Talk:Jihad

Older comments from the Jihad discussion page may be found at Archive1, Archive2 and Archive3.

Concerning Islamic Apologia Over Islam's Laws Against Blasphemy

Both Judaism and Christianity have historically punished blasphemy, usually with execution. It comes as no surprise then that Islam also treats blasphemy with capital punishment. That is to say, critics of Islam are to be put to death according to the traditional mainstream Islamic law called shar'ia. Nevertheless, Islamic apologists have waged an unrelenting campaign to completely deny this fact and to hide it from the wikipedia public by engaging in revert wars to delete any mention of this fact from an article, by flooding the discussion pages with false accusations and personal attacks, and even evading the whole debate by starting new sections on it and abruptly abandoning old ones, and then deleting my comments when I tried to move my relevant comments to the new section. There is no point in directly engaging these uncivil extremists. I am simply going to post all the relevant information in this section, and will not be engaging in debate with the apologists (particularly OneGuy, Mustafaa, and Alberuni). Having said that, here is the data:

Following is a reassertion of the facts regarding Islam's historical, religious position and contemporary position on the subject of executing those who publicly criticize or ridicule Islam, mostly copying from a deleted section of the Jihad article :

---- However, there are some crimes which the Islamic law concidered to be worthy of death, which non-Muslims would concider to be fundamental rights or freedoms. One example is the freedom of speech. Muhammad considered poetry against his new religion to be a form of "creating disorder in the land" and silenced a number of great poets of his day by having them murdered. In medieval Arabia, oral poetry was the primary medium by which history, political discourse, propoganda and religion were transmitted. One such silenced poetess was Asma bint Marwan, who was stabbed to death in her sleep at Muhammad's command. Another such poet was Abu 'Afak. In a similar but more contemporary spirit, "Theo van Gogh (47), a Dutch filmmaker who had made a movie critical of some aspects of Islamic society and culture, has been shot dead in an Amsterdam street on November 2 [2004]. The late great-grand-nephew of famous Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh had received many death threats after releasing Submission last August, a short film detailing the treatment of Muslim women. He shrug off the threats, saying there was nothing offensive in his movie. The killer, a 26-year-old Moroccan residing in Holland, was wearing a long beard and Islamic garb when he shot and stabbed van Gogh in broad daylight. He was arrested after a shootout with the police." 3 Another famous incident of this kind was the death fatwa against Salman Rushdie, issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, in which Khomeini called upon any Muslim in the world to murder Salman Rushdie, or anyone else associated with the publishing of a book in which Rushdie blasphemed Islam. Today, many publicly known Western critics of Islam receive a constant stream of death threats from Islamic fanatics seeking to silence them, and have to employ constant the service of body guards (Canadian TV producer and publicly known Muslim critic of orthodox Islam, Irshad Manji, is sometimes cited as the "new Salman Rushdie" and employs the service of a number of Israeli trained body guards), while those who cannot afford body guards often write under a pen name for fear of their personal safety. In the Muslim world, those who dare to publicly criticize Islam are usually executed or imprisoned by their governments, under laws against "spreading disorder through the land" and apostasy (a crime punishable by death in Islam).

The incidents surrounding of Rushdie, van Gogh, and Manji are the most contemporary and most well known. There are other obscure characters who fall victim to this pattern of Islamist extremists murdering not only critics or dissidents of Islam, but also those whom they feel are heretics, such as Dr. Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D., a Western Muslim who was widely concidered a heretic by mainstream Muslims, due to his rejection of all hadiths, and his attempts to apply computational numerology to the Qur'an. On January 31, 1990, Rashad Khalifa was stabbed to death in his Tuscon, Arizona mosque by an Islamist extremist who objected to Khalifa's blasphemous preachings on Islam. So far, only contemporary historical incidents have been discussed. One of the most famous non-contemporary executions of critics of Islam were the execution of the Marytrys of Córdoba, in the city of Córdoba, Spain between the years AD 850 and 859:

"The city of Córdoba was the setting for an unusual historical drama that unfolded between the years 850 and 859, when forty-eight Christians [mostly Christian priests] were decapitated for religious offenses against Islam. More striking than the number of executions were the peculiar circumstances surrounding them. For one thing, as the sources unambiguously demonstrate, the majority of the victims deliberately invoked capital punishment by publicly blaspheming Muhammad and disparaging Islam." (Christian Martyrs in Muslim Spain by Kenneth Baxter Wolf, Introduction) [1]

By deliberately invoking capital punishment on themselves in this way, the 48 "Martyrs of Córdoba" ensured that it would be recorded in the historical record that such was the usual practice of the medieval Islamic empire. Liberal movements within Islam reject the assasination or execution of public critics of Islam, though the historical and religious record suggests otherwise.

Other such incidents include:

• Naguib Mahfouz, the elderly and much-celebrated Nobel Prize laureate for literature, was seriously injured in Cairo when an assailant knifed him in the neck, presumably in revenge for an allegorical novel written decades earlier.
• "...In the Hague, 5,000 Muslims gathered in front of the Ministry of Justice, burned imitation copies of The Satanic Verses along with pictures of the author, and called for Rushdie's death. Nearly 2,000 Muslims protested noisily in Manchester on February 24 and 10,000 in New York City the next day, protesting outside the closed offices of Viking. Also on the 25th, 1,000 Muslims marched in Oslo; the next day, 2,000 marched in Copenhagen. The protests in Scandinavia were the first of such size in a decade or more. Back in England, 3,000 Muslims protested the Rushdie book in Halifax on March 3. On the 4th, demonstrations took place in Sheffield and Derby, complete with book burnings and chants for Rushdie's death. On the 6th, another 3,000 Muslims marched in Derby and burned copies of The Satanic Verses. And so on..."
• "...Then there was the atmosphere of intimidation. A wide assortment of targets were anonymously threatened with violence, leading to additional police guards being posted here and there around the globe. Politicians requiring extra security included: in Canada, the minister of revenue and the foreign minister; in Britain, the prime minister, foreign secretary and home secretary; and in France, the president of the National Assembly. Artists were publicly threatened in France, Nigeria, and Egypt. The British television interviewer Peter Sissons asked an Iranian diplomat, "Do you understand that we don't regard it as civilized to kill people for their opinions?" Muslim zealots found this an "insulting" question and threatened Sisson's life, so he too had a police guard attacked. A public reading from The Satanic Verses in Austria had to be canceled due to telephoned bomb threats--one of which was traced back to the Iranian embassy in Vienna. Followers of Khomeini also issued dozens of threats to publishing houses and book stores throughout the West.
• "In Britain, several Muslim leaders endorsed Khomeini's decision [calling for the assasination of Salman Rushdie on account of his blasphemy against Islam], and some even swore to carry out the death sentence. The Union of Islamic Students' Associations in Europe issued a statement offering its services to Khomeini. Others were yet more outspoken, uttering statements that left the rest of the population aghast. "I think we should kill Salman Rushdie's whole family," Faruq Mughal screamed as he emerged from a West London mosque. "His body should be chopped into little pieces and sent to all Islamic countries as a warning to those who insult our religion." A London property developer told reporters, "If I see him, I will kill him straight away. Take my name and address. One day I will kill him." Iqbal Sacranic of the U.S. Action Committee on Islamic Affairs announced that "death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him..his mind must be tormented for the rest of his life unless he asks for forgiveness to Almighty Allah." Back in Bradford, the secretary of the Mosque Council, Sayed Abdul Quddus, said that Rushdie "deserves hanging." Parvez Akhtar, a financial adviser in Bradford, told a reporter that "if Salman Rushdie came here, he would be torn to pieces. He is a dead man." Newspaper reports filled with such statements made it appear that Khomeini's edict enjoyed support among Muslims of Britain, regardless of age, sex, social status and religiosity"
• "Most striking, several prominent European converts to Islam endorsed the death edict [issued against Salman Rushdie], much enhancing its respectability. These included the French intellectual Vincent Mansour (ne Vincent Monteil) and the Swiss journalist Ahmed Huber. Cat Stevens, the former rock singer who converted to Islam in 1977 and changed his name to Yusuf al-Islam, told Muslim students in Surrey, "He [Rushdie] must be killed. The Qur'an makes it clear--if someone defames the prophet, then he must die." Islam reiterated this view on television two months later, saying that is Rushdie turned up on his doorstep asking for help, "I'd try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is..." [2]

The "Media Guide to Islam" writtne by the Center for Integration and Improvement of Journalism at San Francisco State University confirms that blasphemy is punishable by death in Islamic law:

"Muslims regard heresy and blasphemy (ilhad in Arabic) as very serious transgressions, tantamount to religious treason. Rejecting or defaming Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, other prophets, and the Quran fall into this category. Some Muslim nations -- Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for example -- have criminal laws dictating the death penalty for apostates, heretics and blasphemers ... Citing shari’a, or Islamic law, Muslim religious courts have sentenced those considered guilty of blasphemy or heresy to death Two well-publicized recent cases in which death penalties were levied, but not carried out, involved the novelists Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasareen." [3]

Thus it is that groups of Muslim fundamentalists believe that Jihad involves assasinating those who criticize Islam or blaspheme it. Of course not all Muslims would support this view, particularly it is opposed by Liberal movements within Islam. Nevertheless, violent Islamist extremist groups find justification for such assasination hits in Islamic literature, dating as far back as 150 years after Muhammad's death, and a substantial segmenet of Muslim communities, from Holland to Pakistan, support punishing blasphemy against Islam with capital punishment.

---

A brief response to the above rambling:

(1) You started out with the claim that every critic received a death threat. Now you changed critic to blasphemy. There is a difference between honest criticism and vulgar blasphemy. Anyway, keep reading the rest of points....

This scares me. No, this scares the hell out of me. It's ok to kill people for vulgar blasphemy?

Sign your comments please. I am atheist. I don't believe that it's ok to kill people for religious reasons. Though I would say that stuff such as cursing, throwing pork in mosques (as happens in India and leads to Hindu-Muslim riots and death of dozens), hate literature, or things done deliberately to hurt people or to incite violence physically or psychologically probably do need some kind of punishment. I only pointed out that the guy is shifting his position as we continue the dialog. He started out with "criticism" and changed that to blasphemy. Everyone knows "blasphemy" is a crime according to the Bible (death) and traditional Islam (though interpretation and application vary). Initially he claimed 'critic' and then changed it to 'blasphemy'. OneGuy 10:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against him, and I'm not arguing against you. If, after changing his argument, it became valid, then by God (or Allah, or Darwin, or G-d, or whatever), it's valid. Let facts speak for themselves. (This, incidentally, is the reason I post anonymously. That way, I'm not a Christian, I'm not a Jew, I'm not an Atheist, and I'm not a Moslem.) And for one, whether it's "ok" or not is completely irrelevant. I don't really care about how you feel about freedom of speech or restricting it. Anyway, one man's blasphemy is another man's religion .. you do know that Moslems consider many of the fundamental tenets of Christianity and Judaism (for example) to be blasphemy?

