Talk:Islamic military jurisprudence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the WikiProject Islam, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Islam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military historiography task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/{{{1}}}]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Requests_for_mediation#Rules_of_war_in_Islam_.28in_progress.29

Who wants to recommend sources to cite here from different denominations? as it stands now we're quoting and thus forcing interpretation from a translation of a primary text... which is selective quotation; a policy commonly used in anti-Islamic and Islamic propaganda. gren 22:42, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

.... WHY is there no page for the christian rules of war? Look in the bible, it condones all sorts of wartime attrocities.

Because nobody decided to write one? If you want it so bad, go ahead and write it.

Contents 1 Not in practice 2 This is a joke, right? 3 Merge 4 Totally Disputed 5 Zeno -- let's work together on this 6 Q'uran is not Q'uran in English 7 Moved from Jihad 7.1 Excerpts from the Qur'an on warfare 8 Zeno keeps deleting information 9 Err.. 10 Protected 11 Quotations 12 Cleanup request 13 Expansion request 13.1 Jihad v. War 14 a note... 15 Prisoner's of War 16 Ongoing mediation 17 There need s to be a total re-write of the "Prisoners" section 18 Constant reverts by Timothy et al 19 POW 20 Modern Rules 21 Chicken or the Egg?? 22 Placing disputed content on talk page - proposal for mediation 22.1 the disputed content 23 To Bless sins 24 Conflicting info 25 Which quotes need citations? 26 Scope of interest 27 Which is the "lesser?" 28 Islam is the religion. 29 Female Slaves and Sex 30 Balance tag

[edit] Not in practice

Rules, regulations, morals and ethics are enshrined in words not in deeds. More so, with Islam.

[edit] This is a joke, right?

This comment is bigotry, pure and simple. There's no place for this uninformed cultural bias (and anonymous, no less) in Wikipedia. --Erielhonan 06:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

yup. as such, I have erased it!

Kiumars

I agree with the above comment to some extend, whoever wrote these rules wants to get the Muslims killed in the war!

Imagine you decide to blow up a bus full of military personnel but there is also one civilian on that bus. So you want to be sport and ask the bus driver to stop the bus and let the civilian get off the buss then kick the shit out of the rest. But what if the soldiers on board of the bus try to take advantage of the situation and attack you! Surely you have not gone through all that trouble to be killed so easily! This is a good example where the text books don’t have an answer for.

The enemy is not always sport either, the military base knowing that you will not attack the civilians may decide to share the bus with the nearby school! How would you deal with that trick then? .... um in that case, the military has committed a war crime.

The main idea of guerrilla war is to create panic and unrest behind the enemy lines and weaken their moral! This type of rules only gets you killed like a chicken in the cage! It is like trying to play a clean football these days when everybody else is cheating and pulling shirts and shorts and pushing you! The result will be 15-0 before the half time!

Cheers, Kiumars

[edit] Merge

I have removed the merge because they are different concepts. War is not only Jihad and Jihad is not only war. Part of their spheres intersect but they are not one and the same. gren 03:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"War is not only Jihad" gren, then what else is Islamic holy war, if it is "not only Jihad?" --Zeno of Elea 05:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Kiumars Zeno, I think Gren is right when he says "war is not only jihad", Jihad is holly war (war with non-Muslims and for the sake of saving the religion (more or less like the crusades)), other wars e.g. war between Muslims are not Jihad and and I think taking part in those wars is not mandatory for Muslims (my nuderstanding is that Jihad is not optional, it is mandatory and that is the main difference).

Kiumars

"The term 'jihad' is often rendered in western languages and non-Islamic cultures as 'holy war', but this 'physical' struggle, which encompasses warfare, only makes up part of the broader meaning of the concept of jihad. The denotation is of a struggle, challenge, difficulty, or (frequently) opposed effort, made either in accomplishment or as resistance." -Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia Philolexica 03:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem for Westerners, particularly Christians and Jews, is the longterm perception of Muslims as willing to use force to gain converts. Several U.S. conservative authors accuse "radical Islam" or "Islamists" of harboring an ideology that insists on dominating the entire world.

To them, this view (or hypothesis) seems amply confirmed by the behavior of Arabs (who are, overwhelmingly, Muslim) in the Middle East. In what many call "Pan-Arabism", the Islamic countries (and Arab population) seem determined to drive Israelis out. Overtures regarding plans to live together in harmony are rarely heard, and indeed generally drowned out by threats to those making them.

Now, as both a reader of Wikikpedia (and a contributor to it), I wonder how much of this perception or hypothesis is really true.

Are there many Arabs who are harshly intolerant of other ethnicities in their midst? Does a religious element fuel this intolerance? Does the Koran itself (or any historical or modern interpretation) or any current within Islamic religion permit or advise intolerance of non-Muslims?

Does "jihad" mean that Muslims may (or ought to) conquer "infidels" (non-Muslims)? If so, are there any limits to the degree of force to be used in this?

I'm well aware of the Western concept of "laws of war", and the article is not bad (though incomplete). I'm even better acquainted with U.S. military ethics, both through personal (peacetime, I must admit) experince, military classes and independent study. One major aspect, which seems to be a glaring difference, is that U.S. military is utterly forbidden to influence the religious beliefs of conquered peoples or POWs. And even those "stateless fighters", who wore the uniform of no country when captured, are permitted to pray and provided with the Holy Qu'ran in their own language.

Can we make a plan for the improvement of this article together? Where would you other contributors like to take it?

[edit] Totally Disputed

There are NO sources anywhere in the entire article, except for a handful of few selectively chosen (read POV) quotes from the original sources. The editor must provide sources for this newly created article. Wikipedia is place to do original research and push particular points-of-view. --Zeno of Elea 09:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zeno -- let's work together on this

Seriously -- you have one perspective on what Islam's rules of war say, I have another. What about a 'short summary of key points that we could both agree on? Why not present a draft of what you think this short article should look like on this page, and I'll develop a draft of my own, and we'll find some way to meet in the middle? (Rather than turning this article into yet another tug of war.)

Hopefully, BrandonYusufToropov 13:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we ought to resolve the POW issue first, which is in fact a subset of the "Rules of war in Islam" as is discussed in the Jihad article (which I believe is the appropriate place for it). My perspective is supported by published sources. If you can support your perspective with published sources, then we can meet in the middle on the POW issue. Once that is resolved, other aspects of Islamic law on Jihad can be considered. --Zeno of Elea 09:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Q'uran is not Q'uran in English

If the folks who edit this page (or merge it) want to keep the Q'uran quotes or cite other ones, it might be a good idea to include the original passage (the Arabic) and a contemporary English interpretation (preferably written by a scholar not an ecclesiast). I think in general that's a fair standard for any article that references the Q'uran, since that's the respect that the religion requires. --Erielhonan 03:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the point of including the Arabic text of the Qur'an in English Wikipedia. Only Arabic speaking people can understand the Arabic text, and they can easily find the referenced verses in an Arabic copy of the Qur'an. I'm afraid that you are making a demand for a rather unreasonable amount of respect for Islam (something akin to demanding that Wikipedia including "p.b.u.h." or "s.a.w." after the name Muhammad). Such unncessary Arabic text would only bloat the article without being of any use to English speaking readers. --Zeno of Elea 12:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

What's the sense in including the Arabic (or Chinese or whatever) 'spelling' and pronunciation for any foreign-word entry in the English Wiki?

