Talk:Jihad

Debate Re: The Tribes that Left Islam Soon After Muhammad Died

The following part of this article is being contiually sabatoged without explanation or defense:

"The Sira (biography of Muhammad) also mentions the wars against entire Arab tribes who were followers of Islam while Muhammad lived, but tried either to defect from the religion when its prophet died. In the same spirit, today in several Islamic countries, Muslims who are known to have left the religion are accused of apostasy and are given an ultimatum to either convert back to Islam or face execution; though in modern times, such executions have been rare to nonexistent in some Muslim countries."

The Sira explains that immediatly after Muhammad died, large numbers of bedoin tribes defected from Islam, the religion that they had recently joined while its prophet was still alive. The leadership of the growing Islamic theocracy that Muhammad left behind could not afford to allow such a thing to happen, and so tribes who had already convered to Islam but obstenantly refused to adhere to Islam were massacred (the women and children of such tribes would be enslaved and not massacred, as was common medieval Arabia). This is what I was discussing in first excerpt above, from the article. I then went on to describe the modern day analog of this Islamic practice, namely the executing of apostates (apostates being Muslims who leave the religion). In traditional Islam, once a person is a Muslm (whether a convert or a born Muslim) that person is not allowed to leave Islam. If the person is found to have left Islam, he or she is supposed to be executed, as explained above.

Now, someone keeps changing this part of the article to:

The Sira (biography of Muhammad) also mentions the wars against entire Arab tribes who were followers of Islam while Muhammad lived, but tried either to defect from the religion when its prophet died or refused to pay the Jizya. In the same spirit, today in several Islamic countries, Muslims who are known to have left the religion are accused of apostasy and are given an ultimatum to either convert back to Islam or face execution; though in modern times, such executions have been rare to nonexistent in some Muslim countries.

It is blatently false that the first Caliph (Abu Bakr) allowed apostate tribes to pay jizya instead of returning to Islam. The Sira makes it very clear that these tribes were given one two options: return to Islam, or die. The same ultimatum that apostates were given for 1,400 years after the first Caliph, the same ultimatum that continues to be given out by some Muslim governments, even today, to Muslims who leave Islam. They were not given the options to leave Islam but pay jizya, or return Islam, or die. Their options were simply death or returning to Islam. Even if this did not occur with every single tribe that left Islam after Muhammad died, it is an absolute certainty* that this "death or Islam" ultimatum was given to many apostate tribes. Therefore the insertion of "or refused to pay the Jizya" (above) is blatently false.

I will provide a concrete source of this from Guillame's translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sira, when I have more time.

Unfounded claims about non-Permisability of Collateral Damage

I wikipedia contributor is repeatedly inserting the claim into this article that the Qur'an is somehow opposed to the concept of "collateral damage." This is entirely unfounded. No such verses of the Qur'an accompany this claim. Furthermore, Section 2.2 Islamist terrorism, an entire paragraph is dedicated to explaning the legitimacy and place of collateral damage in the religion of Islam, as interpreted by its traditional scholars and jurists. Thus even though this article explicitly proves that collateral damage is allowed in Islam, a certain wikipedia contributor is inserting a contradictory claim that Islam and its holiest book are somehow opposed to collateral damage. Let this certain contributor bring some concrete evidence if he doesn't want to see his insertion from being deleted.

I am new to this discussion, but here are some thoughts. While the Qur'an itself might not mention collateral damage, the rules laid down for War by The Prophet, Abu Bakar and others do enjoin against causing collateral damage.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:55, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Can you provide any evidence for your claims? Can you refute the claims made in the article regarding the permissability of collateral damage (e.g. Muhammad's use of catapults during the invasion of Ta'if)? Nov 20, 2004

Use of Forged Hadiths

Wikipedia contirbutor OneGuy is constantly trying to mislead readers by deleting any sort of elaborations on what it means of a hadith to have a "weak isnad." He is continually pushing the hadith about warfare being a "lesser jihad" and general struggle being a "greater jihad." This is concidered to be a fabricated hadith by mainstream Islam, and it is caterogized as fabricated in very the book of hadiths in which it is recorded. OneGuy is misleading readers into believing that orthodox Muslims view holy war as some sort of lowly and "lesser" activity, while the reality is that orthodox Muslims relish in the idea of holy war, and concider it to be the greatest thing a man could do in Islam.

Can you explain that how a hadith with weak isnad makes it a "forged" hadith? "Forged" hadith and "weak" isnad are not the same thing. Please look this up on the internet. OneGuy 22:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have not attempted to completely remove this fabricated hadith, as others have, because whether or not it's fabricated doesn't seem to matter to the modern, Westernized, liberal, progressive, so-called "moderate" Muslims. As such, there are a sizable number of Muslims (at least on the Internet) who take this "lesser Jihad" and "greater Jihad" business seriously. Perhaps it helps them rationalize their opposition to jihadist activities, even though jihad is the "6th pillar" of Islam. Whatever the case, I think it violates the NPOV policy if hadiths with "weak isnads" are used to define jihad, without giving due warning to readers.

