim scholar—apologists are inaccurate when they assert"... "In contrast, the widely respected historian and Islamologist W. Montgomery Watt paints a more accurate picture"

James Arlandson:"...ALL of Islam must be exposed to the world, and so must biased and tendentious Muslim scholarship that shaves off the unpleasant aspects of this religion with the possible goal of converting unsuspecting seekers."

James Arlandson is very quick to attack Islam while he ignores and "shaves off the unpleasant aspects" in his own religion.

Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

Deuteronomy 20:13 "And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoils thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself;..."

Dr. Ingrid Mattson (isnapresident@isna.net) is an actual scholar of Islam, maybe you can get her opinion.

Get a clue people, you need to research these topic that you're discussing. James Harold.

Just make sure the text you insert describes why his opinion should be regarded as notable here. Let's work from there. (He's certainly not the only voice on this issue, but at least he's talking about jurisprudence. Kind of.)

You're right, it's not a blog. He is a published author. BYT 11:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not whether he is notable, which after a quick search of his name on google, he appears to be so. I will create an article about him when I get the time. But for this article, the real issue is whether he is a scholar.--Sefringle 21:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
... and scholarship is what this writer lacks. he has no qualifications in Islamic studies, and his theories which are unsupported by mainstream academia point us to WP:REDFLAG. see the ongoing discussion at Talk:Ma_malakat_aymanukum#AmericanThinker.com_-_James. ITAQALLAH 22:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Controversial scholars are still scholars. What his qualifications are remains to be determined. That appears to be where the discussion is going. I would like to see some .edu source or something similar to determine what his scholarship is.--Sefringle 04:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
He has no degreee on Islam. He himself says he has personally studied Islam after 9/11. Having read an article from his, I think I know more of Islam than him. --Aminz 04:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Like I said. We need to find some outside proof of what degree he has (if any).--Sefringle 05:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
There isn't any Wiki policy that says an author requires particular degrees to be a RS. WP:RS says ""Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.". So Arlandson only has to be "authoritative" OR "trustworthy", and American Thinker needs to have a "reliable publication process". NN 09:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.". - this is a reliable source. If anyone is claiming James is not an RS, this is what you have to disprove. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
see Talk:Ma_malakat_aymanukum#Blog.3F and Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#James_Arlandson_on_americanthinker.com_-_reliable_source.3F, which confirm that the source is not reliable. you have to explain why it is a reliable source and why it conforms to those stipulations. other experienced editors don't seem to think so. please stop re-inserting this unencyclopedic material. ITAQALLAH 09:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

PhD in womens rights in early christianity who has then studied islam and womens rights in that subject. And the links you provided don't say "other experienced editors don't seem to think so".Hypnosadist 09:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Alanderson himself says: "Before 9/11, I had not paid much attention to Islam, other than a few facts in my Humanities courses, such as its contribution to science in the Medieval Age. (But current thought is now questioning the extent of Islam's contribution.) After 9/11, I decided to read through the Quran. I did it from Friday afternoon through Sunday. I was shocked at the violence I found."
He is clear about himself and his knowledge about Islam after he got his PhD. --Aminz 10:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, does getting a PhD make one reliable?Bless sins 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"does getting a PhD make one reliable?" YES. On another point is a PhD is not the end of a persons education, they continue to study and learn, hence when the world changed on 9/11 he started to study islam and as he said "I was shocked at the violence I found" just like i was when i tested the claim it was a Religion of peace. Hypnosadist 04:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh but "they continue to study and learn" mean nothing in wikipedia, unless it is formally recognized. I too have learned a lot, but that doesn't mean I am a reliable source, does it? In anycase, as others have pointed out, Arlandson's PhD wasn't in Islamic jurisprudence. Unless, you find other ways of showing Arlandson reliability, he can't be used.Bless sins 02:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
So according to your logic Steven Hawking knows nothing about black holes because they had not been even thought of when he did his PhD in the Big bang, LOL! try again. Hypnosadist 05:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hypnosadist, his knowledge of Islam is no different from that of other amatures including our wikipedians. Some of us have may have some PhD degree and have studied Islam out of interest. --Aminz 05:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Find a source that says it is wrong to have sex with your slave girl then put it in this section (this may take awhile though). The ayats and hadith are VERY clear that sex is only permitted with your wife and "what your right hand posseses".Hypnosadist 06:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure, they can have sex. But this "According to the eternal and unchanging scripture of Islam, men are permitted to treat them as sexual property regardless of their wishes, under certain specified circumstances" is polemical writing. Do you have a quranic verse to that effect? --Aminz 09:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Re:Stephen Hawkings: Hawkings is recognized as an authority in black holes etc. Find me scholarly sources that publish Arlandson's views, or scholars that reviewed his work, and found it credible. Bless sins 21:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
This is why we apparently need an expert in womens rights to say "If shes a slave she can't concent therefore its rape". I would have thought that obvious but i suppose not.Hypnosadist 07:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • a PhD in 'women's rights'?? more accurately- a PhD on the status of women in early Christianity. that doesn't make you an authority on Islam any way you try to look at it. ITAQALLAH 22:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
"status of women in early Christianity" yes what rights they had! Could they own property? Could they be someones property (ie a slave)? etc etc and now he has studied islam for 5 years to find what rights women have according to the source documents of that faith. As a PhD in this field he clearly knows how to handle sources and multiple translations (early Christianity covers such diverse languages as Ethipoian, Armenian and Greek). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs) 10:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
having a PhD by itself in any old subject doesn't make you an expert on Islam or on how to analyse the Islamic primary sources (see WP:RS: "A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology"). not only is he unqualified in this field, none of the articles he has writen have ever appeared in academic publications, nor been reviewed by respected academics (another indicator of reliability). i think you're clutching at straws here. ITAQALLAH 15:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
He studies the legal rights of women in the texts of religions and he still is doing that. Notice you still have not found a source to say that slave girls can consent (under a modern definition of the term) to having sex with there owners.Hypnosadist 15:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
your second comment is a red herring, the issue here is Arlandson. your first comment doesn't prove reliability, he is qualified in the field of women in early Christianity (that's the topic of his only real published book in fact). whatever else he claims to study is irrelevant. he is well out of his field here, which is why no academic publishers consider nor review his work. there's not much else to discuss here. ITAQALLAH 16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
He has a PhD in the field of religion and teaches "introductory philosophy and world religions" ([11]). How is he out of his field when he writes on Islam? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
what's his PhD thesis in again, precisely? several administrators and experienced editors have confirmed he is way out of his league (eg. [12]). i think we've already had these discussions before.. do feel free to go back and review them. i for one see no need to repeat them again here. ITAQALLAH 17:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

General hint, This article is rather unclear in when consensus in the muslim country exists , and eg. influences the signing of treaty's. Otoh it makes rather individual or even subjective assumptions over the purposed tactical consequences in islamic fighters, as such i wonder if it will be very helpfull in understanding what would fundamentally influence islam ethics in war. There is good points to, eg. that it is made obvious that jihad primarily is a word that occurs in the mind for a defencive arangment. (this is a joke , someone wants to get islamic fighters killed (or cartooned) covers much of the critics. I would be surprised if islam doesn't have similarly ruthless modern filosofy as our seek and destroy.)77.248.56.242 03:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this line repeated?

