Talk:Jihad

(~~~~Guest~~~~), and read this. As a courtesy to other users, editors may use {{unsigned}} to help mark any unsigned comments. See Pending Tasks here.

Article cleanup

This article is badly in need of cleanup. For one, there are 2 sections on "Jihad as warfare".Bless sins (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Can someone please fix this sentence in "Origins". The meaning is extremely unclear and seems to be an important jumping off point for understanding historical and contemporary connotations: The struggle for Jihad in the Koran was originally intended for the nearby neighbors of the Muslims, but as time passed and more enemies arose, the Koranic statements supporting Jihad were updated for the new adversaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.21.249 (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please fix this sentence in "Origins". The meaning is extremely unclear and seems to be an important jumping off point for understanding historical and contemporary connotations: The struggle for Jihad in the Koran was originally intended for the nearby neighbors of the Muslims, but as time passed and more enemies arose, the Koranic statements supporting Jihad were updated for the new adversaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.21.249 (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Umdat al-Salik

In an attempt to explain the differing opinions as to the reliability of the book 'Umdah al-Saalik I say the following. The book in its original Arabic is summary of the ritual opinions of the Shafi'i school of thought. The differing begins, I believe with its translation into English. I read a good deal of the translation, entitled 'Reliance of the Traveler', and observed that the translation is significantly interspersed with supplementary material. This much, perhaps can be agreed upon: that the book 'Reliance' is a translation of 'al-'Umdah' and that it has a lengthy introduction and appendix. The differing would then relate to the content of the additional material present in 'Reliance.'Supertouch (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Twice now my references to the ‘Umdat al-Salik have been removed, claiming it is not a reliable source. I base my reliance on it on Major Stephen Collins Coughlin's Master's Thesis "To Our Great Detriment": Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad (reference to which has also been removed by the same person). Coughlin states:

The ‘Umdat al-Salik is a standard Islamic legal reference whose translation into English was vetted and approved by designated national authorities from no less than four Arab states: the Imam of the Mosque of Darwish Pasha, Damascus; the Mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces; a member of the Islamic Fiqh Academy, Jedda, Saudi Arabia; and Cairo’s al-Azhar University. From the most prestigious and authoritative institute of Islamic higher learning, al-Azhar’s endorsement is particularly on point: “We certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of Orthodox Sunni Islam (Ahl al-Sunna wa alJama’a).”

Assuming proper citation, the rebuttable presumption will be that the English language text of ‘Umdat al-Salik accurately represents the official Arabic equivalent which, in turn, is recognized as an authoritative statement of Sacred Islamic law as actually understood, explained and implemented in the Islamic world. Hence, when properly cited, the burden of proof will shift to those dissenting from the cited point of law to prove that the English language translation is erroneous or that the ‘Umdat alSalik’s statement of law is in error, is non-mainstream, or is otherwise defective in a material way. In other words, those opposed to positions that rely on the ‘Umdat al-Salik for authority will have to show that al-Azhar is wrong when it states that the translation “correspond to the Arabic original” or that the law does not “conform to the practice and faith of Orthodox Sunni Islam.” To the extent it can be shown that predominantly Muslim countries recognize Islamic law in some official capacity, especially those countries that endorsed the ‘Umdat al-Salik, the English language reader will be allowed the presumption that positions grounded in the ‘Umdat al-Salik reflect the current understanding of that same law in those countries that claim Islamic law as a basis for law. Thus, the ‘Umdat al-Salik serves as a bridge between English speaking readers and the actual operation of Sacred Islamic law as understood and practiced inside the crucible of Middle Eastern Sunni Islam.

- pages 48-50 (original) or 52-54 in the PDF available at http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf

To answer whether 'Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) is a reliable source in the context Islamic law I would suggest we look to what authorities in Islamic jurisprudence say about that. In Umdat al-Salik we find various endorsments and probably the most important is from Al-Azhar University which is the chief centre of Arabic literature and Sunni Islamic learning in the world,[1] and Al-Azhar certified in 1991 that Umdat al-Salik "conformes to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community" (Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, p. xx (20) [2]). Based upon this I will claim that Umdat al-Salik is the a reliable source of reference in the context of Islamic practice and faith. Davidelah (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So the burden of proof falls on others to demonstrate that the ‘Umdat al-Salik is so flawed that it does not deserve to be cited here. Jwbaumann (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I will not respond to your message, but I will say that the Wikipedia policies are clear: the burden of proof for inclusion lies with the person who wishes to include content. If you wish to include material in this article, it is up to you to prove why it belongs in, it's not up to others to prove why it doesn't. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The "IASC" appears to be a 'think-tank' of unknown credibility, as is Stephen Collins Coughlin (what is his expertise in the area of Islamic studies, for example?). I have doubts as to whether he is a reliable, scholarly source.

As for `Umdat al-Salik (eng trans: "Reliance of the traveller"), it is a classical Shafi'ite jurisprudential primer. Wikipedia relies upon the use of academic, scholarly sources (secondary or tertiary). It is generally not appropriate here to cite classical texts directly, which themselves may be primary sources, due to problems associated with original research or misinterpretation that may arise. So you're probably better off using the comprehensive academic references available such as Rudolph Peter's Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam or Reuven Firestone's Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam.

Lastly, Jihad in jurisprudence generally does refer to combat, because the jurisprudence concerns itself with the rules and ethics of combat, the pre-conditions, its pillars, and so on (and because the other categories of jihad are more 'tazkiyya' related - there's less "rules" associated with them). Jihad connotes combat against non-Muslim combatants (not simply "non-Muslims", which is extremely misleading) or even rebels or groups who are/claim to be Muslim. ITAQALLAH 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the following paragraph from the article:

Major Stephen Collins Coughlin's Master's Thesis meticulously documents the status of Jihad in Islamic Law, and provides powerful evidence that Jihad cannot be separated from Islam.

Saying that he provides "powerful evidence" for a certain thesis is a personal opinion, and as such doesn't belong in the article. If this is to be included, it has to be rewritten. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Major Coughlin's biography can be read at [3]. Information about IASC is at [4]. One of IASC's founders is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania [5]. I can find no source that suggests there is any other Islamic expert at the Pentagon, other than Major Coughlin, or that he is/was not the leading Islamic expert. There are thousands of matches on a Google search that uniformly refer to him as an expert on Islamic Law. He has a Masters in Strategic Intelligence, with a focus on global terrorism and Jihadist movements. His thesis speaks for itself - I suggest you read it. If this does not qualify him as a verifiable source, then 90% of Wikipedia's content needs to be removed.

As for the Umdat, you, in your rebuttal, have confirmed it is a verifiable source. Regardless, I am incorporating the "legal definition" into my citation of Coughlin's work. Jwbaumann (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You evaded the question of Umdat al-Salik. What does being a "verifiable source" have to do with whether it is reliable?

Can you provide some details about Coughlin from reliable sources? Preferably from ones he is not affiliated with?

If I can chime in real quick here, Coughlin as a source is about as reliable as John Esposito is. Basically I've never come across anything that either has said that is factually incorrect. Interpretation can sometimes be worrisome while still being factually correct, but that's another matter. And I feel that Reliance of the traveller is a very reliable source. Walbe13 (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, we are talking about reliable, not "verifiable", sources. His qualifications seem to show that he has no formal training in Islamic studies. Neither do we know how Coughlin is viewed by other academic scholars, nor whether this work has undergone appropriate peer review.