Does anyone know what kind of action can be taken if OneGuy contines to delete any cavets regarding this fabricated hadith?

Umm... slightly off topic, but if you're going to move the "Jihad as spiritual struggle" section to near the bottom, should the headings in between that and "Jihad as Holy war" be made less significant, as they are 'parts' of this topic? If you disagree, change it back ;) Estel 19:57, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Well, the guy is claiming that a hadith is forged because it's isnad is weak. Let him post evidence from that. If he knew anything about this topic, he would have known that some skeptical scholars think that hadith with strong isnad are forged!! Anyway, "weak" isnad and "forged" is not the same thing. for examples see

http://www.abc.se/~m9783/n/vwh_e.html

http://www.islamworld.net/hadith.html

Hadith are categorized as by Muslim scholars, as "sahih (sound), hasan (good), da'if weak) and maudu' (fabricated, forged)"

Notice the forged is a 4th category, differennt from "weak" OneGuy 23:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Once again, please read this article on the opinion of classical Muslim scholars on the use of weak hadith

http://www.abc.se/~m9783/n/vwh_e.html

The guy is inserting factual errors in the article about what orthodox Muslim believe then complaining that I reverted them OneGuy 23:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am calling the objectivity of this article into question. Jihad is primarily a military, aggressive construct. This definition is pro-religious propaganda. -- By 68.252.234.73

You seem to have a preconceived idea on what Jihad is, prehaps from what mass media in the West and popular culture repeats day after day. This repetition is not necessarily accurate, nor fair, much less being based in facts, no matter how often it is repeated, nor how many think it is true. If you have firm evidence to the contrary, then please present it, otherwise, do not let biases shape your view of reality. --KB 23:39, 2004 Oct 31 (UTC)

Oops, I edited too hastily. I mixed up the quote on "defending against aggression" with the quote on "suicide is forbidden". You can revert, or help me correct my error.

Some commentators, quoting the Koran selectively, insist that Muslims feel a divine mandate to attack non-believers, apparently either to convert or exterminate them. Here is one the larger context of the first such "quote" I researched (Ed Poor):

[2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. [2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors. [1]

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that this passage authorizes only "fighting back" in response to an initial attack; but only for the purpose of eliminating persecution of Muslim believers. Does anyone else know anything about this topic? --Ed Poor 13:55 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)

I know this about Abrahamic religions. Each one has a main holy text, and a peripheral oral/written culture to expedite interpretation and dissemination of doctrine. While fundamentalism's definition can be debated, I find it useful to constrain the meaning to those that endore sola scriptura, or the concept that the primary text contains all of the relevant religious doctrine. What Ed's doing, in my opinion, is take a sort of Socratic-analytical approach to investigating Islam. This is most useful when debating philosophical issues, like theology, but I think it's not helpful towards understanding millitant religion. For example, Ed's approach is fairly Talmudic - building arguments or investigations by examining the primary text. The doctrine of sola scriptura does not endorse a Talmudic method: G-d's literal word is manifest, self-consistent, and only corruptible by the intervention of humans. There is a culture of violence that interprets the Koran and recastes the interpretation of the quotes above. Jihad is, itself, a sophisticated concept. The ten commandments, central to Abrahamic religions, prohibit murder, yet these religions are historically violent. When G-d commands the Hebrews to take a city, and to leave no prisoners, this is Jihad. The juxtaposition of violence and prohibitions against it present a self-inconsistency to ancient Judaism's underpinnings. Christianity partially transcends this issue through its doctrine of nonviolence, of turning the other cheek. Islam suffers from no such inconsistencies in this regard, and its practitioners are free to make war in the name of G-d. I think it's more useful to discuss, why does any religion shift from moderate and nonviolent to fundamentalist and violent? I think all Abrahamic religions have demonstrated this cultural shift. rmbh 19:27, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

From the article:

Although not unique to Islam and the Islamic culture; such ideas have proven to gruesome to even consider thinking about in non-theocratic and non-dictatorial states as bigotous and greedy (yet re-occuring) horrors like the holy crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, holocaust, slavery, Khmer Rouge, Chechnya,japanese occupation of korea, suggest that any central or broad or unspoken advocation or allowance of separatism (religious, cultural, ethnic, educational,linguistic...) is very harmful for establishing stable society that is reflective of a worldy and tolerating government, and the culture of its denizens.

I'm not trying to suppress the above -- I just can't parse its syntax! What was the contributor trying to say here?

Please rewrite the above in several complete sentences. I will be happy to help with grammar or spelling. Then re-insert the text into the article. --Ed Poor

From the article: It is considered a mandatory and fundamental principle of Islam.