"in the way of Allah of the Muslim community (Ummah) against oppression from the Meccan Quraish as well as in the subsequent wars of expansion. General armed conflicts and feuds are not covered by the term." Is it a quote or something? --AW 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

For anyone intrested, please comment on the peer review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Islamic military jurisprudence --SefringleTalk 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quran quotes

The quran verses should not be in the references section. They shuold be presented as part of the article content, without being censored as footnotes.--SefringleTalk 00:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle please look at the definition of "censor". I have NOT removed the quotes. I have only moved them along with other references in the "Notes" section. This is mainly to avoid clutter, so a reader can read one sentence without going over three or more external links.Bless sins 03:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
you removed them to try to hide them. They are less visable to our readers in the notes section, and it requires an additional step to view the verses. Thus it is censorship. Quran quotes are not standard external links; they are special, as they are part of the content of the article.--SefringleTalk 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
They are not part of the content, as the secondary sources themselves cite the verses as "references" so as footnotes or endnotes. Some sources may put these verses in brackets but they never emphasize them as content. To discuss whether this is censorship, I have opened a thread here.Bless sins 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The qur'an quotes themselves are not references. They are article content, or that is how they are being used in the article. If they were being used as primary sources, yes, then they would be references, but with secondary sources, they are just part of the article content.--SefringleTalk 01:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The Qur'an quotes are not content. Can you please tell me what "3:14" tells the user about Islamic military jurisprudence? Nothing. But it does tell the reader where to look for, if he/she wishes to consult the sources from which scholars have derived content.Bless sins 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
3:14 tells the reader that verse 3:14 is related to the topic of of islamic military jurisprudence. Thus it is part of the content. The scholars use it as content, to further their arguement, not reference.--SefringleTalk 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed this article is not about "List of Quranic verses relating to Islamic military jurisprudence". 3:14 only tells the user where to look, should he/she desire the sources for the content given. I've already said this. Another third party has called your argument as "probably the worst ever".
Just think about this one thing: if the Notes section creates censorships, then it would never be advocated by wikipedia in the first place(see WP:LAYOUT#Notes).Bless sins 11:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
You missed my point. My point was 3:14 tells the reader that the scholar says X because of their interpritation of 3:14. "another third party" whom hasn't responded to my other points, doesn't really matter. Besides, WP:LAYOUT#Notes says nothing about qur'an qoutes being or not being content or references. Instead of filling up policy talk pages, you are probably better out filing an WP:RFC.--SefringleTalk 02:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you missed my point. What difference does it make if a an interpretation is based upon "3:11" or "3:12". For that matter you could put "6:66", "66:6", "100:1", "9:11", "7:7" and it would make no difference. The only difference it would make is when the reader wanted to investigate the sources on which the content is based. For that there is the references/Notes section.
There appears to be consensus there. The only two users who responded there (besides you and I) agree that it is not censorship. These users can be considered as third party (i.e. they are not like you, I, Beit Or, Aminz, Arrow 740... users who are involved in disputes in Islam related articles). I hope you respect that consensus.Bless sins 22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
And I think you missed my point. My point is it is censorship because you are hiding article content. Verses are not references; they are content. It isn't as visable to the reader, so it is censorship. Anyway, claiming there is a consensus before the discussion is over is not consensus, so I'm going to file an rfc on this issue. It is better for formalities sake to have the discussion on this talk page anyway.SefringleTalk 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Until there are neutral and third party users who do believe that this is censorship, we'll consider the views expressed on Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Censorship_and_footnotes as consensus. Bless sins 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
There has not been a consensus reached there yet either, so we will have to continue discussing this. —-SefringleTalk 22:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Note: RFC tag deleted by GRBerry, saying "RFC need ended when the OR was eliminated" HG | Talk 08:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Should Qur'an quotes be listed in the references section or in perenthesis as part of the article content? See above section. SefringleTalk 22:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not consider it censorship to not do so, however it is common practice (as far as I know) to cite Holy texts (of whatever religion) parenthetically. See [[13]] for an example. I don't know of any MoS rules about this - maybe there are some. Otherwise, I'd say keep them in-text as parenthetical refs. I see no reason not to. --Cheeser1 00:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that simple sentences are transformed into interrupted and discontinuous ones. Which one is more readable?Bless sins

The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own. Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, but should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist.[1]

OR

The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own. (Qur'an 42:41, Qur'an 22:60, 42:39-42, Qur'an 2:190, Qur'an 2:194, Qur'an 9:36) Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims (Qur'an 4:75) and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, (9:13-14) but should be stopped (Qur'an 2:193, Qur'an 4:90, Qur'an 8:39, Qur'an 9:3) if these circumstances cease to exist.

This is the best you can do with inline refs:

The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own.[Qur'an 42:41][22:60][42:39-42][2:190][2:194][9:36] Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty,[Qur'an 4:75][9:13-14] but should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist.[Qur'an 2:193][4:90][8:39][9:3]

However, with these many refs, it is preferable to include them in the Notes section via ref tags. Is the use of primary sources in this manner appropriate? With no refs to secondary sources, is it not OR to make the conclusions that are being drawn from the verses? → AA (talk) — 14:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a fundamental problem with your example: if one is quoting the Qur'an, one is quoting the Qur'an, one section at a time. Long lists of Qur'an references should not be supporting statements one makes based on them. That is original research. The references at the end of the paragraph in question should support such analytical claims. So, this is a bad example. They should only be occurring one-at-a-time, and they should be just fine referenced in-text, as is standard for religious texts. (Note: AA and I were writing our responses at the same time.)--Cheeser1 15:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
RFC response - go with the first method. It's much more readable, and the quotations get in the way. Put them all in a ref tag. The Evil Spartan 23:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Bless sins, please do not consider this a majority-rule decision. There is a clear precedent and standard way to cite holy texts. Doing otherwise is inappropriate. There is clearly an issue of clutter in the one section, but that is due to the analytical claims that are being made as synthesizing existing material. This is inappropriate, as it is clearly original research. Please respect the fact that holy texts have a standard citation format. If there is clutter, due to OR, then I suggest cleaning up the OR. I will do so when I can find the time, however, I am not knowledgeable about this subject (I'm here from the RfC) and would prefer a primary editor of this article would clean up the OR instead of botching the standard holy text citation format. --Cheeser1 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please address all OR related comments to this section. Bless sins 19:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Also the precedent for putting sources as footnotes in a "Notes"/"References" section is far stronger.Bless sins 19:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't skirt this discussion elsewhere. The issue here is the sheer volume of citations of the Quran, which is due only to the original research. Once the original research is removed (either cut from the article, or fixed by providing a secondary source), there will be no issue here. Citations to holy texts should only occur one at at time, and are not obtrusive in that sense. The precedent for ref sections is for refs in general. Holy texts are cited in a different fashion. Please note that I am not the only person to bring up both of these points. --Cheeser1 19:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Qaradhawi

Al-Qaradhawi is alive and we need to take extra care before we attribute something to him. The BBC link did not claim Qaradhawi said what Matt57 inserted. I would like full quote of what he says below, before we attribute any contentious info (like justifying death of civilians).Bless sins 11:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this from the article and moved it here:

Yousef al-Qaradhawi, argues that killing (or suicide bombing) is acceptable if the goal is to repel the invaders of muslim lands. Innocent Muslim civilian deaths, he argues, are unfortunate but permitted in war. He says such killings are martyrdom, and thus acceptable, since they sacrifice themselves for the sake of a higher goal, and that is to please Allah.[2][3]