Presuming he is an expert, I see nothing of value being imparted by the material apart from long-winded personal opinion, itself presented in a skewed manner. I think most people know that jihad is a part of Islam. So what? The insertion as it stands violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. ITAQALLAH 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes to make the passage relatively more neutral. I am still unsure as to whether a) he is actually a reliable source; and b) whether these opinions actually merit coverage alongside established academic scholarship on Islam. ITAQALLAH 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the material cited to the "master's thesis" entirely. There is no evidence that I am aware of that this thesis was published. There is no evidence that I am aware of that this thesis was peer-reviewed. There is no reliable third party evidence of the author's credentials. Indeed, the very paper itself is revealing in this regard--it's a master's thesis, which indicates that the author does not (yet) hold an advanced degree in the subject. The very idea that Wikipedia can and should use unpublished masters theses (or perhaps even published theses, depending on the publication and peer review process) as sources is out of line with WP:V, WP:NOR, and/or WP:RS. The burden to show why to include the material falls on the editor wanting to include it. Here, that burden is a large one given the number of questions regarding the source. · jersyko talk 16:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

References that are not working please somebody remove them

http://www.intellnet.org/news/2003/02/14/16788-1.html

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/algeria.php

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00002862.aspx

http://www.milnet.com/2nd-indictment-hayat-dist-court.pdf

http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/spirituality-sufism_caucasus.html

http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/Public/Login.html?url=%2Fapp%3Fservice%3Dexternalpagemethod%26method%3Dview%26page%3DMainSearch&failReason=

http://www.theforgottenrefugees.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=39

http://www.sportsinteraction.com/popUnders/index.cfm?x=1&section=hockey09popunder&prid=15806&hit=1

Gimbo Vales (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: WP:DEADLINK states that you should not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer. If any of these references have been removed, please restore them. If they are not working, please state which ones here, and either myself or another editor will try to find a mirror or an archived version of the page. Thank you. - SudoGhost (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Unclear ref

Footnote #58 consists only of a page number. RJFJR (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the contributor meant the same same book of ref 59, as it also gave a page number only. However, page 226 is not available for free on Google Books. I wrote the author and book name on both (58 + 59). AdvertAdam ^talk 06:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Jihad in Islamic Law

The meaning of Jihad in the classical manuals of Islamic jurisprudence needs to be better represented or emphasised in this article. Bernard Lewis is cited and his opinion is that in most of the recorded history of Islam, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense. I would suggest it would be better and more authentic to quote straight from Islamic law. In 'Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) for example, the connotation of warfare with Jihad is made clearer:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad.

``We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

-1- ``Fighting is prescribed for you (Koran 2:216);

-2- ``Slay them wherever you find them (Koran 4:89);

-3- ``Fight the idolators utterly (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

``I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

"To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it." Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.) [...]

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29) [6]

(Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, p. 599 [7])

As to whether this book is a reliable source I will point to that in Umdat al-Salik we find various endorsments and probably the most important is from Al-Azhar University which is the chief centre of Arabic literature and Sunni Islamic learning in the world,[8] and Al-Azhar certified in 1991 that Umdat al-Salik "conformes to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community." (Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, p. xx (20) [9]), and also here Davidelah (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Rules of war (in jihad) in according BBC and rules of war according to Islamic law

According to the BBC these are the very strict rules of war in jihad:

• The opponent must always have started the fighting.
• It must not be fought to gain territory.
• It must be launched by a religious leader.
• It must be fought to bring about good - something that Allah will approve of.
• Every other way of solving the problem must be tried before resorting to war.
• Innocent people should not be killed.
• Women, children, or old people should not be killed or hurt.
• Women must not be raped.
• Enemies must be treated with justice.
• Wounded enemy soldiers must be treated in exactly the same way as one's own soldiers.
• The war must stop as soon as the enemy asks for peace.
• Property must not be damaged.
• Poisoning wells is forbidden. The modern analogy would be chemical or biological warfare.

BBC does not, however, provide any soucres to support these points (and BBC is not an institution that holds authority in Islam).

Islamic law manuals also provides rules of wars that seems to differ from the ones of BBC and even to contradict them.

In Reliance Of The Travelller the rules of war is set out thus:

The Rules of Warfare

It is not permissible (A: in jihad) to kill women or children unless they are fighting against the Muslims. Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or if killing them will help defeat the enemy. It is permissible to kill old men (O: old man (shaykh meaning someone more than forty years of age) and monks.

It is unlawful to kill a non-Muslim to whom a Muslim has given his guarantee of protection (O: whether the non-Muslim is one or more than one, provided the number is limited, and the Muslim's protecting them does not harm the Muslims, as when they are spies) provided the protecting Muslim has reached puberty, is sane, and does so voluntarily (O: and is not a prisoner of them or a spy).

Whoever enters Islam before being captured may not be killed or his property confiscated, or his young children taken captive.

When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.

When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen.

It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy's trees and destroy their dwellings.[10]

The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29), [...]

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya)) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49)). [...]

It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph's permission (A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required) [11]

As can be seen there seems to be some differences in these points and also some ambiguities in the termonology that is used.

To show further how these points BBC has given uses different terminology some points are contrasted to some of the ones above. Some points even seems to be contrary to classical Islamic law:

• The opponent must always have started the fighting. "The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians ... until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax"
• It must not be fought to gain territory. (does that mean that the caliph cannot take land when fighting non-muslims?)
• It must be launched by a religious leader. "military expedition against hostile non-Muslims ... if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required"
• It must be fought to bring about good - something that Allah will approve of. (what will Allah aprove of?)
• Every other way of solving the problem must be tried before resorting to war. (what is the problem?) "...until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax"
• Innocent people should not be killed. (who is innocent?)
• Women, children, ("unless they are fighting against the Muslims") or old people ("It is permissible to kill old men") should not be killed or hurt.
• Women must not be raped. (Is it rape when she is a slave and not married?) "When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled."
• Enemies must be treated with justice. (What is justice?) "When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy."
• Wounded enemy soldiers must be treated in exactly the same way as one's own soldiers. (Is that medical treatment?)
• The war must stop as soon as the enemy asks for peace. (What kind of peace?)
• Property must not be damaged. "It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy's trees and destroy their dwellings." "Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or if killing them will help defeat the enemy."
• Poisoning wells is forbidden. The modern analogy would be chemical or biological warfare. Davidelah (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, BBC is a respected source, therefore, they make sure that they have reliable scholarly sources. Their credibility doesn't require them to link their sources in public.

I'm not sure if it's worth the time to go through all of your points, which I will if you insist. I can provide reliable sources to each of the BBC's point, which differ to your interpretation. Your source JUST gives additional details, but you should not add assumptions by yourself.

I'll just mention two major points here:

(1) "The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians ... until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax" is actually a law under the Muslim-ruled lands. Therefore, it's not considered a war; that's just a translation error. It's just an enforced law, like any other law, and is not valid all over the world. If so, you'll find the 1.6 billion Muslims fighting to do so! That's a lovely amount of money anyone would love to get :p

(2) Regarding, "When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled." The Qur'an and all other sources clearly states that Muslims can only marry those slaves with mutual agreement (NOT by force), after giving them all of their financial and marriage rights. The only difference with normal marriage, is that they may have husbands that ran away from war. So, if the captured women wants to get married, she's considered automatically divorced by the law of distance. AdvertAdam ^talk 22:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could provide some sources actually, to back up BBC's points, and BBC is not sufficient if it is contrasted with a more reliable source e.g. to an Islamic law manual. But I think there is a problem as I mentioned that the terminology of BBC is not in Islamic terms and seems to be inaccurate in this context. And also to address some of your points:

The term war was translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller a specialist in Islamic law so why should that not be accurate then? And I believe the article is firstly about doctrines in a particular religion and not about what people actually do. And just as another detail, the (jihad) war in this context is a communuial obligation so it doesn't have to be 1.4 billion muslims and there is no caliph in the first place. (And you're right that would be a lot of money!)

About the assertion that "Muslims can only marry those slaves with mutual agreement (NOT by force)" is not what what the point was about, it was about BBC's assertion that "Women must not be raped" and female captives can be used for "sexual purposes" without necesarily being married to the slaveholder. Davidelah (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

BBC says that they're not responsible for external links here, so they are responsible for internal links. This is not a news page, but an information page that the well-known respected organization of BBC maintains. Of course these information cannot be gathered without Muslims involvement. It's their responsibility to make sure the information is accurate, for their credibility, not yours or mine. Anyways, the following two points prove that your interpretation is in-accurate. Do you still need resources for the rest of the BBC list?