This seems like a very strong claim. Surely it is only considered mandatory by some muslims, particularly in the sense of "combat", as opposed to "striving"? Could someone who knows more about the topic please qualify this sentence correctly? -- Pde 01:56, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

All the sources I have read, including those by Muslim authors, all say precisely the same thing. It is obligatory for all Muslims to engage on internal and extrenal forms of Jihad, at all times. There are significant disputes, of course, as to when an external form of Jihad (armed war against non-Muslims) is considered mandatory. Since there has never been any one religious authority to which all Muslims defer, different groups of Muslims have developed interpretations of when to fight. The same is still true today. RK

Okay, well the article seems to me to be a little misleading -- because when the reader is told that it is "mandatory and fundamental", they are probably not considering jihad to mean "engage in external jihad, but only when you are under direct attack" (which seems rather similar to "an eye for an eye" to me). -- Pde 04:36, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

User User:68.13.34.210 edited out a statement that I added, saying: Removed the statement "It is important to note that although this conquest did indeed happen, there were no forced conversions to Islam as a result" as it is an unprovable generalization. For anyone who read history, it was well known that before waging war on any region, the Muslim armies gave three choices to the people of that region: 1) Accept Islam as a religion, 2) Retain their religion, and pay tribute jizyah, and finally, 3) Go into battle to impose jizyah. This is clearly stated in hadiths by Muhammad, and is well documented in many historical accounts. Forced conversion was contrary to Islamic law. -- KB 00:44, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

Moved from article

I moved the following text from the article because I couldn't find any information to back it up. If someone has a citation for this feel free to move it back:

"For these [fringe Islamic groups such as Al Qaeda and Hamas], the act of saying that women should vote, or that Jews and Christians should be given equal rights, itself is an act of violence against Islam, and thus all of Western society is a target for a Jihad. Other Muslims consider such views to be extremist and a violation of the intent of the Quran." Wmahan 20:36, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The terms "inner Jihad" and outer Jihad seem to be used inconsitently on this page. In the definitions section inner jihad is defined as military struggle, but in the final paragraph it is used to mean "internal struggle" of a jurist.

I know nothing about jihad so I won't try to fix this. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of more knowlegeble editors. Zeimusu 01:11, 2004 May 6 (UTC)

I removed the following passage because it is apparently based on a false hadith, although I know it's often quoted by muslims. If anybody wants to put it back, please state an authoritative reference:

"The word has two connotations in Islam:

"lesser (outer) jihad"—a military struggle against aggressors
"greater (inner) jihad"—the struggle of personal self-improvement against the self's base desires"

--Aidfarh 13:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The hadith has two chains of narration, and is widely quoted, so it's worth keeping. Some people do argue against it[2], but I find their motivations rather suspicious. Mustafaa 19:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The asnad is weak, so the passage shouldn't be put at the top of the page. You could mention it, but the way you say it, excludes other actions that are considered jihad e.g. speaking out against an oppressive ruler, going to haj. For these two examples, there are sahih hadiths. --Aidfarh 23:12, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

That's a useful addition you just made; I wasn't aware of those hadiths. Thanks! As for the placement, I'm not sure; the hadith is weak, but it's also very commonly cited. - Mustafaa 23:36, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Crusade

I heard that Arabic speakers use the word Jihad in much the same way English speakers use the word "crusade", and visa versa. For example, Jihad to english speakers means holy war, just like crusade to arabic speakers means holy war. In english, a crusade can be used to mean to further a cause, which is from what I understand what jihad means in arabic. Just some notes. Earl Andrew 06:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

what does this mean?

Note: Jihad in the term of War (Arabic: qital) today only applied as a self-defense action against any states (or any institution) that attack or waging war on the Islam states. The terrorism against civillians itself is denounced by Islam. The jihad against State of Israel performed by Palestinians is permitted as the self defense act.Quran 22:39-40

I'm not sure exactly what this line means and I'm not sure how it adds anything to the discussion above it. I am removing it.

out-of-context quotations: good encyclopedia material or malarkey?

Removed: “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. ” Surah 8:60

This one is at least relevant: it is from a section outlining the Muslim theory of warfare. However, without the next ayah, this quotation is misleading to say the least:

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)." Surah 8:61

Was this rather crucial omission intentional or accidental?

Notice the "and trust in Allah" requirement. In the case of the Jews, they would rather be killed a Jew than convert to Islam. What this is actually saying is "convert or die".

Actually it is not. See People of the Book. —No-One Jones ^(m) 12:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore the admonition to "trust in Allah" follows from the previous statement ("do thou (also) incline towards peace") and is addressed to the same group: the Muslims. —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removed: “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them It is not ye who slew them it was Allah.” Surah 8:12, 17

because of another rather crucial omission: the first part is indirect discourse in the original but that fact is obscured here. The original says: "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.' " And again, this is ripped from its context—instructions for how to make war on the pagans of Arabia—and taken to apply generally, which may or may not be the case.