So that you can look the word up in its original spelling (e.g. in a dictionary) and know how to properly pronounce it, obviously. These don't bloat the article as much as entire passages. I would suggest and encourage choosing a good online source of the Arabic text and directly linking to the relevant, referenced passages. This would be a good compromise in terms of convenience and the point about the difficulty of finding the relevant passages woule be rendered moot.

It's because those items don't have origin in the English speaking world, and can only be defined truly by referring to them in their source language. Same thing here.

Being an expatriat American living in Finland, and coping with a international marriage and bilingual children, I can tell you that although translations may work well between languages that are closely related grammatically and geographically, NO translation between divergent langauges will ever come close to giving the MEANING of a phase or sentence...DEFINITION, perhaps, but meaning, never. If you could read a English translation of the Qur'an that was translated by a 86 year old muslum who lived most of his life isolated from western influences, then somehow managed to learn to read and write English and translated the Qur'an, you might be getting close to understanding the "meaning" of the text....J. from Suomi

My original intent was to recommend finding an interpreted source (in English) that wasn't full of "thee" and "thou", since that hints at an old or otherwise Christian-bent translation, which is inappropriate and probably inaccurate. But Islam provides a perfect solution for avoiding this problem, by way of its tenet against the authenticity of the Q'uran in translation.

It's not just a question of respect, it's a question of neutrality too. You can't claim to be speaking about the Q'uran if your only source is a translation. Unlike the Bible, the Q'uran ceases to be the Q'uran when it's translated. If an author needs to collaborate with someone who can provide them the correct passages, then so be it. Articles dealing with Islam tend to be very politicized I believe. One way to preserve neutrality is to stick close to the source when providing Q'uranic quotes.

Also, I don't know so much about the "they can easily find the referenced verses in an Arabic copy of the Qur'an." Perhaps, perhaps not. Depends on how well-referenced and how well-translated the passage. A mangled English translation might leave a Muslim guessing.

And lastly, Wikipedia is a ployglot project. Interlingual references should be encouraged. There are PLENTY of Arab speakers who are also Wikipedians.

--Erielhonan 19:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out, as a non-christian non-muslim user here, that the Q'uran is traditionally held to be complete only in Arabic. Also, Arabic has many concepts and shades of concept in Philosophy that English has no counterpart words for. Translating any document from Arabic to English is like trying to measure centimeters with an inch-gradiated ruler, all you can do is compare and get pretty close. With a document as sensitive and meaningful as the Q'uran, it is especially important to respect these translations. I for one think that if it is too much to ask that the Arabic phrases be posted next to the translations provided, that at the least all the translations should be coming from a translation done by a native Arabic speaker, respected in Q'uranic knowlage. At least then the translations would be as close as possible.

Kiumars

Guys Quran is written in a poetic way it is not a straightforward day to day Arabic. My understanding is that even ordinary Arabs have difficulties getting the message easily (because of the poetic nature of the Quran). There are PHD courses in interpreting Quran! Farsi is my mother tong and I have come across a few translation of the Rubaiyat of Khayyam but must tell you they are not even close to the Persian version. I think it will be dangerous to try to use the English translation or a bad Arabic translation of Quran here. The consequences of a mistake can be huge!

Kiumars

[edit] Moved from Jihad

[edit] Excerpts from the Qur'an on warfare

The Qur'an uses the term jihad in a military setting only four times (9:24, 22:78, 25:52, 60:1), none of which refer definitively to armed struggle. However, the concept of holy Islamic war was not itself a latter day invention, and the Qur'an does contain passages that correlate to specific historic events ... and that may help to illuminate the theory, and practice of armed struggle (qi'tal) for Muslims. A few examples are as follows:

“Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.” (2:190)

“And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!"” (4:76)

“Strike terror (into the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies.; 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).” (8:60-61)

“What! will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and aimed at the expulsion of the Messenger, and they attacked you first; do you fear them? But Allah is most deserving that you should fear Him, if you are believers. Fight them, and Allah will punish (torment) them by your hands, cover them with shame.” (9:13-14)

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And if one of the idolaters seek protection from you, grant him protection till he hears the word of Allah, then make him attain his place of safety; this is because they are a people who do not know.” (9:5-6)

“Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (9:29)

"Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed ... those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. "(22:39-40)

" O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom God has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;--in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (33:50)

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God,- He will never let their deeds be lost." (47:4)

The general count of such totals varies; certain investigators put the count of verses concerning warfare at 164 out of 6346. All pertain to battles fought during Muhammad's mission. [1]

Excerpts from the Q'uran on warfare=islam and warfare not jihad--Tznkai 17:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

A link has been added explaining all excerpts and many more and refuting the claims of Anti-islamists. [2] Muwahid 19:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zeno keeps deleting information

And I will keep adding it back in. -unsgined

If he is violation 3RR, its not the first time, take a look at Maria al-Qibtiyya --Striver 12:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

He is in violation of 3RR. I counted over 12 reverts made within 24 hours. He keeps accusing you of being the anon proxies, but the funny thing is that he's using them too. This is ridiculous. We should get an admin on this.Heraclius 22:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

He has also violated it on User:Saduj al-Dahij userpage and he has vandalized my Userpage. --Striver 08:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Zeno removed some vandalism from Saduj al-Dahij's userpage one time, and that is not a violation of 3rr. Striver, making untrue claims is considered incivil and a violation of Wikipedias policies. Heracilus, your allegations about Zeno using open proxies reverting on this page is very serious. So far I have only seen open proxies being to add the PoV back to the page again, so I don't think that you have any reason to make such claims. -- Karl Meier 09:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

If Zeno was removing vandalism, then he was vandalizing himself (in the same page but in another way). Whadever, i take back the statement about Saduj, however, Zeno have broken 3RR on several occasions and he has vandalized my userpage. --Striver 10:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "several occations"? He's broken 3rr only at one other occasion, and this was because of of a genuine mistake, that he as a new user made. The admin that was dealing with this, recognized this fact. And regarding what you call "vandalism" on your talkpage, what Zeno did was simply to answer a question that you have posted there. I don't think anyone can call that "vandalism" by any stretch of imagination. If you want to see something that is closer to vandalism, go see the history of Zeno's userpage. -- Karl Meier 11:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Err..

both the POV and info on this are off. Recommend reading this for a NPOV article on a similar subject.. I tried to help but it needs a complete rewrite --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:40, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