{Btw, I never knew that London has soo many Muslims, as I was shocked to find a Halal Subway in the centerr of London. If you don't know, Jews and Muslims aren't allowed to eat animals that are tortured while killed, so Halal and Kosher is slaughtering in a humanity way.}

(1) First of all, Nuh Ha Mim Keller is a Sufi, where the majority of Muslims are Sunni--follow the rule of the Qur'an and examples of the Prophet (any religious activity added on that by human is considered false). I won't dispute his words based on that, but I'm clarifying that those rules are only valid in a Islamic state. Jizya is like an exemption tax, as non-Muslims are obligated to pay because they're excused of military service and Zakat tax (to get their full citizen rights, except praying to idols in public). Here's a small source that says so, link. Does it make sense for Muslims to have a war with people living in a Muslim land?! Therefore, Muslims can't start a war to pursue Jizya tax, because it's only valid in their land. {And ya, the Roman Empire would of turned to Islam and got more money and power, too :p}

(2) If adultery is not allowed and having sex is not allowed unless in mutual acceptance concubine or full marriage, then it's accurate to say that women must NOT be raped. THe Quranic versus are totally clear in Quran(4:24-26), and Ghulam Pervez also explains the limits of slavery in the "III. Slave Girls" section here, as a secondary source. AdvertAdam ^talk 03:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The article would still need more sources than BBC to these points because it seems to be, in some cases, contrary to what is in an Islamic law manuel, so you would still need some other sources to support BBC's points. And regarding your two points:

(1) If "those rules are only valid in a Islamic state" then this would be the caliph state against those people who a not under the caliph, so the BBC's assertion that "The opponent must always have started the fighting" seems to be inaccurate because the rule in this manual is "The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians ... until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax." The rulings in the manual regarding this hypothetical caliph state in relation to non-muslims outside of such a state is also clear in this manual: The first [state in relations to non-muslims] is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, ... meaning upon the Muslims each year.[12]

(2) If the "Quranic versus are totally clear" then there at least appears to be some differences in interpretaion of the status of unmarried captive women in the Quran. For example the mainstream interpreter Ibn Kathir is very claer that a female slave can be used for sexual purposes on Quran 4:3 "then marry only one wife, or satisfy yourself with only female captives"[13] or another Al-Suyuti "or, restrict yourself to, what your right hands own, of slavegirls, since these do not have the same rights as wives."[14] Nor does the sources you provided refute the status of captive women that is outlined in these interpretations or that marriage to a slave has to be consensual. Davidelah (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what's your point, adding personal assumptions and taking texture out of context. You still didn't prove these two points wrong with your interpretation over your source.

(1) Don't you realize that it's more logic to read "O9.3" before "O9.8", which says Jihad is permitted "when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims...people, provisioning them, and readying them for war". Therefore, logic says that the war against non-Muslims is when they're in danger and called to war. So they will fight like you said, but self-defense. That's what happened with Crusades, when they kept slaughtering Jews and Muslims. Do you still think your objection is valid?!.

(2)Anything in the Quran is important, and can't be ignored. Whatever you want to called it "concubine" or "slavegirl" in the versus you mentionsed, has to be according to the previous verse and source I gave you. Therefore, when sex is not allowed unless with mutual agreement, then commonsense says it's not rape. Do you still believe your objection here is valid, too? AdvertAdam ^talk 03:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if these quotations from Islamic law manuals is "adding personal assumptions and taking texture out of context" you should provide some reliable sources that would show this. And as for your two new objections:

(1) Section o9.3 states: Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when ... non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means[15]. It says that this is also jihad and does not exclude the very clear command, in this manual, to invade non-muslim countries by definnition as section o9.1 states: ... there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can).[16]

The second defensive state also seems to be without restriction against the enemy in this manual, as I have highlighted, and again these teachings are very poorly reflected in BBC's rules of "jihad" war.

(2) The sources in your original point does not say that a slaveholder has no right to use a female captive for sexual purposes. The Quranic verses and their Islamic interpretation I provided show that they have, at least according to these two maintream scholars.[17][18] Here is another Islamic interpretation of another verse 4:23 note 64[19] Davidelah (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say the Islamic Law Manual's personal assumptions, hence, I said yours. I assume that English is your second language. Taking texture out of context is what you're doing, ignoring one part of the manual and quoting another. I think it would be better if any third party reads those rules and comment. I don't see anything in this manual that conflicts with BBC's summary. I'm not gonna explain it over and over again, so I recommend asking a Native English speaker to explain it to you. Regarding my objections, they're not new:

(1) Can't you realize that what is called second state says, "when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one". Therefore, it's considered self deference out of your land, fighting for your existence, exactly as described in (O9.3). Concluding, the first state is self defense in your land and the second state is self defense out of your land when surrounded or threatened by an enemy calling for war, so the BBC's summary is valid by saying, "The opponent must always have started the fighting" (meaning DON'T oppress, as the Quran says "God hates the oppressors"). What'syour objections???!

(2) You can't take one part and ignore another. My explanation is still valid even with your sources, sir.Your first source also explain that salve-girls have certain procedures,not just sex nor adultery. Verse 24 in your second source also states the same thing, confirming mutual agreement. Your sources is valid, but your assumptions aren't. Your own sourcesconfirm BBC's summary, "Women must not be raped", too. What's your objections???! AdvertAdam ^talk 22:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, the discussion should be about the subject and the assertion of ones opinion made here should be verifiable. So that is why I would not agree with your allegation that it was "adding personal assumptions and taking texture out of context" when simply quoting a source and comparing it to the article. Your contention that you "don't see anything in this manual that conflicts with BBC's summary" is for example not an arguement that is verifiable. And personaly i cannot see that your objections against (only) two of my points are the same statements. I will of course answer them anyway:

(1) Section O9.0 states: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, ... warfare to establish the religion. Section O9.1 on "The Obligatory Character of Jihad" states; ... there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can). Your claim that "the first state is self defense in your land" does not reflect these quotationes, it doesn't use the word "defence" in respect to the communal obligation, or that enemy is attacking them. If this is the case then show where in the manual it explains how the caliph can make peace with non-muslim countries who are not militarily hostile or invading them.

(2) You have not objected to the fact that those sources claim that the slaveholder has right over his female slave to cohabit with her and that he can marry her off without her consent. Do you then acknowledge this? Here is another example of these rules. Davidelah (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the Oxford dictionary, the adjective of "summarize" is not including needless details or formalities; brief. BBC made a summary of the rules, so you can't take one piece of the manual and compare it to it. Therefore, this summary is a short list to be easily understood by readers. A summary can't be verified until you read and understand the whole chapter in the manual, without ignoring any of it's points and conditions. We're going into the same closed cycle, turning a discussion to philosophy. I'm freezing the discussion at the end.

(1) Hmmm, so my commonsense turned out to be nonsense, I guess? I'm guessing that the following doesn't mean self-defense, according to your source: "O9.2 Jihad is personally obligatory upon all those present in the battle lines and O9.3 obligatory for everyone when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (people, provisioning them, and readying them for war)."

The first state states the word war in your land, so doesn't that logically mean you're under attack? The second state: "The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can)." Peace with "who are not militarily hostile or invading them" can't be written in a warfare manual, sir. There is no relations. Peace in war is mentioned in O9.16, Truce: "In Sacred Law truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam." The Qur'an also recommended peace when you're stronger, to not be considered a surrender: "So do not be faint-hearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost" (Qur'an 47: 35).

(2) That's what you assume it means when you ignore the verse I gave you that insists her consent, forbidding adultery. That's what you're avoiding. I guess you don't like your first source anymore, so you abandoned it. I object with the phrasing of the second source you put for three reasons: It's against the Qur'an (4:24), which anything against it is invalid for Muslims; It's against your first, more reliable, source; and It's against the first scholarly source I gave you. Therefore, being against three sources + BBC makes it invalid! Furthermore, your link is actually not the original book that was written by Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, so maybe the conflict is because of the many editors and translators (written on its cover). Both ways, it's still invalid according to my previous reasoning. AdvertAdam ^talk 11:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I must say, I am quite bewildered by some of the statements you have written. You wrote "We're going into the same closed cycle, turning a discussion to philosophy" because I quoted the whole section on "The Rules of Warfare" and, among other things, pointed out that BBC writes "old people should not be killed" and that this is contrary to the only statement that "It is permissible to kill old men." In our discussion you wrote that "I don't see anything in this manual that conflicts with BBC's summary." I feel that you will have to clarify your position on how compatible these two "Rules of Warfare" are with one another, because this is either a printing error or something more dishonest.