~~The others appear, to my limited knowledge, to be on-target~~. —No-One Jones ^(m) 11:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, after reading the last sentence of the intro, I removed all of the quotations. If what the article says is true—that "the word Jihad appears in the Qu'ran a total of 4 times but is never used in a militant context. The term used for militant struggle is Qi'tal"—then none of these are at all relevant. —No-One Jones ^(m) 11:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This vandal 168.209.97.34 has a history of vandalising Islamic articles by inserting anti-Islamic twists. The guy even vandalized my user page. It was funny :)) but I think the vandal needs to be banned for a few days. OneGuy 12:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More malarkey

"Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah and have gone out for Jihad (holy fighting). Some have completed their vow to extreme and have been martyred fighting and dying in His Cause, and some are waiting, prepared for death in battle."” Surah 33:22

When checked against three English translations, this is revealed to be bullshit. First, Surah 33:22 says (Yusuf Ali's translation):

"When the Believers saw the Confederate forces, they said: "This is what Allah and his Messenger had promised us, and Allah and His Messenger told us what was true." And it only added to their faith and their zeal in obedience."

The next ayah is similar to the quotation here, but the phrases "and have gone out for Jihad (holy fighting)", "and have been martyred fighting and dying in His Cause", and "prepared for death in battle" do not appear in three major English translations. But don't take my word for it, see for yourself. —No-One Jones ^(m) 12:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

removed "Jihad in the Qur'an" section

My remarks from above, repeated here for the anonymous editor's benefit:

After reading the last sentence of the intro, I removed all of the quotations. If what the article says is true—that "the word Jihad appears in the Qu'ran a total of 4 times but is never used in a militant context. The term used for militant struggle is Qi'tal"—then none of these are at all relevant. They might be relevant to an article on qi'tal, or Islamic theories of warfare, but they do not belong here. —No-One Jones ^(m) 12:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(p.s. since you wanted a "NON-Muslim" to look at the section, I suppose I should state for the record that I'm Roman Catholic. —No-One Jones ^(m) 13:12, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC))

The Koran and the Hadith especially is FULL of links between war and Jihad. Do you deny this? Perhaps I should change the subject from "Jihad in the Qu'ran" to "Jihad in the Scriptures". Then your arguement will get a lot more difficult

It would help if you could quote the original, in the original Arabic, rather than trawling quotations off of trashy hate sites; as you should have seen by now, such sources can contain severe inaccuracies, whether they were inserted intentionally or were simply the result of poor translations. But since you're using such crappy sources, I doubt you have the knowledge of Arabic that that would require. (I don't, so don't ask.) Next best would be citing a source written by someone who speaks Arabic and has some familiarity with the varying interpretations of the relevant scriptural passages—and neither prophetofdoom.net nor MEMRI are such, though Reuven Firestone's Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam is decent. —No-One Jones ^(m) 13:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why are you reverting these? Go look it up.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran

The verses are out of context. So you are still denying you are not just a vandal with an agenda?

It's out of context because the very NEXT verse gives the opposite meaning to what leaving the context implies. For example you quote "Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies," but if you read the context, the very next verse, it says, "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)."

That's clearly out of context quote. Now please explain here why you are posting out of context verses before you revert. OneGuy 08:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What the next verse says is that you can be saved only by converting to Islam

It doesn't say that, but if you think it says that, then why not post it and let others judge, instead of hiding the context? OneGuy 08:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Concepts require context

168.209.97.34, in an edit summary you wrote can any NON-Muslim please have a look at this section and comment? -- I am not a Muslim. A co-worker let me borrow his copy of The Qur'an to check the verses. The exact words of the translation vary slightly, but the meaning is clearly the same. If these quotes are eventually kept, it is important that they be in context. Concepts often take more than a single sentence to convey. If you take only one sentence, out of context, that single sentence could seem to imply something different than, or even opposite from, what was communicated in the concept. For example, Surah 8:60,61 taken together communicate a concept (when to go to war, when to end the war). Quoting only the first part hides from the reader a very important part of the total concept involved. Ommissions of context cannot help accurately portray the ideas presented in any text and should be especially guarded against where religious texts are concerned. SWAdair | Talk 09:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not Muslim either. 168.209.97.34 apparently thinks that anyone who is not viciously making the articles anti-Islamic must be Muslim. I have told 168.209.97.34 several times that I am not Muslim. The guy ignored that and started vandalizing my user page, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:OneGuy&oldid=7215232 OneGuy 09:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1400 years of Imperialism?

Either the 1400 year figure is evidence of bias, or it is in error. The imperialistic expansion of Islamist rule can be said to have come to an end at the greatest extent of the Ottoman empire, approximately 1900, probably not earlier.

