Talk:Decapitation in Islam

Inconsistency

In this article, there's something about a Russian soldier supposedly venerated by the Russian Orthodox Church as a martyr, but upon clicking the link to the article about him, I read that although he became a hero in Russia, it explicitly says that he was not venerated as a martyr by the ROC. Either this article or that article is wrong. Widgetdog (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

False claims

Claims about "decapitation in Iran" has no basis either in Iranian law or Shia hudud. There's official website of Parliament of Iran with every single law passed in past 100 years, and if searching for "decapitation" (Persian: "سربُریدن" or "گردن‌زدن") there's absolutely nothing in criminal law. Beside it, there's no any photographic/video evidence. --MehrdadFR (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Beheading has never been used by the Islamic Republic, but according to the sources in the article, it is a legal punishment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Book refers to FIDH, and FIDH to some "Amnesty report" (ref. 119) without any link, proper title or date. If there's some good source with precise law chapter which can be verified online in legal archives (I read Persian so I can help), then it can be restored. But I'm afraid there's no such thing, so we can not say "it's legal punishment". It's more likely speculation or misinformation given by some militant anti-government group (like PMOI), taken uncritically by Western websites. --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Aren't we venturing into original research issues here? We have a book, published by Oxford University Press, which is clearly a reliable source. It's possible that it may be wrong. But that isn't really our job, is it?—our job is to report what is in the reliable sources, not to do research on our own to determine where the reliable sources get it wrong. I admit that it's a tricky issue and can be counterintuitive. (I'm finding a few other reliable sources that also say it is legal in Iran. I want to do a bit more digging with the sources, but if I find anything that I think is worthwhile, I'll post it here.) For the time being, I'd be fine if the parts in dispute were surrounded with <!-- --> so that they are not visible, but I would prefer it if they were not outright deleted just yet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

What I'm finding from a lot of sources is this: judges are given a fair amount of discretion in imposing the means of inflicting the death penalty. Very occasionally, it is reported that judges have chosen beheading, and a handful of beheading executions have been carried out. Is it not possible that although the laws passed in Iran do not specifically set out beheading as a possible means of execution, there are laws which give the judges wide discretion in specifying the mode? If so, then I think it would still be fair to say that beheading can be a legal punishment in Iran. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with MehrdadFR. @Good Olfactory: Are not you venturing into original research issues here? The material will be removed until you find a reliable source directly supporting such a challenging claim. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Yes, and I made that exact point about OR above. But the article has always had a reliable source to establish the claim. I was simply commenting that it seems to be a justifiable statement for the source to make and is not way off base. This assessment is based on OR, but the claim in the article is not. You deleted the apparently reliable source from the article. What evidence do we have that it is not reliable? Only the OR mentioned by MehrdadFR above, which I countered with other OR. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Good Ol’factory: The source used here is highly dubious, or at least in contradiction with Iran law. As you saw, I inserted another source (which you deleted mistakenly assuming your good faith) where there's no mention of Iran when it comes to beheading. That dubious mention in Amnesty report "without any link" is not really enough to have such a challenging claim in this article, specially when there's nothing as such in Iranian law, as shown by Mehrdad. Please avoid further revert and edit war and instead try to carry the WP:burden of proving it's verifiablity (per that guideline, "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You can also use other methods such as RFC to determine whether we can mention Iran in the list or not. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It's only dubious if one accepts the premise of Mehrdad's position, which is that if beheading is not specifically mentioned in Iranian law, it must be not allowed. That is not a sound premise, especially when we have evidence to the contrary in a reliable source (a book published by Oxford University Press is a reliable source). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've reworded it to state that it is reported to have been carried out by state authorities in Iran as recently as 2001. That way, the reliable sources can still be used while not drawing the conclusion that it is therefore legal, which seems to be the underlying concern. I feel that this is a fair compromise, especially when we have a reliable source that states point blank that it is legal in Iran. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't care what MehrdadFR's position is, the thing I know is that not all what's published by reliable sources are correct. Recently, I was dealing with a carelessness of reliable sources which caused a dispute and we concluded that those reliable sources were not reliable in that case! So, having something in 'Oxford University Press's book' does not guarantee it's inclusion. Btw, do you know what WP:UNDUE says when you've just one source making such a dubious claim? Mhhossein (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