Whether you post anonymously or not, sign your comments. Muslims consider some tenets of Christianity, such as trinity, as "shirk." If that is same as blasphemy (I don't know), then that further refutes your argument since millions of Christians live in Muslim countries but are not being killed. Anyway, as I said, this is open to interpretation. Some of the behavior like cursing, publicly desecrating the Qur'an to incite riots, hate literature, or things done deliberately to incite violence do need some kind of punishment. You didn't answer that part. OneGuy 23:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by "signing". For example, Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God, which is pretty blasphemous from an Islamic perspective. And please, please do not use the example of "millions of Christians living in Moslem countries", as the actions of Moslem majorities toward their Christian minorities have historically (and I mean in the last few decades) been .. not very good. "Cursing"? No, I don't think people should be punished for cursing. I don't think people should be punished for desecrating any book. If a riot is started in that case, the rioters are responsible for the violence. "Hate literature" has been, in recent years, used to refer to everything from the Bible and Qur'an to Mein Kampf, please clarify. Things done deliberately to incite violence is too ambiguous, please clarify.

Sign by ~~~~ after your comments. If you claim that the punishment for blasphemy is death in Islam, and Christian are blasphemous, then why are they not being killed? There is a contradiction there. I don't think anything I said above was ambiguous. There are clearly things that can be classified as deliberately provoking incitement such as publicly desecrating the Qur'an to incite riots, throwing pig in mosques during prayer (as happened in India), hate literature (as Nazi literature against Jews was and similar literature against Muslims would be). If you think that is ambiguous, then I cannot help you OneGuy 09:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Why do I need to sign my posts?) You're not making sense here. Christians aren't being killed? 9/11? The pogroms you hear of every week or so? The genocides? There is a contradiction here? You know, I agree entirely. If you're talking about literature that incites to genocide against Moslems ("as Nazi literature against Jews was"), then please don't say "hate speech". I've actually heard that stating that one doesn't believe in Islam can be "hate speech" ("Islam is a false religion"). What you were talking there is material that incites to genocide (which is a small portion of all hate speech).. whether or not that should be banned is a long and difficult issue, which I am not going to start discussing here.

And 9/11 happened because of Christianity? Instead of killing Christians in their own countries, or some other country, these guys chose the US because of Christianity? And you hear this every week? Like where? Post example from this week (and don't post Iraq or any other political/military war). Did these 9/11 terrorist claim that they attacked the US on 9/11 because of Christianity? Post proof for that too. You have quickly began losing your credibility here, like Pename. OneGuy 16:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If the news that are flowing in every day about "Moslem-Christian riots", terrorist strikes, Iraqi insurgents, genocide of Christians here or there, etc. have failed to convince you (do they even report that stuff on Al-Jazeera?), obviously, I can't help here. You've either decided what you think without consulting the facts, or you're practicing Taqiyya. I suggest that you don't make any modifications to the article, as you're obviously biased.

I am biased and you and Pename are what? Only someone who is either a shameless liar (I suspect that's the case here) or doesn't know what he is talking about would make a statement that 9/11 terrorists attacked the US because Islam calls for killing Christians. Post the evidence for that shameless lie, not by citing isolated attacks in a war zone like Iraq but by quoting the Qur'an and prominent Muslim scholars. We will see who is practicing "Taqiyya" here. it's you OneGuy 08:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please see the definition of "bias" somewhere (hey, I know this one site..) Forming an opinion not based on facts but emotions (like you) is different from forming an informed opinion (like me). And no, I refuse to post any part of an Islamic text, because they really have no relevance here. Islamic doctrine has been debated by Islamic scholars for what, 1400 years, and they're still far from agreeing (actually, they seem to be diverging yet farther) what the texts mean. What is relevant is that Moslems are being told by their local Moslem preachers that Islam commands the killing of unbelievers, that they've done so in the past, and that they're doing it today.

• • Can you please give one single example of an Anti-Christian pogrom by 'Islam' in the past week. What is a Moslem, I'm guessing you mean Muslim. Show me of your Muslim-Christian Riots crazy boy. --195.7.55.146 11:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If nobody is killed within the last week, then there is no problem? Anyway, should I mention something about the anti-Christian murders in Jersey City? And what about the following riot when the Muslims wanted to disturb the funeral of these children? Djames 21:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(2) Yes, Pakistan is one of very few (if not the only) Muslim country that has blasphemy law. Some people (most of them Muslims and a few Christians) did get imprisoned (and some still are) by that law, but none of them ever was put to death by the state. That's a challenge. None of them was ever killed by the state (despite the law). This example weakens your argument, not prove it.

(3) You repeated a couple of weak stories from Ibn ishaq about Muhammad killing poets. These stories are rejected by Muslims.see this. Anti-Islamic bigot like you cannot claim that Muhammad did this or that and so this is Islamic law. Muslim scholars will interpret stories about Muhammad and derive Islamic law, not anti-Islamic bigots.

(4) Yusuf Islam is a singer, not a scholar of Islam. Moreover, recently he retracted the comments about Rushdie he made in 1989 (when he was still comparatively new Muslim). And Al-Azhar "is opposed to the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie." and Islamic Conference of March 1989, "44 out of 45 members states unanimously rejected Ayatullah's fatwa." By bringing up Rushdie, you have actually refuted yourself. Thank you very much. This has conclusively debunked you.

The 44 member states that unanimously rejected it aren't even worth mentioning. Any person with a brain and/or heart rejects it - the one that didn't deserves mention.

We shouldn't mention that most Muslims rejected the fatwa? Why, because that makes not all Muslims look radicals? Whatever. And what does this have to do with Jihad anyway? OneGuy 10:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, when anti-Islamic editor is using Rushdie as an example (as clearly is his motive) to argue that Islamic punishment for "critics" is death, then clearly it needs be mentioned. Plus, this topic has nothing to do with Jihad; it belongs to blasphemy article. Why do you want to stuff everything in this article?OneGuy 23:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Anti-Islamic" is an ambiguous term that covers everyone from skinheads to all non-Moslems, please clarify. I agree it doesn't belong in the Jihad article, though. (Which doesn't exactly refute my argument, but makes it irrelevant in any case.)

Why is it ambiguous ? Is anti-Semite ambiguous too? If not, why is this ambiguous? Anti-Semite is a person who is hostile against Jews. If such a person edits Judaism article, there would be problems. That's what we have here in Pename. An anti-Islamic editor with zero credibility and integrity. Where is the ambiguity? OneGuy 09:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because, basically, anti-Islamic is being used as a slur (I think it's better than "Islamophobe" though, at least it doesn't imply a mental disorder). Anti-semite is an excellent example of another word which can't be used in rational conversations any more. Both words have, thanks to liberal liberal use (hehe) become, well, meaningless. They mean "everything except Islam" and "everything except Jews/Judaism/Israel/whatever" (respectively). As for Pename, I haven't been monitoring his writing closely (and still don't understand what you mean by "anti-Islamic"). However, if we're talking about the truth, "credibility" and "integrity" here, I'd say you have more of a problem with it than him. This article shouldn't portray anything in either a "negative" or "positive" light. Moral relativism, not "factual relativism" is called for in an encyclopedia article. I still haven't seen you admit to one case where Moslems have done something "negative" because of their religion. Why? You seem to have decided that Islam is without "negative" sides. We shouldn't assert that Islam is "good" or "evil", but if a certain fact makes it seem such (to you), it still can't be omitted. Let the reader decide.

I don't see anti-Islamic and anti-Semtic as ambiguous words. The words mean a person who is hostile against Jews/Muslims. Plus, if you think I have more problems with credibility than Pename, this coming from an anonymous user who claims 9/11 happened because Islam allows Christians to be killed doesn't impress me. OneGuy 16:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hooray for you if you see them as clear terms, and hooray for you if you've never seen them being used as slurs. I, for one, have been called both an anti-semite and a Zionist in the same conversation. Why don't you just say what you mean by these words? Right, you can't, because they're just insults.

I defined the words several times. Anti-Semite is a person who is hostile against the Jews and anti-Islamic is a person who is hostile against Muslims (like someone who claims 9/11 terrorists attacked the US because Islam calls for killing Christians. LOL). There is nothing ambiguous about the definition. If you have a problem with comprehension, that's not my problem. OneGuy 07:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand what you mean. Yes, it is very worrying how anti-Islamic sentiment is spreading in the Moslem world. Every day, we hear some anti-Islamic Moslem preacher say that Islam commands the killing of infidels.

(4) You repeated the isolated cases such as Manji, Rashad Khalifa, Theo van Gogh, etc, who received death threats from anonymous radicals. That's like posting a much longer list of Muslims/Sikhs who received death threats or were killed after 9/11, and claiming that American law allows Muslims to be killed. You are truly a ... I won't repeat it again :)) Post the views of prominent well known Muslim scholars (not anti-Islamic sites or isolated radicals) for each of these cases separately one by one. After that, you need to provide proof that that judgement was a consensus among Muslims scholars in each of these case. You didn't do that. Again, you have failed quite miserably OneGuy 10:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"You started out with the claim that every critic received a death threat. Now you changed critic to blasphemy. There is a difference between honest criticism and vulgar blasphemy." <--- I am forced to counter OneGuy's false accusation, though I do not wish to engage him in debate. I never stated that EVERY critic of Islam recieved a death threat - this is a false accusation that OneGuy keeps repeating (note that false accusations are explicitly against Wikipedia policy). Also, it is not difficult to see how criticism and blasphemy are synonymous. Though OneGuy's refferal to blasphemy as "vulgar" is very interesting. Suddenly his tone has changed - blasphemy is "vulgar" and somehow different from "criticism," says OneGuy. It seems as if he has now changed plans and is going to defend decapitating people for "vulgar blasphemy." -- Pename

I seem to remember that either you said most or every critic. Even if you said most, that's still a lie. Yes, there is a big difference between blasphemy and scholarly criticism. Blasphemy can mean several things, including things such as cursing God/Allah/Muhammad or his wives, burning or desecrating Qur'an publicly, throwing pig/pork in mosques, etc. Scholarly and honest criticism is not necessarily blasphemy. Anyway, as I said above, you failed to prove any of your claim. You posted some isolated list of people who received threats from anonymous unknown people. I can post a much bigger list of Muslims/Sikhs who received death threats or were abused in the US. That won't prove anything. Only bigots or people who lack rational thinking resort to such weak arguments, like you also did with your "Timeline" (a collection of everything that you thought would show Islam negatively and called it a "military history" - what a joke). This is bigotry, not something that belongs in Encyclopedia. OneGuy 15:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there is a big difference between blasphemy and scholarly criticism. This is a first time I hear this from a Moslem. (Point: Islamic scholars do not differentiate between the two.)

Even though I told you I am not Muslim, you repeated it. Anyway, I don't mind. Ad hominem comments won't refute what I wrote. As for your positive assertion that Islamic scholars do not differentiate, you failed to provide proof. Your claim is easily refuted by the fact that thousands of critics have written books on Islam. How many Muslim scholars issued a death sentence on say, Michael Cook, a scholar and critic of Islam? Bring your proof. Rushdie was an exception. His book was not criticism but supposedly "blasphemous." Even in that case Al Azhar rejected Iran's fatwa, as did 44 out 45 countries. In other words, you have failed to prove anything here OneGuy 23:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• cough*Only bigots or people who lack rational thinking resort to such weak arguments*cough* Anyway, that's not relevant. Well, I've never seen an Islamic scholar differentiate, and neither do any Islamic texts seem to mention it.. but as you said earlier, that's not the point of this article. My claim is hardly "easily refuted" by the fact that there are lots of critics of Islam who have received death threats. It would be if I had said that "all critics", which I didn't. Please clarify your clumsy, bile-filled assertion that I have "failed to prove anything here"?