Correct to 1,300 years. Muhammad started actively invading and conqueroring lands around 620 CE (as discussed in the article) and so Islam's imperialism began with him. Islamic empires existed continuously from that time until 1924 CE, when Atatuk abolished the Ottoman Caliphate. That's a period of time spanning about 1,300 years (1924 - 620 = 1304).

Of course, not the entire period of that 1400 can be classified as "imperialism." There were centuries in between when the empire was not expanded (in some cases it even shrinked for centuries). By your definition of imperialism, Europeans are still carrying out "imperialism" because they are still occupying North America OneGuy 08:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A shrinking empire is still an empire, and wherever there is an empire there is imperialism. Contrary to your idiotic statement, this does not imply that north america is part of a european empire. Empires no longer exist in the modern world. For 1300 continuous years, Islamic Empires exists in the world, and thus Islamic Imperialism existed in the world for approx. 1,300 years.

Not true. Iraq was conquered by Arabs a few years after Muhammad died, so when exactly Arabs stopped being an "imperial" power of Iraq and Iraq became Arab itself? Are the United States and Canada still "imperial" countries of Europeans? 14,000 years is clear exaggeration. Actually, Arab domination ended around 1200. After that, Turks were ruling Arabs (by defeating them and taking Iraq, Egypt, Palestine etc.) and they expanded their own empire in East Europe. They also started declining around 17th century. Unless, you are claiming that Istanbul is still an imperial city of Turks? OneGuy 09:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

iraq stop being part of the Islamic empire when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled after WWI. Also, as an Arab Muslim you might think of the Ottoman Empire as "their own empire in East Europe" but the fact is that the Ottoman Empire was an ISlAMIC empire. Just because the Ottoman empire was not dominated by Arabs does not mean that it was not an ISlamic empire.

the 1,300 year figure is not an exaggeration. islamic empires existed from around 620 CE till 1924 CE, a period of about 1,300 years. this is clearly an historical fact. this historical fact does not assume nor does it imply that "istanbul is still an imperial city of Turks". Today Istanbul is part of the secular nation-state of Turkey, founded by Kemel Ataturk, who abolished the Ottoman empire.

I am neither Arab nor Muslim. There were several "empires" in these 1300 years; Abbasid, Umayyad , Mameluk, Ottoman, Seljuk, Fatimid, Safavid, and on and on,. In most cases they were fighting against each other. Your logic of paining all that history into "Islamic imperialism lasted 1300 years" doesn't make any sense. What Islamic imperialism? OneGuy 13:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Such comments probably belong in "example" section of Islamophobia or Orientalism. --Alberuni 17:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OneGuy: You said: "There were several "empires" in these 1300 years; Abbasid, Umayyad , Mameluk, Ottoman, Seljuk, Fatimid, Safavid, and on and on," ... I dont know why you out "empires" in quotation marks. These were real empires. And usually not more than two existed simultaniously at one time. For example, the Abbasids, Ummayads, etc were just dynasties who ruled the same empire at different times. IN any case, you openly admit that the Muslim world was governed by empries for 1300 years. Then why do you dispute that the Muslim world has imperialism for 1300 years? How the hell can you have empires without imperialism? (134...)

Why would "empire" be necessarily imperialism? And why would that be "Islamic imperialism" (and not ethnic) when all these so-called empires/dynasties are fighting each other? OneGuy 19:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, sign your comments using ~~~~ OneGuy 19:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Why would "empire" be necessarily imperialism?" <-- OneGuy, it's not my fault if you are an Arab Islamic apologist with a poor grasp of the English language. Anyone with the least bit of critical thinking skills is aware that empires are imperialism and imperialism is the existance of empires.

Disputed now

134.22.70.218 has crammed so much irrelevant stuff into this article (stuff that belongs to different articles). Plus, some of the stuff inserted, such as prisoners of war, is clearly disputed. He only inserted one interpretation into the article. Many people would dispute these claims, for example, see:

and many more if 134.22.70.218 searches ...

It's safe to say that now the article has reached the status of "disputed" OneGuy 08:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If there are specific parts of the article which you believe are irrelevant, then pleace specify the section and paragraph, and it can be discussed. That is what it means to dispute something. You provide evidence and be specific about what it is you are disputing. If there is anyting you hold to be false, then you should demonstrate it with references, just as I try to reference everything. Posting a bunch of disorganized URLs does not amount to disproving anything in the article. One uses URLs to cite references - simply posting a URL is not a legitimate argument or disputation.

The prisoner of war section was not only irrelevant but also disputed. For example, after the battle of badr, a few prisoners were killed for supposedly committing crimes against Muslims earlier, but the rest were given many choices (1) convert to Islam, (2), Slavery, (3)pay ransom, (4) or teach 10 Muslims to read and write to get freedom. (Some who were too poor to pay ranson were freed too). Historically, many other examples can be cited, like Saladin treatment of the prisoners, especially after he conquered Jerusalem. You inserted very narrow and anti-Islamic version in the article, like most of the other stuff you inserted OneGuy 09:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The prisoner of war section is not irrelevant. This article is about the ideology and laws of Jihad, i.e. Islamic Holy War. The issue of Prisoners of War is an integral part of the issue of war itself.