Al-Qaradhawi's statements, as reported by BBC have been included in the article already (see Islamic_military_jurisprudence#In_combat). MEMRI, the other source, can't be considered reliable (atleast in this case). He has charged MEMRI of misquoting him in the past (see Yusuf_al-Qaradawi#Fatwa_controversy_with_MEMRI). We have to be careful since Al-Qaradhawi is living and WP:BLP applies here.Bless sins 18:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Did MEMRI actually misquote him this time? Who says MEMRI isn't reliable? Did they at any time misinterprit what he said in relation to this quote? Yahel Guhan 00:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Secondly al-Qaradhawi's statements, as reported by BBC, belong in the "Combat" section, since has disapproved of suicide bombings against western targets, but justified them in Israel calling Israelis "soldiers". "Soldiers" have to do with "combat" and are not civilians.Bless sins 19:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle/Yahel Guhan, it is you who needs to provide evidence suggesting MEMRI is reliable. Considering MEMRI's misquoted him in the past, they have lost their credibility for the future.Bless sins 02:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Every journalistic entity has misquoted people, at some point. I'm not familiar with this situation, but unless MEMRI is an unreliable source in general, it is still valid. Journalists, newspapers, TV stations - they make mistakes. It happens. That doesn't discredit them forever. --Cheeser1 03:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
MEMRI has also been criticized for portraying Islam in a negative light (see MEMRI#Criticism). Unless, Yahel Guhan can come up with some reasons why MEMRI is reliable, we can't accept it as a reliable source. BTW, Yahel Guhan, who is the author of this article by MEMRI? What are his/her qualifications in Islam?Bless sins 03:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Although you've convinced me that there might be a problem here, MEMRI appears to be a legitimate journalistic source. I don't see why we can't allow it because they've been criticised for bias. Every newspaper in the world has been criticised for bias. While we have to respect NPOV policies, it's not our job to decide who's reliable and who's not based on what we think of their biases (we're biased too, don't forget). Furthermore, Yahel Guhan does not need to prove to you that the author is qualified to speak on Islam. It's a published piece of journalism, and is cited as such. That's all we require of a source. --Cheeser1 03:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you please clarify and expand on why you think that this source is reliable. I mean what makes MEMRI different from some other random organization easily accessible on the web? Are all published sources reliable? Also, I would at least like to know the name of the author (so that I can look him/her up).Bless sins 03:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a translation service for journalists. They translate journalistic sources. The claim you are saying is not reliably sourced has two sources (MEMRI and another). I don't see what the issue is. There are countless conservatives in the US who would accuse the New York Times of being biased (we have an entire article about it). But that does not mean it is not a reliable journalistic source. Once again, challenging the author's qualifications is irrelevant here - it's a published piece of journalism. Journalists need not prove to you their expertise in the study of Islam - it's not necessary for them to do so generally, and it's certainly not your role, or mine, to try to decide which individual journalists are allowed to report what. Please refer to WP:RS if you have more questions along the lines of "are all published sources reliable?" because I don't intend to field such broad questions. --Cheeser1 08:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll gladly take my questions to WP talk:RS. But please answer the following: which part of WP:RS are you using to justify that MEMRI is a reliable source? This way I can enhance my understanding of that particular clause.Bless sins 22:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't asking you to go to WT:RS, I was telling you to read WP:RS. It's a journalistic source - no source is without bias, journalists included, but they are reliable, published journalistic sources. I don't really see why there's a question - a journalistic source has exactly the authority to say "so and so said such and such" - especially when it's a translation and this source specializes in such translations. --Cheeser1 23:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
"Journalistic" (meaning pertaining to "journalism") sources include pretty much all news (and a lot of other) websites. It also includes "gotcha journalism". So my question is: what part of WP:RS says that published "journalistic sources" are reliable?Bless sins 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
MEMRI is a tabloid newspaper? Do they run articles on bat-boy and the world's fattest baby? No. It's not up to us to decide which real news sources are reliable or the least biased. They're real news sources. Publication and (true) editorial review are the standards for WP:RS. MEMRI seems to meet these qualifications. The fact that they might be accuse of bias is irrelevant - all sources have bias. A single misquotation, and some ethereal bias towards some point of view - these things happen, it's the nature of news. --Cheeser1 17:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

<reset>So any newspaper that is not tabloid nor runs articles on "bat-boy and the world's fattest baby" is reliable?

How do I know that MEMRI meets "(true) editorial review"? And where in WP:RS does it say that "Publication and (true) editorial review are [enough] standards for WP:RS"?Bless sins 18:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources...In general, the most reliable sources are ... magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. See also WP:V Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. One misquotation does not constitute a bad reputation for factchecking. Editorial oversight seems to be present. The fact that a source might be characterized as pro-Israel is irrelevant - any news source can be characterized like this, but that's not the point. --Cheeser1 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Right. How do we know that MEMRI has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? What tells you that MEMRI is published by a "respected publishing house"?Bless sins 20:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Because its work has been used in major news media? Because it, despite having some criticism as is to be expected, has a real editorial process. A misquotation here, an accusation of bias there, that could be any news outlet. I don't see why you're so opposed to using this news source. I think Fox News has made serious errors in its reporting, but they're still a news source nonetheless. --Cheeser1 20:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Which "major news media" has its quotations of Qaradhawi been used in? Also, what makes you say that MEMRI "has a real editorial process"?Bless sins 00:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Try MEMRI for starters. I'm not going to debate with you whether a news outlet is a news outlet. --Cheeser1 01:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok so you are saying that MEMRI is a "news outlet" and therefore reliable. Yet any source discussing recent events can be considered a "news outlet", even a blog. You were saying something about MEMRI having "a real editorial process". Can you show me if it does? Finally, can you name the person who writes for MEMRI? What is the name of the person who wrote the piece on Qaradhawi?Bless sins 01:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't have time to argue this nonsense with you. You're making unreasonable demands of a journalistic source, and I'm not required to answer them. If you object to an otherwise reliable source because you question whether its editorial process is sound, feel free to take it up here. I'm not in the business of proving to people that a newspaper is a newspaper or anything of the sort. --Cheeser1 09:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you please assume good faith and not call others arguments as "nonsense". Remember we are trying to reach an agreement here, not a disagreement. I know the MEMRI is a news source. But so is Jew Watch News (which we can agree is unreliable). Thus, as you can see, not all news sources are reliable. You said something about an "editorial process", and I agreed that could prove a source to be reliable. Yet you didn't demonstrate how MEMRI's editorial process was reliable. Also remember that WP:V says the burden of evidence (to find a reliable source, and show that it is reliable) lies "with the editor who adds or restores material."Bless sins 13:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, we're talking about MEMRI. Read up. It's a translation service for other media outlets. If MEMRI is featured in, say, the New York times, then not only is MEMRI's editorial process there, so is the New York Times's. What do you want me to do? Give you a tour of MEMRI headquarters, so you can inspect the editorial process at work and make sure it meets your exacting standards? --Cheeser1 16:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
"If MEMRI is featured in, say, the New York times," That's very good! If MEMRI's publication of Al-Qaradhawi's quotes was reviewed by, or "featured" as you say, the New York Times, that would should show that MEMRI atleast deserves to be quoted. Can you provide me with a link?Bless sins 00:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, still waiting for your justification.Bless sins 23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing against listing his opinions on this page, but don't approve of the way one of the sections was worded, that he "Legitimized" suicide bombings, legitimized with what power? He has no "control" over Islamic military jurisprudence other than his own opinion, so I have reworded the first part and moved both paragraphs to its own section under the heading "Modern Interpretation". Am open to changes but I do not see it right that his word has legitimacy over others and even to the point that it is an "official" stance as it was listed previously. Mikebloke (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics of warfare

Cheeser1, can you explain exactly how the section violates WP:OR. The above RfC was to comment on the inclusion of ref format, not claims of OR. Therefore, I'd like it you explained in this section why you think there is original research.Bless sins 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The text makes analytical claims about what the Quran means to say. Such statements cannot be substantiated by simply citing the Quran. Analytical claims require secondary sources, and to take the Quran and draw conclusions from it is synthesis of existing material to formulate original research. See WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:PSTS. --Cheeser1 19:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quran quotes (II)

You have no idea how much I agree with your second sentence. Not only must analytical claims not be made (without citing a secondary source), the Qur'an it self must not be cited without secondary sources. Reliable scholars, and only reliable scholars have the right to cite Qur'an, not wikipedians.
Having said said, I have cited secondary sources. Here are the sources cited:
  • Patricia Crone, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, War article, p.456
  • Micheline R. Ishay, The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era, University of California Press, p.45
  • Sohail H. Hashmi, David Miller, Boundaries and Justice: diverse ethical perspectives, Princeton University Press, p.197
  • Douglas M. Johnston, Faith-Based Diplomacy: Trumping Realpolitik, Oxford University Press, p.48
Thus these conclusions have been made by the scholars above. All of them, as you can see, are reliable sources (consider the press that published their work).Bless sins 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Well then cite them on the page, instead of leaving us with stuff like this. I'd do it myself, but I'm not familiar with these sources. The fact that it can be verified doesn't change the fact that it isn't properly sourced in the article. --Cheeser1 22:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
These sources are at the end of the sentence, please click on the following links to see what I mean:[14][15][16][17]
Bless sins 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The sources linked above are "7", "8", "9" and "10".