There are a hundreds of western critics. You (if you are Pename -- sign your name by ~~~&#x7e) only posted a few examples who received death threats from some anonymous unknown radical. That's not "lots of." Plus, where is the evidence that well known Muslim scholars issued the death fatwa against each of these critics? You did not post the evidence. Rushdie was the only example given where a death fatwa was issued. Al Azhar and 44 out 45 countries rejected Khominie's fatwa. If that's not "failed to prove anything," then what is it? OneGuy 08:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(I'm not Pename.) I'm not arguing (err, "debating") about this with you. This is not relevant to the Jihad article, and I don't feel like arguing with you for sport (mainly because you seem to have trouble distinguishing between 'all' and 'some'). Let's mention the incidents (or rather, create a list page, as there's a huge many of these cases) instead of ambiguosly saing "a lot" (as I would) "infinitely" (as Pename likely would) or "none" (as you would).

You first made this positive statement: (Point: Islamic scholars do not differentiate between the two. You also agreed generally with Pename in all your comments. After I refuted these assertions, now you are claiming that I have a problem with comprehending "some" and "all"? huh? OneGuy 16:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which assertions exactly did you refute? You're claiming that because all critics/blasphemers didn't receive death threats, then no critics/blasphemers received death threats. You haven't proven anything.

I refuted your baseless claim, Islamic scholars do not differentiate between the two by pointing out that you have not provided a name of single Islamic scholar who has issued a death sentence on a Western critic. The only example where the death sentence was issued, i,.e. Rushdie (whose book was a fiction not criticism), was rejected by Al Azhar scholars and 44 out of 45 Islamic countries. If you can't see how that refutes your basless claim, then there is nothing more I can do for you OneGuy 07:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whoa, for someone who's bashed my comprehension, you sure have a way with logic. Please read the comment again. Islamic scholars do not differentiate between the two. There is no Islamic text that says "blasphemy of Islam is forbidden, but fair criticism is OK".

• • lalalala - "bring your proofs if ye do speak the truth" - The Qur'an --195.7.55.146 11:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy, of course, is right; but this whole argument is irrelevant here, because killing blasphemers is not jihad to begin with, and is not relevant to an article on jihad. - Mustafaa 01:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Assasinations are part of Jihad. It's pretty interesting that sometimes you claim that Jihad is ANY kind of religious struggle at all, and sometimes you claim that carrying out assasinations commanded by Islam are not part of Jihad. -- Pename

Do I now? So who claims that assassinations are Jiha1d? - Mustafaa 02:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to you and your Islamic apologist friends here, taking care of one's parents and studying Islamic law are forms of "Jihad," i.e. you say that a discussion on taking care of one's parents is relevant to an encylopedia on Jihad, and at the same time you have the nerve to suggest that assasination hits carried out by Islamist militants at the command of prominent Muslim clerics (such as the assasination of van Gogh, or the assasination of Asma bint Marwan, whom Muslims traditionally believe was a poetess and mother of six children that Muhammad himself had assasinated. The Muslim apologetic arguments being made on this page are becoming more and more outrageously ridiculous. Assasinations sanctioned by Islam and carried out by militant Islamists are clearly part of Jihad. Any brief survey of popular militant Islamist literature or history will reveal that assasination is widely concidered amongst all who ever engaged in Jihad to be a part of Jihad, as well as the classical scholars and jurists of Islam. Assasinations are a part of Islam, and many examples from Muhammad's own life can be cited. Assasinations for the purpose of silencing critics are a special case of assasinations, which are a special case of Jihad. The silencing of critics is therefore a subject that deserves thorough discussion under the category of Jihad. -- Pename

There are hadiths that say that "taking care of one's parents and studying Islamic law are forms of Jihad." It's not according to "us." And you claim to be a former Muslim? LOL. Even if that story about Muhammad is true (and it's rejected by Muslims here. You need to post Islamic site that accepts the story), where is your proof that this assasination was called "Jihad"? Do radical Islamists call assassination of Western critics Jihad? Post proof. We don't even know who killed, say, Rashad Khalifa. He was killed by some anonymous unknown person. It's speculated that the killer was a radical Muslim, but there is no proof. Moreover, I asked you to post evidence by citing Islamic or neutral sites (not anti-Islamic sites) to show that death fatwa against each of these critic was issued by prominent Muslim scholars, and that there was a consensus among the scholars. You failed to post that evidence. Given that Al Azhar and 44 out of 45 countries rejected the death fatwa against Rushdie, I can say thar you have been debunked thoroughly. OneGuy 08:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NOTE: OneGuy claims that he is not a Muslim. As a former Muslim myself, and as someone who has spent a lifetime in Muslim countries, I say that OneGuy exhibits every sign of being a Muslim. He has recently started claiming to be an atheist, but I doubt that this is true. Also note that some Muslims believe they can ethically lie about their religious beliefs under certain circumstances, such as if they or their Muslim community is under duress, or if it is done to decieve an enemy at war in order gain a strategic advantage. -- Pename

Recently? I never claimed to be anything other than atheist. Long before you got here, on Talk Jesus another POV pusher accused me to be a fundamentalist Christian because I agreed that most historians accept Jesus existed but deny miracles and resurrection. Your other claim about Muslims allowed to lie is a lie itself, unless you were a shi'a who supposedly have such a doctrine. But even they apparently don't interpret it as "lying." I don't believe for a second that you are a former Muslim, given complete ignorance you have shown, such as the claim that weak isnad means "forged" hadith. After telling us that, you went on to create an article on a story that has no isnad. You have no credibility or integrity left. You have been debunked to the bones. OneGuy

I agree with Pename here, although I'd like to point out that he could also just be from a public school. Have you seen the touchy-feely stuff they feed, that frankly wouldn't be too out of place in a Taleban-era Afghanese schoolbook? (That is, if the Taleban had decent schoolbooks. Or schools. Or books. Or decency.)

Good grief. Next thing I know you'll be accusing me of being a Muslim! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uh no. I won't be accusing you of being a Muslim. -- Pename

OneGuy has consistently claimed to be an atheist from before you even got here - and I for one find it extremely unlikely that you ever spent any significant time in Muslim countries, given your frankly bizarre opinions about what Muslims think. As for taking care of one's parents, it is specifically mentioned as jihad by a hadith with a good isnad. What hadith says that assassination is jihad? - Mustafaa 03:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Get a grip, Mustafaa. Assasinations are part of Jihad. Assasinations were so common amongst the early Muslims, that the etymology of the English word "assasination" goes back to an Islamic sect. In any case, the burden of proof does not lie on me, it lies on you, for the following reason. It has been demonstrated that Muslims, including Muhammad himself (according to traditional Islamic beliefs) engaged in assasination warfare. Asasination is, of course, a part of war. You are suggesting that it is not a part of Islamic holy war. So now it up to you to show us a hadith or a classical juristic ruling which declares that asasination is not a part of Jihad, i.e. that Muslims are prohibited from carrying out asasination warfare. -- Pename

No, the one who makes a positive assertion must prove it. This is basic logic. You cannot prove a a negative. You made a positive assertion that assassination of western critics is part of Jihad. You need to prove that assertion. Bring your proof. If you can't, I will assume that's a false claim OneGuy 18:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

A brief response to OneGuy's above ramblings:

In 1697 AD, the English parliment passed the Blasphemy Act of 1697, which ordered that all individuals found guilty of making atheistic or polytheistic statements (either written or spoken) or denying the "truth" of the Christian religion shall be executed. [4] This was despite the fact that Europe had greatly advanced in philosophy and science by 1697 AD (the English philospher of materialism, Thomas Hobbes, though to have been the first person to systemize materialist philosophy, had already died 30 years before the passing of this act). And yet, contrary to all evidence, OneGuy is claiming that Islam does not and has never ordained the death to those found guilty blasphemy, that Muhammad never commanded ANY punishment for criticism of his new religion (Islam). This despite the fact that it has been pointed out numerous times that the historical sources about Muhammad written by medieval Arab Muslim historians who wrote less than two centuries after Muhammad, clearly show that Muhammad commanded the assasinations of poets who spoke against Islam. Various conteporary fatwas, the juristic rulings of the classical four Madhabs, and certain historical incidents carried out by Muslims (such as the Marytrys of Cordoba, etc., detailed above) clearly show that a large number of Muslims believed and continue to believe that true Islam truly commanded that all who blaspheme against Islam shall be put to death one way or another. Modern Muslim nation-states, such as Pakistan, to this day have Blasphemy Acts which designate blasphemy as a crime punishable by death. And yet in the face of this mountain of evidence, OneGuy obstintantly insists that Islamic law allows anyone to freely criticize Islam and that no Muslims believe in killing those who blaspheme against their religion. And if the article is ever unlocked, OneGuy will undoubtably attempt to remove any mention of assasinations by Muslim practiioners of Jihad, particularly tassassinations of critics of Islam, such as Theo van Gogh. We are to believe that while advanced 17th century Western Europe was still practicing such barbarism, backwards 7th century Islamic Arabia was not! There seems to be no limit to the outrageousness of the religious apologetics of individuals such as ONeGuy. --Pename

Amazing! I have never said that the punishment for blasphemy is not death in Islam or the the Bible. Pleas read carefully this time before replying.

(1) I asked Pename to prove that scholarly western criticism by western scholars is considered "blasphemy" by most Muslim scholars. He never posted that evidence. Why thousands of western scholars who have written critical books on Islam -- Muir, Cook, Crone, Wansborough and a thousand more -- never received a death fatwa by Muslim scholars?

(2) Even fatwa against Rushdie, the only case where a fatwa was issued by a prominent Muslim, whose book is supposedly "blasphemous" (not "criticism") was rejected by Al Azhar university and 44 out 45 countries. That proves that Muslim scholars do not even believe that the jurisdiction of Islamic law is applicable in countries that are not Islamic (the reason given by most Muslim scholars to reject Iran's fatwa against Rushdie who was a British citizen). Rushdie's example has thoroughly debunked this guy, but he keeps repeating the same thing over and over, like a broken record.

(3) I asked him to post the names of well known Muslim scholars who issued the death fatwa against a few critics that he mentioned, such as, Manji, Theo van Gogh, and others, who received death threats from anonymous radicals. He never posted that evidence. Only posting the names of isolated critics who received death threats from anonymous radicals doesn't prove anything. Many Muslims/Sikhs (far more than the names he mentioned) received death threats or were killed in the US after 9/11. What would posting that information prove about the US?

(4) Pename was asked to post the evidence that assasionation/death threats of western critics is considered "Jihad" according to the Qur'an, hadith, and by Muslim scholars. He never posted that evidence either. He claims it is "Jihad", but he can't provide evidence.