The "debate" over the apostate tribes who left Islam after Muhammad died is discussed at the top of this talk, in the section titled "Debate Re: The Tribes that Left Islam Soon After Muhammad Died"

As I said, you crammed disputed one-sided not relevant claims in the article. What happened during Abu Bakr time cannot be described simply as wars against apostates. A number of tribes refused to pay taxes (Jizya or Zakat). This is also a fact. Others, like Musailma, were not just apostates but were claiming to be prophets AND actively involved in war against Muslims, just like other apostate tribes. Look it up. You are claiming that wars against these tribes were not justified. That's your personal opinion. Not everyone agrees with you OneGuy 13:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"happened during Abu Bakr time cannot be described simply as wars against apostates" <--- yes it can. And I will soon document this thoroughly. Many tribes converted to Islam when Muhammad was alive, and then tried to leave Islam when Muhammad died. But when they tried to leave, they were told by the Islamic state (headed by Abu Bakr at the time) to either convert back to Islam or face death. This is war against apostates.

"A number of tribes refused to pay taxes (Jizya or Zakat)" <--- Jizya and Zakat are not the same thing. Those tribes that refused to pay Zakat are the apostate tribes described the paragraph above. Those tribes who never converted to Islam while Muhammad was alive were forced to either pay the jizya tax, convert, or face war against them by the Islamic state. Clearly there is a difference between tribes who converted and then trying to leave Islam (by not praying or paying zakat or anything), and never have converted and then refusing to pay the jizya tax. The latter case is irrelevant to the discussion about the fact that in Islam once a person is a Muslim he is never allowed to leave Islam, and if he tries, then he is to be executed. The same rule applied to entire tribes that tried to leave Islam when Muhammad died. The justification for this, made by the Muslims, was that Islam was that so many tribes tried to leave Islam after Muhammad died that Islam would have disappeared in a few centuries if the Islamic state had not threatened people with death if they tried to leave Islam.

I hope your evidence is not as selective as you did with anti-Islamic selective "prisoners of wars" section. The article needs to be balanced, not one-sided anti-Islamic OneGuy 19:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And what is wrong with war against tribes who refused to pay taxes (zakat or Jizya)? What will happend if someone refuses to pay taxes in the US? I see nothing wrong there anyway. Also from this site: http://www.ymofmd.com/books/abas/chapter3.htm .. these apostates not only refused to pay taxes but attacked first. OneGuy 19:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"I hope your evidence is not as selective as you did with anti-Islamic selective "prisoners of wars" section." <--- if you believe that some evidence has been selectively left out, then I encourage you to bring this evidence and add it to the Prisoners of War section. I look forwarding to seeing what additional evidence you add (please rememeber to provide a source for your claims).

"And what is wrong with war against tribes who refused to pay taxes (zakat or Jizya)? What will happend if someone refuses to pay taxes in the US?" <--- a group of tribes converted to Islam while Muhammad was alive, and then tried to leave Islam when he died. Paying "zakat" is something that people of the Islamic faith do - it should not be imposed on those who do not wish to follow the Islamic religion. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right. By attacking tribes who refused to practice Islam (i.e. refused to obey the 5 pillars: zakat, fasting, prayer, etc.), the budding Islamic state denied these tribes the freedom of religion. The justification made by the state was that if these Muslim tribes were allowed to freely choose their religion (and thus allowed to abandon Islam), then the ranks of the Muslims would shrink substantially, and the Islamic state would lose power, and perhaps Islam would even have disappeared in a matter of centuries. Thus they felt that the very existance of Islam was in danger, and under these circumstanced they felt justified in massacring tribes that attempted to exercise the freedom of religion by defecting from Islam. Whether or not there is something wrong with this is was something "wrong" is for the reader to decide - the purpose of an encylopedia entry such as this one is to lay out the known historical facts. The purpose is NOT to make ethical judgements regarding those historical facts, however it is sensable to point out when and where traditional Islamic practices of warfare conflict with modern international law, such as the Charter of Human Rights, or the Geneva Conventions.

It seems that you trying to argue that no traditional Islamic practices of warfare conflict with any aspects of modern international law, such as the Charter of Human Rights, or the Geneva Conventions. This is ridiculous. Any medieval practices of warfare conflict with such modern humanitarian laws, whether they are medieval Islamic practices of war, or medieval Christian practices of war, or any other medieval war practices. Muhammad and his followers were a medieval warrior, and his practices of warfare agreed with the norms of his time. The norms of the medieval age are not the norms of the modern age. It is no surprise that Muhammad's followers practiced some things that would, today, be concidered violations of (for example) the human right to freedom of relgion.