(1) The first state in relation to non-muslims is talking about "when they are in their own countries" and this refers to the non-muslims being in their own countries. The word "they" isn't used about Muslims in this Book 9, but only about the non-muslims. And in section O9.8 on the objectives of this relation to non-muslims it doesn't talk about defence, but that "The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians ... until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax" (not until non-muslims stop attacking muslims). You still haven't addressed the very first section of Book 9 that describe to the offensive nature of the "Jihad" “Fighting is prescribed for you (Koran 2: 216) “Slay them wherever you find them (Koran 4: 89), “Fight the idolators utterly (Koran 9: 36) “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah... These quotes would seem pretty strange to bring forth if this warefare is totally defensive (What's your objections???!).

(2) Your sources do not "insists her consent" to cohabit with her slaveholder (if it does quote it), and my sources don't either[20][21][22] (if it does quote it). This issue has already been settled in Wikipedia "A Muslim slaveholder was entitled by law to the sexual enjoyment of his slave women"[23] so your stance is also a minority in this forum. (What's your objections???!) Davidelah (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

To expand a little further on the rules of war in Islamic law manuals here is an example from Minhaj al-Talibin, a classical manual on Islamic Law, by Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, who is a pillar of Shafi'i fiqh.:

It is lawful to besiege infidels in their towns and fortresses, and employ against them inundation, fire, and warlike machines; and to attack them unawares at night, without having regard to the presence among them of a Moslem prisoner or merchant, for whom these general methods of destruction may be equally dangerous. This is the doctrine of our school. By virtue of this same principle one may even shoot women and children, if the infidels continue the combat while hiding behind them.[24] ... It is lawful to destroy the houses and plantations of infidels, where this is necessary from a military point of view, or if it renders the victory easier; it is even a good thing to have recourse to this measure in all cases where it is unlikely that the houses and plantations will one day become our [Muslims] property.[25][emphasis added]

This is just to show some examples where the tendencies in the Islamic laws differ from BBC's points, at least on the face of it. So these points of BBC should at least be supported by some authority within Islam and be accompanied by some classical views also. Davidelah (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to expand, while you can't even prove your previous claims! You're still taking texture out of context. To object on a summary, like BBCs, you need to read all rules to claim it valid or not. If you want to challenge BBCs summary, reread the sources you bring closely or let a Native English Speaker explain it to you. Hint, some paragraphs on the same page of your source denies what you're saying and agrees with BBC. AdvertAdam ^talk 22:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not really made any claims, I just contrasted BBC's rules of war with the Islamic rules of war (according to that manual). You should verify BBC's claims by this manual or the other if you feel they are compatible. And I think that by "denies" you mean that the manual says that under some circumstances these measures don't have to be taken. For example in regard to "destroy the houses and plantations" where there is a chance this will one day become the Muslims' property it says "Where this is probable it is better not to proceed to destroy them." So BBC's claim that "Property must not be damaged." is at best a misleading halftruth. In regard to your "Native English" argument I would like see if you could show that, for example, to "shoot women and children," in an english dictionary is really synonymous with "give them a hug,"! What exactly is your objection? Davidelah (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Endless discussion

This discussion is heading toward a closed cycle. I'm requesting to freeze it for a mediator to review both, (1) the credibility of BBC and (2) the claim of inaccuracy of its context, comparing with the Islamic Manual of Jihad. Thanks AdvertAdam ^talk 11:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Davidelah! Hi, Adam!

David, I've read through what Adam rightly calls this "endless discussion", and I'm very sorry to have to explain that you're in the wrong on the point you're debating. No one likes to be told that, though, so may I please try to explain why I say so?

David, it looks like you're arguing that what we call a "primary source" should be used instead of a "secondary source". You wrote, above:

"I would suggest it would be better and more authentic to quote straight from Islamic law. In Reliance of the Traveller for example..."

As I understand your statement in this case, this book of Islamic law would be a "primary source". If there were a commentary on it, that would be a "secondary source". Likewise, the BBC article that you've both spoken of would be a "secondary source", too. And although it's hard to understand at first, we have to write our articles based on secondary sources, not on primary ones. The policy that's relevant to your dispute with Adam about this matter can be found here.

That link will give you a lot of text that looks confusing, if you're not already familiar with it, but what it means is that we only put into our articles what someone else has said, what some reporter or book author has said, for example, about an original source document like the Qu'ran, or the Bible, or other books that religions take as Holy. The reason for that is that we are not to put ourselves in the position of a mullah or a rabbi or a priest, and figure out for ourselves what the original Holy books mean. We can only tell our readers what someone else, some reliable source has told us it means.

This principle works all throughout Wikipedia, not just with Holy books or religion. In medical articles, for example, we can't report the results of individual research studies, because those are considered a "primary source" (see the link I gave, above). We have to rely on so-called "review papers", instead. Those are papers where some scientist or expert looks at lots of different research papers, and draws a conclusion from them, and then writes a "summary" or (same thing) "review" paper about his conclusions. He doesn't do any actual research in a laboratory himself, only in a library, reading about other people's laboratory research, so he can summarize it for others. The laboratory papers are "primary sources". We can base our articles only on "secondary sources", where someone else has already done all the interpretation for us. When we instead make the mistake of trying to use primary sources in our articles, we violate our no original research policy. We can't give our own opinions here, can't "do our own research". All we can do is tell our readers what "secondary sources", like the BBC, or books about Holy books tell us.

Or maybe this will be easier to understand in the area of politics. A video recording or a transcript of a political leader's speech would be a primary source. We couldn't each read that, and start writing what we think it meant into the encyclopedia. We'd have to wait for newspaper and television commentators (or certain internet-based reliable sources ) to review the speech first, and give their opinions. Their statements would be a secondary source that we could use as a basis for our articles. ( That makes Wikipedia what journalists call a "tertiary" source, by the way. You probably know that "tertiary" means "third level", in this case. But forget I said that, if it confuses you. )

I know this must seem kind of backwards, and it does take time to understand all our complex policies here, but Adam is right in this case. If either of you are having trouble in the future figuring out the difference between what's a primary source and what's a secondary source, the friendly volunteers at the help desk are happy to answer questions. It depends on what time of day you post a question there, but you'll usually get a response within ten to thirty minutes, especially for simple policy questions like "Is this a primary or secondary source?" The volunteers there are usually very experienced Wikipedia editors, by the way.

I should tell you both that I'm just a regular volunteer editor, like you both are. I've been around for a while, though, and I do understand our policies pretty well. I won't say for sure that I'm the last word, the one true authority about any of this, of course. I could be wrong, in other words, because I don't know the Holy texts of Islam. But I think I'm right, about your specific case, and I'm certain I understand our policy on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources properly, of course, too. Oh, also, David? I left a brief welcome note for you on your talk page, along with a colorful template that will help direct you to useful resources here.

Oh, one last thing. My apologies in advance if I've misunderstood, and you both know everything I said above, already! Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OhioStandard is mostly correct in that we can't use primary sources as a source for our own argument and that we must rely on secondary sources for information to include in our articles. However, there is an exception. We can use a primary source as an illustration. So, for example, if a secondary source is basing it's argument on a specific Surrah we can repeat and cite the argument along with the supporting secondary source, and we can include the quoted Surrah itself as an illustration - but (of course) not as a basis for making additional arguments not supported by the secondary source. Rklawton (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, OhioStandard. I would thank you for clarifying the policy of sources and for the welcome note. I can understand the problem of primary sources and I will probably look into the policy on this issue. I do wish to clarify something of this discussion also. The discussion above was also about particular Islamic doctrines in relation to the Islamic law manuals and BBC's article, so I hope that this isn't what is being addressed here.