(5) The discussion about blasphemy and the treatment of prisoners should go to their own articles. Pename wants to stuff everything he can think in the article Jihad. No wonder the article got blocked. He now insists that he is going to insert everything (including blasphemy law) in the article (some of his claims are even outright lies as I showed above). OneGuy 16:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

very good.nice .jihad can going on

What on earth is this crap all about? This doesn't deal with Jihad, this is more for a discussion forum. About van Gogh: he was killed by a so called Islamist or Fundamentalist as they call that group of Muslims in the Netherlands. As people who discuss this matter should know, this is a minority group. Unfortunately, most people who discuss Islam seem to prove to have no, little or selective knowledge about Islam. What they, likes of the first poster on this Blasphemy topic, spread is that litle knowledge about a violent Islam. The same I could find about any Christian form, as is shown. Don't compare or claim that all Muslims are alike.--Ameer 13:55, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

great slaughter

I checked the translation that Pename posted on 8:67-68. It comes from Hilai/Khan. Notice that Pename didn't know where this translation came from. He claimed it came from Pickthall, but Pickthall doesn't have the word "great." Obviously Pename took the translation from anti-Islamic site and inserted it here without knowing anything about the verse. The commentary on this site claims that the verse refers to freeing the prisoners without ransom here. I checked Yusuf Ali commentary on the verse, and he also said something similar. He says that wordily gains are condemned in the verse. He then goes on to say that one of the prisoner was Al Abbsa who was ancestor of Abbasid Caliphate. Obviously the prisoners that this verse refers to were not killed. Even usually hostile Muir said positive things about the treatment of prisoners after the battle of Badr. I don't have access to other commentaries like Muhammad Asad and others, but I suspect that they interpreted the verse this way too. Hilai/Khan commentary probably also interprets the verse this way since the above site uses that translation. Qaribullah/Ahmad Darwish translation:

It is not for any Prophet to have Prisoners in order to slaughter many in the land. You want the gain of this life, and Allah wants everlasting life ...

This translation again agrees with Yusuf Ali commentary.

Pename copied/pasted this verse from anti-islamic site without knowing where the translation came from or what the verse is about. He used the verse (like anti-Islamic site he copied it from) to imply something opposite to how Muslims interpret the verse. In other words, this turns out to be another case of Pename twisting facts and copying/pasting stuff from anti-Islamic sites (like most of his other stuff here) and inserting them into article OneGuy 23:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Once again, OneGuy is making false accusations against me, in blatent violation of Wikipedia policy. And once again, I am forced to respond to his false accusations, even though I do not wish to engage him in any kind of debate due to his constant violations of wikipedia policies (e.g. incivility, personal attacks, and of course false accusations). I copied the Qur'an quote which says "great slaughter" from http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0005.htm (a Muslim website). But which website I got it from is irrelevant because the website is actually just an online copy of an English translation of a book that is widely avaialble on the Internet. The book is titled "Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoom" (The Sealed Nectar) and it was written by a Muslim scholar named Shaykh Safi ur-Rahmaan Mubarakfoori. --Pename

That's exactly what I said earlier, that either you found this translation on Islamic site like the above that uses the verse and interprets it completely differently, or you found it on anti-Islamic site. In response you posted a link to Picthall translation! Anyone can scroll up (or search the page for "Picthall" since it's a big page) and check. The translation that you copied and pasted into the article was not from Pitchall, and given that like anti-Islamic sites you used the verse to imply opposite meaning to how Muslims interpret the verse, it's safe to assume that you found the verse on anti-Islamic site and inserted it in the article without having a clue what the verse was about. Of course now you can use google and find names like "Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoom" (The Sealed Nectar) and others; but when I first asked you, you had no clue and posted a link a to Picthall. OneGuy 09:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because we all know that ad hominem attacks are better than facts.. (that is, if you have none).

anonymous user: kindly sign your posts by ending everything you say with something like "--anonymous user." This helps prevent confusion on the discussion page. Thanks. -- Pename

OneGuy has stooped to the level of providing fake translations of the Qur'an; OneGuy's translation of verse 8:86:

"It is not for any Prophet to have Prisoners in order to slaughter many in the land. You want the gain of this life, and Allah wants everlasting life ... "

Here is verse 8:86 according to three different internationally reknown English translations of the Qur'an:

YUSUFALI: It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise.

PICKTHAL: It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

SHAKIR: It is not fit for a prophet that he should take captives unless he has fought and triumphed in the land; you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise. [5]

As anyone can see, the meaning in OneGuy's translation of the verse is completely different from the meaning of the verse as translated in every published English translation of the Qur'an. Not only did OneGuy not provide a URL when he posted this supposed quation from the Qur'an, he did not even cite its chapter and verse number. How can someone who engages in such intellectual dishonesty be allowed to continue contributing to this encylopedia? -- Pename

I cited the chapter and verse number in the first sentence, 8:67-68! Stop making a fool out yourself and read before replying. I didn't promote a false "translation" of the Qur'an. I clearly stated that the translation is based on tafsir' by Al-Muntakhab. You posted Yusuf Ali translation above, but his commentary on 8:68 also agrees with Muntakhab tafsir (Qaribullah/Ahmad translation). I have not yet found any Islamic source (unless you can post the evidence) that interprets the verse like you used it for. Obviously you found the verse on anti-Islamic site, but you didn't have any clue where the translation came from or how Muslims interpret the verse. Post a single Islamic site that interprets this verse like you used it for. Otherwise, you did indeed cut and pasted the verse from anti-Islamic site OneGuy 09:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And here is the URL http://www.divineislam.com/ You will find the "Al-Muntakhab" translation (based on Tafsir). there. The important part is not the translation but how Muslims interpret the verse. Yusuf Ali commentary also interprets the verse like Al-Muntakhab. See Yusuf Ali note on 8:68. Not only you didn't know where the translation came from, but you also used the anti-Islamic interpretation (on POW) not found on any Islamic site. Obviously you cut and pasted the verse from anti-Islamic site without having a clue what the verse was about OneGuy 09:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"you also used the anti-Islamic interpretation (on POW) not found on any Islamic site. Obviously you cut and pasted the verse from anti-Islamic site without having a clue what the verse was about" <--- Once again, OneGuy is engaging in personal attacks. And once again, OneGuy is making false accusations against me, in blatent violation of Wikipedia policy. And once again, I am forced to respond to his false accusations, even though I do not wish to engage him in any kind of debate due to his constant violations of wikipedia policies (e.g. incivility, personal attacks, and of course false accusations). I copied the Qur'an quote which says "great slaughter" and the related discussion on POWs from http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0005.htm (a Muslim website). But which website I got it from is irrelevant because the website is actually just an online copy of an English translation of a published book that happens to be widely avaialble on the Internet. The book is titled "Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoom" (The Sealed Nectar) and it was written by a Muslim scholar named Shaykh Safi ur-Rahmaan Mubarakfoori. -- Pename

The content of the above page where the verse is used is exact copy of the page that I gave. Compare his page above and the page that I gave in my first reply here. (scroll down to where the verse is used on his link and then compare). See More twisting from Pename. In response Pename at that time posted Picthall translation. The translation is not from Picthall (it's from Hilali/Khan). He is now trying to confuse people with throwing names like Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoom, even though the content on the page are exactly the same that I gave. The translation that he copied and pasted into the article was not from Pitchall, and given that like anti-Islamic sites, he used the verse to imply opposite meaning to how Muslims interpret the verse (like the above Islamic site), it's safe to assume that he found the verse on anti-Islamic site and inserted it in the article without having a clue what the verse was about. Basically this was cut and past from anti-Islamic site and inserting that into articles without having a clue OneGuy 15:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"And here is the URL http://www.divineislam.com/" <--- Wikipedia sources must be verifiable accoridng to official Wikipedia policy. The source you have provided is a link to a Microsoft Windows EXE file. I do not use Microsoft Windows, so I cannot run your program on my computer. Therefore your source is not verifiable. -- Pename

"I didn't promote a false "translation" of the Qur'an. I clearly stated that the translation is based on tafsir' by Al-Muntakhab." <--- are you saying that you did not even copy the translation exactly as shown in the www.divineislam.com "Qur'an viewer" Windows software? -- Pename

You claim to be a former Muslim, but you don't know what tafir means? LOL. No, I copied and pasted it exactly as it was on the screen. Since the translation is supposedly based on a tafsir, I assume it is not a literal translation. You interpreted the verse as found on anti-Islamic sites, not as how Muslims interpret the verse. Unless you post Islamic site or source, I will assume that it was just another case of cut and past without having a clue. And the translation that you inserted comes from Hilali/Khan (exactly as it is in Hilali/Khan including parenthesis), not Picthall as you claimed OneGuy 15:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And here is more

http://tolueislam.com/Parwez/expo/expo_008.htm

67) O Jama’at-ul-Momineen! you wanted as many prisoners of war as you could have in order to secure their ransom. It does not behove your Rasool to do this since he is waging war in order to accomplish the Divine purpose and not for the fleeting gains of the world - Allah looks to your future as well as your present for He is not only Mighty but also Wise.

(68) Had it not been for the provision of forgiveness in Allah’s laws, you would have received a mighty chastisement for taking prisoners of war for the purpose of worldly gains.

Notice that that's not a "literal" translation in case Pename accuses me of promoting a "false translation" again! The point is that I have not yet seen any Isamic source (unless Pename presents some evidence) that interprets the verse like anti-Islamic sites where he probably found the verse OneGuy 16:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I am still curious about this verse. Here is Hilali/Khan translation.

http://www.thenoblequran.com/sps/nbq/

When you go to 8:67, there is commentary by Ibn Katheer, Tabari, and Qurtubi on the verse. But I can't read/understand Arabic. If anyone else can summarize what Ibn Katheer, Tabari, and Qurtubi said about the verse, please do so (or I will have to ask someone else online) OneGuy 23:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Here is some explanation of the verses of surah 8, from tafsir Ibn Kathir, explaining that the verses command the Muslims to eradicate all polytheism and atheism ("shirk" and "kufr," in Arabic) from the world through holy war: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=8&tid=20140 (tafsir.com contains English translations of Ibn Kathir's tafsir). Verse 8:67 is commanding the Muslims to follow a strict policy of take no prisoners (i.e. kill every enemy you encounter, even if the enemy is surrendering) until "the land is thoroughly subdued." Pename

The above Ibn Kathir commentary on chapter 8 says nothing about 8:67 itself. You inserted 8:67 in the article to imply that prisoners of wars were to be killed. Where is your evidence? I cited a number of commentaries, but none of them said that the verse refers to killing prisoners of war, like you implied in the article. During Afghanistan invasion, Rumsfeld said that the US policy is to kill as many enemies as possible, not take prisoners. That doesn't mean that Rumsfeld was advocating killing POWs. OneGuy 10:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Or as Dr. Hilali & Dr. Khan, of the University of Medina in Saudi Arabia, translate this verse, it is commanding the Muslims to take no prisoners until there has been a "great slaughter in the land." Basically Allah is telling the Muslims in 8:68 to terrorize their enemy with a "take no prisoners" policy, instead of taking as many prisoners as possible in order to ransom them back for monetary gain. Pename

Now you finally know that the translation is by Hilali/Khan. You had no clue when you first inserted it in the article. You used the verse in the article to imply that prisoners of wars were to be killed. Post the evidence that the verse means killing POWs. Even if your above interpretation is correct, that doesn't mean killing prisoners. As I said above, Rumsfeld several times said that the US policy is to kill as many enemies as possible, not take prisoners. That doesn't mean that Rumsfeld was advocating killing POWs. OneGuy 10:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Many of the Muslim soldiers preferred to capture the enemy soldier and ransom him back for money, instead of killing the enemy soldier, if possible. IN the Qur'an, the Muslims are told not do this until they have commited a "great slaughter," or "thoroughly subdued the land," depending on whether one wants to consult a liberal English translation or a more fundamentalist translation. In any case, it is well neigh impossible to "throughouly subdue a land" without commiting "great slaughter in the land," so the implied meaning is essentially the same. As the link to the tafsir Ibn Kathir interpretation of surah 8 reveals, the traditional fundamentalist intepretation is that the Muslims are commanded to eradicate all polytheism and atheism from the world through holy war. Now Muslim apologists people like OneGuy will bend over backwards trying to whitewash this, but I don't see him succeeding here on any intellectual level.