The BBC is not a scholarly source on this subject. It is you who are misinformed. I suggest you specify the exact points of disagreement before embarking on some "rewrite" which, if experience is any indicator, will amount to you whitewashing "problematic" facts about Islam. --Zeno of Elea 23:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The BBC is significantly more scolarly than most sources given here, furthermore, that they are over a thousand years older than the Geneva Conventions is far from anecdotal. Also, why is so very little of this entire article sourced? --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Why does the anon/Irishpunktom insist on having a POV template on this article? Could these editors please make a list of specific reasons why it should be there, so that the editors can work on these issues? If they can't I suggest that the template should be removed. -- Karl Meier 08:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The entire article is written in an anti-islamic POV, thus breaching the NPOV, also, as so very little of it is sourced it's findings are disputed. As such, rather than having a {{pov}} and {{disputed}} I put up a {{totally disputed}} .. because thats what it is there for. I suggest you go looking for actual sources for everything cited rather than just damning any changes made. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

"The entire article is written in an anti-islamic POV, thus breaching the NPOV" Do you care to justify your claims, Irishpunktom? Or do you think that your word should be taken as gospel, here at Wikipedia? --Zeno of Elea 19:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing sourced sections by William Muir, HE IS NOT AN ISLAMIC APOLOGIST, HE IS WILLIAM MUIR. I have created my account as you asked now please stop deleting them. Malek1 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The Willium Muir quote is completely out of context. Its inclusion here is annecdotal evidence being used to push an extreme apologetic POV. -- Zeno of Elea 01:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

WILLIAM MUIR IS NOT AN EXTREMELY APOLOGETIC POV. Malek1 02:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again, this is not about William Muir, it is about quoting William Muir in the proper context and in an NPOV way. -- Zeno of Elea 02:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

How do you "quote" in a "NPOV" way? Malek1 02:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

How do you "quote" in a "NPOV" way? You could write books on that question. But in this specific case, the Muir quote is actually a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote, etc. Muir is quoting a Muslim tradition about a pagan Arab who was taken prisoner by the Muslims and then the prisoner later converted to Islam and years later he allegedly described the kind treatment that his captors had given him. Leaving aside the fact that the Muslim traditions are full of exagerative biases, the fact is that this prisoner's testimony does not say anything about Shariah, in particular the rules of war in Islam. This is not a dawa pamphlet. If you want to insert statements about the rules of war in Islam then you should refer to shariah and fiqh not a lone, questionable annecdote quoted by a lone Western orientalist, supposedly proving that the rules of war in Islam with regards to POWs are all rosey and have nothing to do with slavery, rape, kidnapping, etc. The Muir schtick does not belong here. -- Zeno of Elea 02:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

"Malek1", "Yuber", "Heraclius", "Alberuni" or whatever you want us to call you... Could you please log into your main account and quit violating the decisions that has been made by the ArbCom? Including using open proxies? -- Karl Meier 18:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Its amazing "Leaving aside the fact that the Muslim traditions are full of exagerative biases." I laughed when I read this, considered the extreme attention to accuracy that the Muslim historians devoted. Apparently when something is quoted that this user thinks will portray Islam negatively, he fully supports it and adds it, when not, well the double standard is shown--Mike

[edit] Protected

I have protected this page to stem the endless, sterile revert war taking place on it. There has been no discussion for 5 days (at least). If you can try hard to carry on a civil discourse here, then, once you have settled your differences, I will unprotect. Try to see which parts of the page are really worth disagreeing long-term over and if you can fix them, or if you can't, if you can simply agree to disagree. -Splash^talk 23:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotations

According to the article Qur'an, Islamic scholars assert that only the original Arabic text is considered the actual Qur'an; translations are merely interpretations. For the purposes of Wikipedia, at the very least the source that provided the translation should be cited. There may be considerable variation between translations, and such differences may be important in disputes over original meaning. -- Beland 20:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup request

As a matter of style, it would be nice if supporting quotes immediately followed a claim, instead of being aggregated at the end of the article or section. -- Beland 04:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion request

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007.

So far, there are only two sections - one on civilians (which is very short), and one on POWs. It seems that there are other aspects of war also regulated by Islam. For example, Offensive jihad and Defensive jihad discuss the need for a declaration of war. New sections should be added to cover additional domains of regulation, whatever those might be. Once a canonical list is compiled, that can be added to the intro, to help indicate that the article is comprehensive in that respect. -- Beland 04:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jihad v. War

The article is reinforcing the somewhat ignorant Western idea that Jihad is war. Key points to remember are that Islam is an innately peaceful religion (consider when Mohammed marched into the conquered Mecca, he carried out no retributions on the people who had been for years trying to destroy him), and that Jihad is often taken to mean a personal struggle toward self improvement. One can have a jihad against ice cream, if one feels they eat too much of it, or a jihad to eat more vegetables etc. Lent is a sort of Christian version of Jihad. Holy war can be Jihad, but we should be careful not to equate the two ideas. MrPMonday 07:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Islam is not innately peaceful. It has its peaceful and violent manifestations. It is in the end an ideology filtered through human mind regardless of what is "true". While I agree the article has some problems and needs to be better referenced we cannot represent it as you seem to want. Another aspect is that liberal Muslims don't typically have a "rules of war" in their beliefs. gren グレン 07:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why I bolded not... gren グレン 07:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the "Westerners translate as Holy War" precept is founded exclusively in ignorance and is not part of the Islamic religion whatsoever, I deleted that phrase. Misconceptions should not be included in the encyclopedia, even if certain segments of western society popularly believe it. Amibidhrohi 04:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Grenavitar, to a point you're correct. I'd go as far as to say there are entirely different Islams altogether. The Islam followed by moderate Sunnis in Indonesia is a far cry different from the Salafi Islam followed by many arabs. The "Jihad is Holy War" misunderstanding isn't held exclusively by American Christians, but many Muslim groups as well. When Hizb Ut Tahrir speaks of Jihad, they exclusively speak of the armed fighting variety. The information in this entry needs to be founded on fact and research, as well as a fair-minded approach. The apologists, while well-meaning, may end up implying that the idea of Jihad as a offensive war movement is completely an abberation. This isn't true for all sects, as we've seen with the Salafis and some Deobandis. On the other hand, there are Islamophobes here who are also trying to imply that ALL sects of Islam accept this offensive war concept when in fact only a tiny minority do. The vast majority of Muslims believe Jihad is only defensive, and can only be justified when a muslim community is threatened by a domestic or foreign force. Amibidhrohi 05:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Although today the phenomenon has become so well-known that for most no translation is necessary, jihad has been "commonly translated" as "holy war" - the wording here takes no stance as to whether this translation is accurate, while the preceding note that jihad means "struggle" makes it clear that this translation is contextual and thus inherently debatable. "Mistranslated" is needlessly POV. If you think this isn't enough, why not add an "although" clause which represents your proposed alternative interpretation, rather than defacing the original true statement?Timothy Usher 05:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not an issue of "translation". The word has several meaning (I speak Arabic) one common meaning is "inner struggle" the "war within one's self" (as in to overcome the evil inside us all) and the other is holy war against the infeddle. There is logic behind it as both are struggles of "holy" against "evil". Zeq 05:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that the literal, rather than typical contextual meaning of "jihad" is more than merely "struggle", for example is there necessarily a connotation of righteousness? Further, is there necessarily a religious connotation? Finally, would you agree that what appears as of my last edit is truthful and NPOV, or not?Timothy Usher 06:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to say it in a delicate way so i will say something which is too broad, yet it is true:

There is no such thing as "literaly" in Arabic, there is meaning, sometimes to translate a word will take 10 words. Arabic is what linguistics call "highly compact langauge" Zeq 06:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Jihad is a term subject to change as is all of the Quran. This principle is called the "Law of Abrogation." This doctrine allows Muslims to change what the Quran says to suit what they want... originally, the Quran call for Jihad against none Islamists and only in the sense of "holy war." Check this site for facts on the whole issue. [[3]]

[edit] a note...

