Talk:Islam/Archive 24

Chronological Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Topical Archives
External Links
Archive index

Jihad section (again)

i see no reason for a rewrite; the previous version enjoyed wide consensus, was well-sourced, and was appropriately balanced and neutral. i find the coverage in the rewrite a little selective in focus. ITAQALLAH 19:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's OK as long as that POV and basically OR sentence I removed stays out, or is rewritten. - Merzbow 19:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

the section makes no mention of the other general meanings associated with the word, and is at times rather sweeping and unspecific in its language. a lot of the information (such as jizya, dhimmi, etc.) has already been covered in the later section. ITAQALLAH 19:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The material on jizya and dhimmi is very closely related to jihad so it's better to leave it there. The section on other religions still needs some, and it's a more appropriate place for more general material. Other than that, i don't see any specific objections to the current version, which is coherent and impeccably sourced. Beit Or 20:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are so "closely related" as you claim, can you quote a passage from EoI's article on Jihad that makes the connection explicit? They are related but not as you claim. --Aminz 20:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic, if any. If you want to argue about the word "closely" , then you may want to find a different forum for such hairsplitting. Beit Or 20:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to justify your "claims". Everybody can make claims. If you take a look at http://www.answers.com/jihad&r=67, you'll see that neither "Britannica Concise Encyclopedia" nor "Mideast & N. Africa Encyclopedia" nor "Islamic Dictionary" mention jizya or dhimmi. --Aminz 20:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I don't have to present evidences against your claims, but you need to justify it in the first place. --Aminz 20:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, I seem to recall arguing earlier (and unsuccessfully) that this material, "Forced conversion was rarely practiced or sanctioned, and non-Muslims in a Muslim state were traditionally allowed to live as dhimmis," was a very typical attempt to "correct a misconception" by rebutting something which was never actually said. Now I see we are making the opposite argument. I don't understand how Beit Or's material on dhimmi and jizya can be irrelevant, yet this Esposito material, which is about the very same thing (though less informative and with a different rhetorical thrust), is relevant. If anything, I'd think what conquered peoples do have to do is inherently more topical than what they don't have to do (of which there is a potentially infinite list.)

This passage, "In broader usage, the term has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. Among other things, it can imply striving to live a moral and virtuous life, to spreading and defending Islam, and to fighting injustice and oppression" was being given seriously undue weight, when "For most of Muslim history, jihad was taken to mean armed struggle for the expansion and defense of the Islamic state." If we're to include it, we should do so along with the Shi'a "greater vs. lesser jihad" concept. Metaphorical usages of Jihad are just not that important.Proabivouac 21:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Jihad in Islamic jurisprudence should be given priority, for that is the connotation when the word jihad is typically used. i don't see how giving mention to other uses in Muslim life (the greater/lesser jihad discussion isn't relevant here) can be considered undue weight at all, especially when EoI mentions it - "Jihad: etymologically signifies an effort directed towards a determined objective. (Cf. ijtihād : the work of the scholar-jurists in seeking the solution of legal problems; mujāhada or, again, jihād : an effort directed upon oneself for the attainment of moral and religious perfection...". ITAQALLAH 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not try to confuse etymology, meaning, and concept. EoI talks about the Arabic word "jihad"; this section is about the Islamic concept of jihad. These are not one and the same thing. Beit Or 18:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

you are limiting the "Islamic concept of jihad" to its application in jurisprudence, when it clearly has uses beyond those boundaries. ITAQALLAH 18:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the term "etymology" is somewhat of a red flag here. I must agree with Beit Or that the derivation of words is basically irrelevant, as this is not an Arabic etymological dictionary.Proabivouac 18:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

the quote does express it's used to refer to "moral and religious" perfection, so it's not just a question of Arabic etymology, as it possesses a religious dimension. the Esposito ref also substantiates that. ITAQALLAH 18:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're confusing Arabic language and Islam. It's like saying that crusade is not a necessarily a medieval expedition aimed at retaking the Holy Land from the Muslim, but can also refer to efforts against one's moral or societal vices, for example, a "crusade against drugs". Yes, just like "jihad", the word "crusade" can be used in many different meanings (including religious ones), but then an encyclopedia is not a dictionary. Beit Or 19:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

not quite: the EoI is stating that jihad also refers to attaining religious (i.e. Islamic) perfection, and Esposito says the same. so this particular derivation has a context in Islamic teaching - which should be noted. ITAQALLAH 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, please observe that while EoI gives some cursory treatment to the etymology and figurative meanings of jihad, 99% of the article is devoted to warfare. I don't see any reason why Wikipedia article should not follow suit. Beit Or 19:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

it states quite plainly in the introduction that it will restrict the discussion solely to warfare (that is, after all, the primary meaning), yet even then the coverage of the EoI article on the fiqhi aspects of jihad is pretty patchy. ITAQALLAH 02:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, you have made sweeping changes without regard for consensus, and then revert citing 'massive removal' of 'pertinent information'. there is no need for repetition of the jizya/dhimmi material - that belongs in the discussion concerning Islam and other religions. the reference is of excellent quality - naturally - yet you use rather unspecific and misleading language, for example:

• "there can be no permanent peace with non-Muslims" - misleading, the prose is talking about the non-Muslim state.
• "Jihad against Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians ceases when they submit to the authority of Islam" - please at least try to represent the prose within the correct context. it's talking about the tolerance of these communities within the Islamic community despite the aim of universality of the Islamic state.
• "which can be repudiated as soon as the circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities" - of course, there is no mention of what is EoI says later: "It is, however, recognized that such repudiation should be brought to the notice of the infidel party, and that he should be afforded sufficient opportunity to be able to disseminate the news of it throughout the whole of his territory." - and without such qualifications the prose becomes all the more misleading.

the focus of the prose sourced to EoI really is pretty selective. lastly, you excise reliable sources offering other information where the EoI's coverage is thin, such as the other meanings of jihad. ITAQALLAH 21:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The first of these objections seems to me quite reasonable, accordingly I've changed "non-Muslims" to "non-Muslim states." The second, well, six of one, half dozen of the other - we're not obliged to reproduce any source's rhetorical narrative, the question is whether the facts are being neutrally presented here. As for the requirement to give warning to the non-Muslim state, that seems reasonable to add, the requirement to spread the news is probably more detail than we need here.Proabivouac 02:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The first comment is indeed reasonable, but the phrase with "states" is not ideal either. What if non-Muslims do not have a state and live, say, as a nomadic tribe? The second has no merit - as Pro said it's more or less the same thing only wrapped in the rhetoric of "tolerance". The third is a great example of what another editor called "defensive writing" on Islam-related topics: "bad news" must necessarily be balanced with "good news"; to wit, "bad news" that truces with non-Muslim states may be renounced at will must be slightly offset with "good news" that Muslims are not that savage and must inform the enemy about repudiating the truce. It's interesting that earlier an attempt to insert some "bad news" about Muhammad prompted cries of "too much space". The same consideration apparently does not apply to the mechanics of truce repudiation. Beit Or 18:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

you cite the Muhammad section as an application of your theory, where you were adamant that relatively unimportant conflicts with Jewish tribes needed substantial mention despite other, far more significant events, going totally unmentioned to your content (perhaps you've the got theory reversed). ITAQALLAH 18:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The "relatively unimportant conflicts with Jewish tribes" enabled Muhammad's conquest of Mecca. Without the property pillaged from the Jews of Medina and Khaybar, Muhammad would have been unable to sustain his war against the Quraysh. My point, though, is not about Muhammad, but rather about what I see as a wholly unacceptable approach to writing Islam-related articles (though many contentious subjects suffer from this attitude too), namely, that any information is assessed mainly based on its propaganda value rather than on its encyclopedic value. Beit Or 19:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

well, why make such a far-fetched connection with the conquest of Mecca (are you really asserting its importance is based upon this?), why not demand mention of what was directly at the centre of the conflict, like the Treaty of Hudaybiyya? yes, i do see an unacceptable approach to writing Islam-related articles, exactly as you relate - and some of those problems i feel are evident in the changes you've instituted. ITAQALLAH 23:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Both Vaglieri and Stillman make that connection.Proabivouac 00:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

i'm not saying it's untrue at all - the point is that if the conflicts are mentioned because they ultimately contributed to enabling the conquest, why do we not mention the other, more obvious events directly facilitating the conquest? i don't really care that it's not mentioned, it's just that i see some of the same behaviour from those who allege it of others. ITAQALLAH 00:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if there's any obvious and fairly uncontestable parallel I see here, it's between the "though" and "however" clauses, both sourced, both argumentative and meant to be, towards which we seem to be simultaneously adopting opposite approaches:[1],[2] If we could start somewhere, it might be to agree to avoid these types of clauses except in the most compelling instances, in favor of positive assertions which are qualified appropriately to begin with.Proabivouac 00:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

i agree with that. i would invite you to reword the first sentence how you see fit. ITAQALLAH 00:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the sentence on "some modern Muslims" is certainly not acceptable for a general article on Islam, and I object strongly to the unexplained and stubborn deletion of the next sentence, which gives important background for the "some modern Muslims" stuff. Beit Or 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Which modern Muslims is my question. That way we can judge its significance, to see if it should be here at all. Perhaps it is too marginal. But if we can find that it is significant enough to be here, and appropriately qualified/attributed, I can't see any need to argue against it in text.Proabivouac 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Beit Or, you point to the fact that this is a general article on Islam, yet you have no problem endorsing convoluted hair-splitting about the varying levels of fard, or repeating tangental information already sufficiently addressed in the article. in fact, you don't seem to mind it being mentioned as long as an unequivocal and needless rejoinder is latched on, so this particular point appears rather flimsy. ITAQALLAH 02:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I correct that the objection to the long passage about when Jihad ceases is that this duplicates some material found in other religions section? If so, a summary along the lines of, "Jihad ceases when non-Muslims submit to Islamic rule, becoming dhimmis or converting to Islam," might be appropriate. The payment of kharaj can be added to the section below about the dhimmi.Proabivouac 18:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's the fault of the "Other religions" section, which is fixated on the dhimmi issue instead of discussing the more general issues of the Islamic approach to other religions. Beit Or 19:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

the relationship between Islam and other religions, including when people of other religions are within an Islamic state (hence discussion of dhimma/jizya), is highly relevant to that section. ITAQALLAH 19:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my comment (well, no surprise here). I was pointing out that the section is fixated on dhimma and omits other highly topical matters; I never said that dhimma is irrelvant to this article. Beit Or 19:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

dhimma/jizya is a large part of any discussion concerning Islam and other religions. i noted that as it's already discussed here, there is absolutely no need to mention it again in the Jihad section where it's just redundant. you cite others' "stubborn" deletion of unencyclopedic prose, yet you have shown respect for neither consensus nor compromise, making contentious and sweeping changes without first proposing or discussing them on talk, and then "stubborn"ly rejecting any attempt at compromise or reconciliation. ITAQALLAH 02:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• that was part of my objection, Proabivouac, and that dropping in when jihad ceases is abrupt and can be misleading, especially if the juristic conditions for its commencing, or the way in which it is to be conducted, go unmentioned (misleading, because it implies that jihad requires none of the aforementioned conditions, that it is universal, ongoing - even today - in the absense of any indication otherwise - and of course, it presumes that all jihad is offensive in nature due to the generality of the statement) ITAQALLAH 19:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It strikes me that some of what you say may reflect concern that the reader might equate the traditional Islamic concept of jihad with the "jihad" of militant or terrorist organizations, as that's the only debate about the manner in which it's to be conducted with which I'm familiar. Traditionally, jihad was carried out through conventional military means under the direction of various Islamic caliphates. What to do when there is no Caliph isn't addressed (nor could it have been addressed) in Sunnah. There is something calling itself jihad today, whether this is legitimately Islamic I don't know (in fact I think it inherently impossible to decide,) but this is no longer being discussed in this section - perhaps mention of it should be restored?