"intellectual"? That's coming from a guy who inserts a translation in the article but has no clue what he just inserted in the article. He also, like anti-Islamic sites where he got the verse, used the verse to imply that in Islam POWs were to be killed. He has yet to post the evidence (Islamic commentary) that says 8:67 means kill prisoners. OneGuy 10:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from an online fatwa from an Muslim cleric, regarding prisoners of war, in which the "take no prisoners" policy of Jihad is confirmed:

"No Enemy Captives are to Be Held before their Army is Vanquished

One of the strategic rules introduced by Islam is that no attention should be paid to capturing the enemy on the battlefield before vanquishing them altogether in a way that they will be subdued. Should the Muslims focus on holding the enemy soldiers in captivity, before achieving a concise victory over them, the enemy might think of launching another war against the Muslims in the future.

Allah the Almighty blamed His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) following the Battle of Badr for being concerned during the battle, with capturing enemies before subduing the whole army of the enemy. Allah the Almighty says in this regard:

“It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he has thoroughly subdued the land. You look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looks to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in Might, Wise.” (Al-Anfal: 67).

In this verse, "temporal goods of this world" refers to the ransom the Muslims expected to take in return for setting the enemy captives free. Here, Allah the Almighty objects that the Muslims seek to have captives before vanquishing the enemy and subduing it altogether.

It is important to note that blame in this verse, is for taking captives before subduing the enemy altogether, not for taking the ransom instead of killing them as is usually mentioned in the biographies written about the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

This is supported by Almighty Allah's words: "Now when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when you have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens." (Muhammad: 4)

This verse indicates that the primary concern of the Muslims on the battlefield is "smiting of the necks" of the enemy until they have been routed altogether, and then comes "making fast of bonds," which refers to holding the remaining defeated enemies in captivity.

War in Islam is not fought for the sake of bloodshed, nor is there in Islam any instruction to the effect that after vanquishing the enemy, all its male members who are held in captivity are to be beheaded as is the case in the Torah. After completely subduing the enemy, the Muslims can capture its soldiers." (http://www.islamonline.net/fatwaapplication/english/display.asp?hFatwaID=114486) (Pename)

Even the above fatwa doesn't say that 8:67 means kill prisoners of wars, like you used it in the article. I see nothing wrong with above fatwa. Let me repeat it for the third time, even Rumsfeld said during Afghan invasion that their policy is to kill as many enemies as possible instead of taking POWs. That doesn't mean that Rumsfeld was advocating killing POWs. OneGuy 10:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note that in the same fatwaa, there is a section titled "Can Captives Be Enslaved or Killed?," which confirms that according to various eminent, classical scholars of Islam, it is permissable to enslave and kill captured prisoners of war.

It also has comments by other classical scholars who disagreed. The above site also has this fatwa: Islam’s Stance on Prisoners of War http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=55158 -- The Prophet, however urged his followers to treat their captives with clemency. He said to them You are recommended to treat your captives kindly .

Compare that with one-sided POW section that you inserted in the article originally. POW should have it's own article instead of stuffing everything in Jihad article. Your original POW section was a pathetic one-sided propaganda that belongs to an anti-Islamic site, not Encyclopedia OneGuy

There is nothing surprising or unusual about all this. Almost all medieval warfare was carried out with such cruelty, especially amongst the rugged bedoiun of medieval Arabia. Muhammad was merely acting in accordance with the social norms of his particular time and place, as all humans do. -- Pename

---

To summarize everything above, Pename inserted a verse in the article with the implication that the verse means killing prisoners of war. He found the verse (or this interpretation) on some anti-Islamic site. He did not know where the translation he inserted in the article came from. Any way you look at the verse (even Hilali/Khan translation), the main thrust of the verse is condemnation of taking prisoners to make money (by ransoming them later) . The verse says nothing about killing people who are already prisoners, like Pename implied in the article (probably the interpretation he found on anti-Islamic site). I posted a number of different commentaries on the verse. None of them said that 8:67 means kill prisoners. OneGuy 13:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OneGuy is repeating his false accusations for the third time, after having been repeatedly refuted. He continues to insist that I "found the verse (or this interpretation) on some anti-Islamic site." He has provided a URL to a non-Muslim website which contains an excerpt from a book by a Muslim scholar, and claims that this is the URL where I copied the verse from. As I have repeatedly stated, the same excerpt can be found at the Islamic website http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0005.htm Yet OneGuy continues to make his false claims. He is blatently violating Wikipedia official policy. Note furthermore that the "take no prisoners" policy commanded in the verse in question, and as described above, does indeed come down to killing surrendering enemy forces who would otherwise have been taken prisoner. Also, the above cited fatwaa from a well-known scholarly Islamic website confirms Islam's traditional position on the permissability of executing prisoners of war. Thus OneGuy's argument is intellectually bankcrupt. --Pename

Not Al-Muntakha Translation

I made a mistake above claiming that the translation that I posted came from Al-Muntakhab tafsir. That was Qaribullah/Ahmad Darwish translation: http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/ali4786t/Qur'an_stuffz/ Muhammad Sarwar also translates it this way, "The Prophet is not supposed to take any captives to strengthen his position on earth ..." *. I mixed that up when I said that that was Al-Muntakhab tafsir. That tafsir actually agrees with Hilai/Khan and other translations (though the word used is "subdue" not "great slaughter"). But the main thrust of tafsir still is condemnation of taking prisoners to make money. The tafsir says nothing about killing people who are already prisoners, an interpretation that Pename implied in the article. OneGuy 15:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pename

[Mutliple uses of profanity. Deleted. ]- Ta bu shi da yu 21:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[Personal Attacks. Deleted.] OneGuy

I've rolled back because a 3 day old comment should not be archived! Interestingly, Pename accused me of hiding things for the same reason. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

["Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse. Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on sight. Users have been blocked or banned for repeatedly engaging in them. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." (Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks)

"Avoid profanity (words or images that could be considered offensive by typical Wikipedia readers)" (Wikipedia:Profanity)]

Talk about pot calling ... For anyone unfamiliar with abuse of this guy, see User talk:134.22.70.218. This guy insulted everyone here. He also suddenly declared himself "anonymous" after RFC was posted against his user ID "Pename" OneGuy 09:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deleting links

I added some other links. No need to delete all the links. Notice how concise, short, to the point, and NPOV (neutral) the Jihad article is on Encarta Encyclopedia [6]. Compare that to the mess we have; thanks greatly to the anti-Islamic troll who wanted to stuff everything ant-Islamic (POWs, Blasphemy) into the article OneGuy 10:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse. Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on sight. Users have been blocked or banned for repeatedly engaging in them. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." (Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks). Edit your post or it will be deleted.

2. The Encarta Encylopedia article is short because you are using the Online FREE version of it.

3. There are many different Islamic websites with different points of view about Jihad. You have put 4 "Islamic website" links and all of them are from one POV website, namely IslamOnline.com All parts of the article are supposed to be NPOV, yet you are unable to even make an NPOV list of external links. -- Pename

I didn't add any Islamic site. All the sites were added by other people. I only added non-Islamic sites because you, an anti-Islamic troll, removed the whole section. And no, the Encarta version is not short because it's online version. See some of their articles, say, Turkey. That's much longer than wikipedia article on Turkey. The article is short because unlike you, an anti-Islamic cut and past troll, they didn't have an agenda to stuff everything anti-islamic cut and past into Jihad article OneGuy 03:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reviewing the concise, well-written Encarta article was quite iluminating. Notice the absence of citations from sheiks, for instance. I am tempted to condense ours mightily. Thoughts? BrandonYusufToropov 11:57, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent idea. - Mustafaa 12:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Out of interest, why is this an excellent idea? Why would we remove citations from sheiks? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:50, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One man's opinion: because the article would therefore be shorter and easier to read (compare the current draft to the Encarta version), and because the sheiks quoted now tend to support the fantasy that Muslims constitute a global military alliance with a single set of marching orders. We could go the other way and cite, for the sake of balance, Islamic religious authorities who emphasize pluralism and coexistence, but that would make the piece even longer and less accessible to the lay reader, in my opinion.

The real problem, as I see it, is that the sequence of topic headings in the current outline is deeply biased. Its purpose now (once you get past the opening, which has been substantially rewritten in recent weeks) is to prove that Jihad is a global threat to non-Muslims-- not exactly a neutral point of view. BrandonYusufToropov 20:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Why is that not a 'neutral point of view'? Jihad is usually considered to be a serious threat to non-Moslems - which it seems to be, as experience (in the form of bodies) has shown - and this is the point of view of most serious analysts of Islam, both Islamic and non-Islamic.

Point: No original research. No original taqyia.

Also: The fact that this guy insists that a factual assertion isn't NPOV - note, not untrue - shows exactly how non-biased he is.

Abuse

LAST WARNING if the anon removes this once more, I am blocking them from editing for a week. In fact, I'll be blocking all the IP addresses in their NETBLOCK range that have contributed to this story. They will not be allowed to get away with this. Very. Last. Warning. I would suggest they don't test me on this one. I will do it. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the record, "Ta bu shi da yu" is the one who originally archived this section of the discussion, along with every other discussion. I un-archived sections of the discussion that were relevant to the debate and left sections that were not relevant (such as this one) in Archive 3 (this section created by "Ta bu .." is not in any way relevant to Jihad). "Ta bu shi da yu" is the one who put this section in Archive 3, and now he is acusing me of moving it! His continuing personal attacks, false accusations, and threatening manner (e.g. baseless threats to ban me) against me are on the verge of abuse of authority. -- Pename

I did not. Once he's been unblocked I'd suggest he provides diffs that prove otherwise. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

TBSDY: I _really_ recommend you get another admin to moderate this discussion. No offence, but it's clear you've decided a priori what _should_ be true, which explains the personal attacks you're making on clear-headed people who point out facts. I'm not saying you're a bad person, I'm just saying that we all have our little blind spots - and your's is here. --anonymous