134.22.70.218's edits

Much of this person's edits are copyright violations. Unfortunately, there have been several other people who have edited his/her changes since he/she first began editing this page. Unless somebody objects, I am going to revert the entire page to prior to 134.22.70.218's first edits. Rick K 08:41, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Please explain clearly where the copyright violations are occuring. everything I have copied from another website is quoted and properly referenced, with due credit given where credit is due. Quoting other sources is not called copyright violation, it is protected by FAIR USE LAWS. Explain yourself.

Rick, I do have a problem with that. There is stuff in that page that isn't copyright violation, and now the page has at least one weasel term in it. Please, by all means remove the copyrighted material (and please tell us where the copyright violation is!), but leave the rest of the text alone. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what copyright violation? there WAS no copyright violation. Your friend Rick there does not know the difference between copyright violation and fair use. And now he has run off instead of explaining himself, instead of explaining where exactly it is that he thinks these copyright violations took place

You know anon, you aren't helping your case by having a go at RickK. In the case of his revert, I agree that he needs to provide evidence of copyright violations before doing a revert like that one. Stop swearing, calm down and stop making personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, anon. I think you might like to have a look at the article fair use a bit more carefully before you accuse RickK of making unfair edits. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you should be telling Rick to read the "Fair Use" article so that he can identify WHEN AND WHERE EXACTLY the "copyright violations" took place, so that the situation can be rectified. It's not Rick who is being accused here, it's me who is being accused of copyright violation, and nobody is bothering to even say WHERE this supposed "copyright violation" occured - instead a 3 day's worth of editing has been reverted, and now I have no way to accessing the original source code.

My reversions had nothing to do with content, and solely to do with the multiple edits that the anon made which were copyright violations. One is from http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/7822. One which is still there, which I have not deleted, is from http://www.theglobaltimes.com/new_page_87.htm. Rick K 09:21, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

I quoted from http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005708 not http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/7822. http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/7822 is a copy of the original Wall Street Journal Editorial at http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005708 ... I clearly put quotation marks on the copyrighted material, properly referenced the author, article, and the Wall Street Journal, numbered my reference, provided a URL link in the references section and next to the quations in the article, and was merely quoting another party in order to support my claims. This is called FAIR USE, not copyright infrigenment.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial was quoted in a newly created section about PRionsers of War. WHy did you delete the entire section about PRisoners of War? It is clearly not neccessary to delete the whole section in order to fix whatever so-called "copyright infringement" you have imagined.

As for your claim that I was illegally using copyrighted material from http://www.theglobaltimes.com/new_page_87.htm -- I have never even see this URL before, and you have STILL not specifified exactly WHERE you believe this copyright infringement is occuring. (ANON)

Check the section titled Verdict of the Qu'ran. Rick K 09:51, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

OH I see. But the thing is, I did not copy that stuff from "Verdict of the Qur'an," someone else did. That's why it's still there, even after you reverted my edits.

Anon, have you considered getting an account with Wikipedia? Also, I would suggest you put back the non-copyrighted material. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How can I put back the "non-copyrighted material" when I don't know where the these infringements are taking place? I think Rick should take the article back to before he reverted my work, and then he should carefully look at where the quoation marks are in the article. All material copied from anywhere else has been put in quoations marks. If he thinks that one of these quoations is copyright infrigement, then let him delete the quote instead of the delete the whole sub-section, along with things that I wrote (i.e. the stuff outside the quotation marks)!

There is still copyrighted material there. I'm waiting for responses from other people to take that out. Rick K 09:51, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Rick do you realize that you reverted 3 days of editing? it's extremely difficult to put back all that editing. Most of it was not even quoting other sources, most of it was my own work. "Ta bu shi da yu's" attempt to put back the lost text was not much, since so much else was lost as well.

Rick: you say "there is still copyrighted material there" but you still cannot explain to us where it is, and why it constitutes a copyright infringement that is not covered by fair use. I agree that the "Verdit of the Qur'an" stuff is directly plagerized, but that was a bit of Islamist apologia which some other contributor stuck in the article - it was not my doing, and I would be glad if you deleted it. But other than that, I don't see any infringement of copyright. I understand that you are consulting with other moderators and waiting for their response, but it seems unfair to me that you cannot tell us all, in this talk, where you think these infringement took place which led you to revert 3 days of editing. If you would tell me where the infrigement took place, I would gladly rectify it myself - there would be no need for a lengthy wait for a response from whomever you are consulting.