What conditions for commencing and manner of conduct do you think important here?Proabivouac 19:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

yes... jihad as discussed in juristic primers can quite easily be unintentionally equivocated with things that may or may not be considered jihad - especially when media discussion about the topic and its usage of the word in a modern day context - and that most of our audience will likely be more aware of the latter context than the former. a few conditions for: offensive jihad - requires an amir of a state; an actual declaration, preceded by an offer to the state to submit. as for conduct, there are specifications such as targetting combatants only, not implementing legal punishments (hadd) in wartime, as well as others. i'd opine that a sentence like "Jihad may be declared against a non-Muslim state if it refuses to convert or submit to Islamic rule" is a little more acceptable than one that starts with "Jihad ceases..". ITAQALLAH 20:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've rearranged things somewhat (mostly with an eye to make the section shorter.). Beit Or's cessation conditions naturally follow "perpetual in nature", so I've left them there, but moved the declaration material to the lead. I hope this works for everyone.Proabivouac 03:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

these are some very productive changes. i think this version is more acceptable. i do think we can do something to trim the second paragraph, and i propose the following: the first para finishes with "Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against a non-Muslim state if it refuses to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule." i was thinking we could continue that para with "As such, Jihad is perpetual in nature; in theory, there can be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states, only truces which can be repudiated when circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities." - therefore, we can then do without the rest of the repetition in the second para because jihad's perpetuality is linked to the refusal of the non-Muslim state to convert/submit (thus we don't need to state that jihad will cease if they do so, when we have stated that jihad will commence if they don't do so). the material proposed for removal is all covered in the Islam#Other religions section. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 14:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that - I really don't know. I see why you're saying its duplicated (although the current Other religions section neglects kharaj), but I'm not certain this is less relevant in one section than the other. One frames it as a coherent active narrative - jihad continues until a tributary relationship is established, purchasing for the ahl al-kitab dhimmi status- the other presents dhimma as an enduring condition under Islamic authority, with tribute presented as its secondary feature. (I also observe that the portion of the Qur'an which has been traditionally interpreted to speak to this matter follows the active narrative exactly.)Proabivouac 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

i see.. how about we retain mention of jizya/kharaj (as that is directly related to the cessation), and defer mention of dhimma ("...,thereby receiving the status of dhimmis,...") to the other religions sect? ITAQALLAH 21:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit new, but I'm wondering where someone made the determinatio that within Islamic jurisprudence jihad refers to waging war for global domination or to that effect...if its unsourced to credible Islamic jurists it should be deleted becuase it demonstrates visible bias.

(Outdent) Not sure who added the immediately preceding comment, but I'd like to ask the same question and unless it can be sourced, it should be removed. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 17:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. MezzoMezzo 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's sourced. Look for the soonest number in superscript. Arrow740 20:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure, does that soonest number include that reference to Islamic jurisprudnce? I just want to make sure its not assumed b/c its the subsequent superscript. Again, I'm new but why is nearly all of the Jihad section based on this EoI? Also, as far as I can tell, this source is accessible to a select few, anyone know how the layman can access it w/out paying a fortune? Thanks.

Umayyads

Itaqallah, I hadn't meant to revert this edit,[3] only my own attempt to restore the Esposito material about forced conversion being rare - which didn't really work, because the paragraph is about jurisprudence, not practice (and anyhow doesn't say that conversion of dhimmis is required.) However, since I have reverted it, what is the problem that you'd meant to correct?Proabivouac 20:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

the first part of the sentence is nowhere to be found in Lewis, even implicitly (from my own reading anyway). the point Lewis is making about the economy was that the majority of economic reliance was upon dhimmis - however, as there was a mass wave of new mawalis (soon outnumbering the Arabs) who subsequently did not need to pay jizya and paid the lowest zakat rates, then this resulted in decreased revenue and increased expenditure. as a result, conversions were at times actually discouraged. the prose in the article doesn't reflect that, and as i was copyediting to trim the text a bit i removed the extraneous point. i also reinserted the information re Abu Muslim, for mawali discontent was only part of the reason for Ummayad destruction. Shi'i resistance to the Ummayads, in alliance with individuals like Abu Muslim, found some support amongst mawalis. ITAQALLAH 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

i'll reinstitute that change if you're happy with it. ITAQALLAH 17:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not the knowledge necessary to arrive at an opinion on this, though I may develop one as the situation becomes clearer. My reversion of your material was inadvertent (look at the edit times!)Proabivouac 18:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read Lewis (and other sources on this subject) carefully. The whole point of the existence of mawali was that non-Muslims couldn't convert to Islam merely at will: they first had to find a willing Arab patron who would accept them as clients (mawali). If Lewis is unclear on that point (though in my reading, he is pretty explicit), then probably Hawting is (The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate AD 661-750, p. 4): "Although it can be debated whether the Koran was addressed to all men or to the Arabs only, the Umayyads and the Arab tribesmen who first conquered the Middle East regarded their religion as largely exclusive of the conquered peoples. There was no sustained attempt to force or even persuade the conquered peoples to accept Islam, and it was assumed that they would remain in their own communities paying taxes to support the conquerors. Although from the start there was some movement of the conquered into the community of the conquerors, the separation of Arabs from non-Arabs was a basic principle of the state established as a result of the conquests. This is clear both from the procedure which a non-Arab had to adopt in order to enter Islam and from the fact that there were, from time to time, official measures designed to prevent such changes of status. Islam was in fact regarded as the property of the conquering aristocracy." Beit Or 18:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

i see. thanks for the extract. ITAQALLAH 18:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Selective representation

I am busy now but can someone correct Beit Or's selective representation of the significant reasons for the downfall of Ummayad. --Aminz 21:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. [4] --Aminz 03:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Jihad section; POV tag

I think a POV tag needs to be added the jihad section. As far as I know there is no unique scholarly opinion on the issue of permanent peace with non-Muslims. What does "jihadist" mean? Is that an english word? --Aminz 02:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See for example, War and Its Discontents by J. Patout Burns Georgetown University Press says:

"Islam, as a belief system with a specific scriptural foundation and an accompanying sacred history, took root in many different societies and cultures. In none, I think it's fair to say, did Islam as such repress any existing developments that were towards nonviolence. There is no theological reason an Islamic society could not take a lead in developing nonviolence today, and there is every reason that some of them should."

So, the POV bits of "there can be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states" should be taken out. --Aminz 02:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, that quote says nothing at all about Islamic doctrine.Proabivouac 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Islamic theology is part of Islam. --Aminz 02:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What does he mean by nonviolence? Islam mandates all sorts of violence. Arrow740 03:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So do the laws of any state, and common sense.Proabivouac 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, jurisprudence isn't theology. Your argument here is totally illogical. See also WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We are talking about how jihad has been defined, not how Burns (not an expert on Islam anyhow) speculates it one day might be defined. This is one of the flimsiest rationales for a POV tag I've ever seen.Proabivouac 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The scholarly views on the relation of Islam, on the whole, with matter in dispute is diverse. On this page and other pages, you should avoid pushing anti-Islamic sentiments. --Aminz 05:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's your religion. We didn't make up jihad. It's frustrating when an editor finds a quote that could possibly be used so as to further his agenda, then refuses to explain who the author is or how he is using key terms. Arrow740 05:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with jihad. --Aminz 05:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is, don't say Pro is pushing anti-Islamic sentiments when he's only insisting that we source the truth to good sources. Arrow740 06:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Arrow740.Proabivouac 06:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

...That is some kind of joke, right? Do you all need some help here? Homestarmy 06:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're feeling very generous, you might remove Aminz' baseless POV tag.Proabivouac 06:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Thanks. --Aminz 06:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, you are well aware that I do not "push sentiments" of any variety. Your arguments here are incoherent and illogical, and your source, not ideal to begin with, does not say what you want it to say.

You are right that there is nothing wrong with jihad, besides our own moral evaluations and projections. The doctrine is that mankind, in submission to the will of God, is obliged to enjoin good and forbid evil, and to that end establish Islamic rule, through force where necessary. If one believes that the benefits of Islamic rule outweigh the downsides of the use of force, then aggressive jihad makes complete sense: one is liberating conquered people from jahiliyya, and offering them a chance to avoid hellfire. Conversely, if one thinks Islamic rule undesirable, or that jahiliyya isn't all that bad, then jihad might not be justified.

What Islam definitely isn't is pacifism; see Sunnah. Burns (and perhaps you) may think it should be, or one day might be, but that's totally irrelevant here.Proabivouac 06:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What are Burns' credentials in this area? - Merzbow 06:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's his write-up:[5]Proabivouac 06:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A great deal has been written about the issue of Islam, Jihad, Warfare, non-Violence, etc etc(e.g. see [6]), and there is a wide range of views; not just the one. I just pointed out to one source. You want another one: check out "An Islamic Approach to Peace and Nonviolence:A Turkish Experience, Zeki Saritoprak, The Muslim World, Vol.95"

You can find pages and pages of arguments from the Qur'an and Sunna... quoting "great Islamic figures of contemporary Turkey" who believe that our era is different from the past; putting the past in the context of its time, argue that "jihad should be through the bright proofs of the Qur’an and not through the use of force"; describing "our time as the time of spiritual jihad, 'struggle against spiritual destruction should not be physical, but spiritual.'". Proab, please don't post on my talk page. If you would like to talk about the article, please use this talk page. --Aminz 07:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully their "interpretation" will be widespread. However wikipedia is not a place to promote falsehoods. Arrow740 07:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you want me to post on "your" talk page?Proabivouac 07:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• one major problem i have found with the prose is that it presumes the presence of an Islamic state, while this is an important caveat without which the meaning becomes rather distorted. it's also poor style to discuss when Jihad stops, when we fail to discuss its preconditions and how it is commenced- but even then, that discussion is already covered well enough in the Islam and other religions section. i have tried a tweaking to account for these things, and i hope it is an acceptable compromise. ITAQALLAH 17:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to this sentence, "Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state..." I agree that is an improvement, and eliminates the redundancy of "defense or expansion" later in the section.Proabivouac 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dhimmis as a Lower Class

I am a bit confused as to why the phrase about dhimmis being a lower status was removed. How is that POV? Muslim law says they have to pay higher taxes (the jizya), which is plainly discriminatory. — Rickyrab | Talk 12:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't infer from fact X (paying of jizya) that Y is the case (they are lower class). This is original research which has no place in WP. If you can find any reliable sources which show that dhimmis were treated as a lower class, then you can include it with the relevant reference. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. Sorry about that. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