See this article by the Guardian (which is in contradiction with your claims): "According to Amnesty, the methods of execution used in Saudi Arabia in 2014 were beheading and via firing squad, while in Iran those sentenced to death are hanged." Mhhossein (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That source does not contradict my claims in the least. I have never claimed that Iran has used beheading in 2014 or since that date. It appears that you misunderstand my position completely. It's set out above, you could review it. The reason I thought you cared about what MehrdadFR's position was that you stated above, "I'm in agreement with MehrdadFR", without specifying which parts you disagreed with or didn't care about. As for WP:UNDUE, as I've stated above, the claim is not limited to one source. In any case, I've attempted to write a compromise into the article, so I'm not sure what good continuing to harp on the issue will do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Which laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran authorize execution by tank-main-gun-barrel or tow-truck-crane-boom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.148.148 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Beheading in Islamism → Beheading in Islam – The article discusses beheading throughout Islamic history and thought; it is not limited to a discussion of beheading within Islamism, which is a modern political revivalist movement. A number of months ago, a user performed this move, stating the edit summary that "Islamism is an ideology, it's like naming an article 'Beheading in Liberalism'". The name was stable for awhile, but it was recently reversed by a user who objected to the original move being undiscussed. I see it as a relatively uncontroversial change given the contents of the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Beheading in Islam is supported by the article and has been the consensus title for a year. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose I see no evidence that RSs -- and by that I mean a reasonable sample of solid sources and not one essay of questionable reliability -- treat the disparate elements some editors seem to want to assemble in this article as a coherent topic. These are, to enumerate: 1) Quranic verses that may or may not refer to beheading, depending on who you ask; 2) the use of beheading as one of methods for capital punishment in classical Islamic law, which was entirely unremarkable in pre-modern times; 3) a list of random beheadings performed by Muslims throughout history, also unremarkable in as a phenomenon in pre-modern context; 4) legal practice in modern Saudi Arabia and legal status in some other countries; 5) the recent use of beheading by Muslim terrorists. Most of the article is about the latter category, and we can discuss to what degree this terrorist tactic is influenced by aspects of history and religion (I haven't looked into this topic myself). However, this should be based on explicit discussion in RSs and not on WP:SYNTHESIS by juxtaposition. Eperoton (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The article's scope goes beyond Islamism. The current title would require that half of the article be culled. —  AjaxSmack  21:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Some of the first section needs to be moved to Capital punishment in Islam, which is missing any discussion of methods of execution which is missing these details. I don't see a rationale for its being in the same article with terrorism. We don't have articles about "bombing in X" that apply to military campaigns and terrorism, or article about "shooting in X" that cover both legal and illegal use of guns, etc. Some historical incidents belong under List of people who were beheaded, and the rest is just a list of historical massacres classified by religious group to which perpetrators belonged, for which there's no consensus on WP. What's left is an article about the contemporary phenomenon of beheadings by Muslim terrorists, and its title should reflect that. "Islamism" is a broad and vague term which has little overlap with beheadings. Eperoton (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to some sort of restructuring/diffusion of content as suggested here; it would make sense to me do so. I'm not sure if there would be a broader consensus for it, but I think it would be worthwhile having a discussion about doing so. If the article is renamed as proposed, perhaps it could be done without prejudice to further major changes that would either render the article superfluous, or at least liable to again be renamed if its scope is tightened up. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable temporary solution. Like Jason from nyc, I'm about to leave on a trip and won't be very (if at all) active in the next few days, but I'll retract my opposing vote so we can start to move (hopefully) in the right direction. Eperoton (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Weak support. I agree with the original "liberalism" analogy above. That's not to say that "Beheading in Islam" is the best title, however. In fact, "Beheading and Islamism" (or something similar, that maintains the connection of the two currently-used nouns) may be a better third alternative. Wolfdog (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent reverts

@Good Olfactory:

• Revert #1 restored Middle East Quarterly, which is NOT a reliable reference. See User:Al-Andalusi/Links to reliable sources discussions. Stating in the edit summary that it "seems reliable to me" is not very convincing.
• Revert #2 restored uncited content. Yes it is fairly known that SA carries out executions in public, but the additional claim that "most of them" are done in public is one that needs a source. Do I really need to go over the basics and explain why a source is needed for an uncited claim?
• Revert #3 restored an unreliable source. Fregosi is a journalist, and not a historian or an expert on Islam. He is unreliable as far as the topic of the history of Islam is concerned. The onus is on YOU to establish his reliability on the topic, not the other way around. So please stop with the nonsense that it "doesn't really matter that he is a reporter and not a "specialist" or historian". If YOU have low standards on the topic of Islam and willing to believe anything anyone will tell you anywhere anytime, then know that we don't. Take it to WP:RSN if you have doubts.
• Revert #4 Restored content that violates WP:OR, from the Qur'an and Al-Tabari. Further, I could not find Al-Tabari's quote in Watt's reference.

The reverts restored content that violates WP:RS and WP:OR. These are core WP policies and you know damn well that you are violating them. How you became an admin on this site is something that baffles me. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Settle down; I don't think it's helpful to assume that another editor knows that they are violating policies in their edits. Rather, we assume good faith. That's a core WP principle too, you know. It's also unhelpful to personally attack other users, as you have attacked me. That's a core WP principle as well.

1: I was not aware of the discussion you have linked to. Thanks.

2: Yes, it needs to be cited. But I think the appropriate step here is to begin by adding a "citation needed" tag, not removing the information completely. Once tagged, it gives users time to locate a citation for it. I've added some citations for part of the sentence.

3: I disagree that this is an unreliable source for these points. I don't think it requires a "specialist" to report that beheadings have been claimed to have occurred after certain battles, but I understand what you are saying. I think a better approach would be to supplement the citations which are included with further information about why these reports from history are questionable, or concocted, or exaggerated, or whatever the consensus of scholars is regarding each incident. If there is no consensus among the experts on that, then the article can say so. Obviously, this requires work. It is easier to just delete stuff, I understand.

4: This is pretty basic stuff with respect to the topic, and there are likely plenty of sources. I've added one now and reworded things. The ambiguity/dispute over the meanings of the Quran and the accuracy of other sources traditionally cited needs to be highlighted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

1. The debate about the MEQ [1] was inconclusive on the journal itself but the discussion decided against the specific author and the article he published prior to the journal being peer reviewed. If this author's work is inadmissible (it was also published prior to MEQ being peer reviewed) it should be based on his credentials. He has a doctorate in Islamic history (Ohio State, 2001). I'd argue his work is worthy no matter where it is published. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Furnish published an abridged version of his article, [2], on History Network News, for which he was a regular contributor. This online journal consists of historians who "put current events into historical perspective." I suggest that Furnish is a reliable and respected expert in Islamic history. We should include the original article as a reference. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: I agree, the article is a RS although it is arguably WP:FRINGE. The author is a specialist, but not a prominent one, and he himself makes it clear enough that he's advocating a contrarian view ("With such apologetics, Western academics either display basic ignorance of their fields or purposely mislead. The intelligentsia's denial etc"). Hence we should be very careful about due weight. While Furnish strings together a couple of pages of beheading trivia from Islamic history, the point of this exercise is stated in the conclusion section. We can reflect his conclusions briefly, but without giving the source disproportionate weight, either in presenting its view as a prominent one or in copying that trivia into the article. Given the current size of the article, a sentence with attribution seems to be about as much space as it deserves. How about the following: "According to Timothy Furnish, although the use of decapitation in Islamic history is not unusual among the world's civilizations, Islam is the only major world religion today that is cited to legitimize beheadings and terrorists who use it believe that they have religious and historical sanction for their actions." P.S. In fact, if one subtracts the hyperbole and decontextualized listing of facts from a long stretch of history, the point he's arguing for doesn't seem to be particularly controversial. Eperoton (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