The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own.[3] Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims[4] and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, [5] but should be stopped[6] if these circumstances cease to exist.[7][8][9][10]

Perhaps we can lump all the Quran references with these sources, so that there is no confusion as to where the Qur'an references are coming from.Bless sins 02:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(Greetings, are you still discussin how to deal w/Quran references or has that been settled? I see strong stylistic advantages and no policy problem (censorship or otherwise) with putting most scriptural citations in footnotes. Indeed, the Jesus article cited above, as exemplifying in-line references, also has plenty in the notes. I'm glad you all agree on the need for secondary sources. But I do wonder if there may be an over-emphasis on the Quran rather than subsequent sources of Islamic law. In good articles on Jewish law, there tend to be relatively few quotes from Bible or Mishnah passages and much more from later rabbinic literature. Hope you don't mind the interruption. HG | Talk 07:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

The Quran citations should be in-text, as is the stylistic standard for holy texts. The reason they clutter the article is only because there are many of them, which is only because that section contains synthetic original research. Once that's fixed, they can be properly written into the text. What we do in the meantime is unclear, so I won't fuss about it until the OR is removed/fixed. --Cheeser1 16:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser1, please see my comment on 02:50, 24 September 2007. All the information is coming from reliable secondary sources. I have also listed the sources in my edit on 20:16, 23 September 2007. Don't you agree that there is no OR problem?Bless sins 22:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
There are still several claims that end with a huge footnote containing several Quran references. It's been that way from the start. --Cheeser1 23:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Like what? Point them out, and I'll see to it that they are sourced (or removed).Bless sins 17:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Right in the references section. Just look. Items 3-6 and 12, for starters. --Cheeser1 17:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Items 3-6 are sourced to items 7-10, as showed in my edit on 02:50, 24 September 2007. Item 12 is sourced to item 13. As a general rule you can assume that (atleast in this article) a Qur'an ref is sourced to the next set of secondary source(s), which is usually at the end of a sentence.Bless sins 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Then why are the Quran references still there?? We don't have to cite the Quran that the secondary source cites. That's up to the source. --Cheeser1 18:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You think so? I thought it would be a good idea to cite the source the secondary source cites. But I wouldn't mind removing the Quranic references. I have this question here. To me this is not a burning issue. Also, it is clear that this issue is whether we should include Qur'an refs at all. At this point, I think you agree that there is no original research.Bless sins 19:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not. See WP:PSTS. You cite the source you're using, not all of its primary sources. These are the basics of wring with research. --Cheeser1 —Preceding comment was added at 20:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

<reset>I put this to discussion here and everyone else besides you thinks we should mention the verse. Considering that no one has commented there for some time, I'll assume it is the consensus.Bless sins 00:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bless sins. I think some of us (me, maybe Cheeser?) are saying that the verses may be footnoted, but it's preferable to use secondary sources. Such sources could be later works of Islamic law or, even better (i.e., from Wikipedia's sourcing standpoint), scholarly explications of the law. Be well HG | Talk 00:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
That's almost what I'm saying! The difference is I'm saying that we must use secondary sources (not just "preferably"), and put the Qur'an verses in the footnotes.Bless sins 01:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
When have you ever seen any kind of literature that cites its own sources and then cites the sources of its sources?? That makes no sense, and is in no way called for by any part of policy. --Cheeser1 01:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser1, it makes sense to wikipedians who commented here. Bless sins 01:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Gee, Cheeser1, I'm glancing thru the Journal of Law and Religion and, while most footnotes don't mix scripture and secondary sources, there are plenty of exceptions. On Jewish law, I've seen authors put in layers (e.g., Bible, Mishnah, medieval codes, modern). There's some truth to what you say, in theory, but overall it's often a judgment call. Ok? HG | Talk 02:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The citations, as they existed, were in various places, attached to various claims, and there would be no way for a reader to know whether one is citing the Quran directly, or indirectly through some intermediate source. Citations are not necessary for material we are not citing, and we're not citing the Quran, we're citing whatever article/paper. --Cheeser1 01:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
When the user sees two sources in a row (one Qur'an and one secondary) it is natural to think that there are two sources for the same claim.
Also a "Notes" section doesn't necessarily mean "citations". It can mean comments on the content as well. Please see WP:LAYOUT#Notes. Alternatively, you can consider the Qur'an verses as little "comments".
Finally, we put this to the policy talk page and the users there suggested that it is permissible to use Quran citations. I don't see a better way of forming consensus.Bless sins 02:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ok, thanks Bless Sins for the note, I think I see where you are disagreeing at this point. You both agree that secondary sources are essential -- this is an important basis for good collaboration, so I hope you guys can get past your issues with the verses. You disagree about the value or option of adding, within footnotes, the Quranic verses upon which the secondary sources may rely. Is that right? Well, I hate to choose sides here ;-> but I don't think you need to be dogmatic about it. On some points, a Quranic verse might be so undisputedly crucial that you would want to cite it (as the secondary sources probably do). On other points, you skip the verses and just give the mainstream understandings of the Law. At least in Jewish law, often the current Law is pretty clear (whether described by insider or scholarly sources) but there's disagreement about the ancient sourcing -- for such cases, the encyclopedia can describe the Law and avoid having to choose an underlying ancient text. Isn't Islamic law similar, i.e. that the Quranic basis might be disputed even for a now-uncontroversial rule? Anyway, instead of trying to "win" your view via abstract WP policy, why not look at some distinct points in the text. Is it possible you all could find yourselves with some give and take, citing or not citing the Quran on a case-by-case basis? If so, bit by bit you'll come up with some criteria for collaborative editing. Oy, I'm a bit long-winded, but reluctant to say it should always be one way or another. If I'm not being helpful, press me further, ok? HG | Talk 02:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we can do this. Although I really don't see the problem given the consensus established already. Thus, Cheeser1, are there some cases in which you believe the Qur'an verses are absolutely inappropriate? Bless sins 00:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe they are inappropriate in all cases. I would also ask that you not consider a 2-1 opinion consensus. There were strings of five or six references in a row that were entirely unnecessary, and even the ones that weren't of the form [4][5][6][7][8][9][10], they still basically cropped up in large groups. Why do we need to look up what somebody says and then say "what verses is s/he citing?" and then quote them? If there's a particular verse (e.g. the sword verse) that's important, we shouldn't be citing it, we should say "X verse indicates Y[11]" and cite only the source of this information (the secondary one). --Cheeser1 02:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser1, I'm trying to co-operate here. All the comments in the RfC (including Yahel Guhan's) seemed to agree that Qur'an quotes should be presented as one way or another. Further we have had two request for commenting on two different policy pages (Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia talk:Citing sources). In each case, there was unanimous agreement (with you as an exception) with including the Qur'an verses. If this was a big issue I would have mediation. Please co-operate.Bless sins 03:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You know, there's a marginal consensus (2-1 or maybe 3-1) and you're going to call me uncooperative? All I'm saying is that we don't need to cite sources of our sources. It doesn't make any sense to do so. It misleads the reader. It's not in line with policy. IF you want to refer to someone's analysis of a passage THEN you can say "X verse means Y" and cite only the source you're actually using. In-text references to the Quran passage, not citations. In an article full of analysis, we require secondary sources. To present a primary source like the Quran suggests original research (indeed, that's what it was, if you recall). --Cheeser1 04:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
In the policy talk page [[18]] it was 4-1 (including both me and you). Further on the RfC that happened some time ago (Talk:Islamic_military_jurisprudence#RFC), there were three users (excluding me and you) who wanted such verse refs in the article (the difference of opinion was only the location of such verse refs). In another RfC (held on Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Censorship_and_footnotes), the two wikipedians that commented also agreed that refs can belong in the notes section. Thus there are a total of 9 different wikipedians (10 if you count HG's opinion that refs maybe important in some cases) who disagree with you.Bless sins 23:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, on the one hand, I'll say that it's less the votes than our clarity about encyclopedic style & policy that matters. On the other hand, Cheeser1, I'm a bit concerned about your view. Granted, the article needs to tone down it's overuse and strings of verse citations. Maybe it's not your intent, but you're sounding a bit rigid: "I believe they /Quranic verse cites/ are inappropriate in all cases." Yes, we rely on secondary sources to interpret primary texts like the Quran, but that doesn't mean we necessarily omit the underlying primary texts from our articles. I don't see where Wikipedia policy justifies a categorical stance against Quranic citations. (Also, I just looked at the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, articles on Islam June 06 and Judaism & war Dec 06. Both articles rely heavily on 2ry sources, yet do occasionally cite the underlying primary texts -- along with the secondary.) Anyway, you are both engaged in a civil conversation, and you've again narrowed the point of dispute, so maybe Cheeser could indicate what dispute resolution mechanism that Cheeser would accept to help decide this issue. HG | Talk 04:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