All [7][8] these kind of edits which are done without references are POV. If you wish to change the use multiple references and do not add your personal views here. They will be reverted back. --- A. L. M. 12:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, such edits are not necessarily POV. However, at least one of them DOES violate WP:NOR, as AA pointed out above. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent ideas about Jihad

Learn about Islam from featured article: "Thus jihad is perpetual in nature; there can, theoretically, be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states, only temporary truces, which can be repudiated as soon as the circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities ". Woh that is great and sourced too and administrator User:Briangotts even do not allow to take it out [9].--- A. L. M. 14:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks like OR again as the EoI does not make any such statements (and there are no other sources indicated). → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 15:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It was added without citing any additional sources and seems to be OR. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 15:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

the EoI does refer to its perpetuality, but then again the EoI does indeed mention the opinions of eminent, early jurists like Sufyan ath-Thawri who considered the offensive jihad to be mustahab as opposed to wajib. ITAQALLAH 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not ILIKEITPEDIA. Al-Thawri's school of jurisprudence disappeared without a trace about a thousand years ago. Please do not try to bring those views that have good propaganda value instead of those that are dominant. Beit Or 19:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

i don't see the relevance of your comments, i'm simply mentioning what the EoI itself feels appropriate to mention. ITAQALLAH 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is for suggesting edits to the article. If your comment above on al-Thawri didn't suggest any, it shouldn't have been made. Beit Or 19:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing that's missing here is an short explanation of how the Shi'a view on jihad differs from the Sunni. - Merzbow 17:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some recent scholars

"Recently, some Muslim scholars have said that jihad only obligates warfare of a defensive nature." Maybe so, but this is the general, introductory article on Islam. It must be about the most common views and practices, not on what some (which?) scholars have recently said. A discussion of the whole range of opinions is fine, but please confine it to subsidiary articles. I undertand Merzbow complaint that the next sentence only serves to debunk this one, but, sorry, they can only leave this article together. Beit Or 18:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

We might rephrase this by attributing it and avoiding the appearance of taking sides...though I observe that the word "recently" pretty much makes this clear without saying it out loud.Proabivouac 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• the EoI mentions some of those authorities who didn't regard the offensive jihad as wajib (ath-Thawri and some other classical scholars). absolutely: this is indeed an introductory article, yet the focus and tone of your version is misleading and inappropriate, as i have mentioned in a few sections above. ITAQALLAH 19:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You haven't made much of a case against it. You just seem to be saying that some classical authorities differed on the level of goodness of offensive war. Arrow740 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

if the classical authorities differed as to whether it was mustahab or wajib, they are differing over whether or not it is obligatory. ITAQALLAH 23:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, I've made a very specific point on a specific issue to which you gave no adequate response. Rants like "the focus and tone of your version is misleading and inappropriate" are uncivil and do not help your case at all. Beit Or 19:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, please spare me the wikilawyering. if you're going to make baseless accusations of incivility, then please do so without espousing your own. ITAQALLAH 23:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't address his points? Arrow740 23:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

i've already expressed that the opinion concerning jihad has been covered in the EoI. yet, it's being argued that it's too much for an introductory article. i have also expressed concern with the general tone of the changes made: if this sentence is too much, what on earth are we doing repeating information already in the article - for which most of a section is already dedicated? what are we doing discussing in an introductory section about when and how it's fard kifaya/`ayn, or when the jihad is stopped, or the repudiation of truces, when we neglect discussion even about it's pre-conditions, how it's started, the basic rules of jihad, as well as other more pertinent information? ITAQALLAH 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As someone whose ancestors' country suffered an Islamic holocaust I can tell you that just who jihadis are supposed to kill is more relevant. Arrow740 05:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

an appeal to emotion is not a valid encyclopedic argument. ITAQALLAH 14:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an appeal to emotion, but a reasonable comment that the bloodiest conquest in human history is not covered in this article well enough. Beit Or 18:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

that's not the point he is making in this particular discussion. ITAQALLAH 19:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You must have read some other comment then. Beit Or 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem with this statement: "Jihad may also refer to one's striving to attain religious and moral perfection". Innumerable reliable sources make the point that jihad has this interpretation as well. - Merzbow 01:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not an Arabic dictionary. Just like the word "crusade" in English and many other languages, the word "jihad" in Arabic can refer to lots of things. An encyclopedia entry, however, must cover the Islamic concept of jihad rather than the Arabic word "jihad". Beit Or 18:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

as argued above, jihad as a form of striving to obtain religious perfection is a concept in Islam (as verified by EoI, Esposito, and probably others), and not just an etymological argument. ITAQALLAH 19:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

False, jihad is the effort, which encompasses and is most commonly understood as warfare, aimed at establishing the global domination of Islam. This is what academic sources, including EoI, and works of authoritative Muslim scholars say. Beit Or 19:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

nobody is denying what jihad is commonly understood as, however: [10]. ITAQALLAH 19:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

However what? Please do not make self-referential comments. Beit Or 19:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Although Esposito as usual is overly apologetic on these matters, even Lewis says that some modern Muslims use it in a moral and spiritual sense. Britannica splits the difference, saying that "Modern Islam places special emphasis on waging war with one's inner self. It sanctions war with other nations only as a defensive measure when the faith is in danger." Also: "Islam distinguishes four ways by which the duty of jihad can be fulfilled: by the heart, the tongue, the hand, and the sword. The first consists in a spiritual purification of one's own heart by doing battle with the devil and overcoming his inducements to evil." The sentence is clearly supportable. - Merzbow 19:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

look, no one is denying that "some modern Muslims" may something. The question, however, is about the views that were and are (if no longer, then show me the evidence) dominant in Islam. In addition, no one is saying that Islam can only be spread by the sword, but please go beyond the quotes. Pick any reasonably scholarly text on jihad, and you will see that it's overwhelimngly about warfare: how it commences, how it's funded and conducted, what are the duties of the fighters and ocmmanders, how to divide booty, how to conclude a truce and how long to keep it, what conditions of surrender to demand from infidels etc. By turning the section into a piece on "jihad-is-not-what-you-thought-but-a-spiritual-struggle-for-self-perfection" ths article invades deeply into Esposito's territory. Beit Or 19:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

we know what the primary meaning of jihad is, this is why the section dedicates most of the discussion to its application in jurisprudence - and it makes crystal clear that jihad in the books of all jurists refers to combat. to suggest that the addition of one sentence has turned it into "a piece on "jihad-is-not-what-you-thought-but-a-spiritual-struggle-for-self-perfection"" is a distortion. i referred you to my other comments, because they expressed quite nicely what i wanted to say. ITAQALLAH 20:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah is right on the mark here. The modern concept is notable enough for a one-sentence mention. Your beef is not with us but with the editors of Britannica; they found it notable enough for two sentences (in an article only slightly longer than this section). - Merzbow 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't see it as worth mentioning, but as it's obvious that consensus to remove it will not be achieved, I'll settle for due weight as a footnote to the main idea, which is where it is now. Annoying, but no big deal.Proabivouac 20:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The argument that we must imitate Britannica's judgment regarding the due weight issues is self-defeating. As I have pointed out above, the EoI, which is much more scholarly and comprehensive, gives very little attention to this argument, only to dismiss it as apologetics. Beit Or 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Like the "Islam means peace" red herring, which is similarly mentioned in many sources, we all (including our sources) know it's insubstantial and basically irrelevant, yet many want to include it anyway. I guess it makes people feel good. What can you do?Proabivouac 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"the EoI, which is much more scholarly and comprehensive, gives very little attention to this argument, only to dismiss it as apologetics." -- i don't see its dismissal. the word jihad is frequently used in Islamic discussion (outside fiqhi discourse) to refer to purification (i.e. jihad an-nafs). ITAQALLAH 01:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere have I seen a reliable source claim that "Islam means peace"; the strongest I've seen it put is that the two words share a root. - Merzbow 02:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mughals

If we're going to have one sentence on Islamic rulers of India, it's quite insulting to the memory of the millions of murdered Hindus to have it be "The Mughals were noted for their achievements in art and architecture, exemplified by the Taj Mahal, which Shah Jahan built as a memorial to his wife." Arrow740 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

is this the most pertinent tidbit of information concerning the Mughal empire? ITAQALLAH 23:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a working assumption that all pre-modern empires climbed their way to the top over the bodies of hundreds of thousands. This doesn't excuse the Mughals, but neither does it make them notable for doing such. - Merzbow 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about forced conversions, and death to those who refused. Arrow740 01:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Christians, Jews, etc. all did the same thing. The Catholic and English Protestant have all done it -- convert or die -- too, I suspect even more recently than the Islamic Rulers of India. I'm not insulted that someone in my lineage was killed because of their beliefs, nor do I care. Thanks, Monkeyblue 06:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about millions of people here, cultural imperialism at its worst, and I'm not excusing any other such brutal acts. Why is it that many whites on WP often need to say that western culture was bad whenever problems with Islam are brought up? Arrow740 07:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know who is "white", Arrow? The above user appears in fact to be blue. I think the reason that people compare the rise of the Islamic with the rise of the Christian states is that the latter was so very much more brutal. Itsmejudith 08:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a misapprehension we need to correct. Arrow740 19:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Such was definitely not the case in India, which is what Arrow740 is talking about. I'm not certain how important this is to the article, but you'd have to look to Genghis Khan (or the twentieth century) to find something comparable.Proabivouac 19:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to see some references for this in order to judge how and if it should be noted. - Merzbow 23:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

First, we must include the period of Delhi Sultanate, which is arguably atleast as important as the Mughal empire in every respect. Second, since this is supposed to be the history of religion, it would perhaps be better to talk about developments pertinent to religion instead of art and architecture. Some key ideas include Barelwis, Deobandis, Ahmadis, Chishti Order, Din-i-Ilahi, etc. deeptrivia (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

i believe we did have mention of the Dehli Sultanate and some of the basic chronology of the Mughal empire, but much of it was excised to bring the article to < 85kb ITAQALLAH 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It would perhaps have been a better idea to take out mention of a memorial someone built for his wife instead. Again, as I mentioned, I think more important than mentioning the ~200 years of Mughal rulers (they lingered on for a bit longer in a nominal sense) and ~300 years of Delhi sultans, and what they did and constructed, is to talk about the religious aspect of this 500 year period. Remember, roughly every third Muslim on Earth lives in South Asia, and their concept of Islam is very much shaped by the historical developments in this region in the last 1000 years. deeptrivia (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

that's a valid point, i'll provide a link to a previous version which had a bit more about the history in India, but do make any additions you feel would would be productive. ITAQALLAH 02:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam#Jihad, last paragraph

The most most recent version of the Jihad section has for its fourth paragraph:

"Recently, some Muslim scholars have said that jihad only obligates warfare of a defensive nature. There are also radical Muslims who believe that physical "jihad against unbelief and unbelievers is a religious duty" that justifies terrorism. Some Muslim authorities, especially among the Shi'a, distinguish between the "greater jihad", which pertains to spiritual self-perfection, and the "lesser jihad", defined as warfare. In modern usage, jihad may also refer to one's striving to attain religious and moral perfection."