His passing sentence about "apologetics" comes after a list of non-academics (with one exception) so it isn't clear that he is fringe. I can't explain why he sets himself up as the one expert who "got it right" but academics have a tendency to claim to be adding something new or something overlooked. It helps their case of doing original research. As a retired academic I'm used to such self-promotion. Jason from nyc (talk)

Your suggested sentence is good. I'd also like something about the difference between non-state actors and legitimate governments. He says, "While outsiders may consider the Saudi practice barbaric, most Saudi executions are swift, completed in one sword blow. Zarqawi and his followers have chosen a slow, torturous sawing method to terrorize the Western audience." He's is clearly arguing that non-state actors are exploiting legitimate texts and that isn't controversial. The contrast in usage helps drive that point home. It's like comparing a government use of capital punishment with a KKK lynch mob. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this would be a good addition. It's an almost obvious but nonetheless helpful distinction. Eperoton (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm rushing out the door and won't be back for a few days. If you want to make an insertion, please do. Otherwise, I'll add something when I get back. Thanks for you thoughtful remarks. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Quranic interpretations

@Good Olfactory: This phrasing contradicts what I've read on the subject elsewhere (can't remember where at the moment), and I'd like to figure out if the contradiction is in the source itself (in which case I'll look for the source I've seen before), or if the summary needs to be clarified. It was my recollection that there's a disagreement between exegetical authorities as to whether these verses refer to decapitation at all or are simply figurative expressions for fierce fighting. I have never heard of any reputable scholar interpreting them as justifying execution of captives, through beheading or otherwise. If it's a disagreement between some fringe terrorist ideologues and everyone else, and if the source makes that clear, we would want to note that. Would you mind sharing the source via quoting or email? Eperoton (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty much consistent what is stated in the source. I think it could be clarified more in the text of our article that the "controversy", such as one exists, is between radicals and everyone else, not really between mainstream interpreters. And/or emphasize the more widely understood meaning. I'm not particularly wedded to using this source, it's just what I had at my fingertips and seemed to be a decent summary. Quoted (pp. 234–35, footnotes omitted):

One could argue that Shari'a and Islam encourage violent jihad in the form of beheading. A debate exists as to whether the Qur'an specifically discusses beheading. The Qur'an contains two Suras which theoretically provide a justification for beheading the context of war. [The two Suras are quoted.]

Terrorists who wish to justify beheading use these Suras to say that smiting at the neck of the unbelievers is analogous to beheading the enemy. However, these Suras are taken out of context. Sura 47:4 does not merely state that one should "smite at the necks" of the unbelievers. It goes on to say that generosity or ransom can and should be an option when waging war. This Sura is referring to meeting the unbelieving enemy in battle. Terrorists may believe they are in a battle against those with whom they capture and behead. However, the historical context of Sura 47:4 provides some refutation to this interpretation. Sura 47:4 speaks of a time when Muslims were highly persecuted. Historical context further provides that Muslims needed to fight in order to avoid being exterminated. The terrorists' reliance on this Sura as a justification for their actions is faulty. There is no risk of extermination in the modem world, which distinguishes the present day context from the historical situation of certain Arabs in Arabia.

Andrew McCarthy is among those who believe, however, that the militants may employ the following interpretation of Sura 47.4: "Execute by beheading first, and show mercy only after the enemy—i.e.,the entire enemy, not the individual captive—has been 'thoroughly subdued.'" While it is possible to use these Suras to justify beheadings if one is intent on doing so, the agreement among scholars is that these Suras mean killing by striking at the neck.

– Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Good Olfactory. I would have preferred to use a source that cites mainstream Islamic interpretations rather than arguing with the "terrorists" first hand, but I don't have other sources on this subject at hand, and this one will do. I've made an attempt to phrase the article so as to reflect what it says more directly. Eperoton (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

A good improvement, thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my recent change: I'm concerned about the way verse 8:12 is lumped in with all the talk about the other verse, as the quote from the source (above) revolves almost entirely around verse 47:4, and not 8:12. Secondly, the source says "theoretically provide a justification for beheading", whereas the Wiki article says "cited by the terrorists who argue that the Quran commands beheading". Again, this appears to apply only to 47:4 and not 8:12. Finally, the verse is a clearly a command to the angels (who, according to tradition, were sent as reinforcements during the Battle of Badr), and not human beings. This is all based on my understanding of the quote above. If there's anything I missed, do mention it. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

"Islamic scripture" section

I made a change to the wording on the Banu Qurayza events, correctly an error that was likely introduced by user "Good Olfactory", who is yet again showing us his low standards in handling material on Islam and the Middle East. Rather than consult the main articles and sources on the events, and accept the version that is backed by thousands of references, he is now claiming that there is an alternative version somewhere in the primary sources where Muhammad did in fact order the beheadings!