Anon, with all due respect, I would suggest looking at the contrib history for the guys personal attacks. We're getting tougher on them, and sometimes these things are necessary. Do you think I like blocking someone for a week? No, I don't. I gave that user plenty of warning, and they refused to change their behaviour. I would suggest that if you want to find out whether I have support of other admins that you make the same point at WP:AN. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with anonymous. When Pename (or whatever...) started to contribute to the "Jihad" article, he was recieved with some of the worst words of the English language. Nothing happend to these users attacking Pename. NOBODY was blocked for a week. The way the NEW user Pename reacted to these attacks was not acceptable, but predictable... As one of the participants in the discussion (user:oneguy) mention on your (TBSDYs) talkpage: "I am not sure if I want to go to arbitration since I used personal attacks too :)" My honest feeling is that some people around here don't want to work with Pename, they just want to get rid of him. This is in my opinion sad, because Pename can obviously provide a lot of quality to the Islam articles here in Wikipedia. My suggestion would be that everybody here start to assume some good faith, forget about previous arguements, and stick to the subject that matters: THE ARTICLE. Mahay 08:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mahay, he's been blocked for a week because of those personal attacks. OneGuy was most definitely pushed, however I also know that OneGuy would cease that once asked. With Pename I asked numerous times for him to stop the personal attacks, and in fact at one point even started removing any form of attack from his comments. Well, I'm literally not going to do that any more. Pename received multiple warnings and was starting to treat the whole thing as a bit of a joke. I have news for Pename or anyone else who thinks they can get away with personal attacks in the future. I will warn once. I will warn twice. And I will warn three times. Then I will block them from editing for a week. This entire article is now up the shitter because of those personal attacks, with most parties now unwilling to edit it to fix it up, mostly due to Pename and having constantly battle him AND his abuse. I won't let that user continue that abuse. Hence the block. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I admitted I used personal attacks. However, read the archive. Pename started the personal attacks. Initially I wasn't paying that much attention to this talk page (just responding here and there) until Ta bu shi posted an RFC with many examples of abuse by Pename (even some directed at me that I had not read before). After RFC, Pename then gave up his user ID (now he claims he "lost his password"), and became even more vulgar. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:134.22.70.189

True, I responded in kind. However, notice that Pename was not banned for personal attacks. He repeatedly deleted stuff from the talk page even after he was warned by an admin to stop that. Pename ignored the warning. It was a right decision to ban him for a week for repeatedly ignoring the warning OneGuy 21:17, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Due warning: every time our anonymous friend makes a personal attack, I'm removing it. See Wikipedia:no personal attacks, also see Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. I've had quite enough of their abuse. To the anonymous user, please start showing a more mature response when replying to comments or arguing your case. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) (modified Ta bu shi da yu 08:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Huh? What'd I do? --anon

Nothing. I was talking about another anon. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, incidently, if the anon removes this comment again they get blocked. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apparently "Ta bu shi da yu" believes that if he refers to people as "immature" he is not engaging in personal attacks. But if someone calls him a religious appologist, he believes that he can use this as an excuse to delete a page worth of content. This is a clear double standard. Since he has decided to start deleting user comments from the discussion page on such basis, I am deleting "Ta bu shi da yu"'s comment on the basis of personal attacks. He will not be able to keep this comment on the discussion page until he removes the personal attack. Any attempts by "Ta bu shi da yu" to block me from Wikipedia will constitute a gross abuse of authority by a sysop and will add to the mounting pile of evidence that will be used against him in arbcom court of Wikipedia law. -- Pename

OK, have rephrased. It's time for you to start modifying the way you use your language. Incidently, I'll welcome you to take me to ArbCom, because I'll then be able to list all the personal attacks you've made. I'll be certain to do this in great detail. So stop threatening, and start doing. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oo! A fight! A fight! Git 'im, Pename! With the left, with the left TBSDY! --anon

It was fun while it lasted. Not. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't this anon who removed it, so I guess you didn't mean me after all. :) (It would be nice to cite the personal attack in question, so that the anon who did it would be struck by a great guilt, and the other anons could go about their lives without the shame.) --anon

Questions to BrandonYusufToropov Re: major edit of the Introduction Paragraph

I have some questions about the introductory paragraph of the article. I looked through the edit history, and it appears that User:BrandonYusufToropov was the last person to edit the paragraph in question. At 16:36, 18 Dec 2004 BrandonYusufToropov did a major edit of the introduction of the article (click here to see diff) Below is a copy of the paragraph in question (emphasis added by me):

"During the period of Qur'anic revelation while Muhammad was in Mecca, jihad referred essentially to nonviolent and personal struggle. Following his move from Mecca to Medina in 622, and the establishment of an Islamic state, fighting in self-defense was sanctioned by the Qur'an (22:39). The Qur'an began incorporating the word qital (fighting or warfare), and two of the last verses revealed on this topic (9:5, 29) suggest, to some analysts, an ongoing war of conquest against unbeliever enemies. To other analysts, however, the context of these verses is that of a specific "war in progress" and not a universally binding set of instructions upon the faithful. Regardless of the later implications of these portions of the Qur'an, the passages in question, at the time, clearly emphasized the importance of self-defense in the Muslim community."

I have the following questions regarding this paragraph:

(1) The phrases "to some analysts" and "to other analysts" appear to be Weasel words. Who are these "analysts?" Why are they called "analysts" and by whom?

(2) The assertion that "the context of these verses is that of a specific "war in progress" and not a universally binding set of instructions upon the faithful" seems to be implying that "other analysts" believe that certain parts of the Qur'an are "not a universally binding set of instructions upon the faithful," but rather they are only instructions for Muhammad and his contemporaries. Again, who are these "other anlaysts?" Can you cite a source which proves that these so-called "other analysts" really do believe that certain parts of the Qur'an are "not a universally binding set of instructions upon the faithful?"

These questions are mainly directed to the author of these phrases, namely BrandonYusufToropov. I hope that he can respond to these two specific questions in a timely manner. It is evident that the introductory paragraph, as it is with all these Weasel words, needs a major re-write. --Bourbaki 04:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello --

I was trying to summarize the views of a) those who cite 9:5 and 9:29 as signs of a permanent military "hardening" of Islam's policy toward unbelievers in general, a declaration of formal hostility meant to extend into the future, forever, towards anyone who is not a Muslim. The verses are frequently interpreted in this way. Examples of such "analysts" (or "people," if that word is better) would include

http://www.primechoice.com/philosophy/shelp/islamandinfidel.htm

As to the other "analysts" (or "people,") I was trying, in turn, to incorporate the alternate position that specifically identifies the audience for these Qur'anic verses as a specific historical group of PAGAN (not Jewish or Christian) adversaries of the Prophet, Pagans who had violated a treaty.

That these verses point toward a specific historical incident, and do not stand as a perpetual death sentence against all non-Muslims, is maintained by "analysts" (or "people") like translator/commentator Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his footnote #1246, at the beginning of Surah 9 in his translation of the Qu'ran. I quote:

"The Pagans and enemies of Islam frequently made treaties of mutual alliance with the Muslims. The Muslims scrupulously observed their part, but the Pagans violated their part again and again when it suited them. After some years' experience, it became imperative to denounce such treaties altogether. This was done in due form, with four months' notice, and a chance was given to those who faithfully observed their pledges, to continue their alliance."

Another "analyst" (or "person") holding to this viewpoint is Moiz Amjad, who writes:

"A close look at the context, the style and the words of these verses and also the reasons given for the prescribed action against the polytheists clearly evidences the fact that the directive entailed in these verses is restricted in its application to the companions of the Prophet and the action that they are directed to take is restricted against those toward whom the Rasu’l (Messenger) of the Almighty was sent."

(this quotation comes from:)

http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/tafseer/tauba.htm

Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 20:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BrandonYusufToropov:

Neither "person" nor "analyst" are acceptable. Statements such as "some people say" or "some analysts say" are Weasel words, which are unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. Instead of making any effort to fix this problem with your edit, you seem to be justifying your use of Weasel words.

Secondly, there is the issue of who or what is an "analyst." It appears that, for you, any person at all can be an "analyst." The first link that you offered (http://www.primechoice.com/philosophy/shelp/islamandinfidel.htm) forwards to http://unicorn.phoenixrising-web.net/shelp/islamandinfidel.htm. No person's name is mentioned on the URL. If we go to the website where this page is found (http://unicorn.phoenixrising-web.net/shelp/), in order to try to figure out what this "analyst's" name is, we read:

"Hi, I'm a flying Unicorn. I know, you can't see my wings. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they don't exist ... Those of you who have read the Bible or the Koran have already heard of us. If you have read the King James Bible you may remember this phrase in Psalms (92:10):

my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of a unicorn

or this phrase in Deuteronomy (3:17):

his horns are like the horns of unicorns

The Koran tells how a horse had the great honor of carrying the prophet Muhammad to heaven without mentioning that, that horse was one of us. Even then men did not believe in Unicorns." (from [[7]])

So the first source that you cited is written by a person who claims to be a Unicorn (a mythical creature), and claims that the "Buraq" (the flying horse-like beast which Muslims believe Muhammad flew on to Al-Aqsa mosque) was a Unicorn. Now, the credability of your source is completely lost due to the fact that we can't even find out who this "analyst" is, except that he or she claims to be a Unicorn. I also don't think that any Muslims believe that Muhammad flew on a Unicorn, which is a mythical creature of Western origins. Why are the opinions of such a person worth mentioning in an encylopedia article on Islam? Are you seriously proposing that we include this unicorn link as a reference in the introductory paragraph of the article?

This raises an interesting issue. Most Muslims would concider your Unicorn source to be outright blasphemous (he or she claims to be a Unicorn and says that Muhammad flew on a Unicorn). There are some Muslims who say that homosexuality is legal in Islamic Law, for example a group of homosexual Muslims calling itslef "Queer Jihad" (http://www.well.com/user/queerjhd/) claims just this. Now, these Muslims are an extreme fringe minority, and no famous Muslim scholar of Islam has ever dared to state that homosexuality is allowed by Islamic law. If one were to make mention, in an encylopedia, that certain people believe that homosexuality is allowed in Islamic law, it would be quite deceptive to say that "some analysts believe homosexuality is legal in Islam." Rather, a more honest way of making such a statement would be to say that "a small minority group of homosexual Muslims, and their supporters, believe that homosexuality is legal in Islamic law."

Moving on, your second source is from a commentary of the Qur'an by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. The first question that comes to mind is, why would you cite Yusuf Ali's commentary instead of the cannonical exegises of classical commentators of the Qur'an such as Ibn Kathir or Tabiri? Almost all Muslim scholars of Islam base their understandings of the Qur'an upon these classical commentaries of the Qur'an, as anyone who has seriously studied Islam would know. Yusuf Ali was not a scholar in the classical Muslim tradition, he was civil servant by vocation. Furthermore, many Muslim and non-Muslims have pointed out that "Among translators there is a range from ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal, and Abdullah Yusuf Ali is a liberal translator." [8]. It is, in fact, true that Yusuf Ali's translation and commentary of the Qur'an is ideologically liberal, and much of it is rejected by the orthodox Muslim scholars. If one is going to make mention of opinions helds by the likes of Yusuf Ali, then it more honest to mention these as opinions of liberal or so-called "moderate Muslims," rather than as the opinions of "some analysts." But the fact is that the quote you have provided from Yusuf Ali's commentary is not even relevant to the point of view that you are promoting. Here is the quote again:

"The Pagans and enemies of Islam frequently made treaties of mutual alliance with the Muslims. The Muslims scrupulously observed their part, but the Pagans violated their part again and again when it suited them. After some years' experience, it became imperative to denounce such treaties altogether. This was done in due form, with four months' notice, and a chance was given to those who faithfully observed their pledges, to continue their alliance."

And this was my original question:

The assertion that "the context of these verses is that of a specific "war in progress" and not a universally binding set of instructions upon the faithful" seems to be implying that "other analysts" believe that certain parts of the Qur'an are "not a universally binding set of instructions upon the faithful," but rather they are only instructions for Muhammad and his contemporaries. Again, who are these "other anlaysts?" Can you cite a source which proves that these so-called "other analysts" really do believe that certain parts of the Qur'an are "not a universally binding set of instructions upon the faithful?"