I find all of this quite ugly. It is a hodgepodge of competing ideas which share the distinction of not being especially important compared to the most central and orthodox concept which has just been laid forth (and quite a bit more clearly and informatively then it was before Beit Or rewrote it and this debate began.) It was written to satisfy a committee and looks it, cruft which settles by its nature to the bottom. I would like to get rid of the whole thing, but imagine this might be met with howls of indignant protest.
For now, which Muslim scholars have said that jihad is only defensive? If we can identify them, we can then weigh how significant they are in the scheme of this main article - remember there is also Jihad, we don't have to cover every permutation here.
The bit about terrorism seems especially irrelevant to this section as it stands - wouldn't the more pertinent questions (and still probably belonging in Jihad) be 1) who has the authority to declare jihad against unbelievers, and 2) can jihad be waged against secular Muslim-majority states to establish Islamic rule?Proabivouac 04:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the first two sentences of this paragraph.

Regarding these two: "Some Muslim authorities, especially among the Shi'a, distinguish between the "greater jihad", which pertains to spiritual self-perfection, and the "lesser jihad", defined as warfare. In modern usage, jihad may also refer to one's striving to attain religious and moral perfection."

These sentences seem very similar. How do their senses differ?Proabivouac 05:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I have rearranged and added some material in a rewrite. Mostly I have removed items are really both historic and even within Islam jurisprudential debates. I think these should be more better addressed in the subsequent full pages. Concept was mention the definition of jihad. Both of them. There is very little to say about the greater jihad because in short it is just try to be a better muslim, part of which is to engage in the lesser jihad. Then just feature the ideas of the military nature of jihad in context of its relation to muslims and the religious doctrine, leaving history, politics and other issues for which there is a wide range of concepts even within just the muslim community, both modern and historic leaving the debates to rage on pages where there is space to deal with the issues with justice by getting into details and contrasting opinions. I think the second part could still need some work but I wanted to go ahead and reset the theme so that it doesn't keep threathening to explode into a larger version for "depoving" debates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigeroo (talk • contribs)

The change was way too drastic, so I've reverted back to Pro's version. Too much emphasis was given to the "greater/lesser jihad" dichotomy, which does not appear to be a dominant theme in Islamic thought concerning jihad. I think we should proceed in baby steps. - Merzbow 17:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Merzbow.

Also, it's unfortunate that some editors have taken to linking to these BBC pages.[11] (note - sometimes these say "pages not found") They are unattributed and unsigned, do not cite their sources, are poorly-informed and unduly opinionated, and overall are not a credible scholarly source, though the stature of BBC brand as a news agency (itself misplaced where the website is concerned) has misled some to assume otherwise.Proabivouac 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cessation

Arrow740, re this edit, with your addition italicized:

It ceases when Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians submit to the authority of Islam and agree to pay the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax), thereby receiving the status of dhimmis, and when polytheists convert to Islam. In theory, conquered polytheists are given the choice between conversion, slavery, and death. In practice, however, the status of dhimmi was extended to many polytheists as well.

I reckon these are 94 unnecessary bytes: it is already said that jihad will be waged against polytheists until they convert. Am I missing something?Proabivouac 17:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all clear what happens after the Muslims succeed in subduing a polytheist population. This is an integral part of it. Arrow740 01:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

i also suggest we remove the sentence afterwards: " In practice, however, the status of dhimmi was extended to many polytheists as well." - this is stated almost en verbatim in the Other religions section ("However, in practice the status of dhimmi was extended to Zoroastrians, Hindus, and members of other scriptural faiths as well") ITAQALLAH 21:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Hindus and Zoroastrians would argue that their faiths are monotheistic, but some Hindus do have polytheistic ideas of religion. So, yeah, there likely were polytheistic Hindu dhimmis out there. Just one question: What is a "scriptural faith"? — Rickyrab | Talk 03:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Those of us who worked on Islam and slavery know that "slavery is part of jihad." Arrow740 18:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The part about slavery is necessary from the perspective of flow as well. If jihad continues until polytheists convert, i.e. after they have been conquered, it must take some form. The enslavement or killing is that form. Thus the execution or enslavement of prisoners is just as much part of jihad as the military campaigns are, and it has been this way since Muhammad. Arrow740 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

there are many factors related to jihad, the large proportion of which remain unmentioned. slavery is not a fundamental aspect or prerequisite for jihad, and captives first assume the status of prisoner of war. it is then, after the amir decides what should be done with them, that they are enslaved, executed, or whatever else is decided. as such, i think elaboration is quite unnecessary. ITAQALLAH 16:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a fundamental aspect of jihad. The goal of jihad is to control the lives of other people through military action. For polytheists that takes the form of death, slavery, or conversion. Arrow740 09:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

who says it is a "fundamental aspect of jihad"? and were it to be so, we would see it being given far more attention in the academic sources when discussing the fiqh of jihad. the goal of jihad, as related by academic sources, is to expand or defend the Islamic/Muslim state. the jizya has been mentioned as a compromise to its direct relation to the cessation, but the material on civil statuses (dhimma, slavery etc.) is appropriately covered in the later section. ITAQALLAH 17:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

as such, and in the absense of consensus for its inclusion, i have now removed the particular passage. ITAQALLAH 21:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

also... the argument in this summary isn't an encyclopedic reason for inclusion, and is an opinionated appeal to emotion. i have retained the passage for now, but if its inclusion doesn't achieve consensus, then it's best to go without. ITAQALLAH 16:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to historical events. Arrow740 09:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

we don't substitute the presentation of encyclopedia-based arguments with the citation of (a)historical events. ITAQALLAH 17:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In terms of numbers enslaved and killed jihad is the worst invention in human history, I won't let you whitewash it. Arrow740 22:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

i have given you plenty of time to argue for the insertion of this passage, letting it remain in the article while you do so. you have provided very little barring soapboxing via emotional arguments, and have neither resolved to seek nor obtain consensus. please do not reinsert this passage until you are able to do otherwise. ITAQALLAH 22:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You have mischaracterized my postings to this talk page. Instead of directing you to read them again I will summarize for you. First, jihad doesn't stop when polytheists are conquered, and we must indicate how it continues. Second, jihad against polytheists has been the single most destructive doctrine ever devised by mankind. We should at least describe the practice clearly. Arrow740 22:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"jihad doesn't stop when polytheists are conquered" it stops when they convert, the article makes that clear. it's simply unnecessary to go into discussing peripheral issues. again, your second point is irrelevant, emotional soapboxing. please stop misusing the talk page. ITAQALLAH 22:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Murder and slavery might seem like peripheral issues to you, but you should understand that they are part of jihad, and have been since the Medinan period. The second point is not irrelevant, the murder and slavery clauses of jihad have had terrible effects, and we should mention them. Your responses to my posts are increasingly obfuscatory and frustrating, please stop. Arrow740 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

you're repeating your previous points. i already responded here, to which you decided to remain silent. you have only since resumed discussion as a pretext for reinserting irrelevent factoids, without regard for obtaining consensus like the rest of us have done. you may respond above. ITAQALLAH 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

<reset>You never really respond to my points. I never said slavery and execution of captured polytheists was a goal of jihad per se (thought it has been used that way), I said that it is an integral part of jihad. The proscriptions on what to do with captured polytheists are part of the Muslim thought on jihad, and as this has had far reaching and devastating effects. If it will take some facts about the amount of suffering jihad has caused to make you stop claiming that killing and enslavement are irrelevant I will get some. Your claims that I am referring to ahistorical events are part of your irritating style, you know as well as I do that offensive jihad has happened. Arrow740 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

you stated that it was a "fundamental aspect" of jihad, to which i replied: "who says it is a "fundamental aspect of jihad"? and were it to be so, we would see it being given far more attention in the academic sources when discussing the fiqh of jihad." - which you didn't respond to. i've proposed a compromise which i hope will be acceptable. ITAQALLAH 23:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the Muslim plan for dealing with prisoners of war is part of the whole rubric, and the sources mention the fate of polytheists in the jihad discussion. Considering the massive suffering this has caused I am not going to let you hide this from the unaware. I will consider your shoving it down as a compromise for a little while. Arrow740 23:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

please address what i wrote. you can start by supporting your assertion that it's a "fundamental aspect" of jihad with some academic sources. ITAQALLAH 23:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd removed the mention of slavery from the Jihad section because I thought it distracted from the main point of what Jihad is. The fact that those on the wrong side of it might be killed is by this point superfluous - we already know it's a war - and I thought the prose, while accurate, had somewhat of a lurid feel to it. Also, the section was too long, so I removed everything that seemed to me tangential.

You're wikilawyering. We're not talking about combatants, we're talking about killing and enslaving POW's. As dictated by Islamic military jurisprudence. Arrow740 01:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, I'm not wikilawyering, I just told you exactly the reason I removed it.

We're not talking about combatants. Exactly.

And FWIW, Muhammad didn't actually enslave the polytheists, did he? Contrary to what one might assume from the Qur'an, it was the People of the Book who were dealt with harshly, with many enslaved. Polytheists were forced to convert to Islam.Proabivouac 01:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad is not at issue here. The fate of victims of jihad is, and it must be included here. Arrow740 06:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

combatants are the "victims" of jihad. those polytheists who are killed/enslaved are "victims" of the established state. the latter is not part of actual jihad. mention of it was proposed where it is actually relevant. until now, you have not demonstrated that slavery is a fundamental aspect of jihad. ITAQALLAH 17:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That said, the fact that the article now doesn't mention slavery at all strikes me as an ommission. It belongs with the Dhimmi material, I'd think, as a possible and judicially-sanctioned outcome for a non-Muslim falling under Muslim rule - though it also might be appropriate to mention that, like Dhimma, nowadays this is not usually practiced.Proabivouac 00:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Correction, it does mention that some of the Jews were enslaved, and that the Mamluks were slaves, but it doesn't say anything about jurisprudence.Proabivouac

Ok, i'm confused about the order of the comments here now. Are we still discussing whether or not slavery is integral/fundamental to jihad, or are we moving straight on to whether or not to just include it? MezzoMezzo 02:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see some amount of discussion occuring over this. Nice to see you active again too Arrow, I hope you can also respond to my query on the notable converts to Islam article soon. Anyway, let's all keep in mind the point of this article, and that is to inform the readers. There is no need for things to get testy or personal as we're all ultimately trying to help one another make this a good article.

• First, the issue of slavery being an important part of jihad. We need to make sure that we're all functioning with the same definitions of "integral" and "fundamental" here, and we need to reach a consensus on whether or not slavery is integral/fundamental to jihad.
• Second, let's try to stay away from adjectives or emotional appeals if at all possible. "Devastating effects" and talk about great suffering aren't appropriate ways to discuss topics of war and/or slavery in an encyclopedia. As difficult as it can be with some subjects, we always need to be objective and "clinical", so to speak.
• Third, we should avoid remarks aimed toward one another as this is detrimental to a strong working environment; we are essentially working together on this, after all.

I think once we can reach a consensus on the first point, things will begin to go much smoother. Let's all try our best to be polite and objective and iron out this issue as smoothly as possible. MezzoMezzo 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Looks like I was beat to the punch, lol...MezzoMezzo 23:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Arrow's version is a very good continuation of what the sentence already beings with, i.e. with Jihad:

It ceases when Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians submit to the authority of Islam and agree to pay the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax), thereby receiving the status of dhimmis, and when polytheists convert to Islam. In theory, conquered polytheists are given the choice between conversion, slavery, and death. In practice, however, the status of dhimmi was extended to many polytheists as well.