@Good Olfactory:, remember when you insisted earlier on restoring uncited content about Saudi Arabia, claiming that you were giving users time to find references? It is quite hypocritical of you not to follow through with this approach here. Rather than reverting the change, I'd expect that you add a cn tag and give time for sources to be added. Or do you only play the waiting game with certain views? As for the Quranic verse, I will reply in the appropriate section above. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The source that is cited states:

To justify these acts, some terrorists cite the beheadings of hundreds from the Jewish tribe Qurayza, in which Muhammad was directly involved. The details of this incident are shrouded in controversy. One historical account is that Muhammad ordered the beheading of at least six hundred Jewish males. Another account is that "[t]renches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance.

I do not understand how we can change the text of the WP article to say that someone else ordered the beheadings while keeping as the source for this statement the above source. This wasn't an issue of adding a "cn" tag—it was an issue of keeping a statement that had no support in the citation that was being retained.

The WP text current states: "In one account, Muhammad is said to have ordered the beheading of at least six hundred males from the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe, while another states that he was merely present and watched the beheadings and mass burial." This seems like a fair representation of what the source above states. You can quibble with the source if you wish, but the source is the source. You can't make this particular source say something that it does not.

I suggest you tone down your rhetoric, though. Attacking me in general terms is not productive. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I left the reference for the first sentence: "Justification for beheading has also been drawn from the Siras and Hadiths".

Does the author cite any sources for the "One historical account is that Muhammad ordered the beheading" part? The events of Sa'd's arbitration are missing from Saloom's account, so it is clearly not a comprehensive reference on this particular event, one to be used to dismiss Sa'd's account entirely. Further, Saloom in fact mentions 2 accounts, one where Muhammad gave the orders (I'd like to see another reference to support this claim), and another where Muhammad watched, meaning someone else gave the orders. That makes me wonder why you chose to report only first account, but not the other? the dismissal of Sa'd's arbitration is not a source issue it appears. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I left the reference for the first sentence: "Justification for beheading has also been drawn from the Siras and Hadiths". Yes, but the reference was also left after the sentence you changed, and the content was entirely changed and not supported by the Saloom source.

the dismissal of Sa'd's arbitration is not a source issue it appears. The WP text refers to both accounts now, which I think is an improvement. I don't think the Saloom account is meant to be a comprehensive discussion of the point in question; it is a summary paragraph discussing it in the context of a larger point, similar to the purpose of the section in our WP article. I don't think we need to reproduce the article on Banu Qurayza. As I mentioned above, I'm not terribly wedded to this Saloom source; it's not ideal for all purposes, it was what I had at my fingertips at some point last week. Stuff can be changed in the WP text, but we can't use Saloom as a source for things Saloom doesn't say. That's my primary concern with the edit that was made. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are concerned about Saloom being used as a source for things Saloom doesn't say, then the solution is to retain the text I added about Sa'd and remove the citation for Saloom from it, moving it to the beginning of the paragrpah. Do you agree? The material you added, while sourced, is being directly challenged as being incorrect. Now that you are fully aware of the issues with Saloom's claims, your insistence on keeping the incorrect version and the fact you have not shown any effort to verify the material in light of other sources, all shows this is more of an attempt to push a certain POV than a concern about the placement of a citation. I'm afraid that the half-assed measure of including "both accounts" (as you call it, though sources are unanimous about Sa'd's involvement) is not sufficient here (you are yet to back the claim for Muhammad'd orders with another reference). I do not consider this dispute resolved until the content about Sa'd's arbitration is restored. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If we have standard references which contradict Saloom's phrasing on this point, relying on those sources to the exclusion of Saloom would be consistent with WP:WEIGHT. We do need other citations to make a change, though, and it would be better to verify them, since the sourcing at Banu Qurayza has some problems of its own. I have some of the sources cited there, and I'll check them in the next couple of days. Eperoton (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It is interesting how historians have told this story throughout history. I usually start with Edward Gibbon’s “The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire” [3].