<reset>HG and Cheeser1. I'll be very honest with you here, with what I want. I want a universal solution. If we must absolutely delete Quran verses wheresoever we find them, then we should go that with all articles. If we are to decide, on a case by case basis, whether Quran verses belongs then we should apply this rule to all articles, and define our criteria. I just don't like it when we don't have a standard policy (and just to be clear, neither of you are to be blamed for this).Bless sins 05:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for article

Greetings. You might find this useful:

the Islamic Ethics of War and Peace by Sohail H. Hashmi (google's cache)

"The Doctrine of Jihad: An Introduction" by Noor Mohammad in Journal of Law and ReligionVol. 3, No. 2 (1985), pp. 381-397. (JSTOR link)

Just War and Jihad: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on War and Peace in Western and Islamic Traditions, eds. Kelsay, John and Johnson, James Turner. 1991

Thanks. Take care, HG | Talk 15:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the above seem to be scholarly sources. your input is much appreciated. Feel free to to improve the article, by the way.Bless sins 16:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

It would be helpful if this article had more history related material.Bless sins (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

I am objecting to the GA nomination for three reasons:

  1. Excessive POV. This article is has a clear pro-Islam bias.
  2. Unsourced introduction.
  3. No images

Yahel Guhan 08:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This is wrong. You are one of the major contributors to the article. GA review is to be done by those who haven't made significant contributions to the article.Bless sins (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not only should this article not have been reviewed by a contributor, but the review is not in line with the GA criteria. First, per WP:LEAD, introductory sections do not require in-line citations except in extraordinary circumstances. Second, you need to give examples of biased statements if you're going to make that claim. Last, per the criteria and the comparison of the GA and FA criteria, images are not required for GA status. Only the proper licensing of any images present is. Please refrain from reviewing articles to which you have contributed, and make sure to stick to the GA criteria and the Manual of Style when reviewing. Thank you, VanTucky 21:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Yahel weren't you the one who pointed out to me that there existed many FA class articles that didn't have any sources in the lead?[19]
Regarding images, I should put images, if they are available. So far I haven't found any. Frankly I don't know what an image relevant to Islamic law would look like.Bless sins (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
My main opposition to this becomming a GA is because it is very bias. Virtually every view presented says killing innocant civilians is prohibited, war should be avoided at all costs, peace should be negoticated at all costs, no torture, hardly relevant mentions of forgiveness, etc. All are clear pro-islam bias statements. Second, vertually no contrary view presented within this article. For those reasons, it is bias. Yahel Guhan 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "pro-Islam"? Such things can also be found in the Geneva conventions. Also, there are views of non-Muslims, like Patricia Crone, Micheline R. Ishay, Douglas M. Johnston, so this article seems balanced.Bless sins 01:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Pro-Islam, meaning it is propaganda for why Islam is "so great." "you should convert to Islam because Islam is so great, for example X", "Islam is so perfect because X...", "Islam is the one true religion because X," "Islam is peace and Islam opposes violence except in justified cases, and supports morality and forgiveness in these cases, examples are X..." (this is the basic summary of this article). That is what I mean by pro-islam. It takes more than just views of non-muslims to be included to make it neutral. Anyone can be selective when quoting, and only post views which support one POV, when multiple POVs on the topic might be presented. They can also choose to select authors who present a favorable POV, which seems to be what you did when you wrote this article. Yahel Guhan 02:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Try WP:UNDUE. Osama Bin Laden's perspective on Islam should not be given as much weight as scholars published in reliable sources. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yahel: woah, woah, woah. Hold your horses! When did I say "you should convert to Islam because Islam is so great, for example X"? And when did I say any of those other things? Please provide the diff.Bless sins (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheeser1, agreed.Bless sins (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, when did I say "Osama Bin Laden's perspective on Islam"? What I am saying, is that scholarly perspectives that say violence is acceptable in Islam should be presented, and they are not. Secondly, the summary I wrote above as example of the pro-islam bias in this article specific to this article is: "Islam is peace and Islam opposes violence except in justified cases, and supports morality and forgiveness in these cases, examples are X..." Yahel Guhan 04:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Find such a reputable scholarly opinion, and present it, and it will be integrated into the article. You can't just invent an opposing opinion and expect that it be presented in an article with equal weight. "Islam is peace" is a well studied aspect of Islam. We can't just say "but some scholars assert that Islam is war" - it's not true, and even if there were some WP:FRINGE source making such a claim, we don't put WP:UNDUE weight on it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) All of this seems irrelevant debate to the contents of this article. If there are specific passages that anyone objects to as biased, please bring them up. But so far the debate here doesn't have anything to do with how this article can be improved, or how the article fails to meet the GA criteria. VanTucky 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought neutrality was part of the GA criteria. I am saying the article is one sided and isn't neutral for reasons stated above. It isn't that I necessarily object to what is presented, but rather only one view (the muslim POV) is presented. Yahel Guhan 06:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well find a reliable source to verify this mysterious other point of view. Otherwise, it's only something you imagined might exist, and per WP:UNDUE (or WP:OR) there's no way that belongs in this article. The fact that every opinion has a negation doesn't mean there are reliable sources supporting each one equally. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"but rather only one view (the muslim POV) is presented". I already told you, that we have here the views of non-Muslim scholars.Bless sins (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On hold

I put on hold tag on the article. I think there are some problems in this article.

  1. There are different religious codes for the fights between Muslims and between Muslims and non-Muslims. Mudelung says about these codes which established in the Battle of Camel:"Fighting Muslim opponents in regular battle was a new experience in Islam... Ali ordered at the beginning of the battle that wounded or captured enemies should not be killed, those throwing away their arms should not be fought,... These rules were to become authoritative in Islam for the warfare against Muslim rebels..." (Madelung (1997), p.179)[20]
  2. It's written The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own. This sentence is not clear. It's clear that Muslims don't treat pagans as they treat another Muslim community.
  3. Incomplete: There are several issues which haven't been mentioned. For example some especial codes for Muslims who killed in the battlefield(Shahid).
  4. Rearrangement: The article should be rearranged on the basis of the type of Jihad. Offensive Jihad and Defensive Jihad have different jurisprudencial codes. What's written in "Criteria for soldiering" is not true for Defensive Jihad, at least on the basis of the Shia fiqh. As I know whoever can fight should participate in such a battle and who can't find should help with their property. Also you can find Sunni fatwa about such a battle here[21].