All this is an important (controversial) part of Jihad. I dont see any problem with its inclusion, which was the reason for my revert. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it isn't solely dependent upon whether or not you feel it's important, as there are a number of editors here who have raised issue with said section. It was inserted without any discussion and thus should be removed until we can reach a consensus on what version to keep; you can't just go and unilaterally make changes that not everyone agrees to. MezzoMezzo 22:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

section break (cessation): reaching a resolution

i'd like to see if we can move forward and establish some basic points:

• The relevant passage is too peripheral and digressive for the introductory section:
  • The section should cover briefly what jihad means, is, and some of its basic rules. The musings about what happened in theory/practice to a specific set of people, after actual combat itself, is an obvious and unnecessary digression.
  • It has been asserted that slavery is a fundamental aspect of jihad (it would need to be for it to be mentioned here), but in the absense of any academic sources explicitly substantiating this, we cannot conclude that this is the case.
  • The assertion itself is highly debatable, enslavement or execution is done at the behest of the Islamic state once it has been established, it is the jihad which establishes the state.
• The insertion, unlike the rest of the material in the section (Proabivouac's rewrite was met with widespread agreement), does not enjoy consensus for inclusion, which it requires to remain in. Please respect consensus, as other editors have managed to do on this article for several months.

i did suggest a compromise between the two stances, and i still think it's an appropriate resolution to this dispute as it mentions the information in the appropriate section. ITAQALLAH 22:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you are claiming that jihad refers only to combat? I don't think so. In 2003 a high-level Saudi jurist, Shaykh Salih al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa saying "Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam." Shaikh Salih al-Fawzaan "affirmation of slavery" is on page 24 of this: [12] and I can get some quotes from the books I have on slavery too, and post them a bit later. Jihad is not meant only to establish the Islamic state and you know it. I don't know why you would say that. Arrow740 00:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

reliable sources please (you'd generally be referring to such sources as "partisan religious sources", remember?). refer to the article "Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state..." as Proabivouac said, slavery is as related to jihad as is the many other tidbits of information available. we're only here to cover the main, fundamental aspects of it.ITAQALLAH 00:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

you seem to be asserting that just because the issue of slavery is related to the issue of jihad (as are the other 101 unmentioned issues)- which nobody is disputing- then it becomes automatically necessary to discuss it here. see the below comments. ITAQALLAH 00:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all this.

Keep in mind that anyone can come along and find something else about Jihad that they think really really needs to be mentioned. It might be a set of thoughtful rules such as sparing monks and fruit trees, a paean to the spiritual rewards of the "greater jihad," a lurid recount of suffering under various historical jihads, etc. Everybody is very interested in this topic and wants to spin it their way; each of these will inevitably inspire "however/but" responses and section bloat, revert wars or both. What we are doing now is clearly and unaffectedly presenting the most orthodox understanding, which is something most non-Muslims (and perhaps many Muslims) really don't know. They know both directions of POV pushing, because it's all over the media - it is alternately terrorism or self-improvement - but the relatively uncontroversial core definition is completely obscured by these irreconcilable extremes. There is a place to cover all these debates; it is thataway. On this main article, where section length is a pressing concern, we all need to accept that something we really really want to say about jihad won't be here. What we're offering now is pithy information that you can't easily get elsewhere on the web, or in the media.Proabivouac 23:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright I accept that compromise, perhaps Beit Or will as well. We can move on to the "worldwide domination" vs. "dominance" issue. From the perspective of style, flow, and accuracy it should be the former. Arrow740 05:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

i propose we simply use the phrase the EoI article uses (if i recall correctly): "universality" ITAQALLAH 06:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

is that proposal acceptable to you? ITAQALLAH 09:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the exact wording? The goal of jihad is not to cause everyone on earth to convert to Islam per se, the goal is to extend the control of the Islamic state until it has control over the whole earth. Do you agree that that is what the sources say? Arrow740 09:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

more or less, yes. here are some EoI extracts: "The notion stems from the fundamental principle of the universality of Islam: this religion, along with the temporal power which it implies, ought to embrace to whole universe, if necessary by force." and "The duty of the jihād exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained." - how about "universal domination" then? ITAQALLAH 09:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So universal in place of worldwide? That's fine with me. Arrow740 10:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

would i be correct in saying the content dispute issues regarding the section have been ironed out then? ITAQALLAH 16:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Arrow740 23:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

moon God

We should also mention that according to some researches Allah was the name of the moon God in the pre-Islamic Arabic culture. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm Oren.tal 13:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No reliable source says that. - Merzbow 16:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the moon-god concept a myth orginated by some christians as a result of islamophobia? 216.99.52.109 21:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No source for it, no point in discussing further. Itsmejudith 22:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This link talks about this book: Sheikh Khalil Abdul-Karim, The Historical Roots of Muslim Shari'a Law, Dar Al-Intishar Al-'Arabi, Beirut, 1997.. If you can find this book and find out what exactly it said, you could use the sources. Also see Google books. Here's a book about the Moon God - see if you can use resources from this one (The City of the Moon God: Religious Traditions of Harran By Tamara Marous Green). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The cresent, the mosque minarates and domes, the color green they come very different places. Some have placed green and crescents to be the turkic cultural influence from when they conquered the muslim lands, domes and minarets from mediterranean architecural influences etc. Even veils predate Islam to Persian and babylonian times. All synthesized through the filter of Islam into a Muslim (who are much more than Arabs) identity and cultural world. Yet all of these today are veritable badges of cultural identification without being intrinsically religious. A section on "symbols" of Islam though would be an useful addition.--Tigeroo 10:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt57 I think this is excellent idea.More people that know about this theory should come and write about this.Even if it is only theory it still should be mention.Oren.tal 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

since there is reliable source says that Allah was Moon God in the pre-Islamic Arabic culture I believe that should be mention in the article.

This "theory" is based wholly upon misunderstanding, and is far too marginal for inclusion in this article.Proabivouac 21:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac it is theory that even make sense because we know that they were pagans.I don't really understand why you are so against it.Oren.tal 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The theory is today largely coming from the work of Robert Morey, and doesn't seem widely respected by scholars, western or Muslim. In any case, I agree with Proabivouac, Morey is too biased (read:crank-ish) for this article, and I don't see any other strong sources for it (and it isn't really true, but that discussion, and your comment about pagans belongs in an other forum). Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I just noticed that Matt links to a book by Tamara Green, which talks about the relationship between Sabianism (or the Harranian version thereof). Although that relationship has led some to say that Muhammad placed the Sabian form of paganism as in some way as acceptable as Judaism and Christianity (people of the book), and although there are methods of worship used by Muslims that have roots in different traditions, I don't think Green is making the connection you seem to be making. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Proav, it doesnt matter if the theory is magical or anything. All that matters is that Reliable Sources have talked about it. Oren tel, we just need to find RS for that. I hope you can find one, but if we cant find one then we'll have to wait until some reliable sources (e.g. famous critics of Islam or historians) talk about it. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"All that matters is that Reliable Sources have talked about it."

That would only be enough to establish that it might be worthy of inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia, for example on Robert Morey. To include it here would be to assign it grossly undue weight.Proabivouac 03:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldnt be undue weight. It should be okay to mention a few lines about this. That wouldnt be undue weight. See the crescent sign of Islam? Where did that come from? Abdullah (slave of Allah) was a name that was used before Islam came, but I'm not going into debate. Oren Tel, you can find some stuff on the internet ([13],[14]). Both these links talk about some sources. Proav, also, since Robert Morey claims to have a "Doctor of Philosophy in Islamic Studies", he could be a reliable source for Islam. Oren tel, good luck with finding the reliable sources. Just remember, if you can do so, its possible to mention this here. I found this book too. I think we can borrow stuff from here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Which source is being claimed as reliable? Itsmejudith 06:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't really know anything about the author of the last book you mentioned, Yoal Natan. Looking him up, he seems to be primarily a blogger/self-published author. The book you cited was self-published, but you can go ahead and read the entirety of Volume II on google books, I think. I don't think he passes as a reliable source as he is mostly self-published (and his theory, not to mention his writing, is ridiculous). As for Morey, even his sources (Coon, archaeologists on the Hazor dig) disagree with him. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that the name Abdallah means something different for modern Muslims than it did for Muhammad's father. The Satanic verses incident might lend credence to the idea that Muhammad was trying to conflate Yahweh with the moon god. Does anyone have a reliable source on this? Arrow740 06:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like that's exactly what happened. I'd forgotten that Muhammad claimed that the Arabs were previously monotheists who worshiped Yahweh. Arrow740 06:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in EoI, EoQ or other academic sources I have seen about such a theory.--Aminz 08:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never even heard of that theory before reading it right here. MezzoMezzo 10:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The funny thing about most religions is that adherents are required to believe new things they learn. I believe it says in the Qur'an that the Kaaba was originally a shine to Abraham's god, i.e. Allah, and that Abraham originally preached to the Arabs to only worship Allah. Arrow740 19:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following you; how does that relate to the moon god thing? (Are we still discussing that topic?) MezzoMezzo 20:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo this is about the pre-Islamic period.of course you have not heard about it.How much do you know about those pagan religions that were before Islam?The pagan Arabs worship many Gods while one of those God was Allah.We know that paganic usually tend to create connection between the God they believe and ideas,like God of war etc.Those the paganic Arabs usually have created some connection between Allah and some idea.According to last evidence the paganic Arabs believed that Allah is the moon God.Even if it is only theory we must mention it.The fact you heard about it or hadn't don't really matter about it.Anyway I don't claim that Muslims today worship God Moon but only speak about pre-Islamic period.132.72.149.74 18:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, 1. one of the misconceptions among many is the cresecent sign. It was NOT originally an Islamic symbol, nor is it today. It was actually introduced much later by the Ottomans, along with the star and the colour green idea. 2. The name Abullah is a very common name among the original Jews of Cairo (who spoke Arabic), which is why the name existed well before Islam. The etymology behind it is exactly the same though. So these two points would definitely be irrelevant to the whole moon god idea. So in my opinion we really don't have enough sources to put this topic in the article. ko268 6:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Anther article about moon God: http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/skm30804.htm 132.72.149.74 18:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC) http://users.hubwest.com/prophet/islam/moongod.htm 132.72.149.74 18:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC) http://www.netbiblestudy.net/bulletin/new_page_126.htm 132.72.149.74 18:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Man, those sites are jokes, as is your assertion. "Allah" is the Arabic word for "god"; that is why Arab Christians refer to god as Allah as well. The notion that Allah is some sort of pagan moon god is refuted by linguistics. As for your links, the first one is widely agreed not to be reliable, the second is someone's personal (and factually and historically inaccurate) opinion, and the third is a Christian fundie site. That's laughable. I mean literally, I thought Christian fundamentalists gave up the whole "Allah is a moon god" thing a long time ago when people realize that Christians use the word "Allah" too. It just means god, so please check your sources. MezzoMezzo 20:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is no question that Allah (as in Abd-allah) was a moon god. It may have been the word used by Jews and Christians at the time as well for Yahweh as well. Arrow740 23:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So what if a moon god was called Allah (I am not saying it was). How is this relevant to ISLAM, which is what the article is about? The term Allah, simply is GOD in Arabic. ko268 6:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Man I glad you understand we don't speak about Islam today.Anyway it is about the backround of Islam.No one say Muslims today worship moon God.Only that Allah was moon God.132.72.149.74 06:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