“A venerable elder, to whose judgment they appealed, pronounced the sentence of their death; seven hundred Jews were dragged in chains to the market-place of the city; they descended alive into the grave prepared for their execution and burial; and the apostle beheld with an inflexible eye the slaughter of his helpless enemies.” (1776).

William Muir, in “Mahomet and Islam,” (p148) writes:

“… proceeded Sa'd, ‘my judgment is, that the men shall be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, and the spoils divided amongst the army.’ A thrill of horror ran through the host; but all questioning was stopped by Mahomet, who sternly ratified the verdict. … In the morning Mohamet, himself a spectator, commanded the male captives to be brought out in companies of five and six at a time. …” (1887)

In J. B. Bury “Cambridge Medieval History: The Rise of the Saracens and the Foundation of the Western Empire” we find: (p294)

“As soon as the besiegers had departed the vengeance of Mahomet naturally fell on the Kuraiza. He did not content himself with pillaging them but, having compelled them to surrender after a brief siege, offered them the choice of conversion to Islam or death. … The number of these martyrs amounted to over six hundred.” (1913)

In Marshall G. S. Hodgson’s “The Venture of Islam,” he writes (p 191):

“Muhammad attacked the Banu Qurayzah … insisted on unconditional surrender … insisted that all the men, about six hundred, be killed.” (1974)

Hodgson indicates that this was the custom at the time. I tend to trust Gibbon most. May I suggest we simply say "Muhammad presided over ..." Jason from nyc (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, some interesting comparisons here. Based on my quick review of half a dozen books and quotes from about as many others, there seems to be a watershed in how academic historians assessed this episode, falling roughly around the time of Montgomery Watt's work, perhaps in part by virtue of his influence, but more likely owing to a general change of attitudes or a combination of both. Watt doubted the traditional story of Banu Qurayza violating a formal treaty, but he also presented an elaborate analysis of the political context which led him to the conclusion that Muhammad "was dealing with a difficult situation in the only tactful way open to him" (this phrasing from Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman; I'm fairly certain he was the first author to use the word "tactful" in describing these events). There's a late statement of the earlier perspective in Francesco Gabrieli's 1968 book, including "reaffirming our consciousness as Christians and civilised men," but among standard references published in the last 50 years or so, even Norman Stillman, who is perhaps the most prominent current representantive of the "anti-apologetics" camp, argues for moral relativism.

I'll give al-Andalusi a chance to respond before commenting on phrasing, but I do want to note something else. We have Saloom's take on how this episode is used to justify terrorist beheadings, which I think we can express more directly. The rest of that quote doesn't seem well aligned with standard presentations, and we can replace it by a very concise summary of the events based on other sources. However, we could still use another source to clarify the "controversy" that's relevant for this article, which is not the disagreement between academics, but rather the one between terrorist and "non-terrorists". I came across this paper by Meir Kister. Its coverage of modern Muslim interpretations on p.63 is rather thin (it's cited by F.E. Peters for its more substantial coverage of medieval interpretations), but we can maybe extract a couple of relevant points from it: "Some Muslim scholars [...] justified it pointing out that the Banu Qurayza [...] had committed deeds of treason. Sa'd's decree, although severe and harsh, was a vital necessity as he regarded the fate of the Jews as a question of life and death for the Muslim community." There's also this characterization of Arafat's work (against which Kister argues at length) from Routledge's Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia (p. 754): "significant Muslim scholars, such as W. N. Arafat, have objected to the notorious tales concerning the expulsion and execution of the Jews of Medina that form an integral part of the Maghazi as ‘‘unislamic.’’" Perhaps someone is aware of better sources for this. Eperoton (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Actually, since I already reviewed the sources, I'll also mention what I found there. It seems to be uncontroversial (that is, of course, excepting scholars who don't think one can trust any details in early Islamic sources) that Banu Qurayza accepted Sa'd as arbitrator and that Muhammad accepted his judgment. The view that Banu Qurayza nominated him themselves doesn't seem to be shared by academic historians. Eperoton (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge/split/renaming discussion, part 2