I can certainly see that one shouldn't compare primary texts like the Quran, the hadiths or for that matter the Sira with BBC's points, and it is true that a news station, like BBC, would be better suited to give a summary of religious teachings. I would like to address one thing though, and that is about some of the analogies that were made in relation to the manual of Islamic law. I would argue that the manual is not quite the same as a primary religious text, but rather an exposition or "summary" of religious texts and teachings, maybe a little like a catechism or a canon. So it is not so close to a transcript of a political leader's speech as it is to a program of a political party. It represents the fiqh rulings according to the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence as can be seen here. Certainly it is quite voluminous and deals with many different topics, but the section of each of these topics is brief and in my opinion aren't that hard to comprehend. One doesn't has to read the whole book to understand the section "The Rules of Warfare" for example. I know BBC is a respected news station and so on, but the ambiguities compared to the section "The Rules of Warfare" seems problematic to me, if we take that the manual is indeed a summarising of various topics, including the rules of warfare

I guess what I'm advocating is that these views should at least be included in the article in some way, and maybe BBC's reliability and some of its points challenged on this subject. And with respect to the other debater's earlier comment that there isn't "anything in this manual that conflicts with BBC's summary" seems a little one-sided to me, but I hope that some third party could comment as the other debater suggested, if it be decided that the Islamic law manual could be used for reference on the various topics it covers, divided in each of its sections. Davidelah (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope everyone had a great weekend. Just a quick comment on the overall topic:

First of all, BBC is not solely a news station. The news station is part of BBC, as you can see the branches of BBC here (They also provide political, historical, and religious information). When different sources have conflicts, we should compare them with credibility not quantity. Slavery in Islam article is full of false information, and thanks for showing it to me: I need to invest alot of time to get it straightened with stronger more reliable secondary sources. For your personal information, when you compare primary sources in Islam, the Qur'an is the strongest primary source---no questions asked. Therefore, when our discussion contained "Ibn Alkatheir"'s commentary on the Qur'an, no other source can override that. Whatever does is automatically invalid, as long as you read the surrounding versus without taking texture out of context. The bloody versus you mentioned are all following a condition of war. Likewise, we can't say that Judaism is terror because of "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed" (Exodus 22:20) OR "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:17-18), as it's consider texture out of context.

I disagree about your comparison to canon, not even alittle. Islam is extremely stricted with scripture. So there is no cannons like other religions, because no-one has the authority to produce fixes or editions on Islamic holy scripture.

Back to the point, I froze the discussion because whenever you object on a point in the BBC's summary, I bring you a statement from your same source that is closer to BBC's point: a certain statement that you probably passed when reading. Therefore, when we got to the debate on the same point the forth time, I told you "I don't see anything in this manual that conflicts with BBC's summary", based on my previous explanation on your objections (you can't pick a statement you like and ignore the rest that explains it). Anyways, we can see if we get further opinions within the couple coming days. Take care AdvertAdam ^talk 01:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A little rebuttal: That statement about slavery in Islam was incidentally from one of the most respected scholars on the subject, Bernard Lewis, in this article. And the verses I mentioned was actually not mentioned by me but by the Islamic law manual, so they are the one taking verses out of context and not making it clear that these are entirely defensive, but I belive we have discussed the offensive/defensive matter above.

I know a canon has different methods coming to its conclusion, but this manual still represent a consensus, ijma, based on scriptures, and ijma is also a binding that can't be changed as recognised by all the leading scholars in the Amman Message,[26] that it is "religiously legally binding," so this seems to be a kind of fixing.

I beileve that I tried to address the statements that you found supportive to BBC, and not just passing by. I apologise if I quoted you unfairly but you seem to accept that this is your position (based on your explanations which I have also responded to). Davidelah (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious?

So nothing in this article discusses jihadism, i.e. "jihad" as understood in modern Islamic fundamentalism since the 1980s? The discussion ends with the Muslim brotherhood of the 1920s? Was this article written in 1950 or something?

Yes, you need to take care that recent use of the term doesn't dominate the article. But nothing about the past 30 years? Not a single brief paragraph? With a suggestion for a brief WP:DUE treatment reverted within the minute? This article is truly held hostate by a stale war between the Islam-bashers on one hand and the PC apologists on the other. Just create a section on modern Islamism and confine discussion of jihadism to that. It isn't acceptable to let this topic pervate the entire article, but neither is it acceptable to simply ban any mention of it. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A term that was made-up by radicals, less-than 1% of the religion's population, doesn't make it related to Jihad. As long as the major Muslim scholars didn't announce it, it's not a notable term. Minority actions have no place here. It has a scary article, btw :) AdvertAdam ^talk 05:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Many of these groups of radicals call themselves things like Islamic Jihad, but do they have support for their actions? Here is a major Muslim scholar that identifies "suicide operations" with "jihad" in, for example, Israel and Iraq. And the justification, from less than 1% of the adherents of Islam, for some kind of jihadist suicide operation is actually a bit higher, for example 20% in Bangladesh, 34% in Lebanon and 16% in modern moderate Turkey view suicide bombings as often/sometimes justified[27]. A significant trend? And about specific "jihadist" attakcs, a poll taken in June 2006 for the Times of London newspaper suggested that 13 percent of British Muslims believe the July 7 London bombers were martyrs[28]. Other mainstream dictionaries, that has not been influenced by apologetics, of course address this issue, for example here and here. Davidelah (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

First of all, both, Wikipedia and I, don't care what they call themselves! When the Crusades slaughtered Jews and Muslims, no-one called Christians terrorists because they don't represent Christianity nor Christians. You can't use a major scholar's message about a certain occasion to prove your assumption about the whole religion.

I don't wanna change this topic to politics. Qaradawi said that you can do whatever you see possible against the enemy's military inside your land, because they don't have weapons nor army anymore. That's still illegible under BBC's points, as being attacked. (1) Iraq was attacked by an international military without the permission from the UN nor the Arab League. So that's called occupation, including the new government they built that can't sign oil-deals without the permission of the US. I left the army because of that and joined Selective Service. Opposite to Libya, where that was permitted by the UN and the Arab League. (2) Israel took circa 80% of the Palestinian land by force, and they have military oppression and settlement building over the rest of the 20%. Don't they have a right to protect themselves in the 20%, too? So, those are permissible even by BBCs summary, but the others aren't: because they kill innocents and civilians, where all of their actions are attacks. Actually, Qaradawi issued a fatwa of a new Jihad called "Jihad of the age", for introducing the true Islam on the web through emails and facebook.

Those polls don't really prove anything, as it's not specific to a certain act. As I said, Jihad gives permission to fight or kill those who are oppressing you in your land (military), based on their types of attacks. What do you say to the following polls, where Muslims' majority consider Jihad non-militant. Also, Bin Laden has been kicked out of the Muslim Capital (SA) and they banned his citizenship since 1994. Doesn't that confirm that his operations are unacceptable.

I'm not obligated to explain all this, FYI. You have no reliable source that say Jihadism, or whatever they call it, is supported by the Muslim nation/public. Watch your language, and who you called "PC apologists" are insisting in adding bias that doesn't make any sense. AdvertAdam ^talk 11:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It is important how different groups within the Islamic world use the concept of "jihad," even if other people may diasgree. The IRA, for example, didn't call themselve "crusaders" or some such thing and where condemned by the Catholic Church, these jihad movements are not being challenged to such a degree by the religious establishment, to the contrary their actions is approved by many scholars, for example here, by Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy , Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a prominent leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, former President of Al-Azhar University, Ahmad Omar Hashem, Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, Sunni Iraqi Cleric, Sheikh Ahmad Al-Qubeisi, Sheikh Al-Qubeisi, and the list goes on and on. You said you don't wanna change this topic to politics, so I will encourage you to follow your own advice, these approvals is from clerics not by politicians or army men. Non of the things you have mentioned neglects the facts that a significant portion of the religious establishment and by considarble percentage Muslim world approves of these martydom (e.i. suicide) operations, carried out by those groups, even if they disasgree on which target is legitimate. Davidelah (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You're mixing facts with fictions, sir. You're ignoring the main point, the target, which differs between the two terms, and point to suicide (just because they are attacked in their land and don't have weapons nor support to defend themselves).