ko268 brings up a good point. Allah is the Arabic word for god, it's a simple linguistic fact. Arab Jews and Christians do and always have used it (in addition to other names as well). If a group of pagans years ago decided to use that word to refer to an idol then it is an interesting historical factoid, but not relevant to this article. Maybe to the article on Allah in regard to the history of the words usage. MezzoMezzo 06:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see evidence that Arab Christians and Jews used the word before Muhammad. Arrow740 06:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Any Arab Christian could tell you that, but if you mean historical evidence I can try to see what I can dig up. An Arabic bible shouldn't be hard to find, or I can look elsewhere if you'd prefer. MezzoMezzo 06:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Allah and Allat were married. Muhammad claimed that Allah was also the god of Abraham and the monotheistic worship of that god had been corrupted over time, to the point that the pagans had him all wrong. So my original theory was correct. Arrow740 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Which brings you back to Muslim concept of God and the eternally pre-existent religion. It doesn't stop at Abraham but goes back to Adam. The Muslim position is quite simple, there is singular all-powerful deity who has been known to humans since the beginning but over time corrupted the pristine conception gets blurred by ascribing son's, daughters, wives intermediaries or others who appear to "share" parts of his primordial power and so prophets are sent forth to guide men back to him rather than "false man-made deities". Call him Allah, Khuda, Rub it's all the same as long as you have the monotheistic concept. As far as Islam goes [is singular and all powerful.] Any other conception is an error. It's not a borrowing of an old top god, wether the god was married or had kids it's all irrelevant. It was a redefinition of the entire concept of a prevalent god-term (Allah, Ilahi etc.) that is the really significant aspect of what Islam did. It never claimed to have create a new god or unearthed a long lost god and it definitely did not have anything to do with the moon!! --Tigeroo 10:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This whole topic seems to be going off topic. Can we all at least agree that the origin of the word Allah is irrelevant to the Islam article and fringe theories for which only one reliable source exists similar have no place in this article? If so, then we should move on since this doesn't appear to have anything to do with the article anymore Nil Einne 12:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You make an interesting point. Allah already does have its own article. MezzoMezzo 14:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Make that zero reliable sources, I think. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This has completely gone off-topic, and has no relevance to Islam. I think topic in general belongs in the etymology section of the "Allah" article in wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah). ko268 9:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

lead image

Many religous articles of wikipedia have a lead image. This article probably should have one too.--Sefringle^Talk 03:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

the article achieved FA status without a lead image, and to be honest there's not really an image which would encapsulate the topic or represent the subject in a way expected of a lead image. i think it's best to just leave the template where it is. ITAQALLAH 16:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The intro is kind of long, and to fill the blandness, an image in the lead would probably improve the article. I picked the one you put in the front page description, because it makes the article look better as a whole, but if you have a better idea...--Sefringle^Talk 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

the template is just fine, and the image was more pertinent in its previous location. don't make contentious changes on a featured article without obtaining consensus. thanks. ITAQALLAH 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Still, an something seems to be missing from the lead, and an image would make the article look better. I think the article looks better with that image in the lead. I figured there was consensus because you didn't respond to my comment in two days.--Sefringle^Talk 22:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

the point i'm making is that there's no need for a lead image just for the sake of having one there. if there was an image encompassing the topic then it'd be worth discussing. the image about one of the five pillars, belongs in the relevant section. i suppose we should see what other think, but could you please remove the other statement for which there was no consensus to include as per its being covered later. ITAQALLAH 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, we'll do a straw poll to see what others think.--Sefringle^Talk 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll: Should there be an image in the header?

Yes

1. Sefringle^Talk 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Arrow740 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
3. I think a lead image is a good idea. This one may not be the best, however; it looks like they're praying in a convention center. Perhaps prayer in the Masjid al-Haram would be a better summary?Proabivouac 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
4. The current image is fine. Raul654 14:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
5. i was hoping there'd be a better image, but i don't really mind the current one. ITAQALLAH 06:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No

1. The image of Muslim prayer is by no means a representative of Islam. --Aminz 06:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

But would you be OK with a better image?--Sefringle^Talk 06:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what kind of image would be appropriate there, certainly not this one we have. But in general, I have no objection to having an image. --Aminz 07:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what could be more representative of Islam. Maybe this photo? -- tariqabjotu 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I think the picture should have people kneeling. The whole point is submission, and that is a gesture of submission. Also Muslims are supposed to do that five times a day. Arrow740 06:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Jihad section- concerns

Here are my concerns:

1. Article says: "Jihad literally means "struggle" and some Muslim authorities call it the sixth pillar of Islam." While the source says:"Jihad, "to strive or strugle" in the way of God, is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, although it has no such official status." What the article says is not supported by this sentence. Esposito clearly says "it has no such official status" so it should be said "few Muslim authorities". The best solution is to say that "it is sometimes called the sixth pillar but doesn't have such official status in Islam."
2. The section quickly jumps into within the Islamic jurisprudence while it should first give the meaning of the term in its general context. Esposito continues: "In its most general meaning, it refers to the obligation encumbent on all Muslims, as individuals and as a community, to lead virtous lives, and to extend the Islamic community through preaching, education, and so on."
3. Article says: "In modern usage, jihad may also refer to one's striving to attain religious and moral perfection". This is nonsense. There are qur'anic verses that use the term "jihad" completely in spritual sense particularly those belonging to the Meccan period.
4. The article should clearly contain the POV that according to some jihad is only defensive. --Aminz 04:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's fix these for now. --Aminz 03:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Esposito must be used with great caution, as you know. Arrow740 04:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What is "the way of God?" This appears to be a direct translation from Arabic that does not quite make sense in English. Also the "unofficial" bit isn't very clearly written as of now. Arrow740 04:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the unofficial sixth pillar is extraneous especially if we are saying it is a minority view.--Tigeroo 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems confusing to just say it means "strive or struggle", because one must strive toward something and struggle for a reason. I think that bit is informative, and the rest of the section makes clear what striving or struggling in "the way of God" entails. "Unofficial" is not entirely accurate since there really is no "official" Islam, but I can't think of a better word. - Merzbow

I came up with an alternative wording that doesn't use "unofficial". Feel free to change. - Merzbow 04:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is bad style to force the reader to decipher a phrase of ours by reading the full paragraph. Also the "unofficial" bit is extraneous as you have indicated. Arrow740 04:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Could an Arabic speaker answer the question as to whether or not "jihad" has an expressly religious connotation in Arabic? Arrow740 04:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Because if not, we're being inaccurate. Arrow740 04:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Harb" is the term for war . "Jihad" refers to dedicated effort to a cause, from the root of "Jahd". "Bughat" is for rebels or insurgents fighting for a cause. Jihad is the shortened version of "Jihad fi sabillilah" Or struggle in the way of god.--Tigeroo 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Jihad is the shortened version of "Jihad fi sabillilah" Or struggle in the way of god."

How on earth might one discern that Jihad is "short for" Jihad fi sabillilah? One might just as easily claim that all instances of "Alexander" in this article are "short for" Alexander the Great.Proabivouac 21:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your first point seems reasonable, I've changed it. Regarding the others, Esposito is an outlier on this topic. Other sources (Lewis, Britannica, and EoI I'm told) place far more emphasis on jihad's military meaning; they state the defensive meaning is almost purely modern, and that the spiritual meaning, while pre-modern also, is subservient to the military meaning. If you read the above discussions, you'll see that some editors don't even want to mention these meanings at all, but I think they should be mentioned. But they shouldn't be given undue weight either. - Merzbow 04:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It was subservient to the military meaning in "judical" writings; in Islamic jurisprudence- not in Islam- not in say "Sufism": For Sufis, the case is completely reverse. Physical jihad is subservient to the spritual meaning.

Jurists were concerned with specific "laws". Law is concerned with outward actions in the first place (not spritual journey) so it is natural that they mentioned the details of armed warfare in detail. --Aminz 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose adding a sentence on what the Sufis think of jihad if a source can be found and their conception is indeed different. - Merzbow 04:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Aminz would also have to make a case for relevance. The coverage in the main references for this article of the Sufi view is probably a good argument not to include this tidbit. Arrow740 04:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not just a tidbit, but a significant aspect of how jihad is conceived. Since jihad is such an important concept, this encyclopedic article must get it right. Itsmejudith 22:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

From the perspective of the sources presented here, this is wishful thinking. Arrow740 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not mentiong the sufi concept of "greater jihad" is just oversight. Wether it is modern or not is also debatable but a highly prevalent conception of Jihad in the Muslim world. The physical struggle, i.e. military context is the external aspect or subset of the same. No mention of jihad is complete without the spirtual section as much as without the military one. Asking someone to be a better muslim is not something jurists can legislate it is a subject more apt for sermons, exhortations and philosophical treatise. Nor is it something you can write too much in this section either. Sources are easy enough to find about jihad transcending military action since its quite a prevalent concept. For example Between Memory and Desire: The Middle East in a Troubled Age By R. Stephen Humphreys pg 175, he talks of Medinan references to "people who stuggle with their bodies and their goods beside the prophet" in reference to the struggle to create the Muslim community where jihad refers to struggle in the way of god, as working towards creating a Muslim community. Warfare was again only one aspect of it. War and the Law of Nations: A General History By Stephen Clark Neff pg. 43 speaks of Abd Ar-Rahman Al-Awza and his treatise in the 8th century on jihad identifying four types of jihad (also quite commonly found in Jihad litreature anywhere). Both authors expressly say that Jihad was not expressily a militarily connotated conception and there was the source I had put up earlier as well that showed that the term arose from the time of the struggle to establish the Muslim community in the face of opposition from the Quraish of Mecca. The military aspect again came after and is just part of a bigger concept. The whole Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam and Dar-al-Sulh concepts of perpetual war again are again an evolution of the military conception of striving to establish "god's law by vigirous action" to establish a community where one can live a muslim lifestyle.--Tigeroo 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"The whole Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam and Dar-al-Sulh concepts of perpetual war again are again an evolution of the military conception of striving to establish "god's law by vigirous action" to establish a community where one can live a muslim lifestyle."

