Jump to content

Talk:Jihad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Davidelah (talk | contribs) at 11:19, 24 November 2011 (→A WP:SELFPUBLISH?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Best Jihad

I am speaking from my knowledge about the English language here and I am not an Islamic scholar. I think that the use of "Best Jihad" as a title is in error. It appears from the context that the use of the word "best" was intended as a superlative of the word good. Most of the phrases in the following paragraph refer to "the best way to do something" and not to a type or title. For example, let's say that I go to a restaurant and I order a lamb dinner and later say that was the "best lamb" I have ever tasted. It would not be accurate to write a review about "Best Lamb" or have a friend go back to the restaurant and order the "Best Lamb". I think that the passages here are trying to describe the best type of jihad and was not creating a new type of jihad called "Best Jihad". This section should be merged into a more appropriate section and the title of "Best Jihad" should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figlinus (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

fine i will add the POV of the 4 major schoopls to balance it, see above--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up above AdvertAdam talk 09:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I undid this [2]. 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)[reply]

If you clicked the NOR, you'll know what it means (it wasn't headed to you anyways). Policy-wise, my summary was "removal wasn't justified," as an editor can't remove a well-sourced material just because he doesn't like it or is disputing it with some-other source. WMC, if you want to get involved, read the discussion and co-operate; don't just comment on something you haven't followed. Anyways, the RSN here didn't think it's misleading (as you said). ~ AdvertAdam talk 03:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it wasn't headed to you anyways - edit comments are there for everyone. If you want to have a private conversation with someone, use their talk page. I know what NOR is. But *removing* text can't be OR, so your NORNORNOR becomes inexplicable. You still haven't explained it. Also, you are leaning too heavily on the RSN, which you misrepresent. the RSN here didn't think it's misleading is false: the RSN did not consider that issue. But the problem remains: that BBC source is far too rosy, and the text there is misleading William M. Connolley (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But also, its a copyvio anyway, so I've removed it on those grounds. Mind you, I still maintain my previous objections William M. Connolley (talk) 09:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Dr Connolley, sorry that I haven't added a direct quote and detailed what I meant. Never mind anyways, but if you were ever familiar of what's going on this article, it's all discussions about OR insertions. WP:OR says, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources...directly support the material as presented." The editor was misusing sources, then removed a sourced material based on those misinterpretations. A similar live example is below. Anyways, copyvio is a different situation now. ~ AdvertAdam talk 01:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warfare changes

  • DavidElah, writing the first sentence representing the second is highly disruptive, so I hope that you don't do that again. ~ AdvertAdam talk
    • First sentence: "In an offensive war it is an obligation on the Muslim community as a whole (fard kifaya)"
    • Second sentence, from source: "...one of the collective duties of the community as a whole (fard kifaya) is to lodge a valid protest, to solve problems of religion, to have knowledge of Divine Law, to command what is right and forbid wrong conduct." ~ AdvertAdam talk 01:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that does seem to be a problem. I would suggest that the quote from Nawawi be either changed or removed because he is one who holds the traditional view that Bernard Lewis explains about Jihad and his quote is highly misleading, another quote could easily show how he more precisely define the effort. And btw could we discuss my recent edits in another section since this one is for another purpose? - Davidelah (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Resolved
Thanks ~ AdvertAdam talk 05:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

A WP:SELFPUBLISH?

The current source seven[3] by Hisham Kabbani seems to be self-published. If this is the case it should not be used or at least "According to Hisham Kabbani" should be added. --Davidelah (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jihad&oldid=462245717"