...must be added that these rules of war are seldom followed, atleast in the modern age. A cursory glance at the wars which involved Islamic nations in the recent past reveals that they don't. I could come with specific examples, but that would be pointing fingers. So would it be POV if one added that these "rules of war" is hardly given that much weightage as before given the impracticality of a few of the rules? Idleguy 08:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prisoner's of War

"Men, women, and children may all be taken as prisoners of war under traditional interpretations of Islamic law. Generally, a prisoner of war could be (at the discretion of the military leader): freed, enslaved for the purposes of labor, or sold on the slave market. Female prisoners may be enslaved as concubines " It states in the Qu'ran that one should free slave's, the excrept above contradict's this. Im pretty sure that the POW's can only be used for manual labor, set free, or held for ransom, as long as they are treated humane. The part that "Women" prisoner's can be used as 'comcubines' is not only insulting to me, but inaccurate, it states in the 'Muhammud as a warrior' article that you should leave children, women, and the elderly alone. (I dont have any exact quotation's from the Qu'ran, so this "argument" is pretty weak)--71.116.65.241 21:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing mediation

There is currently an ongoing mediation involving the contents of this article. Anyone who has been involved in the recent disputes over this article's contents is requested to attend to help achieve consensus. --Cyde Weys 02:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There need s to be a total re-write of the "Prisoners" section

Firstly, its waaay too long,; needs to be summarised. Secondly, there needs to eb some sort of order given to it, which I will do soon.Bless sins 03:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've not gone through the original article, but to destroy someone else's work and replace it with pastes from IslamOnline.net is absurd. This is not even a remotely sincere use of wikipedia. Why not just a page redirect to a suitably pious site? At least that way you're not tricking the wiki user into thinking there is something new or objective here.

Timothy Usher 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has been destroyed , its all there in the article , with more information ( Quran, hadith, history) from Islamonline , which is a site that is run by people who are scholars on Islam . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 11:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of your ease , here is the comparision , tell me what have I deleted or destroyed . [4] . Thanks . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 11:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is really nothing to discuss. IslamOnline own the copyright to the text that you insist on copy/pasting into this article, and there is nothing that indicate that they allow Wikipedia to use it under a GFDL license. Copyright violations is not appreciated or accepted here. But I think you know that, so stop this nonsens. -- Karl Meier 13:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The islamonline copy & paste is a copyvio and comprises about 60% of the article's text - this is ludicrous. Besides it contains ahistorical and outright uninformed statements. Just to mention a few:

• "It is interesting to mention that when Muslims fought the Romans in Egypt...": No "Romans" were present anymore in that time, only Byzantines, called "Romans" by the Arabs of that era - and blatant laymen of today's.
• "The Second World War for example was sparked by Germany's invasion of Poland, and drew into the fighting countries that were not direct parties to the conflict...": An apologetic, ahistorical tu quoque comparison, unsuitable for this subject.

The text copied is of poorest quality and a copyvio. F.a.y.'s comportment is unacceptable. --tickle me 13:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constant reverts by Timothy et al

My edits for NPOV and accuracy have constantly been reverted by Timothy Usher and a couple of other editors such as Karl Meier without so much as an explanation or even a comment here. This behavior is uncalled for and there are such things as "manners" and "etiquette." Furthermore I will no longer engage in senseless edit wars, but I do believe the introduction of other editors here is necessary, particularly those who are able to keep their POV in check. SouthernComfort 08:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the article is lacking relevant scholarly information regarding this topic. Considering the scope of this subject, balance is key. That a couple of other editors oppose factual and neutral edits is very curious indeed. SouthernComfort 08:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, "mujahid" means "one who struggles" - "deen" means "religion" or "faith." 2+2 = ? SouthernComfort 08:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear SouthernComfort,

You are wrong to say there has been no comment. You are only now joining the discussion which I'd been asking you to join. Thank you for doing so.

So you are saying this word is a compound? Okay, then why not, "one who struggles for the [muslim] faith?" That would seem accurate.

Since you have added the totally disputed tag, what are you saying is disputed?

(please excuse my typo in the edit summary)

Timothy Usher 08:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Deen indeed mean religion (or law if we go to the naciant acadic origin of the word) but mujahdeen could be just "those who struggle" "those who fight". ('een' being just a sufix for plural) Zeq 08:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Jeez, that's what I thought. Thank you.Timothy Usher 08:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've asked another editor to verify if my information is correct, as I could very well be wrong concerning "mujahideen." I don't think I am, however. But concerning "jihad" I believe quite strongly in the validity of my argument and this has been dealt with before in Talk:Jihad when BrandonYusefToropov was still around. "Jihad" as in "holy war" is not a correct translation, but an interpretation (it could legitimately be argued that it is an incorrect interpretation as well). SouthernComfort 08:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The issues with the rest of the article are numerous, clearly evident in the fact that scholarly sources have not been used to clarify these precise issues and present what is POV, as POV. SouthernComfort 08:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

SouthernComfort, your last edit, eliminating "Muslim" from context brackets on the translation, is fine with me. I'd get rid of the whole bracketed phrase - Zeq is right, it only means "those who struggle" - but though I am acting in good faith, as you see, I am mindful of the three-revert rule. It's not that big a deal.Timothy Usher 09:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Zeq didn't state that as fact. As for whether or not it's a big deal, you certainly seemed to think so whenever reverting me - without comment, I might add. If your interest here is in NPOV and factual accuracy, such reverts are certainly unusual, especially when done without bothering to explain or comment. This subject is already convoluted and sensationalized to an extreme in the popular media and it would be nice if WP articles could actually adhere to the actual meanings and classify interpretations as being what they clearly are. SouthernComfort 11:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POW

In section on POW, it says:

Other opinions include killing all prisoners (regardless of religion), or all killing all prisoners who are neither Muslim, nor Jewish nor Christian. These opinions are not endorsed by any of the popular school of Islamic jurisprudence.