@Al-Andalusi, Good Olfactory, and Jason from nyc: I'd like to move to the next planned stage of our article naming discussion, namely separating the content relating to beheading as capital punishment and its use by terrorists into separate articles. I got the impression that there was general agreement with this plan, but let me know if we need to discuss this premise further. It seems clear that Capital punishment in Islam is the right place for content pertaining to capital punishment. There are several possibilities for naming the other article. "Terrorist beheadings", "Jihadist beheadings", and "Islamist beheadings" are all terms that seem to be in use and may satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. Of these, the latter strikes me as the most problematic based on precision (WP:CRITERIA), since the term is commonly applied to governments and all sorts of non-violent movements (the opening paragraph in Islamism needs to be fixed, but there's better coverage of its usage in Islamism#Definitions). "Jihadist beheadings" wouldn't have that particular problem, but there's another concern. While the term Jihadism is used by both journalists, and to a lesser extent academics, it's a recent and vague neologism and there are very few RSs discussing the term itself. Based on my recent experience in cleaning OR from that article, some editors seem to have trouble distinguishing it from Jihad, so I'm concerned about making the article an OR magnet. Hence, I personally prefer the first option. What do you think? Eperoton (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I have some concerns with regard to splitting the article. I conceptually distinguish between legal capital punishment by governmental authorities and vicious criminal acts by non-state actors, and I've helped to make this distinction in the article. My concern is that we are, perhaps, inadvertently doing original research in a novel way, an anti-synthesis. If the sources discuss these together, and they often do even when differentiating, perhaps we should keep them both in one article for now. We have a non-state actor section with good sources that explain how this isn't an example of the more honorable tradition. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, what sources did you have in mind? There are many sources discussing each of the following categories separately: 1) beheading as capital punishment in the history of Islamic law; 2) modern status of beheading as capital punishment; 3) terrorist beheadings. I'm aware of a couple of essays which discuss these together, and which loosely correspond to the scope of our current article, but these seem to be a small fraction of the total. Am I missing something? Eperoton (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm basically going by the sources within this article. Rudolph Peters reviews criminal law and punishment. In essence we have a very brief paragraph on government punishment using beheading merely to inform the reader that it is allowed by Islamic law. This is fitting in that there are articles on Islamic legal punishment. We already have Islamic criminal jurisprudence, Capital punishment in Islam, Hudud and others. We then briefly state historic examples. The abuse by non-state actors is of recent interest and takes up the rest of the article. We explain how it differs from permitted beheadings. It still needs improvement. For example, the "Condemnation by Muslims" (which are four sources reporting the same event) don't make clear if the condemnation is for beheading itself, non-governmental beheading, or the manner and occasion of beheading. The article needs more work. I think it benefits from doing it all in one article to compare and contrast. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