--Seyyed(t-c) 10:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

These are just some of my criticism and I haven't pay attention to the criticism of other wikipedians yet. In addition I haven't checked the GA criteria. --Seyyed(t-c) 10:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
1. Yes, that was the idea I created the section on Insurgency. However, I couldn't develop it since I didn't find much reliably sourced content on it. Perhaps you can provide me with some?
As I know it is not limited to insurgency. All of the wars between Muslims follow these rules.
2. The sentence is sourced. Perhaps you can find some opposing sources? It makes sense, and it happened at the conquest of Mecca. No one was killed or hurt, and leaders (like Abu Sufyan) were not only spared, but allowed to attain positions.
I think the sentence is not wrong but it doesn't mean that Muslims treat other Muslim society and non-Muslim one the same way. Non-Muslims should pay Jazye, any non-Muslim who captured can be solved as slave, although it's not the same as slave notion in west and today it has been abandoned, Muslims own the property which they have been captured through battle and so on. I just asked for clarification. I found ambiguity. Also Abu Sufyan accepted Islam.
3. That's a good point. I'll add the legalities regarding shahid.
4. "Criteria for soldiering" is actually a small section, so I advise against splitting it. But the section on "hostilities" can be split up as such, provided enough content in presented.Bless sins (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Rearrangement: My problem was not just soldiering. Almost all of the issues differ in these two kinds of Jihad. small section is a bad excuse for a GA nominee.

I propose this structure which I think more compatible with classic jurisprudential texts. You can ask Ittaqallah too.

# 1 jurisprudential sources 
# 2 Legitimacy of war
# 3 Ethics of warfare
# 4 Codes of offensive Jihad 
# 5 Codes of defensive Jihad

International conflict(It should be splited into two sections):

# 6 Jihad against non-Muslims
# 7 Jihad against Muslims

I think we can put most of the other issues under these sections. If some issues such as Civilian areas and Baqy remained, then we make a separate section for it.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly like Itaqallah's input on this. Also, Sa vakilian, you are proposing that we re-format the entire article. Is there not a way to reform the article in an easier manner?Bless sins (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so. I think we should use more technical approach toward the issue. For example it's written below International conflict :International conflicts are armed strifes conducted by one state against another, and are distinguished from civil wars or armed strife within a state.
But this is a modern definition. Initially we should describe the Islamic viewpoint on the basis of the Islamic terms such as Dar al-Harb then we explain how Islamic jurisprudence deal with modern terms and definitions. For this reason I proposed a new arrangement which let us use technical approach. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok I added material about dar al-harb and dar al-Islam.[22]Bless sins (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There are some problems with your categorization. For example, "defensive jihad" can be against either non-Muslims or Muslims. "Offensive jihad" can be against non-Muslims. Furthermore, I have classified the article into domestic (i.e. between Muslims) and international between different abodes (e.g. dar al-islam vs. dar al-harb).Bless sins (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Proposal: We already have a section on "international" (between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb) and "domestic" strife. This is similar to "Muslim" and "non-Muslim" jihads. the section on legitimacy of war can be divided into "defensive" and "offensive" jihads. HTen the article will be similar to the format you are suggesting. What do you think?Bless sins (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What about war between Muslim countries. There are several verses in Holy Quran about such wars like Wa en taaefatane men al-Momenin eqtataloo. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
War between Muslim parties may be regarded as "domestic". Throughout history, most violence between Muslims has been government vs. rebels. In anycase, are the rules of war different when its fought between Muslim countries? IF yes, can you specify?Bless sins (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failed

I usually stay for on hold articles at least two weeks, but this article has so many problems that I don't think you can solve them even in a month. I propose using technical jurisprudential sources of Shia and Sunni Fiqh to improve it. Not only should you rearrange the article but also you should rewrite some part of it.

Due to necessary rearrangement I prefer not to check GA criteria.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you evaluate it for the GA criteria, that is considered standard practice. Most reviewers usually use, "Template:GAList", and I'd appreciate it if you used it as well.Bless sins (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I usually do (See Fatimah and al-Farabi). But the article should be changed a lot.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a good thing that you usually use the GA criteria. However, please do it now as well. It is convention, It gives a much better idea for the reasons of failure.Bless sins (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Notes:

  1. I don't judge about prose due to I'm not a native speaker.
  2. I prefer not to judge about neutral point of view due to using unsuitable subtitles. It doesn't mean the article is POV but it can misinform readers.
  3. This article doesn't need any image at this stage.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Made-up sources"

Yahel Guhan accused me of putting into the article "made up sources".[23]

Which sources I have "made up"?Bless sins (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My version reads:

Abdulaziz Sachedina believes differntly. He states that the Qur'an requires Muslims to establish overall public order. This can be established though offensive measures. Thus offensive jihad raises questions about whether jihad is justifiable on moral grounds. Quranic verses, like Qur'an 8:39 revealed in the latter part of Muhammad's career require Muslims to wage Jihad against unbelievers. Wars of expansion in the Islamic empire, he argues were considered jihad by Sunni scholars, but under close scrutny can be determined to be political.

Your version reads:

Abdulaziz Sachedina argues that the original jihad was permission to fight back against those who broke their pledges. Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces. The Qur'an also requires Muslims to establish just public order, increasing the influence of Islam, allowing public Islamic worship. Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad it has been complicated by early wars of expansion. Although viewed by Sunni scholars as jihad, under closer scrutiny the hostilities were political in nature. Moreover, the offensive jihad points more to the complex relationship with the "People of the book" than their conversion

For one, the source [24]: never says anything like "original jihad was permission to fight back against those who broke their pledges.Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces." Secondly, it doesn't say "Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad it has been complicated by early wars of expansion." This statement is taken way out of context. Rather, the source says the following:

It is not difficult to adduce a strictly moral justification for the permission given to retaliate with force against attacks upon them. The qur'an, thus, justifies defensive jihad by allowing muslims to fight against and subdue hostile unbelievers as dangerous and faithless, because they are inimical to the success of God's cause. Furthermore, the Qur'an requires Muslims to strive to establish just public order overall. At this point jihad becomes an offensive endeavor to bring about the world order the qur'an seeks.

Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only, because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods" (8:39). The question of offensive jihad is not a simple one. It is complicated by wars of expansion that were undertaken by Muslim armies up to the end of the Umayyad period. (eighth century A.D.). These wars are regarded as jihad by Sunni Muslim scholars. However upon careful scrutiny, these wars appear to be political, with the aim of expansion of Islamic hegemony without the qur'anic goal of "religion being entirely God's." Moreover, offensive jihad against "those who do not believe in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden and do not practice the religion of truth, from among those who have been given the Book until they pay jizya [poll-tax]" (9:29) points more to the complex relationship and interdependence of religous-moral considerations in the policy of Islamic public order vis-a-vis the "people of the Book" than to their conversion to "God's religon," Islam.

--Yahel Guhan 03:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

All of my additions are supported by the source.
My version:

original jihad was permission to fight back against those who broke their pledges.

The source:

The ordainment of jihad, according to Muslim exegetes, occurred the first time in Medina, when Muslims were given permission to fight back against the "folk who broke their solemn pledges".

My version:

Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces.

The source:

The Qur'an, thus, justifies defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight against and subdue hostile unbelievers.

My version:

Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad it has been complicated by early wars of expansion.

The source:

The question of offensive jihad is not a simple one. It was complicated by the wars of expansion that were undertaken by Muslim armies upto the end of the Umayyad period.

Thus, I make clear that my version is according to the sources. Bless sins (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, "The ordainment of jihad, according to Muslim exegetes, occurred the first time in Medina, when Muslims were given permission to fight back against the "folk who broke their solemn pledges" does not appear in the text.

Second, the source say s "unbelievers" not "forces," showing a clear attempt to lighten the language and thus provide a lightened version of his belief.