The above facts are attested to by a number of scholarly sources coming from medieval and modern, Muslim and non-Muslim sources:

However, none of the sources given say this. I think it would be better to remove it unless it can be proved. Ackie00 03:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Rules

I've added moder rules of war, as declared by most of the OIC at the Cairo Decaration of Human Rights in Islam. This represents the opinion of the majoirty of Muslim states. I don't know why this is constantly being deleted (by Pecher).Bless sins 20:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

First, learn the correct name of the declaration that you're talking about; then, observe that the article is about Islamic law, not about a non-binding declaration. Please spare me the trouble of reverting these irrelevant insertions in the future. Pecher ^Talk 20:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is prepared by Muslim countries in a way to be in accordance with Islamic Law. --Aminz 20:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not a part of Islamic law, just a declaration that was not even ratified. Pecher ^Talk 20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_italic.png Italic text

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam mentions that "The declaration was adopted on August 5, 1990 by 45 foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to serve as a guidance for the member states in the matters of human rights." --Aminz 20:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, so what? Pecher ^Talk 20:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So, it represents the opinions of the vast majority (atleast 45 of 57 countries) of the Muslim World.Bless sins 03:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This was a declaration on "Human Rights in Islam". It is prepared by Muslim countiries themselves in a way to be in accordance with Islamic Law. So, it is at least in accordance with "a" possible interpretation of Islamic Law. That's all we need to add this to the article. --Aminz 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No, Islamic law is formed by the consensus of Muslim scholars, not by declarations of foreign ministers. Pecher ^Talk 21:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The intro of that article reads: "The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) is a declaration of the member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which affirms Sharia — Islamic law — as the sole source of human rights." So, it is based on "a non-unpopular" interpretation of Islamic Law.

My POV is that "Islamic Law" by itself has not external existence; what has external existence is a series of interpretations of Islamic Law. The five schools of Law are of course five of the most important interpretations of Islam (that are actually interpretations of five persons.) And I do agree that an unpopular interpretation of "Islamic Law" should not mentioned in wikipedia. But if the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam was based on an unpopular interpretation of "Islamic Law", Islamic countries in which state and religion are not separated were opposing to it. Especially since it is declared to be based on Islamic Law. --Aminz 21:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Aminz, I just cannot understand your argument. Pecher ^Talk 21:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for not expressing myself well. I am really swamped now (because of the school work) but will come back soon. Thanks --Aminz 22:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Aminz is trying to say that there is no such thing as ONE SINGLE "Islamic Law", there are only interpretations of it. Different people in different eras have interpreted it in various ways, hence the large "Prisoners of War" section. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is an interpretation of Islamic Law. It states the way majority of Muslims see their religion today. Bless sins 03:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Pecher, The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights is very much related to the Shariah, as explained by Aminz and I. Pls. stop giving the excuse "been there, done that", and actually discuss this issue.Bless sins 01:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so For the non relevant material please use the article about this exact subject. This is about Islam laws. Unrelated info will be removed. Zeq 09:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct, and the declaration, as it states, "affirms Sharia — Islamic law — as the sole source of human rights". Therefore the declaration is example of a modern interpretation by Muslims of the Islamic laws. Moreover, this interpretation is accepted by atleast 45 Muslim nations.Bless sins 10:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The Quran is a holi book. No one can replace it not even some declaertion of human rights. There is already an article on that declaration and your excellent contribution should be added to that article. Zeq 10:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that nothing but the Quran should be quoted? That would mean the removal of all those quotes in Rules of war in Islam# Prisoners of War section. Please reconsider what you have said.Bless sins 10:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The declaration represents the views of Muslim countries on Islam. That is why it is called "Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam". Furthermore I don't need to repeat the fact that the decaration itself states that it "affirms Shariah - Islamic law...". The Declaration is also a popular one, ratified by atleast 45 Muslim countries. Does anyone have any arguments regarding this rationale.Bless sins 12:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm already tired of repeating that foreign ministers have no authority in setting or interpreting Islamic law, a point that you, Bless sins, have so far steadfastly refused to adrsess. If the declaration affirms sharia as the sole source of law, then it's one more reason to refer directly to sharia and bypass the declaration. Pecher ^Talk 13:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I too am tired with arguing with you. The foreign ministers were just representatives of their respective governments. (No foreign minister does anything contrary to the prime minister/king/president etc..) That is why the declaration starts with "The Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference...". The declaration was put togethor by the "State" not the foreign minister.

WHat right does the state have in interpreting Islamic Law?? Tell that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan etc.... where "Islamic Law" is part of the constitution and supposedly adhered to by the government. Infact, many Islamic countries have scholars to advise them on religious matters, (an example bieng Wahabbi scholars maintaining influence over Saudi Arabia).

Therefore this is not just a secular interpretation of Islamic Law, rather a popular belief amongst the majoirty of the 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide.

Also, according to Dr. Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri*, "the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, issued by the 19th Islamic Conference of Foreign Affairs Ministers ... truly presents the view of Islam on human rights ".

• He is the Director General of the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and his work has been recognized by Dr. Koïchiro Matsuura, the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.Bless sins 17:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicken or the Egg??

This is a fairly heavy and deep discussion of a religious nature. Aren't all religions open to interpretation and therefore ongoing discussion and enlightenment? Can any one (or 1000) person(s) accurately decipher what the Author of such a work really meant? It's a good article.. I got the gist of it.. to argue any finer of a point might just be splitting hairs. I'm not Muslim but if I chose to be I'm sure I could argue a finer point as well. Does any one happen to know if there may be a Muslim council of such where questions may be posed and discussed and agreed upon.... or is the Koran written in stone? I'm not being facetious or ignorant, I truly do not know much and quest to change that.

A Muslim council? I'm sure there's at least one for every country claiming to implement Sharia. There are also many independent groups of scholars, for instance running fiqh websites. Its a bit more complicated than just reading the Quran on its own as the sayings and actions of our prophet also have to be taken into consideration.

Unlike Christianity there is no central institution in Islam. There's no equivalent to the Vatican for example. There are moderate institutions that would insist that a humane approach is always preferable and war is always to be avoided, but there are also extremists for whom warfare is the ends to which all else are means. Amibidhrohi 17:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Unlike Christianity there is no central institution in Islam. There's no equivalent to the Vatican for example." I guess misunderstanding and ignorance flow in two directions. There is no central institution in Christianity, either. And the Vatican is recognized as authoritative only by Roman Catholics. Orthodox Christians, for example, are as different from Roman Catholics as Shia are from Sunni. And Protestants are equally distinct. Notably, among various Protestant denominations, one will find both the most liberal and the most fundamentalist strains in Christianity. And, especially for fundamentalist Protestants, references to the Vatican as authoritative may be taken as fighting words.

-- Bob

[edit] Placing disputed content on talk page - proposal for mediation

In accordance with wikipedia policy I place this disputed content on talk page. I call both parties to file medaition on this issue.

The reason for the dispute is that there is already an article on this subject and it is impossible to accpt that even a group of 45 forign minsters can decide how to interprest Islam. Islam only comes from Quran and the words of the prophet.

[edit] the disputed content

Currently, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, accepted by the majority of Islamic countries signifies the stance of most Muslims on the treatment of humans in times of war.

Article 2 states:

"(b) It is forbidden to resort to such means as may result in the genocidal annihilation of mankind."

"(d) Safely from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. "

Article 3 states:

"(a) In the event of the use of force and in case of armed conflict, it is not possible to kill non-belligerents such as old men, women and children. The wounded and the sick shall have the right to medical treatment; and prisoners of war shall have the right to be fed, sheltered and clothed. It is prohibited to mutilate dead bodies. It is a duty to exchange prisoners of war and to arrange visits or reunions of the families separated by the circumstances of war."