Again, you have to know what did those scholars allow, not just assume what you want. The scholars allowed Jihad: targeting an army that is in their land (commonsense and International laws considers it an attack). Terrorists allowed, made-up, Jihadism: targeting innocents anywhere in the world. That's the difference. Therefore, those terrorists where not, and are not, accepted by the Muslim nation nor scholars, so it has nothing to do here. It already has its own article, and that's enough. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And also, for your personal information, read the last paragraph here to realize that what you're trying to interpreted is not related to Islam. I just hope you understand what you're trying to prove, because I don't think that we should be negotiating every single idea you're trying to stick in an Islamic articles. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 11:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Rules of jihad

i plan of adding a primary source from a well known unversity about the rules of jihad. the rules of jihad from the book "reliance of the traveller"

found here, press ctrl+f "*2*Chapter O9.0: Jihad" http://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Islam/Reliance.html anyone object

I don't know how is the above comment unsigned; This link was used in the dispute below, so please follow-up there. AdvertAdam ^talk 04:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

bbc opinions is only 1 pov, so i am adding POV of 4 schools. object or not? if so why

you claim that if i want to add the opinion of the schools of islam, you say that is POV because i am adding a few i.e 4 "out of 10" you said, actually, the 4 i want to add are recognised as the major schools of islamic thought, wikipedia only wants the major world view. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC) i think it is fair to remove the bbc quote as i find it contrversial since it only gives 1 pov, that is if you refuse to add the 4 other major POV.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

you also continue to say jihad is only for self defense, i can see who is trying to push a POV here. many different schools of islamic thought have different views than you --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

rules of jihad

Hanafi

Abu Yusuf Yaqub ibn Ibrahim al-Ansari (d. 798) was a student of legist Abu Hanifah and helped spread the influence of the Hanafi school. He was appointed Qadi (judge) in Baghdad, Iraq, and later chief justice (qadi al-qudat) under Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid. He writes about Jihad:

BATTLE PROCEDURES

It seems that the most satisfactory suggestion we have heard in this connection is that there is no objection to the use of any kind of arms against the polytheists, smothering and burning their homes, cutting down their trees and date groves, and using catapults, without, however, deliberately attacking women, children, or elderly people; that one can yet pursue those that run away, finish off the wounded, kill prisoners who might prove dangerous to the Muslims, but this is only applicable to those on the chin of whom a razor has passed, for the others are children who must not be executed.

As for the prisoners who are led before the imam, the latter has the choice of executing them or making them pay a ransom, as he pleases, opting for the most advantageous choice for the Muslims and the wisest for Islam. The ransom imposed upon them is not to consist either of gold, silver, or wares, but is only an exchange for Muslim captives.

...

For my part I say that the decision concerning prisoners is in the hands of the imam: in accordance with whatever he feels to be more to the advantage of Islam and the Muslims, he can have them executed or he can exchange them for Muslim prisoners (pp. 302-303).

Whenever the Muslims besiege an enemy stronghold, establish a treaty with the besieged who agree to surrender on certain conditions that will be decided by a delegate, and this man decides that their soldiers are to be executed and their women and children taken prisoner, this decision is lawful. This was the decision of Sa'ad b. Mu'adh in connection with the Banu Qurayza (a Jewish tribe of Arabia) (p. 311).

Shaffi

According to the famous Muslim law book of the Shafi jurisprudence, Umdat al-Salik wa Uddat al-Nasik (the reliance of the traveller), the rules of warfare are as follows:

O9.10: The Rules of Warfare
It is not permissible (A: in jihad) to kill women or children unless they are fighting against the Muslims. Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or if killing them will help defeat the enemy. It is permissible to kill old men (O: old man (shaykh meaning someone more than forty years of age) and monks.
O9.11: It is unlawful to kill a non-Muslim to whom a Muslim has given his guarantee of protection (O: whether the non-Muslim is one or more than one, provided the number is limited, and the Muslim's protecting them does not harm the Muslims, as when they are spies) provided the protecting Muslim has reached puberty, is sane, and does so voluntarily (O: and is not a prisoner of them or a spy).
O9.12: Whoever enters Islam before being captured may not be killed or his property confiscated, or his young children taken captive.
O9.13: When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.
O9.14: When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy. If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen.
O9.15: It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy's trees and destroy their dwellings.....continued
Reliance of the Traveller, Section 9.1

Hanbali

Ibn Qudamah (1147-1223) was a noted Islamic scholar of the Hanbali madhhab, author of many treatises of Hanbali jurisprudence and doctrine, including al-Mughni (the most widely known textbook of Hanbali fiqh). He writes about Jihad:

Legal war (jihad) is an obligatory social duty (fard-kifaya); when one group of Muslims guarantees that it is being carried out in a satisfactory manner, the others are exempted.

The jihad becomes a strictly binding personal duty (fard-'ain) for all Muslims who are enlisted or whose country has been [invaded] by the enemy. It is obligatory only for free men who have reached puberty, are endowed with reason and capable of fighting. Jihad is the best of the works of supererogation. ...
Naval expeditions are more meritorious than campaigns on land. One must fight under every leader, whether it be a respectable man or a corrupt man. Every nation must fight the enemies that are its immediate neighbors. A full stint of service in a frontier post (ribat) is of forty days' duration. ...

No one can engage in jihad without the permission of his father and mother, if they are alive and Muslims, unless the jihad is an individual duty that strictly obliges. Only elderly women are permitted to venture into the war zone in order to replenish the water supply and to care for the wounded. No one should enlist the services of an infidel except in case of need. ...
It is permitted to surprise the infidels under cover of night, to bombard them with mangonels and to attack them without declaring battle

Maliki

Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (1126-1198) was an Andalusian Muslim polymath; a master of Islamic philosophy, Islamic theology, Maliki law and jurisprudence. He was born in Cordoba, Spain, and he died in Marrakech, Morocco. He writes about Jihad in his book "Al-Bidayah"

The legal qualification (hukm) of this activity and the persons obliged to take part in it

Scholars agree that the jihad is a collective not a personal obligation. Only 'Abd Allah Ibn al-Hasan professed it to be a recommendable act. According to the majority of scholars, the compulsory nature of the jihad is founded on [K 2:216] "Fighting is prescribed for you, though it is distasteful to you."That this obligation is a collective and not a personal one, i.e., that the obligation, when it can be properly carried out by a limited number of individuals, is canceled for the remaining Moslems, is founded on [K 9:112]: "It is not for the believers to march out all together, and, lastly, on the fact that the Prophet never went to battle without leaving some people behind. All this together implies that this activity is a collective obligation. The obligation to participate in the jihad applies to adult free men who have the means at their disposal to go to war and who are healthy, that is, not ill or suffering from chronic diseases. ...
The enemy
Scholars agree that all polytheists should be fought. This is founded on [K 8:39]: "Fight them until there is no Fitnah and the religion is entirely Allah's." ...
Damage allowed to be inflicted upon the different categories of enemies
Damage inflicted upon the enemy may consist in damage to his property, injury to his person or violation of his personal liberty, i.e., that he is made a slave and is appropriated. This may be done, according to ijma [the consensus the Shariah authorities] to all polytheists: men, women, young and old, important and unimportant. ... Most scholars are agreed that, in his dealings with captives, various policies are open to the Imam [head of the Islamic state, or caliph]. He may pardon them, enslave them, kill them, or release them either on ransom or as dhimmi [nonMuslim subjugated to the Muslim regime], in which latter case the released captive is obliged to pay poll-tax (jizya).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidelah (talk • contribs) 13:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC) [Bidayat al-Mudjtahid, Chapter on Jihad]

I ain't going through the same mess that happened in the above discussion in the past. To save my time and yours, I'll try to make this short.

This is not a tic tac game to make a deal between two options! All of the primary sources you provided have a section that explains the reason of war, which you excluded. And what do you know about Jihad to accuse me of pushing my POV. You're the one who's taking texture out of context to push yours. So, assume good faith.