After all that about the "greater jihad," we return to the pith: Jihad is mandatory because the law it propagates is righteous by God and beneficial to humanity. Does the article fall short of making this clear?Proabivouac 08:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Jihad is the struggling to be a good Muslim. Military struggles are indeed one aspect, a sub-set. I am not sure how you get that the concept of the "greater jihad" somehow negates the military one. The current version only zoom's in and selectively focuses on the military aspect and even then further zooms in on the "by the sword" portion, which is the problem. The military concept was debated and went through numerous evolutions with varied opinions in Islamic jurisprudence including the version where it was beleived that it was impossible to live an ideal Muslim lifestyle under a non-Muslim ruler, which factored both into certain concepts of Jihad as well as later calls from some sectios for Muslims to migrate out of Andulasia when it was overrun.--Tigeroo 05:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Jihad is the struggling to be a good Muslim." The available sources do not support this idea. The weights assigned in the article to the aspects of jihad broadly reflect the relative importance of these aspects in Islam itself with maybe some overemphasis on the spiritual matters. When Muslim scholars say or write "jihad", they usually mean a war against infidels, not an inner struggle towards self-perfection. Beit Or 20:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That jihad can be only defensive is at least a western academic POV if not that of most pre-modern Muslim jurists. Esposito and John Bowker (The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions:"If it involves conflict, it is strictly regulated, and can only be defensive.") say that. --Aminz 06:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The jurist Ibn Taymiyyah is recoreded to have taken the position that Jihad can only be defensive even in the 13th century.--Tigeroo 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Demographics

The article states in a few places that Muslims are split roughly 85% Sunni and 15% Shia, as does the article on Shia Population. However, this article provides no reference for that and the Shia Population article provides a color shaded map as its reference. I do know that here you can find a citation stating that Shia are just over 7%. In addition, the Encyclopedia Brittanica 2006 edition states that Shia are "less than 10%". I think that more research should be done with verifiable sources to help update the article. There will most likely be a few different estimates, which should all be stated as examples of the differing numerical counts. MezzoMezzo 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Deserves looking into (don't have much time myself as I'm on vacation for the next few days). - Merzbow 05:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

We're gonna be on the main page

"This article will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on 2007-06-23."

Cool. Everyone make special plans to stay available on this day, if you can, to keep an eye on this article. Be careful not to accidentally violate 3RR; only vandalism reverts don't count toward 3RR. - Merzbow 05:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that possible to make it fully protected few days before it apprears on main page? --- A. L. M. 13:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection gives arguments for and against semi-protection. Given the article normally is quite contentious, I think it would be beneficial to RPP it. Is there a consensus for logging it at RPP? → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 13:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Full protection is of course impossible for a main-page FA, but semi is logical here. I would consider it very poor form if an admin removed the semi-protection the article has been under for many months. - Merzbow 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's just wait until consistent vandalism gets in. Anonymous users have the right to edit too.--BMF81 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I usually have a tendency to remove semi-protection on articles that have been protected for as long as this one has been - about 4 months. But given the obvious that this article is always a target, its sort of an implicit understanding that this article will remain protect for extended periods of time (like George W. Bush, which has been protected since March 1). BMF81 makes a valid point, in which, the main page featured article is the most viewed page per day, and thus, attracts many new potential editors to Wikipedia. And its quite irritating to see, "Wikipedia, he free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.", and then click the article, to see that only those people who have been here for a certain amount of time can edit. So while I won't unprotect myself, understand why someone else may unprotect it. Pepsidrinka 03:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I had suggested that would be better to be on the main page in a especial day like Eid ul-Fitr. Can you please change the date. I mean 13 October 2007 is a better choice. If another article has been chosen for that day, we can ask Raul to substitute.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

that is a good thinking. :) It will be good to be display on Eid day.-- A. L. M. 07:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it will give the impression that the English wikipedia is celebrating Eid. Arrow740 07:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

While I don't really mind whether it's put up now or later in the year, I don't think it should be rejected because wikipedia will be seen to be "celebrating Eid." Featured articles are often placed on the main page on significant dates to create interest, eg a cricketer on the day of the cricket world cup final. It is no statement of support or celebration. Recurring dreams 07:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cricket is not controversial. WP cannot be seen to be in support of Islam in any way. Arrow740 07:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And how is the proposal controversial? Or how will wikipedia be seen to "support" Islam? Recurring dreams 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be some kind of official recognition. Arrow740 07:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, how? "Official recognition" that it exists and a certain group of people celebrate it? How is that "support"? Recurring dreams 07:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

By making our choices based on the Islamic calendar. Arrow740 07:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And all other choices are made based on the Gregorian calendar. Is wikipedia covertly supporting Catholicism and Pope Gregory XIII? Recurring dreams 07:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, due to western imperialism the Gregorian calendar is now secular as well as religious. The Islamic calender is not. Arrow740 07:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright then, using the calender endorses a secular, non-Islamic and non-whoever doesn't use the Gregorian calender point of view. My point is there's nothing inherently biased in choosing a particular date from a calender. Is it saying the calender is more appropriate and should be implemented? Not really. Recurring dreams 08:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is going up on its scheduled date because I don't change the scheduled queue lightly. If you guys want to work on another Islam-related article and get it up to FA status, I have no problem featuring that on a Muslim holiday. It's not "supporting" Islam any more than featuring Christmas on December 25 is. Raul654 15:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose that as well. Arrow740 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or let me know that this article is currently the subject of an edit war and is protected. For this reason, I've decided to postpone its appearance on the main page for a while. Raul654 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a wise decision. Beit Or 20:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Note - if the dispute is resolved before the article was to have gone up, someone please let me know and I'll do some reshuffling in the queue. Raul654 20:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

History Section - Issues

1. Muhammad was never formally a ruler unlike later caliphs. He was more of a leader of an alliance. We can remove either reference if they are contented as the concept is provided at anyrate without specifiying.
2. Hasan al-Basri was a prominent and influential Sufi. Some even debate he was Sufi there were many other ascetics among the Sahaba and non-sahaba. Another famous one is Oveis Qarni. It was a movement without a singular leader as the sense comes forth in the current wording.
3. Muawiya was not "a prominent military leader" but an influential tribal leader who rebelled. He was the Governor of Bilad al-Sham who fought Ali at the Battle of Siffin, and in a sense the actual territory of the caliphate under rule was split under Ali and Muawiya and upon Ali's death Muawiya assumed the mantle for the whole after settling with Hasan ibn Ali.
4. Golden Age, sections say expansion was on via warfare and dawah. Expansion of what, this not at all clear?? The Abbasid Empire was in consolidation mode, territorial expansion was miniscule and generally occured under the breakaway states. It is more apt descriptor to the Umayyad period. So under the Abbassids it becomes expansion of the Muslim world in general at this stage. Expansion of Islam the religion by military warfare or even peaceful prosletyzation are very simplistic explanations for the spread of the religion and if we can't have the debate within this section it might be better to leave off the detail or debates on the mechanics to the more specific pages. It would both suffice and be more specific to say that the Islamic world (note: not the Abassid Caliphate) continued to expand by conquest during this period and Islam spread both within and beyond the boundaries of the Muslim world as the monolithic....
5. Islamic conquest of southern France is again misplaced in historic chronology, it dates to Umayyad period not the Abbassid or the Golden age period.
6. Muslim gains in the Medditerannean pre-Crusade is again wrong. The Byzantine dominance was rexerted in the last two centuries of the millenium. Italian maritime states were rexerting their power and raiding the North African Coast. Normans had captured Sicily. Infact the opposite was true. It the loss of Anatolia to the Turks and land based reversals of the last century of gains that triggerred the plea for the crusades. Wether it was or was not the reason, is another debate also and could be summed up as the quest for rule over the holy land. It might be simpler to state following the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia the Muslim world got enaged in conflict with the Christian world in a series of wars called the Crusades. Some definitions of Crusades even include the Ottoman wars so we might want to remove Saladin as having reversed it because we don't really want to deal with all the details here.
7. Ottoman and Mughals, although islam continued to expand in spain.. strange line that needs to be better integrated.
8. The Mughals, Ottomans and the Taj Mahal, we have drifted away from the topic Islam and into Islamic history which in noway is there adequate space to cover. Skipped entirely the whole Mongol period and ignorned African developments as well as Central Asia. We need to restore focus on Islamic development when looking at the history. Generally as a rule I think after the Golden Age we need to get out of political history it is too fractured and too much going on all over the place and give links to Muslim history and Muslim World as the main pages.--Tigeroo 21:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo, you might be interested in taking a look at a previous version of the history section, which was more detailed. perhaps you can use the text or references used therein to help suggest tweaks with the current version? the history section is by no means perfect, but you can appreciate the difficulty of covering such a large topic as briefly as has been done. ITAQALLAH 22:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The notion of Muhammad as merely the "leader of an alliance" strikes me as dubious…weren't these "allies" paying taxes to Medina, and the Ridda wars broke out when some stopped doing so?

As for Muawiyya, let's not forget that he was Uthman's nephew.Proabivouac 23:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said rather than get into semantics leave it at they were united under him unless you want to add "as prophet". There is a only semantic differentiation between rule and leadership at anyrate. Muhammad was the "Nabi" or prophet and while it is not ruler or even leader it carries even stronger/different authority than that of king like head of state.

Ridda war's were about quite a bit more than just Zakat.

Yes, Muawiya was Bani Umayya like Uthman. A sub-set of the Koriesh like the Bani Hashim. Don't get trapped into equating the modern concepts of nephew, uncle.--Tigeroo 00:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo, he who makes the decisions and to whom taxes are paid is the ruler. My understanding was that at least some of the rebels were claiming that they were still Muslims, but wouldn't pay Zakat to Abu Bakr.

Having read what you wrote, I still don't understand what the problem is with "ruler." What is your objection to "under his rule?"Proabivouac 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Zakat is and is not a tax. The Bedouins who withheld themselves had various differing reasons including a conception that the provision lapsed after Muhammad. Muhammad was the source they trusted to distribute it across tribal boundaries. He was much a more leader than a ruler, because he united them under his moral authority. Ruler implies an officially sanctioned institutional role, whereas leader better represents the nature of his role.--Tigeroo 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, ruler is more specific. Arrow740 05:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic background(Jaheliat)

The section starts with the dawn of Islam by Muhammad. I suggest we summerize the pre-Islamic history and the background in a sentence or two. Any feedback? --Aminz 06:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. All depends on the details. - Merzbow 06:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we can for example summerize the following quote(s): "In the case of the nomadic Arabs, shut up in their wilderness of rock and sand, Nature herself barred the way of progress. The life of desert does not furnish permanent advance beyond the tribal system, and we find that the religious development of the Arabs was proportionally retarded, so that at the advent of Islam the ancient heathenism, like the ancient tribal structure of society, had become effete without having ever ceased to be barbarous... The northern Semites, on the other hand, whose progress up to the eight century before Christ certainly did not lag behind of the Greeks, were deprived of political independence, and so cut short in their natural development..." (Source: The religion of Semites,p.34) --Aminz 06:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds more than a little bit prosaic.--Tigeroo 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's remarkably speculative and palpably biased.Proabivouac 05:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, we should give full background of the history of pre-Islamic Aarabs.Many people want to know about this.87.69.77.76 20:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The key text for this would be Albert Hourani's A History of the Arab Peoples, pp.10-11. He describes the way of life of the nomads and settled cultivators, explains that people were organized in tribes that were based in oases. "Local gods, identified with objects in the sky, were thought to be embodied in stones, trees and other natural things; good and evil spirits were believed to roam the world in the shape of animals; soothsayers claimed to speak with the tongue of some supernatural wisdom.... It has been suggested ... that gods were thought of as dwelling in a sanctuary, a haram, a place or town set apart from tribal conflict, serving as a centre of pilgrimage, sacrifice, meeting and arbitration, and watched over by a family under the protection of a neighbouring tribe." He says that Arab nomads had moved across Syria and Iraq and were open to ideas and beliefs from the Byzantine empire, so that there were Christians at Hira, Jewish craftsmen, merchants and cultivators in the oases of Hijaz and Christian monks and converts in central Arabia.