Rick: I'm still waiting for your explanation of when and where the supposed copyright violations took place. 134.22.70.218 134.22.70.218 (Nov 20, 4:40 PM EST)

Vanadalism by 217.42.185.5

217.42.185.5 is deleting huge parts of the "Islamist terrorism" section. Without explanation, he has deleted any mention of modern Jihad theorists such as Syyed Qutb, he has removed any mention of Osama bin Laden. He has deleted the entire discussion about terrorist killings and death threats against critics of Islam, such as Theo van Gogh and Salman Rushdie. He has deleted the paragaph discusssing the fact that in order to expand an empire one must slaughter innocent people. He has deleted the entire discussion about the abiguity and disagreement that exists within the Muslim world over who can and cannot be killed in a state of war. All this, he has replaced all this by the following claim which has already been debunked:

"But the Qur'an, the unquestionable source of authority in Islam, vehemently denounces the killing of any person who has not committed at least one of two acts:

"Whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the earth - it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (5:32)

According to this verse of the Qur'an, if one human being has not

1) murdered another person

2) created conflict and disorder in the world

Then that human being is innocent. To kill one of such an innocent human being would be the equivalent to the massacre of the entire human race, which is an inconceivably barbaric crime, and a monumental sin. This verse is clear and unequivocal as to who should be regarded as an innocent human being. Moreoever, there is no declaration in the history of all religions that can match the gravity of this condemnation."

This verse is discussed at length in the paragraphs which 217.42.185.5 deleted. 217.42.185.5 is not debating any of the claims in the article, he is simply deleting the claim and replacing them with a diamaterically opposite meaning, without any justification. 217.42.185.5 is clearly an Islamist who is only interested in supressing the truth. As such I am reverting his edits, and hereby request that something be done about this constant vanadalism by the anon.

(By the way, 217.42.185.5, I can prove that verse 5:32 is copied from a passage in the Talmud. A Rabbi wrote that killing a single person is like killing all humans, in the Talmud. So it's ludicrous and clearly a case of extreme pro-Islam bias to state that "there is no declaration in the history of all religions that can match the gravity of this condemnation.")

Vandalism by Alberuni

Alberuni is also engaged in deleting huge portions of the article. He claims that these sections are irrelevant and are "islamaphone rants."

There are two main sections under dispute:

1. Islmaist terrorism section. In this section, there is a disucssion of Islamist terrorist murdering or threatening the lives of critics of Islam. Examples of such people who have been threatened or murdered are Theo Van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, and Irshid Mangie. Death threats and violence against innocent civlians, who criticize extremist Islam, is a form of Islamist terrorism. As such, it belongs in the article about Jihad. The article also goes into details about Muhammad having poets murdered, because the poets wrote against Islam; this is concidered a form of Jihad by traditional Islamic legal scholars, and is relevant to the modern day problem of terrorists murdering and threatening the lives of film makers, TV producers, artists, and authors who criticize extremist forms of Islam. Such discussion is not irrelevant to the subject of Jihad, and such discussion is neither "islamaphobia" nor is it mere "ranting."

2. The Prisoners of War Section. It should be blatently obvious to everyone that when disucssing the Islamic laws of Jihad, it is neccessary to disucuss the Islamic laws regarding treatment of Prisoners of War. The issue of POWs is highly related to the issue of war. It is ludicrous of Alberuni to suggest that a disucussion of Islamic laws regarding prisoners of war must be irrelevant to a discussion on Jihad. Furthermore, the accusation that the disucssion on POWs is an "islamaphobe rant" is equally false.

3. There is a paragraph regarding the fact that in order to carry out a program of imperialism, it is neccessary to wage wars of aggression and kill people who are innocent (as Muhammad and his followers did indeed do). Nobody would dare to claim that Western imperialism did not take the lives of countless the innocent and the defenseless. It is equally illogical to claim that Islamic imperialism did not take the lives of the innocent and the defenseless. This is not "islamaphobia," this is simple fact. It is obvious that this discussion is relevant to Jihad, especially to the discussion on who is "innocent" and who is "guilty" when it comes Islamic laws about making war against non-Muslims.

As such I am reverting Alberuni's deleting of these substantial parts of the article. If Alberuni believes that something has been left out in the discussions about POWs, assasinating critics, or launching wars of aggression against non-Muslims, or that something is incorrect, then Alberuni should add his comments to the article, and should debate the issue in the talk page, instead of ham-handedly dismissing the entire topic of POWs and assasinations of critics of Islam. If he feels that someonethign is completely irrelevant, then he should make a rational argument for his case in this discussion page, instead of thinking that he can delete half a Wikipedia article if for some reason he has failed to see the relevance of the sections in question.

NOTE: Alberuni is a known pro-Islamist on Wikipedia. As such, the neutrality of Alberuni's judgements is immediatly suspect. This suspect nature of Alberuni's brutish "edits" is exasperated by the fact that Alberuni refused to actually debate anything, contribute anything to the article, or merely explan why or she believes that some aspect of the article is irrelevant of an "islamaphobe rant" (as Alberuni calls it)