I said tens of schools, not ten. Meaning 20, 30, 40, 50..., I don't know. BBC is not 1 pov because it's simply not an Islamic school. If you follow BBC's documentaries, you'll see where they get their information from: the general public, not from you.

You want to compete with BBC? Bring a secondary source! There's a big sign at the header that says, "No original research" --AdvertAdam ^talk 09:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi advertadam, the problem is, even if i added the reasons for war that those books mention, you will STILL remove it, because it goes against your pOV, fine i will add the reasons for war to prove my point and to show you will remove it STILL

You should be careful what you wish for, none of the books i used were actually primary sources, they are secondary sources which mention the primary source and give analysis on it --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No-one has the right to revert an edit with no reason, so please stop your accusation. I explained earlier that this article is tagged as controversial, so you need to discuss major edits before making them (especially when a discussion is already opened). I've already sent you a reminder with the policies on your talkpage, yesterday. The article is also tagged with too many quotes, so please consider that in your editing. WP:DUE policy insists to be fair between all POVs, but you need to explain a fair one (not part of a rule). The source you're quoting is an official book of laws, so you need to supply a secondary source that explains it. It's not only my opinion, as it was discussed above before (click here). Thanks for your understanding and happy editing. AdvertAdam ^talk 13:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What a mess!

Greater and Lesser Jihad

The famous quote of David Coke is bias. If he didn't see Arabic, Persian, and Urdu scholars writing about nonviolent Jihad doesn't mean that there isn't. This is an Arabic scholar, and a Persian scholar's writings. It's just an example that the quote is invalid, and I'm not sure if it should be removed or justified under it. It's a total bias POV. Hope to get editors' opinions. AdvertAdam ^talk 04:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

its davids cook opinion, and he is notable, and it doesnt need to be true. as many things in that jihad article are not true or white washed--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I guess I'll be adding some opinions of Arab, Persian and Urdu scholars, so the readers don't take it seriously. AdvertAdam ^talk 07:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Best Jihad

You're mistaking, Misconceptions2. I quoted a secondary source on the introduction of the section. It's a BBC article confirming the reason that the general public made those revolutions. I added another source anyways, if you didn't like the first one. I don't care what you read about "Best Jihad", quote your dispute with reliable sources. The only two Hadiths I heard about "Best Jihad" is (1) a word against an oppressing ruler (2) and, a female's completion of hajj. AdvertAdam ^talk 04:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

you added the references after.

i plan of adding this hadith to the "best jihad" section:

A man asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) “..and what is Jihad?” He replied: “You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield).” He asked again: “What kind of Jihad is the highest?” He replied: “The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood.” [Narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad 4/114 - Hadith sahih. Al Haithami states: “Narrators upheld it.” Majmauz Zawaid 1/59]

source, pg19

https://edisk.fandm.edu/wri/MSE2002.pdf --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You're taking texture out of context, sir. I can't and won't believe that you actually read the source you attached, as it's totally against your intentions. It said that the west is misunderstanding Jihad by taking textures out of context. I personally encourage you to read it, to help you organize your thoughts. The statement was in a war, as described in your source. So, would you think the prophet should of said, "running away is better"?!

By the way, FYI, that source is not even published. It's a manual of academic student essays for training purposes. AdvertAdam ^talk 07:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This thing about the "best jihad" seems problematic because it lacks the following: It isn't a term used by scholars today or in history (like the way the greater jihad has been used). It isn't a term used by people in history and hasn't been reported by major media outlets that the recent demonstrators used such a term.

And even if the term were used by the demonstrators it seems wrong to connote an old theological concept, such as Jihad, with such recent events. Davidelah (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? "old theological concept"? Please tell me you're joking, lol. Greater Jihad has been disputed because there's no strong source that the prophet said that, but this is strongly confirmed by all scholars and four major Hadith collectors.

First of all, you're just proving that you know nothing about the Muslim nation. The Qur'an and Hadith are the only two sources and rules of Islam. All Muslim non-governmental channels were putting that Hadith when Tunisia & Egypt got freed. Some demonstrators had signs with that Hadith, and others had signs with the three presidents (of Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt), calling them "opressing sultans and murderers." Please stop disputing something you know nothing about.

How do you think mortal human, shield others from bullets and missiles, in a low-populated country like Libya accept being mass-murdered (tens and tens of thousands dead). East Europe tried to do the same demonstrations and gave-up when they saw blood. The same failed attempts has been done everywhere in the world, but their fear of death and lack of belief stopped them. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to get emotional. If you can't prove the criteria above then the "best jihad" section can,t have such a central place in the Jihad article. The news from khilafah.com and muslimmatters.org is hardly enough to establish a basis for this section. Davidelah (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not getting emotional, but explained why is your comments, and personal theologies, bias; simply because you know nothing about the nation that you're editing about. Actually, even Indonesia largely protested, supporting the Muslims nation for these revolutions. Why, if Arab countries have no relation at all with South Asia? Just because Islam, confirming the teachings of the Prophet! So, this is just a small sample of one of the Arabic news: Google translated the title of page to "The right word at the Sultan unfair" (the same Hadith). There is no reason to remove it, and you're not the one who decides what is bias in Islam (as you're already standing on thin-ice). Btw, I have more contribution to make when I get some time. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 11:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Davidelah: "It isn't a term used by scholars today or in history". Not true. For one example, this specific hadith is mentioned 42 times in various articles and Friday sermons by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, "one of the most influential Islamic scholars living today". It is also the title of a recent and widely-circulated article of his, titled "The Best of Jihad [is] Jihad against injustice and corruption", which was first published in a book called Fiqh of Jihad in 2009, and republished again days before the Egyptian revolution. This is just one example of a highly influential scholar frequently referring to the "best jihad". Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that Yusuf al-Qaradawi is a more reliable source than those current linked articles, but as I see it and repeat, it isn't a term used by scholars historically, and current events shouldn't shape this article about religious doctrines. Another thing that makes this source from Qaradawi questionable is his involvement in the Muslim Brotherhood, as he is often described as its spiritual leader, and therefore he is also involved in politics. So perhaps even this source should not be taken as a new understanding because it could be agenda driven. Davidelah (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This section is strongly POV, and very badly written. I suggest deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Rules of Jihad

You changed the meaning of the whole article. Those are rules of warfare Jihad, not the rest of the nonviolence types of Jihad. This article is tagged as controversial article, so please discuss major edits with talk-page first AdvertAdam ^talk 04:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Various schools

I don't think it's logical to add two schools out-of tens, which is pushing a minority POV that confuses users. If you'd like to add them, you need to be fair regarding the other schools too. I suggest putting them on a soapbox before adding an unfinished insertion on an important article. Adding texture out of context is not a way to contribute. Those are primary sources and you excluded the paragraphs that mention it's for self-defense. Anyways, original resource is not allowed, and the article is already tagged with too many quotes! AdvertAdam ^talk 04:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

fine i will add the POV of the 4 major schoopls to balance it, see above--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up above AdvertAdam ^talk 09:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Take this to admin (rmeoved bbc POV)

i will be creating an admins notification section. Adamrce has been reverting sourced content. no other way to settle this

anyone support this?

removed bbc POV until consensus reached. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea Davidelah (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you can get an admin's advice. However, the article should stays in its long-lasting state, according to WP:BCD. Consensus is based on the suggested additions, not the article's old state. I'll follow-up on the discussion above, so please assume good faith and do the same AdvertAdam ^talk 13:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin intervention link=

Everyone interested in this admin intervention discussion. please go here and post your opinions if you like. i want to end this arguing once in for all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Censorship_of_Islam_related_articles_by_Adamrce

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you learned your lessan to respect the discussion page, according to WP:BRD. Please open a soapbox if you'd like to work-it-out together, or just ask for a third opinion, if you don't like mine. AdvertAdam ^talk 19:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Who supports adding the rules of warfare, according to the 4 schools of sunni islam

I was planning on adding the rules of warfare, according to Hanafi, Shaff'i, Maliki and Hanbali schools (with secondary sources), to challenge bbc. If you support. Can you also tell me if you support adding rules of warfare based on famius books such as the

reliance of the traveller, a text version of it is found at the kentucky university [29]

Or would you support adding the views of the foudners of those 4 schools. i.e Imam Hanifa, Maliki, Shaff'i and Hanbali?