But I think hardly any of this can be included or the article would be unbalanced. Itsmejudith 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual development By the late 8th century

I had added By the late 8th century the first collections of Hadith,speaches of Muhammad, were gathered, the first historic books of Muslims were written, the first Madrasas had emerged and different school of theologic thoughts and juriceprodential sects were formd. Then the movement for translation of the books of other culturs began and in the 9th century Abbasid dynasty established House of Wisdom which was the biggest library and translation institute in the Muslim civilization. and Merbow removed it and said sorry to remove this, but it's too much, unsourced, and inaccurate in places

You can shorten it if it's too much. You can add source because I don't have any English book about this issue. I propose using History of Islamic Philosophy by Henry Corbin. Inaccurate in places!!! No the place is completely correct.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The hadith weren't his speeches, they were recorded anecdotes about Muhammad and his close companions that often included his words. I think the history section already sufficiently covers theological disagreements and legal developments better in other places. I don't think the establishment of a library is important enough to mention here. - Merzbow 02:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me but you may misunderstood. So I clarify the issue. In the first century of Islamic history Muslims had been forbidden to write the prophet's Hadith. Since 99 AH they allowed to do so. They began gathering his Hadiths and in the second century numerous collections of these Hadiths were gathered. About 400 collections have been collected by Shia's. At the same time the first historians like Ibn Ishaq and Abu Mekhnaf collected the history of Islam. Ja'far al-Sadiq established a school in Madina which includes at least 4000 students. Hasan Basri made a school in Basra. The first schools of theological thoughts and jurisprudential sects were formed. House of Wisdom was not just a library like what you're familiar with. It has collected the cultural and intellectual legacy of other civilizations comprising Roman, Greece, Persian, Indian, Egyptian, etc. Unfortunately the story has been written from the middle in this article. There's written The Golden Age saw new legal, philosophical, and religious developments. Islamic law was advanced greatly by the efforts of the early 9th century jurist al-Shafi'i; he codified a method to establish the reliability of hadith, a topic which had been a locus of dispute among Islamic scholars. Philosophers Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Al-Farabi sought to incorporate Greek principles into Islamic theology, while others like the 11th century theologian Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali argued against them.[71] Finally, Sufism and Shi'ism both underwent major changes in the 9th century. Sufism became a full-fledged movement that had moved towards mysticism and away from its ascetic roots, while Shi'ism split due to disagreements over the succession of Imams while it was not the beginning of the cultural and intellectual development. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

They were not forbidden to write it. Even Ibn Hishams text is reported to be based on earlier versions. They were just never collated in one place because of the difficulty and oral nature of the initial/cultural traditions. Everything was quite in the present in a small muslim community, issues when arose when mass migrations, deaths and new converts & generations came around and you couldn't quite pop around the corner to ask anymore.--Tigeroo 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Some topics should be covered

Great article. Just some remarks: The article, especially the "History" section does not give enough coverage of Islamic literature, science, medicine... and gives the impression that Islamic history is just about wars. For example, nothing in the article explains why the "Golden age" is named like that. Since it's a general article about Islam, Islam's contribution to science and arts is notable enough to be mentioned. CG 18:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

we did have another section concerning civilisation (cf. [15]), which discussed art/architecture, science/technology, and literature; but it was decided that it needed a substantial trim (actually, looking over the article, i don't know where it has gone now!). ITAQALLAH 19:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Many Muslims have advanced the sciences, but I'm not aware of Islam having done so. Can you give an example?

The relevance of the military expeditions isn't that Muslims are doing them, but that this is the greater part of how Islam the religion was propagated (and in a few cases depropagated.) Similarly, if an advance in paper production facilitated the dissemination of the Qur'an, this would be relevant just as earlier mentions of paper were not.Proabivouac 20:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism

I know there is a specific page on Islamic Terrorism but there is surprisingly very little mentioned on this page, and I consider it a major component of Islam past and present. I think a specific section regarding terrorism, forced conversions, honor killings, etc. ought to be included. Talmage 00:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think so too. The muslims diaagree.--Sefringle^Talk 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not covered sufficiently. In the hadith it is a different matter. Search in this page for "terror." Arrow740 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"I consider it a major component of Islam past and present" - you do, academics don't. ITAQALLAH 01:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a single one of them considers Islamic terrorism important at all in today's world? I find that rather difficult to believe.... Homestarmy 01:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

that's not quite what Talmage asserted. ITAQALLAH 01:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, can we be specific here? Jihad does not necessarily equal terrorism, while forced conversions and honor killings have nothing to do with terrorism at all.Proabivouac 01:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Using terrorism against civilians is an innovation and Muslims didn't use this tool. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Muhammad terrorized his opponents in Medina by assassinating many of them. He then killed all the males of the Banu Qurayza with pubic hair and enslaved the women and girls. Don't you think that counts as terrorism? Arrow740 03:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pre-modern warfare was a bitch. Even modern warfare has been quite a bitch. Rules for acceptable treatment of prisoner's of war were vastly different. Plus terrorism is an inherently POV conception. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter or oppressor. It's a case of mutual accusation by antagonistic parties.--Tigeroo 05:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there is disagreement about the meaning of terrorism. What you've mentioned were military campaigns(Ghazw). --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We can argue about whether terroirsm is a part of Islam all day, or we can enter serious discussion. To those who propose putting something like that in this article, please bring forth reliable sources that clearly establish the notability of this in the Islamic faith.Bless sins 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There should atleast be a section on Islamist terrorism. Talmage, feel free to create a small summary section with a "main" link to Islamist terrorism. This will be a welcome addition to the article. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Because this issue is extremely controversial please write your proposal here and after building consensus add it to the article. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to you to give people permission to make additions to the article, Matt57. You need to seek a consensus first like everyone else. MezzoMezzo 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

absolutely. ITAQALLAH 12:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of Islam - Peace and/or Submission

I believe that Islam means both Peace and Submission. This is debated all over depending on your political views but the overall belief is that it means both, I believe, tell me if I am wrong. I put in that it means both in the article but it is removed why? I think this needs to be discussed. Robert C Prenic 10:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Without giving any references I believe Islam means "to make peace" and "to submit". Some scholars due to recent critism has start using that Islam meaning as Peace. However, traditionally it means to submit your will to one God. Given that I dislike all people who change truth, I will support submission (or both). --- A. L. M. 10:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

the overwhelming majority of academic sources say Islam literally means submission. very few would say Islam literally means peace because that's not really etymologically correct. ITAQALLAH 13:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you won't forget that etymology is not the same as the current meaning. The word "Islam" today means the religion. Etymologically it is related to words meaning "submission" and "peace". Perhaps it is etymologically closer to "submission". Itsmejudith 13:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

indeed, Islam can be both a noun and a verb. as a noun, it refers to the religion, as a verb it refers to submission. it is obtained from the root S-L-M; the fourth derivative of which is aslama - from this the word `Islam` is obtained. salam is not related to the fourth variant. Lane's lexicon is a good resource for this. ITAQALLAH 13:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

we have 2 conflicting meanings of Islam's roots from these 2 sites: About.com and USC-MSA, which one to believe? ~atif - 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please check google-scholar and google-books. You will find most of the time that Islam meaning is submission. Both sites are agreed on submission and stressing on it too. Traditionally that what it mean but people start stressing on Peace thing, to make western happy. --- A. L. M. 15:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel that USC-MSA is a very genuine site for Islamic text and it removes the misconception that Islam means "peace". However, don't we all agree that secondary root, if not primary, of Islam does mean "Al-salaam" or "peace". Does not it validate that Islam is derived from the word "peace"? ~atif - 15:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A more reliable source is needed, like a book from a scholar. Last time I checked I could only find one such source, which only mentioned the common root in passing. Not notable enough for mention. - Merzbow 15:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The reliability of the USC site depends completely upon the author of the material. The page you cite is unsigned, and was created by unknown members of the politically active Muslim Students' Association.Proabivouac 22:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can have a friend of mine check Lisaan al-Arab, it's a very thick and very detailed dictionary of the Arabic language, i'm sure some of you are familiar with it. MezzoMezzo 18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It clearly refers to the peace that you get following a surrender. Not the best sort. TharkunColl 23:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's clear then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to provide some linguistic evidence demonstrating that. I'm fairly sure that's not the case, though. I'll try to get to work on looking that up soon. MezzoMezzo 06:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't. As with the moon God nonsense above, there's nothing here but misunderstanding; pursuing it will only prolong the misery of this thread.Proabivouac 06:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

criticize islam

Shouldn't we add also link to site that criticize Islam like faithfreedom.org? I think that site supply a lot of information that Islamic site will never supply and people should know both side of the coin.I mean there should be pro-Islamic links and ant-Islamic links.Oren.tal 12:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section links to the criticism article, that is enough. faithfreedom.org is not a reliable source. - Merzbow 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for criticism. Arrow740 20:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow faithfreedom.org is reliable source.It is true that it has an agenda but also http://www.islamworld.net/ (Islam page) with you do include .The first one as an anti-Islamic agenda and the other has an pro-Islamic agenda.If we include the the pro-Islamic why not to include the other.faithfreedom is consider as one of the most important sites about Islam by Richard Dawkins.Richard Dawkins will not consider unreliable web-site as important if it is not reliable.Second it is also important to include this site here since many people can learn a lot from this site about Islam that they can not learn ion other web-site.That why it is important to include this site here.132.72.41.221 16:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)above all I don't find the web site http://www.islamworld.net/ reliable at all.132.72.41.221 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case another solution would be to remove the islamworld.net site. WP isn't an internet directory. The links should be restricted to unbiased and scholarly resources. Richard Dawkins is not an authority on Islam - I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that he was. Itsmejudith 17:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow makes a good point, and Itmejudith makes a rather strong point as well. I think we should work with those two suggestions. MezzoMezzo 18:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

Do you agree to add something about this issue in Islam#Modern times (1918–present)?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

An interesting document, which declares invalid any human rights that are in conflict with the sharia, Too minor to be worth mentioning. Beit Or 17:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, with Beit Or, that it is too minor. Jersey John 00:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Beit Or--Sefringle^Talk 05:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I, too, agree with Beit Or.Proabivouac 05:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree.--Flamgirlant 16:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Jihad again

Here are some points:

• The article says: "Within Islamic jurisprudence..." - it should be stated "Within Sunni Islamic jurisprudence..."- The Shia view should be also mentioned (they are 10% anyways). According to EoI: "According to the general doctrine of the S̲h̲īʿa, due account taken of their dogma concerning “the absence of the Imam”, who alone has the necessary competence to order war, the practice of the jihad is necessarily suspended until the re-appearance of the Imam or the ad hoc appointment of a vicar designated by him for this task."

--Aminz 08:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You missed a word of two, and please quote at greater length, I don't have the article presently. Arrow740 09:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear to me of the information you are requesting. EoI opens a new paragraph with the statement: "According to the general doctrine of the S̲h̲īʿa, due account taken of their dogma concerning “the absence of the Imām”, who alone has the necessary competence to order war, the practice of the d̲j̲ihād is necessarily suspended until the re-appearance of the Imām or the ad hoc appointment of a vicar designated by him for this task. The Zaydī sect, however, which does not recognize this dogma, follows the same teaching as that of the Sunnī doctrine." --Aminz 23:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

On its face, your second point sounds topical and reasonable.Proabivouac 09:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)