"(b) It is prohibited to fell trees, to damage crops or livestock, and to destroy the enemy's civilian buildings and installations by shelling, blasting or any other means."

Zeq 06:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There might be reasonable grounds to oppose mention of the Cairo Declaration (like that almost nobody knows it exists), but your reason isn't amongst them. Islamic law is derived from many sources, including the consensus of religious authorities (ijma), analogy to sunnah or qur'anic teachings (qisas), and the Qur'an and Sunnah directly. ALL of what's in the Cairo declaration comes from one of those sources, even though the document as a whole may not have been drafted by a religious authority. For me to add the scholarly basis for every individual article would constitute original research, so I'm not introducing that into the article. Nothing in the article is derived simply from the personal views of the 'foreign ministers' you speak of. On the matter of genocide, for instance, it's clear Islamic law that women, children and the elderly are not to be killed under any circumstance. Nor are those devoted to monastic service to be harshly treated. The bit on not destroying agricultural property of the enemy is also directly from Hadith. Amibidhrohi 16:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

you may disgaree with me but that is what the mediation is all about. After the mediation conculdes we will decide (together) what should be added to the page. Or, if we don't reach decision we will scalte this. Wikipedia operates by consensus and dispute resolution mechanisms. What you have done is impose your view. Please remove the disputed content. (or i can do it if you refuse). I hope that you will accept the mediation. Zeq 16:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with mediation. How exactly do I "file" mediation? You say that :"The reason for the dispute is that there is already an article on this subject..."

Response:so what?? Should this section be removed because there is already an article on the subject.

"...and it is impossible to accpt that even a group of 45 forign minsters can decide how to interprest Islam. Islam only comes from Quran and the words of the prophet."

Response:If Islam comes ONLY from Quran and words of Prophet, then pls. remove all the opinions of different scholars and maddhabs. AS long as the opinions of Islamic scholars remain, the Cairo Declaration (which represents the opinions of Islamic States) should also remain.

Also see my last response in this section.Bless sins 19:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Also note: the article Islam and anti-Semitism, contains sections such as Islam_and_anti-Semitism#Anti-Semitism_by_extremist_groups. How exactly do Hamas and Al-Qaeda (as mentioned in this section) represent Islam???Bless sins 19:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hamas is an Islamic movment, led by religious figures. This is why i did not remove also the part you wrote froma religious figure. But the forigen ministers have there own article. Zeq 19:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please remove the disputed content. Wikipedia opretae by consenus and discussion. let's go to mediation. Zeq 19:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the request for mediation to make the issue at hand more clear. Please indicate your acceptance of the mediation here: the agreement of all the parties involved is required for the mediation to proceed. Pecher ^Talk 19:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Bless sins

Please note that while you continued the edit war , Pecher has accepted the request for mediation. I hope that you will remove the disputed content and join our mediation effort to resolve the dispute. Zeq 19:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

ZEQ, you have added:"However, this rule is not adheerede to by Islamic warriers (Mujahadeen in Iraq who riutinly beheading civilians hostages. [5],[6]". Question:Why is it OK for you to mention the actions of "Islamic warriers (Mujahadeen in Iraq", but not OK for me to mention the declaration representing the majority of the Muslim World?Bless sins 11:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You have added something about use of swords, surly you know how the muslim mujahadeen use swords in the name of Islam. Have you seen the Daniel Pearl beheading video where also while calling "Alla Hu Akbar" they behead him ? So if the rules prevent use of swords on an armed civilians it is important to show how applicabale are those laws. maybe you prefer to just remove all present day issues and keep this articvle to it's original form ?Zeq 14:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the amalgame you make between these terrorists and Muslims is offending ? Alithien 14:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

They are Muslims, they are obying Islam laws (as they see them) and they operate in the name of Islam. Zeq 14:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What is worthy of notice is that the "terrorists" are "Muslims". They also "operate in the name of Islam."

On the other hand the declaration drafted by governments of 45+ Muslim nations (representing the vast majority of the Muslim World) is somehow unworthy of mentioning??? Why?Bless sins 21:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The declaration is a piece of paper without any validity, while terrorism is for real. Pecher ^Talk 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is true that terrorism is action and delaration is just words, but words are more important than action. EX. Bible, quran, guru grant sahib etc. are all words (or pieces of paper but very powerful).

What you wrote is islamophobia. You should think about that. The fact there are muslim terrorist and terrorist that claim to defend islamic values do not mean that Muslims are terrorist or that Islam is a religion of war. Jewish genocided canaan nation. Does it mena they are all genocidar ? You behave like those who promoted Protocoles. You should think about that. Alithien 10:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read what was writen. It is not about muslims as a whole but about rule of war in islam. For that subject the behaviour of mujahadeen is legitimate. Nothing in the article or the talk page was about all muslims. Zeq 11:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So the behaviour of some "Mujahadeen" is relevent, but the actions of 45 Muslim nations (in drafting a declaration) is not? Bless sins 14:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to respond-->.

In any case this article is about what the "Rules of war in Islam" are, not whether they are upheld or not.Bless sins 14:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We are not here to judge, we are here to report. The application of "islam rule of war" by people who proclaim to represent Islam is naturaly applipable to this article. For NPOV you are free to bring examples in which these rules are actually respected and applied. Happy search. Zeq 16:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Muslims apply some aspect of Islam in their lives, is not what this article is about. It is about what a rule of war in Islam is. It is also about how general muslim percieve what their religion teaches them. The "mujahadeen" could be doing what they do for whatever reason, perhaps at the order of secular Baathists. Only if some Muslims declare a rule of war in Islam (and are notable enough), only then does it become a rule of war.Bless sins 20:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I do think the cario declaration should get a few lines about it, including that it is not binding in any way. This declaration is about the rules of war that "should" be followed by these modern islamic states, so has some relivence in the bottom section of the artical.Hypnosadist 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, (finally someone agrees). However, you must realize that the laws of Islam aren't binding in anyway. If I don't do what the Quran says, no one can force me to, not in a secular western country anyways.Bless sins 10:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I also mostly agree with you. However the issue of whether the Cario (sp?) declaration is binding is an interesting one. While I'm not an expert on international law and haven't even read the Cario decleration article or the mention of it on this page, I believe technically if you've signed the declaration, it means you officially recognise the declaration and in that respect, it is binding (until you withdraw your recognition). However should you fail to follow the declaration, there is little that can be done, unless there is an existing international framework for dealing with those who fail to respect the declaration. But if you also subsequently ratify the the declaration, that is you introduce new laws or changes existing laws to ensure they are fully complaint with and fully recognise the declaration it should be binding in your country. Failure of the government (or other people) to abide by the laws of the country (which should include the details declaration if you've ratified it) is illegal, although obviously if the government does it and the courts are unwilling or unable to stop it, then not much can be done. Some similarities perhaps can be seen to the UDHR in that it is also binding. There is technically a framework to deal with those who fail to abide by it but obviously, the implementation of this framework has a lot of dispute. However a number of countries have enacted laws which in theory fully recognise all elements of the declaration. Although of course, the interpretation of the declaration and what is required to abide by it varies greatly. As said earlier, I don't know much about the Cario declaration but it would be interesting whether and how this declaration is recognised by the states that signed it... Nil Einne 15:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I should add that in terms of the application, the actions of mujaheeden should only be a minority issue. AFAIK, no Muslim country has been involved in a formal war since the declaration was signed. The actions of these governments (and their soldiers etc) in war is of far more relevance then the actions of the mujaheeden. I'm not saying the actions of mujaheeden are completely irrelevant but we need to keep things in perspective. It would be wrong to point out the actions of mujaheeden if we fail to point out that these are only a minority. Talking of mujaheeden, we also need to keep things in perspective when it comes to them. Pointing out cases such as Daniel Pearl without considering the actions of other mujaheeden, and whether they support such actions would be quite wrong. Just because some people may do certain actions doesn't mean they are supported or considered acceptable behaviour by other people who go under the same banner. (For example, it would be wrong to say Americans don't respect the rules of war because of the Hadiytha incident alone). Also, we need to keep things in perspective in terms of what kind of climate they occured in. I don't personally think the actions of Bosnian Muslims or Checnya Muslims in war is of much relevance but should it be decided they are, we need to consider them in the climate they occured in...