Your quote from Yusuf Ali does not prove that Ali said that any commandments in the Qur'an were only intended for Muhammad and his contemporaries, meant to be discarded as legal commandments by later generations of Muslims. This is not what Yusuf Ali is saying in the quote. In fact, the word "Qur'an" does not even appear in this quote by Yusuf Ali - it's simply a description of the historical circumstances surrounding Muhammad, as described in the Sira. This quote by Yusuf Ali is a far cry from your claim that "some analysts" believe that certain parts of the Qur'an are "not a universally binding set of instructions upon the faithful."

Finally, there is the third source you provided (http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/tafseer/tauba.htm). This is a short online article written by a person named Moiz Amjad. The quote that you provided does indeed prove that Moiz Amjad believes that certain parts of the Qur'an are "not a universally binding set of instructions upon the faithful." A quick search for "Moiz Amjad" on google shows that he is the founder of the website http://www.understanding-islam.com/ It is unclear what credentials Moiz Amjad has, if any. The question is, should Moiz Amjad's opinions be given as much weight, in this article, as the opinions of classical scholars of Islam, and their modern-day orthodox Muslim followers who constitute a vast majority of Muslims? The vast majority of Muslims will tell you that the Qur'an is timeless, and that it's commandments are not limited to only Muhammad and his contemporaries. The Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, parts of which are available online, calls an ayah (verse) from surah 9 (the chapter of the Qur'an about on which this whole discussion is based) as the "Verse of the Sword." In commenting on this "Verse of the Sword," Ibn Kathir stated:

"These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations." [9]

Ibn Kathir's exegesis (Tafisr) of the Qur'an is concidered by Sunni Muslims to be a definitive commentary of the book. As the Wikipedia article about Ibn Kathir states, "Tafsir Ibn Kathir is famous all over the Arab world and American mosques, and is one of the most widely used explanations of the Qu'ran today." Can we say that Moiz Amjad's online commentary of the Qur'an is "the most widely used explanations of the Qu'ran today?" No, we certainly cannot. The Qur'anic commentaries of both the towering classical scholars such as Ibn Kathir cannot be given the same weight and importance as a web site by a little known Internet personality named Moiz Amjad. When you say that the opinions, on the subject of the Qur'an and Jihad, of "other analysts" differ from the opinions of classical scholars such as Ibn Kathir, what you are really doing is trying to portray the opinions of the likes of Moiz Amjad as being of equal importance and weight as the opinions of the vast majority of modern Muslim scholars as well as the classical scholars such as Ibn Kathir. Most Muslims would not agree with Moiz Amjad that certain parts of the Qur'an are no longer applicable, because most Muslims beieve that the Qur'an is a timeless guide to life in this world that must be followed by all Muslims.

A google search for "Moiz Amjad," and look at this website (understanding-islam. com) reveals that this particular person "is definitely on the side of the more liberal, reformed wing of Islam." [10]. While there is nothing wrong with being from the liberal, reformed wing of Islam, it is important to identify the opinions of such people as being specifically the opinions of liberal, moderate, progressive, and reformist Muslims, who are an unorthodox, minority group amongst the world's Muslims. It is not suffucient to merely identify their opinons as being the opinions of "other analysts," because this creates the very dishonest portrayal that people such as Moiz Amjad have as much a following amongst Muslims as do the classical scholars such as Ibn Kathir, and their modern-day scholarly followers at places such as Al-Azhar University, the Islamic University of Medina, and so forth.

I request that you please try to reword your edit of the introductory paragraph so that it adequetly addresses these concerns. --Bourbaki 01:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Peace:

You've raised some excellent points, specifically re: identifying more directly which camp says/argues what. Let me think about the best ways to implement what you've raised here.

I can't help but notice, though, that it seems as though we've moved stealthily from "you didn't specify anyone who believes that the Qur'an doesn't require an ongoing war against unbelievers" to "it is dishonest of you to reference someone who holds this viewpoint (i.e., Moiz Amjad)." The whole point is that some people hold one view, other people hold another view. That means there are going to be different perspectives. But I agree that the article should be clearer as to who holds what view.

Didn't write anything about unicorns, sorry. Can't help you there.

Anyway, thanks for the good notes, and I hope to have a revised version of the whole article for you and everyone to review soon. BrandonYusufToropov 13:09, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I wasn't paying attention to this talk page and don't know the context of above discussion, but I have something to say about this part:

Moiz Amjad that certain parts of the Qur'an are no longer applicable, because most Muslims believe that the Qur'an is a timeless guide to life in this world that must be followed by all Muslims. Bourbaki

This is not completely correct. Even though Muslims believe that the Qur'an is guidance for all times, they do accept that certain parts of the Qur'an are related to specific events at the time of Muhammad (i.e. historical in nature). In any case, the simplest refutation of the argument that Muslims believe everything in the Qur'an is applicable for all time is the doctrine of abrogation. Clearly, in this case some verses are not applicable anymore ... Here is a quote from abrogation chapter from widely circulated book by Ahmad von Denffer [11]

While the basic message of Islam remains always the same, the legal rulings have varied throughout the ages, and many prophets before Muhammad brought particular codes of law (shari'a) for their respective communities.

In the same book in a different chapter called ASBAB AL-NUZUL ("the knowledge about the reasons of the revelations"), there are more comments that might be relevant to this discussion [12]

When one knows about the sabab al-nuzul, it is still to be decided whether the revelation has a specific implication for the particular occasion it was connected with , or whether it is of general implication and needs to be applied by all Muslims at all times.

The bold part is relevant here OneGuy 16:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Determining historical context behind a given sura or ayat is a foundation of responsible scholarship. It's not a question of EITHER "accepting it" OR "not accepting it." We accept it all. Question is how one interprets the circumstances surrounding the revelation of the passage in question, and how one proceeds to an understanding of the implications for current practice. This is a job for professionals.

And surprise, surprise: scholars disagree on some of these issues. It is intriguing, though, that the most extreme Muslim "hard-liners" tend to agree (!) with the most extreme Christian fundamentalists when it comes to the public exposition of these particular verses, 9:5 and 9:29.

The North American Islamic spokesperson Ingrid Mattson has memorably identified as "non-Islamic fundamentalists" those opponents of Islam who insist on proclaiming, with utter confidence, what such verses "mean." BrandonYusufToropov 19:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Made major edits to address Bourbaki's concerns ...

... and elsewhere in the article to improve flow and smooth out some rough spots. Eager to hear comments. BrandonYusufToropov 13:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone here really believe this article topic should be deleted?

And why?

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761582255/Jihad.html

http://20.1911encyclopedia.org/J/JI/JIHAD.htm

http://i-cias.com/e.o/jihad.htm

http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9368558

http://www.cqpress.com/context/articles/epr_jihad.html

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j16.html

http://utut.essortment.com/whatisjihad_rerr.htm

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/glossary/term.JIHAD.html BrandonYusufToropov 14:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

of course not. just revert. dab (ᛏ) 15:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article, or to Islam? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

excerpts?

The 'Excerpts from the Qur'an on warfare' section is slightly offtopic to this article (as the section text states itself). I suggest the excerpts be moved to the corresponding Sura articles, and only referenced from here. (There is already some discussion on Islam+warfare on Al-Baqara.)dab (ᛏ) 15:54, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After thinking this over, I have to disagree. There is, in my view, a widespread misperception among non-Muslims that the Qur'an actively encourages (for instance) suicide attacks. Providing quotes in this article will at least give some sense of what the Qur'an actually does require. BrandonYusufToropov 12:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This 'misinterpretation' is not limited to non-Moslems, if I may point out.

No, of course not. Any number of Muslims need to read the Qur'an a little more carefully on these points, and if this article helps them to do so, so much the better. 66.30.96.38 13:58, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should in my opinion not attempt to change anyones opinion in ANY way. The article should be neutral and present the mainstream Muslim POV as it is. The "jihad" article should NOT present anyones opinion as a 'misinterpretation'. Djames 18:42, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it does, does it? We are discussing (on the talk page) reasons to leave the quotes in place -- i.e., because doing so offers direct examples of the Qur'an's actual teachings regarding warfare, a topic directly relevant to this article, and perhaps the one source that all Muslims DO agree on. That's not the same thing as using the article text to claim that someone's viewpoint or opinion is wrong. To the contrary, I think we've carefully eliminated attempts to suggest that a given opinion on this subject is right or wrong. BrandonYusufToropov 13:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ironic to see an anon complain about info being deleted without discussion and then delete substantially more info (which, unlike his own, was actually correct) without discussion. - Mustafaa 21:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk page is totally useless

This 'talk page' is totally useless. I see little meaningful discussion about the topic of "jihad."

A person can make an argument that Islam is inherently authoritarian, as the first respondent suggests in his -- frankly, incoherent -- post. As he seems to tacitly acknowledge, and then quickly casts to the side, an identical argument -- correction: perhaps a stronger argument -- can be made about Christianity. One must only point to the forced conversion of the European pagans, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts, the blood libel, the invasion and conquest of the Americas -- all explicitly in the name of Christianity. And the violence continues. We have massacres in Uganda, carried out in the name of Christianity, violent Phalangists who adhere to Christianity, white supremacists and fundamentalists murdering abortion providers, all in the name of Christ. Even in the West, which has recently turned "secular," despicable policies are often sold to the public with barely concealed allusions to Christianity, or the Judeo-Christian tradition, or whatever.

Anybody who makes claims such as, "Christianity says THIS," or "Islam says THAT," simply doesn't know what they are talking about. There is not one Christianity or one Islam or one Judaism, but a collection of radically different and often contradictory interpretations of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I find it difficult to believe that a "substantial" percentage of Dutch Muslims support the death penalty for people who criticize Islam. I would agree that, for (actually, quite recent) historical reasons, there is a problem with fundamentalism in the Muslim world; but the problem is with religious fanaticism, not Islam.

But again, this has absolutely nothing to do with "jihad." Until someone can come up with a real discussion that addresses the issue of "jihad," I'm going to delete the "warning." - Joe pythag3@yahoo.de

Yes, remove this talk page. It is filled with useless drivel---Jim, unity_of_one@hotmail.com

"non-Islamic Sites"?

These should be "Islamophobic" or at least "anti-Islamic" sites. Every one of these links is to someone with an axe to grind -- Pipes, Carmon, Spencer.... These people have no credibility whatsoever in the academic world; it's only in the popular press that they are given any credibility. Should they even be here at all? Perhaps, but if so, their POV (and reputation) should be noted.csloat 08:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reverted vast landscapes of anonymous POV edits

... that reinserted, for instance, the myth that the Qur'an promises 72 virgins, and deleted, for instance, the Qur'an's actual teachings on matters of warfare ... much of this has been debated at length. See the archives. Instead of hijacking the article anonymously, please see talk page or discuss specific edits to specific sections here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edits by 165.247.42.41

Most of these edits seem excessively POV and should be reverted. But some of them do add new information. I was going to just mass revert his changes but I have not been working on this article at all so I thought it would be better to point it out and let others debate what to change back. The anonymous author seems to be of the opinion that suicide bombing and terrorism against civilians is much more popular among Muslims than it really is, and even makes the claim that there are no "liberal" Muslims anywhere. I think a lot of it should be reverted. Also the poll he points to should be clarified -- these are Muslim Palestinians on the West Bank being interviewed, not Muslims around the world. I think the article had a lot of POV problems before, but these edits make it a lot worse. --csloat 18:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still more undiscussed anonymous edits

Hi there 80.58.4.42 -- consider this relevant quote, which struck me as appropriate and not, perhaps taken into account in your undiscussed anonymous edit:

Jihad, therefore, does not mean every single battle fought by any Middle-Eastern soldier, who may be anything from a Marxist to a member of a private bodyguard, and not a martyr for God. Many battles have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. The Qur'an is quite clear on the limits that define jihad .... Women children, and the old and the sick are not to be harmed ...