So, let me ask again, now with reference to our current citations: which sources support the current scope of the article, treating the role of beheading in Islamic law, "historical occurrences" of random Muslims beheading people, and recent use by terrorists as a coherent topic? The Slate essay and the section in Robertson & Das are both sketches of beheading in world history whose goal is to correct the misconception that beheadings have a historically disproportionate association with the Muslim world. We need help from Good Olfactory to know more about Saloom, but based on the abstract, it appears to discuss the role of beheading in Islamic law. This is quite different from our subject of "Islam" as civilization, and juxtaposing discussion of sharia or scripture with historical incidents that have no established connection to either one is a major source of implicit synthesis in the current article. The only source I can see which does match our current scope is Furnish. Our explicit use of this essay is in line with NPOV, but in a way the article seems to be based on it exclusively. Eperoton (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me ask the opposite question, what reference supports a division? What reference distinguishes between beheading in Islam, beheading in islamism, and beheading by non-state actors? The notion of non-state actors goes back to Cicero in his treatment of Just War in Des Officiis (in his discussion of pirates, for example.) It is not clear from the discussion in our sources in this article where this distinction arrises in the context of Islam. The condemnations in the last paragraph makes no distinction and gives the impression that beheading is wrong in Islam period. Are we adding a Western distinction where it doesn't apply? It also isn't clear that ISIS is a non-state actor. They did establish a de facto state. I fear we are treading on the boarder of OR. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Almost all of our references, and many others besides, support existence of capital punishment in Islam and terrorist beheadings as two distinct subjects. The citations in Beheading in Islamic law are about capital punishment and not about terrorism, at least the scholarly ones. I've recently read a number of standard academic references on Islamic law, and I'd be happy to elaborate on how the sources treat the subject. Classical sharia and modern state legislation are the core of the subject, as is their application. Classical mazalim courts [4] and Qanun (law) are somewhat tangentially related, but are also commonly discussed because they've been theorized as a compliment to sharia. I haven't come across anything like our "historical occurrences" and their likes in those sources. One might ask if ISIS may be a state actor applying its own version of sharia, but that's not a question for us to answer. It should be covered under capital punishment to the extent that it's covered by RSs discussing the subjects of capital punishment and Islamic law. Their designation as "non-state" is an artifact of this article, which would not arise if we separate its content.

Likewise, there are many references supporting terrorist beheadings as a separate subject. We're citing many news stories. The condemnation citations are just about beheadings by Zarqawi's group and ISIS -- that's quite obvious from the sources. There are also academic sources: Terrorist Beheadings by Brahami, which we're citing; also this article [5] and this not very authoritative but frequently cited publication.[6] Eperoton (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The Lentini & Bakashmar tends to support the coverage of jihadi beheadings in the same article as other Islamic beheadings. As the abstract says it arrises in “religious and cultural contexts” with the “religious terrorists' desires to please a deity and secure a place of honor.” As warped and distorted these actions may be, they are attempts to be Islamic. They note both the role of inspiration (“to recruit future jihadists … [from] the global Muslim community”) and as a deterrent to UK Muslims supporting the UK.

Jihadi beheadings are not duly authorized, proper punishments, nor properly carried out. I don’t think that the locus of beheadings within the Islamic context can be viewed as accidental. The self-styled use by non-state actors and self-proclaimed states are still an outgrowth of the cultural and religious context in question. The religious intent of radicals and use by illegitimate regimes is still Islamic in nature even if not properly Islamic. It’s important to the understanding of jihadi action both in its motivation and failure to be in accord with proper doctrine. That sheds light on proper doctrine (by counter-example) and the illicit use by non-state actors or illegitimate regimes. Jones does a comparison. It seems wise to discuss both at the same time. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to address your concerns, but I just can't recognize this as a policy-based concern to making this an article about terorrist beheadings with two sections removed. These sources frame their subject as terrorist/jihadist beheadings and they discuss the religious context of this phenomenon. Following the sources in how they frame and treat the subject would be a policy-compliant way to use them. If RSs happen to discuss how the terrorists are influenced by Islamic law (rather than simply scripture), or, say, Saladin's beheadings of Raynald of Châtillon, we should discuss it too. Some of the contextual material we now have scattered around the article, such as comparison with capital punishment in Saudi Arabia, would then properly belong in the "background and context" section, since it's treated as such by RSs. If you disagree with that, please help me understand your concern. On the other hand, using their discussion of religious context to construct the subject of "Islamic beheadings" violates OR, which is the basis of my concern. Eperoton (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

While I give this more thought, let's hear from other people. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I support this proposal to separate the topics of capital punishment in Islamic law and terrorist beheadings. As it stands, this is a somewhat artificial topic, meaning one that essentially has been put together through synthesis. A split-off of some of the information to Capital punishment in Islam and renaming this article something like "Terrorist beheading(s)" seems like the best route, though I would be open to discussing alternate names. But basically, I support the proposal made by Eperoton (talk · contribs) in the first paragraph of this section. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)