Third, "Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad" and "it has been complicated by early wars of expansion" are two seperate ideas. The source doesn't put them together for one, and for two, the source doe not say "Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces. Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad" as it would read in your version. When you seperate the ideas and thus take him out of context, it appears you are right, and everything is sourced properly, but when you observe context,it is a made up interpritation.

Now for my version. (you can notice the sources are in the order presented by the author, unlike your version):

Me:"He states that the Qur'an requires Muslims to establish overall public order. This can be established though offensive measures. "

Source: "Furthermore, the Qur'an requires Muslims to strive to establish just public order overall. At this point jihad becomes an offensive endeavor to bring about the world order the qur'an seeks."

Me: "Thus offensive jihad raises questions about whether jihad is justifiable on moral grounds"

Source: "Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only"

Me: "Quranic verses, like Qur'an 8:39 revealed in the latter part of Muhammad's career require Muslims to wage Jihad against unbelievers"

Source: "because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods" (8:39). "

Me: "Wars of expansion in the Islamic empire, he argues were considered jihad by Sunni scholars, but under close scrutny can be determined to be political."

Source: "The question of offensive jihad is not a simple one. It is complicated by wars of expansion that were undertaken by Muslim armies up to the end of the Umayyad period. (eighth century A.D.). These wars are regarded as jihad by Sunni Muslim scholars. However upon careful scrutiny, these wars appear to be political, with the aim of expansion of Islamic hegemony without the qur'anic goal of "religion being entirely God's." "

As you can see, my version is completely within context, and not made up, while your version takes Abdulaziz Sachedina out of context and makes up interpritations. Yahel Guhan 04:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can't read the text of a webpage, then there's nothing I can do about it. The text is present whenever I open the page, and I will believe my eyes.
Secondly, you don't need to justify your version, since I never removed your version. I added to your version. You, on the other hand, removed content I added.Bless sins (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
you completely removed my version. Where is the mention in your version of verse 8:39, or that offensive jihad brings question about the justification on moral grounds, or the part that reads "the Qur'an requires Muslims to establish overall public order. This can be established though offensive measures" in your version? It isn't there, because you are censoring it out, taking him out of context, and making up sources. I'll check one more time for point 1, but for point 2 and 3, my issues still remain important and correct, even if you are right on point 1. Yahel Guhan 04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, you are right about point 1, but the surrounding context needs to be given. Yahel Guhan 04:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
In my version it reads:

The Qur'an also requires Muslims to establish just public order, increasing the influence of Islam, allowing public Islamic worship.

Your version says,

the Qur'an requires Muslims to establish overall public order

My version reads:

Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad

Your version says:

This can be established though [sic] offensive measures

I don't see where the problem is?Bless sins (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is that your version leaves out that offensive measures can be taken in order to allow the establishment of the "public order...," and that is what offensive jihad is, not the establishment of the order itself. Offensive jihad is the offensive measures to allow the establishment. How about responding to the rest of my comment now. Yahel Guhan 04:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Does my version not say "to establish just public order"? Regarding the removal of the verse, it was decided quite some ago that verses shouldn't be mentioned. Though I'm open to both sides (and personally prefer mentioning verses), we have to maintain consistency here.Bless sins (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
What I have a problem is your removial of the 'Offensive jihad being offensive measures' statement, being used to justify the "public order". Second, it was "decided" that verses can be mentioned if they are quoted by a secondary scholar. I prefer mentioning verses as well. We have a consensus here, then. The issue was weather to use them as footnotes or in the article itself. Now can you respond to the rest of my comment? Yahel Guhan 05:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
But I already have that in my version, written one after the other. Regarding the verses issue, I don't feel like reviving such a trivial dilemma, when a user has proposed we re-format the entire article. To remove verses, even those cited by secondary sources, was decided here.Bless sins (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I already stated that your version doesn't mention that; not to my satisfaction. Rather it ignores the issure, hopping around it. It is important to state that it offensive jihad is an offensive measure, not the bringing of the public measueres. Your version gets it backwards. Yahel Guhan 05:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The word "offensive" in "offensive jihad" already shows that it is offensive. We need not say "offensive war" is offensive. Also, you removed other sourced content, you haven't justified that.Bless sins (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It is necessary in this case, because it isn't clear, and it gives the wrong impression about what Sachedina said. Offensive war doesn't need to be clarified, but jihad does. Jihad means more than just war or violence, so clarification is needed to show that he is talking about violent jihad against non-agressors. Yahel Guhan 05:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
But the author uses the term "offensive" only once. Furthermore, "violent jihad against non-agressors" is your OR not in the sources. The author says "jihad as an offensive endeavor" which is the same as "offensive jihad". But I'll change it if you wish.Bless sins (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, this isn't going to work. It is not "said to be jihad "as an offensive endeavor" Sachedina states "The Qur'an requires Muslims to strive to establish just public order overall. At this point jihad becomes an offensive endeavor to bring about the world order the qur'an seeks. Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only, because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods"." This is not the same as "Qur'an also requires Muslims to establish just public order, increasing the influence of Islam, allowing public Islamic worship. Although this can be said to be jihad "as an offensive endeavor" it has been complicated by early wars of expansion". This takes three different ideas and merges them into two unrelated sentences. "Allowing public Islamic worship" is never mentioned. Getting back to the statement, what he is saying is the quran requires muslims to wage jihad in order to establish a just public order overall through an offensive endeavor. Offensive Jihad must be waged against unbelievers until they convert to islam, and therefore it brings question to the morality of jihad. "it has been complicated by early wars of expansion" is a completely different topic point. Yahel Guhan 06:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a few things you don't understand. We mustn't simply copy and paste the source here, but must summarize it. This is what I'm doing. "Merging" is the way to go here. We must also ensure that one man's opinion doesn't dominate the article.
"Allowing public Islamic worship" is mentioned as "where Islamic acts of devotion are publicly observed". I think "worship" is a better term than "acts of devotion".
"Offensive Jihad must be waged against unbelievers until they convert to islam" The source doesn't say that. Infact the source says "the jihad that jurists treat in their works is undertaken to subdue the forces of unbelief, rather than to convert individuals or even groups to Islam."
The complication is a clearly relevant point.Bless sins (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Selective summaries are not acceptable summaries. That is what you are doing. Selective summarizing, meaning you take the views you like and include them, while downplaying the views you don't like. Deny it all you want, anyone who actually checks the sources can tell that that is what you are doing.
The source doesn't say as you claim in relation to that quote. Rather it says "Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only, because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods" In other words, Offensive jihad requires muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers until the religionh is entirely Islam. So yea, it does say Offensive Jihad must be waged against unbelievers until they convert to islam. Yahel Guhan 01:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No you are providing a selective summary. Your summary omits much of the content my summary has. Look carefully and you'll realize that. <My summary includes every thing your summary includes, and then some. "religion is entirely gods" doesn't mean Islam. At best it can mean all religions that believe in a god (note the lower case denotes any god, and not the one God Muslim, Jews and Christians believe in). In any case, I already told you that the author has said that the jihad's purpose was not to "to convert individuals or even groups to Islam."Bless sins (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Your additions include removial of my additions, selective quotfarming, misquoting, andtaking things out of context. Specificly the line in dispute, you censored out, because it doesn't conform to your POV. God can be of any religion in most cases, but in this context it is obviously the god of Islam. The book is about Islam, he mentions the qur'an, the holy book of islam, and if you could actually read the source, you would know he is talking about the god of Islam. You told me I already told you that the author has said that the jihad's purpose was not to "to convert individuals or even groups to Islam, but you are still incorrect, and anyone who has the ability to read the source can tell that. Yahel Guhan 04:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Please tell me what I'm removing? I don't see anything. But I do see you removing plenty from my version.
He is talking about various religions (see "People of the Book"). If you had significant knowledge you would know that Islam tolerates the existence of monotheistic religions (Judaism and Christianity) and some scholars even say this applies to other religions such Zoroastrians.
On the conversion issue, I'm quoting straight from the source. You on the other hand are interpreting the source as you like.Bless sins (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Do I have to explain everything to you? Your version leaves out that the establishment can be established though offensive measures, that offensive jihad raises questions about whether jihad is justifiable on moral grounds, and that the qur'an requires muslims to wage Jihad against unbelievers.
He is talking about various religions Again, you take him out of context. He is directly quoting the qur'an. It is obvious he is talking about Islam. If you had significant knowledge I do not appreciate these personal attacks. I know how to read, and I know how to properly interprit sources, and I know what a reliable source is. And what you just said is not written in the source.
You are not. You are making things up, as usuaul. You have a long history of bizarre interpritations of things that are straight foreward and common sense. Just about every source you mentioned which I double check you gravely misinterprit. You did it on islam and antisemitism, and you are doing it here. Yahel Guhan 05:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Please quote the exact passage that you accuse me of removing.
If you look carefully at the page, he talks about "People of the Book and their conversion to God's religion". I'm no longer going to entertain your denials. In the past, you have repeatedly denied seeing the most blatant and obvious sentences.
Do your eyes not see the following passage in the source "the jihad that jurists treat in their works is undertaken to subdue the forces of unbelief, rather than to convert individuals or even groups to Islam."?? Please read carefully. It's in the book.Bless sins (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I already told you exactly what you removed. How many times do I have to repeat myself, but just to make it chrystal clear, I'll do it one more time, and only one more time. From the source, you censored out the following: Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only, because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods" (8:39).
I'm no longer going to entertain your denials. In the past, you have repeatedly denied seeing the most blatant and obvious sentences. Speak for yourself. You have done this far more times than I have. The exact sentence that mentions "people of the book" reads fully: Moreover, offensive jihad against "those who do not believe in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden and do not practice the religion of truth, from among those who have been given the Book until they pay jizya [poll-tax]" (9:29) points more to the complex relationship and interdependence of religous-moral considerations in the policy of Islamic public order vis-a-vis the "people of the Book" than to their conversion to "God's religon," Islam. It is therefore clear that you took that out of context. It is a totally different and unrelated sentence that does not come into conflict or change the views presented in the other sentence.
OK, now you are back to selective quoting. Fully, it reads: Accordingly, the sphere in which this jihad was to be waged was designated the "sphere of war" (dar-al-harb) with the essential aim of uprooting unbelief and preparing the way for the creation of Islamic order on earth. On the other hand the jihad that jurists treat in their works is undertaken to subdue the forces of unbelief, rather than to convert individuals or even groups to Islam. As you should be able to see if you read without selective quoting, he is comparing the two beliefs, not just the one which you are propagating. Yahel Guhan 03:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yahel, I don't see the following in your version: "Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only, because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods" (8:39)." You are not adding this.
What you are adding, is this: "Thus offensive jihad raises questions about whether jihad is justifiable on moral grounds. Quranic verses, like Qur'an 8:39 revealed in the latter part of Muhammad's career require Muslims to wage Jihad against unbelievers. Wars of expansion in the Islamic empire, he argues were considered jihad by Sunni scholars, but under close scrutny can be determined to be political."
Anyways, I've restored your version,[25] by sacrificing my version. I have removed the verse link per cheeser.Bless sins (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Negociations