There are a lot of interesting names for the phenomenon you're writing about, but Jihad is not one of them, regardless of what Western media sources may have to say about it.

Thanks again for stopping in 80.58.4.42, I hope to hear more from you here on the talk page BrandonYusufToropov 18:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jihad today includes murder of innocent civilians

It would be funny if it wasn't sad to read the apologetic twistings by Torporov, some self-proclaimed Russian Jew who converted to Catholicism and then Islam. As with most late in life converts to any religion, he sees his newfound religion as perfect, and he refuses to acknowledge the ugliness in any of its religious practice, instead falling back repeatedly on the argument that in effect is "No, even though Al Qaeda refers to its Jihad against 'Crusaders and Jews', even though Egyptian Islamic Jihad refers over and over again to Jihad in its murderous attacks against innocent people, and even though Al Qaeda sympathizers repeatedly invoke Jihad when murdering innocent people, Jihad is really only what I Mr. Torporov say it is". That reminds me of Communists who used to say "The Soviet Union was not Communist! Mao's China was not Communist! There is no need to discuss the Soviet Union and Mao's China when talking about Communism!"

There are many great aspects to Islam, as with most any religion that can survive for hundreds of years. But, it does no good to pretend there are not problems. Just like it is foolish and dangerous for the Catholic Church to deny that there are more than a few priests throughout the world (not just in the USA, but across Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia too) who violate their priestly vows by engaging in sexual abuse of children, so too is it foolish and dangerous to deny that Jihad is invoked by more than a few Muslims today to justify the murder of innocent civilians. No one has argued that most Catholics or most Catholic priests abuse children or condone child abuse. No one has argued that most Muslims condone the murderous self-proclaimed Jihad of Al Qaeda, the many different terror groups that call themselves Islamic Jihad, and similar Islamist terror groups that murder innocent civilians. However, Torporov either wants to pretend these groups and their wide bases of support do not exist (and they are certainly very relevant in any discussion of "Jihad"), or he wants to pretend that since he feels that Islam cannot justify murder that these groups are actually engaging in justifiable defensive moves and not murder, or he wants to pretend that these groups exist but they have not committed any violent acts at all.

No one edited out the detailed description of the history of Jihad. That was left in clear format for all to see. My opinion (which is not directly relevant to this discussion) is that Islam can and will continue to grow and improve in its commonly practiced forms, just as all religions that survive do. The Catholic Church has many ugly episodes in its past, yet in the past century has begun to make apologetic overtures towards many of the people that it wronged in the past, i.e., Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims. I believe that in the decades to come, there will be courageous Muslim leaders with truly mass followings (not state-appointed leaders who the masses ignore or don't take seriously) who express clear condemnation and apologies for the wrong done by too many terror groups in the name of Islam and Jihad. Note that such courageous Muslim leaders would not be under any obligation to issue such apoligies -- only the terrorists and their supporters can be held accountable. But just like there are no Catholics alive who were involved in the brutality of the Crusades, yet the Catholic Church today expresses apologies and regrets of the evil actions of those who acted in its name, I believe courageous Muslim leaders with true mass followings will behave similarly in great gestures of peace, reconciliation, and apology.

The above unsigned garbage was written by "Peter chehabi" who I think is the same user as Enviroknot, who I think is also the jerk who was making these changes anonymously. User account "Peter chehabi appears to have been created exclusively to continue vandalizing this page.

And, just for the record, many Muslim organizations condemn terrorism.--csloat 22:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And just for the record, you obviously didn't read any of the additions to the article. There is no evidence that those Muslim organizations represent large segments of Muslims anywhere. The condemnations out of Egyptian leaders are all state-appointed leaders. If you grew up in the region or follow the region in the news you would be well aware that the man on the street does not give a fig what the government's lackeys say. Also, to be very clear, it seems that you are "jumping the gun". Nowhere in the article does it say that majorities of Muslims support terror against innocents. It seems that you are being close-minded and not reading the article.

Why the whitewashing of Jihad, terror, and murder of innocents?

No one has deleted the lengthy discussion of the history of jihad.

That lengthy discussion is still there. But, what has been added are issues of modern relevance and modern context. It does not say anywhere that most Muslims believe jihad involves violence against innocents or even terrorist murders of innocent civilians. The additions show that this is how the term has been used by Al Qaeda and other terror groups such as the Islamic Jihad groups. Note that these terror groups all have Wikipedia entries.

No one is saying that all Muslims favor murder. No one is saying that any Muslims favor murder of innocents except for those Muslims in groups like Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad. There are evil Muslims in this world just like there are evil Catholics, evil Hindus, evil Jews, evil atheists, evil Buddhists, evil Protestants, evil Orthodox Christians, etc. No one has said that the evil among any of those groups are a majority. There is plenty of context and information in the article all about the historical derivation of jihad and the way some Muslims condemn the terror attacks of groups like Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad.

Stop being paranoid, PeterChehabi is not Environot

I don't give a fig who Envirowhatever is.

Ya'ani, ana lubnani. That good enough for you? I think that whoever is making those accusations is the spammer or vandal, since instead of responding on the issue of Jihad and terror in the modern world, the person(s) sidesteps the issue.

Well, if you're not Envirowhatever, it's awful curious that you created your user ID just today, specifically to edit this article, and you jump right into an edit war head first and talk smack on a discussion page without signing your posts. You're pretty bold, for your first day on Wikipedia. --csloat 02:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Read the opening sentence:

"In the Western media and among Islamic fundamentalist movements, the word jihad has gained connotations and meanings that in some cases are narrower and and in some cases different from its original meaning."

That is a pretty fair and balanced sentence. It specifically says that Western media and Islamic fundamentalist movemements have given "connotations and meanings" to Jihad that are narrower or different from its original meaning. It does not say that mainstream Muslims accept these meanings, and in fact the rest of the article still gives a very clear history and discussion of Jihad.

I'm willing to stop mass reverting this article and deal with specific edits -- I don't disagree with this particular sentence at all, but many of the edits seem to make exactly the point that you claim is not being said here.--csloat 02:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding a supposed "Edit War"

Sorry, no "edit war" here unless Sloat and BrandonYusufToropov are trying to have one. Toropov's POV pushing and rampant deletion of content doesn't stand.

Incidentally, while he's correct above in claiming that the Koran itself doesn't "promise" 72 Virgins, he sidesteps the issue because the Hadith clearly do and because the Koran still promises an unnamed number of either "virgins" or "angels dependent on your translation (along with, of course, a permanent and un-softening erection). linkEnviroknot 00:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You do realize you quoted an article that talks about Houri not being virgins... not to mention there are other interpretations of it. gren 06:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Enviroknot is a SOCKPUPPET of Kainthe Scion, against whom proceedings have been undertaken. BrandonYusufToropov 12:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That kind of pathetic accusation is your usual bad faith, Toropov.Enviroknot 12:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi , just for my personal information , is there any hadeeth about this un-softening eternal erection , or is it just Syuooti . Farhansher 18:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reference of the un-softening erection is from the renowned Koranic commentator Al-Suyuti who died in 1505: “the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world, and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one will marry seventy houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetizing vaginas.”

So its not in Hadeeth....!!! Farhansher 20:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Restore evidence of sockpuppeteering

Here is the evidence that Enviroknot is a SOCKPUPPET of KaintheScion, against whom proceedings have been undertaken. BrandonYusufToropov 18:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

Some of the edits are rather troubling. For instance "Even if the death of a martyr in a military operation is certain, many Muslims consider the act martyrdom rather than suicide." changing "Islamic militants" to "many Muslims" is a problem... in fact, neither are good ways... it's true that more than Islamic militants do support such missions but "many Muslims"? Many is an incredibly subjective word. In a class of 26, 15 students is many students... but in the population of about a billion Muslims what is many? Is 2,000,000 or are you trying to imply that maybe 100,000,000 support it? The truth is, we don't know how many support it. It's just conjecture. How about something like "an unknown number of Muslims are supportive"... why? because that's true and isn't misleading. That's just the first problem I have with this article... trying to change size descriptors to suit one's POV is not good. gren 04:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stop the edit war!

I put up a compromise version. If you want to revert those passages then justify the reversions. The claims I deleted are bogus. csloat 05:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Obviously this page needs to be locked down, and Enviroknot should be banned from editing all pages, as well as the IPs he used to continue vandalizing this page. Anyone know how to go about doing this? This is absurd.csloat 18:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Considering that none of us are Enviroknot, that's quite a load of horse shit you're spouting. Besides, Wikipedia policy says remove personal attacks. Knock the vandalism off, Slowt.

It's not a personal attack. It's evidence of violation of Wikipedia policy. It's curious that anonymous IPs keep vandalizing the talk page and the main page, always with the same edits.

Look, if you want to make edits please defend them. You have not defended them. Some of the claims are outrageous; that is why they keep getting erased. Present support for your points rather than going on an immature little jihad to shape this page to your POV. You might learn that your fellow wikipedians are actually quite reasonable about making changes that make sense. But simply calling everyone who disagrees with you an "Islamist vandal" is stupid and immature. And, if you're not Environot, please sign your damn posts.--csloat 19:07, 13 Jun 2005

"None of us"? Careful. Or is that the royal "we," a la Queen Victoria? BrandonYusufToropov 19:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also move to protect this page and will support any move that bans user enviroknot and his/her band of anonymous IPs from editing this page. He/she is becoming nothing more than a nuisance to wikipedia editors and also a hypocrit as he/she makes personal attacks against others while saying that they should not make any against him/her. ALSO enviroknot and anon IPs, you do NOT have the right to edit other users messages in the talk page and making personal attacks against BrandonYusufToropov is not solving any disputes. --Anonymous editor 19:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, an [personal attack removed] sockpuppet pops up and demands that someone who's barely involved in this be banned. Go home Toropov and take your sockpuppet "Anonymous editor" with you.

Intervention

Ok guys. I've watched this revert war go back and forth even on this talk page. Let's sit down and figure some stuff out. Firstly I'm gonna assume a few things:

• Everyone has read Wikipedia:Civility
• Everyone has read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and understood it
• Everyone agrees that a continuing revert war is pointless

So what are we gonna do about it? Perhaps we could start by everyone stating what they think is wrong and propose a solution to fix it. If you could be so kind as to fill me in on history if needed, I would really apprechiate it. The mic is yours gentlemen. Inter\^Echo 19:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to protect the article, as the edit war seems to just continue. Can we have a friendly chat about it gentlemen? Inter\^Echo 19:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I will read this tomorrow and formulate some thoughts. If anyone else has something to add, I would like to see it. Inter\^Echo 21:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)