There views on the rules of warfare can be found here: Non Combatants in Islam , the link is to a Hudson think tank research document. I think they give advice to the United States department of defence, the organisation i believe is government backed.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

page of the rules of warefare

i will add content here, and would like your views on the rules. i am not sure who's opinion i should add though yet. i was thinking of going for the opinions of the founders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jihad/rules_of_warefare

comments

BBC BULLSHIT do you really think that bbc is a good source of information? . I dont think so. I think we should refer to historical sources.In those jihad has always had a meaning of war which included raids of parts of Europe and Africa by pirates in search of slaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.75.107 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rules of war according to Islamic law in disharmony with BBC's strict rules

In an earlier discussion about rules of war I compared a manual of Islamic law, a section on the rules of war, with BBC's rules of war. However, in this case the more secondary source was favored over the more primary source. So I will basically make the same argument as before but using a secondary source. Majid Khadduri, a internationally recognized leading authority on a wide variety of Islamic subjects, wrote a book, War and peace in the law of Islam, concerning some of the same issues. Some key findings from his book that deals with some of the same things from BBC's list:

A war must be fought for the cause of Islam (pg. 102). Noncombatants who do not take part in fighting such as women, children, or old people should not be killed, although old people who help indirectly can be killed (pg. 103-4). In order to make the enemy capitulate, the destruction of fortification and houses is permitted. Also to burn or flood enemy territory, to cut water canals, to destroy water supplies, and to use poison or any material that can spoil the water supply or canals is permitted (pg. 106). The overall principle is to refrain from the shedding of blood or destruction of property unnecessary for the achievement of their objective (pg. 102). When an adult male is taken captive, it is decided between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy (pg. 127-8). Some of the conquered population can be made slaves as spoils of war. If the slave is a woman the master is permitted to have sexual connections with her (pg. 130-1).

A problem with BBC rules of war is that it presents them as very strict rules that should be obeyed in order for the war to be legitimate when this is not the case. Davidelah (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it makes it look like very strict rules. Added by AdamRce to suit his point of view. Also here is a document from a US think tank that advises the US department of defence about Islam: Non combatants in Islam, it mentions that most if not all schools of islam support killing innocent non combatant indisrciminately. 1 very very famous Hanafi scholar., Abu Yusuf (companion of Imam Hanifa) supports killing muslims and using them as human shields, at times of war.

It also states that there is no punishment in Islam for killing non muslim non combatants. Only that the scolars consider it a sin. Imam Shaffi who's version of Islam is followed by about 20% of the worlds muslims, believed that all non muslims (except women and children) should be killed. Some other scholars believed that any non muslim who is feared, maybe killed--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, then there is both reliable Muslim and non-Muslim secondary sources that undermines some of BBC's points, so we should really consider for the readers to add an alternative pov or replace the whole list with something more reliable. I don't know how long editing is semi-closed for the article, but improvements is needed so until then a user with reviewer rights would be helpful to participate in discussion or editing. Davidelah (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Have this page changed to a forum or something? Please focus on the context. As a quick reply to the bias claim, that killing non-Muslims is fine: check this out.
Guys, we don't need to fall in the same traps. Please use some common sense. When the rules of Jihad say that you can't kill a women or old man, that, logically, means innocents. But when an old man is holding a sword wanting to cut your head-off, should you watch or dance? Use common-sense to understand the logical exceptions!

• p 102 is talking about objectives of war, not reasons to start a war. And it doesn't say what you're saying, at all; so please don't pic your own words.
• p 103; Duh!!! If an elderly was leading the war, or making military tactics against the Muslims (he's an illegible target, even in International Laws). Didn't the international forces in Libya strike Gaddafi, trying to kill him. He wasn't fighting, but giving the orders. So, can we say that the international laws permits killing elders?
  

Please, I'm not forced to explain every bias interpretation you add, so get someone else's approval if you want to add such things. No-one answered you here for sometime, and WP:3O does not accept more than two editors disputing. I suggest going to "Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard". I can't waste my time on repeated closed-cycle discussions. Sorry. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 11:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought I made the context of this discussion clear, that is was about the validity of BBC's list of rules of war, but if you got another impression please ask. Your book reference seemed to be about, as the chapter title puts it, "Islam is the religion of peace, brother hood [sic] and science/knowledge," but this is not really specific enough to answer what the rules of war then is. I will be answering according to my own reference, since I have not read the other user's reference that careful. I actually didn't claim that the point from pg. 102 was about the reasons to start a war, but that it was the objective in any case. And about the old man, I am not sure what you point is, the book does not say that he has to be a commander (like Gaddafi), but only to help indirectly as I wrote above. I find it uncivil that you claim I add bias interpretations and use repeated closed-cycle discussions, when I'm nearly quoting directly from a very respected scholar. Assume good faith! Davidelah (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I knew you interpreted Quran verses yourself AdamRce, you quoted "whoever kills a person unless for mischief or committing murder, has killed all of makind", but reject all other opinions. The verse has many opinions. Ibn Kathir quotes Muhammads companions, or those who knew the companions. these people are called Tabi-in.They claim the verse only applied to Muslims. Proof here: http://www.theholybook.org/content/view/6966/2/

.Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "He who allows himself to shed the blood of a Muslim, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. [Tafsir ibn Kathir]

and the verse mentions you can kill people for mischief. Muslim scholars also have different opinions on mischief. Al Suyuti in his tafsir said "mischief"= unbelief. heres Al-Suyti's explaination of the verse you quoted:

"Whoever slays a soul (unless for, corruption, committed, in the land, in the way of unbelief, fornication or waylaying and the like), it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether Explanation of the verse by Imam al Suyuti, Tafsir al Jalayn

Why do you reject alternate views. While only accept yours as the truth, and no other views should be allowed? Your clearly here to push your ideas and nto for a balanced view

I know you wont allow alternative views on wikipedia on this article. So when i do get around adding alt views. I am thinking about contacting admins for third opinion. As to prevent the edit war that will take place--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would also be helpful to get a user with reviewer rights, who do not start out with making personal assumptions about the other users, to participate in discussion and/or editing. Davidelah (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, you're still taking the first-half of your two sources and ignoring the second half! In your personal interpretation, whom are the Muslims if they all say the first reveal of the verse was to the Children of Israel (prior than the Muslims of Muhammad). Anyways, WP:OR is not allowed here, and we're only immature editors who follow reliably sourced explanation. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain what original research there is about using Majid Khadduri's book and what first-half we should take into consideration? Thanks. Davidelah (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, if you were talking about Quran 5:32 disregard the other comment. Davidelah (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I undid this [30]. I don't understand what NOR NOR NOR! is supposed to mean, in the context of reverting text back in. as an edit comment it is certainly unhelpful. Meanwhile, the problem I see with that text is that it paints an unrealistically rosy picture of warfare William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Jihad regarding some of the sources brought up here. Davidelah (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A correction request

Please, correct the following sentence from the chapter Origins so its meaning is clear and understandable in English: "The struggle for Jihad in the Quran was originally intended for the nearby neighbors of the Muslims, but as time passed and more enemies arose, the Quranic statements supporting Jihad were updated for the new adversaries." Since jihad means struggle than the phrase "struggle for Jihad" does not make sense as meaning "struggle for Struggle". Does it, please? Thanks.--24.44.108.229 (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely. There is still missing the meaning of jihad according to Quran making the following sentence unclear as well: "Jihad in the Quran was originally intended for the nearby neighbors of the Muslims, but as time passed and more enemies arose, the Quranic statements supporting Jihad were updated for the new adversaries."

I only presume that the intention of that sentence was to say that: "Jihad in the Quran originally meant 'to struggle against' and referred to the nearby neighbors...". Am I right? You need first to clarify the meaning of jihad and only then say to whom it pertained to.--24.44.108.229 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)