The fact that neither the Cairo Declaration or the Sharia rule of war have any structure for implimentation is very important. It means they are effectivly meaningless bits of paper. Rules only count if they are enforced, these are apperantly not. Let it be understood that Muslims believe these rules will be enforced by GOD. I think that why these rules will not be enforced should be mentioned. As a second point should this artical be linked with the Geneva Convention in a comparison with ratification and enforcement.Hypnosadist 15:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The fatwas of scholars, and opinions of the ulema are also bits of paper, and they are rules that ae never enforced (except maybe in Iran and Saudi Arabia). Should we exclude from this article all opinions of Muslim scholars and limit it to the Quran and Hadith only???Bless sins 00:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It must be noted, by everyone, that delaration itself states,

The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.

Bless sins 17:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicting info

One traditional opinion is that no prisoners of war may be executed; this is the most widely accepted view. This is upheld by the Hanafi Maddhab. However, the opinion of the Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali and Jafari Maddhabs is that adult, male prisoners of war may be executed at the discretion of the Islamic supreme leader, or those legally deputized by him.[citation needed] This opinion was also upheld by the medieval Muslim judge, Sa'id bin Jubair (665-714 AD). These opinions are the most widely held in the Muslim world.

There are two conflicting claims here. One says that the most widely accepted view is that no POWs may be executed. The other says that the most widely held view is that that adult, male POWs may be executed at the discretion of the Islamic supreme leader or those deputised by thim. Neither of these is cited/referenced and as such, I suggest both of these be removed. (In any case, I'm skeptical of such claims, how exactly do you get an idea of what is the most widely accepted view with such a complex issue for such a large, widespread and heterogynous population). We should of course leave discussion of the known viewpoints. Nil Einne 15:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

These contradictory claims for most muslim opinion should be deleated, leaving the factual information on which schools of sharia say.Hypnosadist 15:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which quotes need citations?

So, which quotes need ciatitions? Place them here (with an indication to the section they are in), and I will try to back them up with sources. Even better, put ^{[citation needed]} tags in the article where you think a ciation is needed, and i'll provide a ciatation or remove the quote.Bless sins 12:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you cite a book, always provide page numbers; otherwise, the citation is useless because it cannot be verified by other editors. Pecher ^Talk 12:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of interest

I served 5 years active duty in the US Army, and I'm interested in ethical issues. A chief tenet of Western ethics is not to hurt helpless people: like POWs; surrendering troops; women, children and other non-combatants. Of course, it gets messy when enemies use civilian labor (do you bomb the weapons factories?) or hide among civilians (No Gun Ri incident is still page protected).

In light of the huge worldwide protests over US treatment of enemy combatants from Afghanistan and Iraq - and the "barely a whimper" over Saddam's treatment of his own civilians (ears and tongues cut off, women raped, Kurds gassed, etc.) many readers likely be interested in a comparison and contrast between Western and Islamic perspectives on the laws of war or military ethics.

It seems everyone expects America to be 10 times better than anyone else, which is actually not hard because its enemies are many thousands of times worse! --Uncle Ed 20:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, WIKI is neither a chat room nor a forum; if you have guilty conscience and want to discuss it, you better take it to a chat room or forum where people will be more than happy to answer you appropriately.

Thanks. Kiumars

-Kiumars you seemed like a fair and logical person at first, but reading this i've changed my mind. This man voiced his opinion on Western ethics and those of Afghanistan and Iraq, which you may disagree with. So you told him to take his feelings and comments elsewhere, understandably, the tone is quite ethnocentric and anti-islamic.

But then you implied that he committed war crimes with your "if you have guilty conscience" comment. That's not only incredibly insensitive, but bitter and mean-spirited. Qa Plar

I plead guilty to ethnocentrism, but I actually have nothing against Islam. I'm just as much opposed to Christian ethical violations as I am to Muslim ones.

But actually my comments were about the article. I would like to know more about Muslim ethics in general, as well as how Islam regards war. Like most Americans, I know nothing about concepts like jihad (it means Muslims kill anyone who won't convert?) but I feel I have a fairly good understanding of Islamic laws of hospitality: Muslims must not kill anyone had as a guest under their roof, provided food and drink.

How have modern Islamic states, such as Iraq and Iran, treated POWS such as downed American pilots? Better or worse than Americans treated uniformed POWs in either of the Gulf Wars? Or how about compared to Guantanamo? --Uncle Ed 00:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Howdie Ed.I think the big role that the US assumes in the World, particularly it's domination relative to other countries in the UN, has the World in response having high expectations of the US. It isn't necessarily a different perspective on what constitutes moral behavior. In Islamic rules of warfare, one isn't to take a life out of anger, and this is reflected in a tradition in which Ali (Muhammad's nephew) forced himself to refrain from killing a man whom he defeated in battle, simply because he realized that anger would motivate his action. Of course, Saddam isn't much of a Muslim. For whatever reason, there's an atmosphere of chaos and apathy in many of the Arab states. Maybe it's a vacuum left after European control, who knows. It's politics, not religion. His Excellency... 15:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Uncle Ed in june of 2004 eight british servicemen were arrested and held for a few days by the security services in Iran. He are some links that should give you the info you want. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3834723.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3855251.stm hope that helps you.Hypnosadist 14:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Hypnosadist. I read both web pages. Seems like a routine border incident, taking place in peacetime. The blindfold thing is technically a violation (Geneva Convention doesn't allow "display of prisoners" like that, right?) but otherwise the troops don't seem to have been mistreated.