Bless sins, you wrote "Islam does not permit Muslims to reject peace and continue bloodshed[12]"

First of all, this is anything but a neutral statement. Second, please provide the full quote. Third, obviously POV statements like this need attribution. Yahel Guhan 05:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What's not neutral? How's this POV? This can be affirmed directly from the Qur'an: "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace" (Qur'an 8:61). Nothing extra-ordinary about this.Bless sins (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the dispute pertains to this sentence primarily. Yahel Guhan, did you look at what you were reverting? If so, didn't you see that I had established attribution as you requested ("According to Maududi, Islam does not permit Muslims to reject peace and continue bloodshed.")? Do you also not see that you are also making some inappropriate changes (as I explained to you in the summary), such as spelling mistakes ("... differntly ...", "... established though offensive measures..."), removal of reliably sourced material (Asfaruddin's comments on territories, more specific elaboration of Sachedina's comments), as well as non-existent distinctions (i.e. between bondage and slavery)? That is largely obscured by the strange relocation of sections. I intend to restore the relevant changes while Maududi's passage is discussed. ITAQALLAH 18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, so it is a primary source apparently. I thought there was agreement that the quran needed a secondary source. Where does Maududi state this? Show me the full quote with context. What's not neutral? How is it neutral to state that muslims must not "reject peace and continue bloodshed." This is the exact pro-islam bias I was talking about. This is the most rediculously bias statement in this entire article. It does nothing but attempt to poison the article by stating that islam is this perfectly peaceful religon. It isn't a scholarly statement, it is propaganda. The topic itself means there are two views; either war is allowed or war is not allowed. This statement says try stop whatever war you are in no matter what. Thus it is bias and POV. Yahel Guhan 05:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
When did I say that this is a primary source? Maududi is a secondary, not primary source. If you want a Maududi quote, may I suggest you read his tafsir? This way you'll gain a much better understanding of the issue. Also, I never said "islam is this perfectly peaceful religon". Please don't accuse me of making such statements.Bless sins (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, so you aren't going to provide a quote. Very tipical of you. How am I supposed to know you aren't making up this source as well to further some POV? You may not have directly stated that "islam is this perfectly peaceful religon," but you implied it when you added this one line. Yahel Guhan 06:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
As I know there are two interpretations. As I heared in one of the jurisprudential sermons of Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, the Quranic verse which is base of this sentence can be interpreted in two different ways. One of them is what Bless sins has mentioned. The other one is completely opposite. --Seyyed(t-c) 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yahel, you have so far not been co-operative, but nevertheless, as a gesture of good will, I shall provide for the quote.

Therefore, you should boldly face the enemy both in war and peace. When the enemy desires to have talks with you, you should be willing and ready to negotiate with the other party wihtout any hesitation. Do not reject the offer on the plea that the other party is not sincere and has treacherous intentions, for no one can have knowledge of the correct intentions of others. If the other party is sincere in its offer, it will be wrong to reject it [peace offer] and continue bloodshed. And if the enemy has treacherous intentions, then Allah will protect you from them because of your courage and moral superiority.

I hope, you will co-operate with me in the future, just as I have done now.Bless sins (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't take a look at the article recently but at the time of its nomination for GA, I believe, it had a pro-contemporary-Muslim bias(bullet 3 below). Islamic view of Jihad underwent developments over time. I think three periods should be distinguished and classified:

1. The Qur'anic view of warfare and peace is different from those developed by later jurists (e.g. see EoQ, War and warfare article, and Peace article[26]; you can see ). I believe the Qur'an's view should be mentioned but together with other ones.

2. Influenced with their military power, later Sunni jurists created a doctrine of Jihad whose goal is to create world-wide Islamic empire, something that seemed to be possible to achieve at that time. For Shias, the absence of a divinely appointed leader closed the door of such forms of Jihad, so like mystic Muslims they stressed on the other spiritual types of jihad.

3. In modern times, a new interpretation of Jihad was proposed in which warfare can be only defensive (driven by the same forces that once created the traditional doctrine of Jihad). This view is adopted by most Muslims but not all of them. The sentence "After Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam" in the article is coming from this POV.

I think the article is a tough one and requires much work before becoming GA. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why, then, don't you help us clean it?Bless sins (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems we have a consensus here that we do have a pro-islam bias right now. It is my opinion that this particular line is the biggest contributor to the problem, as I have stated above. Yahel Guhan 04:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You are the only person saying that there is "pro-Islam" bias. Aminz is saying that there is bias towards modern Muslims, giving not enough weight to medieval Muslims. The line, is not contributing to the problem - you are. I've already provided for you the quote.Bless sins (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I restored the line, with further attribution. Yahel Guhan 04:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)