Does Wikipedia have an article on border incidents or border incursions? --Uncle Ed 16:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would not call it peacetime exactly, it was a very tense situation with us being "illegaly" in Iraq, could have gone pear shaped real quick and real nasty.Hypnosadist 17:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant peace between UK and Iran. --Uncle Ed 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone. (You too Ed.) Ive volunteered to mediate for this article, but I see that Ed has jumped in and helped out. Im doing some background reading, and will chime in when I think I understand enough more. But my first impression of the general topic is that the problem seems to break down into familiar dualities/paradoxes:

• One, the common interest in establishing a common (international, global, universal) law, versus the local interest in maintaining local dominance.
• Two, the local (ie. Western culture) formulation, definition, and description of "common" law, versus a different local (Islamic culture) formulation, definition, and description of "common" law.

Note that the real difference between these is the difference in language and their relative differences in their concept of language expressiveness. The basic "human rights" disagreement itself, though influenced by religious concepts, does not appear to be religious in nature and instead seems to be simply an issue of translation. But if its simply an issue of how to include a particular formulation of the human rights concept, then there is no debate, as our doctrines are inclusive -- provided a sufficient context is applied. If there is disagreement with this, or with the basic concept of religion as belonging to particular local human beings, groups, and cultures and not the other way around (ie. all are charachters in some particular religious story), then those are differences with the community's policy itself, best discussed at wikien). I will try to catch up on discussion. -Ste|vertigo 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which is the "lesser?"

In the lede, it says:

"The rules of war in Islam are the basic religious laws of war governing the military conduct of the mujahideen [those who engage in Islamic holy war–jihad ("struggle")]. These rules are part of a broader Islamic military doctrine encompassed by what some Muslims call "Lesser Jihad."

The text above appears to state that the "broader" doctrine is the "lesser." Forgive my ignorance of this custom, but, it seems that the "broader" concept should be the greater. In English, "broad" carries the connotation of being larger, more expansive, more relevant to more people and therefore more... great.

This text is also confusing in that as I understand the concept, "holy jihad" is a battle of spirit, and not one of hostility. The text seems to be referring to two concepts of military jihad and though it uses the term "holy", it does not seem to refer to the jihad of spirit. Is that correct? The concept of "lesser" seems to imply "one which is less holy," wheras the concept of "holy" is presumably the more important concept. The text is confusing, as it appears to refer to the "broader" as the "lesser," and to the lesser as the "holy." Can someone explain this in clearer terms? I think this would go a long way toward improving the article and clearing up the debate. -Ste|vertigo 18:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vertigo, there are two types of jihad, "lesser" and "greater", both are holy to Muslims. Lesser concerns struggling/fighting/working in the physical world to make it better and Greater concerns the internal/mental/spiritual struggle to be better/more holy. Jihad translates best as struggle hence why I used it, and should show the meaning as best as possible. Hope that helps you. Hypnosadist 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

PS the lesser in the name indicated the more base physical world not a definite value judgement. The realm of the spirit being Greater, this I think caries over from Zoroastrianism.Hypnosadist 18:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that would clear things up - if that were in the lede, and if in fact that was the broadly accepted definition. Again were are in the language paradox here, where the use of "holy" to apply to both spiritual and material world struggles would seem to basically apply to 'anything anywhere as long as its struggling.' Im not sure thats the proper distinction, if matters of spirit are indeed regarded as "Greater" than matters of matter. Im not sure if we want to get into Zoroastrianism here - its complicated enough to try to deal with its historical influence on Judaism and Christianity. (!) Im off to read some more Mencken and maybe some Rumi. -Ste|vertigo 19:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam is the religion.

hello friends. I just want to inform you, that Islam wasnt always respected by Muslims. this topic explains how the war SHOULD be according to Islam (the religion). what actually happened or what the "Muslims" did is often totally different.

you think that the facts are different from what is said on this topic? then it's normal. there is indeed a huge difference between what have done the Muslims and what they should have done as Muslims.

think again, we are not talking about facts here, but about what the religion asks to do in such conditions. and it's pretty clear not?

This article is about what islam says should be the rules and it does that, it also provides the islamic reasons some muslims give to "get around" these rules. In fact new fatwas of Al-Qaeda that shia's are apostates and christians are no-longer people of the book because they believe in the Trinity and so are polytheists should also be noted.Hypnosadist 14:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I disagree, this article should be on the traditional Sunni and Shia Islamic fiqh of war, not what Muslims have done (which is usually not even claimed in the name of Islam - e.g. Saddam vs the Kurds or vs Iran), and not what a lone, fringe, and excommunicated sect (al-Qaida et al) say or do. That is a different article which possible belongs in al-Qaida or Takfiri. Using Al-Qaida etc in this article is like using the Branch_Davidians to describe christian views on a particular topic Aaliyah Stevens 14:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

excommunicated!!!!! i can't even comment on that statement without violating policy so i won't.Hypnosadist 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No that is not correct. This article is about what the scholars say about Islam and warfare. If an al-quida member is a scholar, they can be included. Same thing with scholarly critics of Islam. But only scholars.--Sefringle 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Female Slaves and Sex

it's ok now i have changed sex to marriage, it's written marriage in quran also not sex,some bastard have written. The Wiki article [7] says it is allowed for a master to have sex with his female slave. If this is incorrect then corrections need to be made to both articles. NN 04:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nayan, you need to source any edits to secondary reliable sources. I will not remove the statement you inserted but will tag it. Please find a reliable secondary source that says this and add it soon.Bless sins 00:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy says primary sources are acceptable as "descriptive", which is exactly what the sentence is. If you say "we don't use primary sources" you are setting your own standard, not Wiki's. If you tag the sentence you are challenging the primary source, which doesn't make sense as the link is provided. NN 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nayan this is a true fact, though most people would naturally find it so shocking that they think it is vandalism/inaccurate as you did. Female prisoners of jihad can be enslaved as sex slaves and such acts of rape are not considered to be infidelity if one is married. Also the use of primary sources is one of the biggest arguments in the whole "islam" area on wikipedia, i support there much heavier use as most secondary sources are muslim theologians and as such biased.Hypnosadist 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist thanks for agreeing with me. I can't understand Blessed sins position. The Wiki policy on primary sources says clearly "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge". It seems to me that the sentence I put in there was in complete conformity with this. If you believe I am correct you can revert the edit. Regards, NN 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, this is a very clear verse. Hypnosadist 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

PS this is likely to be reverted! Remember wp:3rr and that you have equal rights on here to make good faith reverts. Hypnosadist 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I try to stay well within the 3RR. I find all kinds of inaccuracies or attempts to suppress truths. For example, though I am a huge admirer of the ancient Greeks, I am also currently engaged in trying to have a reference to Sparta as a "world power" removed. And a few editors over there think I must be Muslim! NN 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see this. The section says "The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted." Similarly any verse in the Quran can be interpreted in different ways. Thus please find a secondary source.Bless sins 15:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not saying the Koran or Muhammad advocated anything. We are saying this is what the translations say. As the specific translations have been mentioned, it is proper use of primary sources. NN 15:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of noting the translations? Ultimately the only reason we consider the translations is to note what the Quran actually says. In any case, if your argument that Islam justifies rape etc. is valid, why are you haivng such a hard time finding a scholar that explicitly says this?Bless sins 15:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason we are not looking for secondary sources is because we are not interested in interpretations of the Koran. We are interested in what the actual Koran says, which is fine by Wiki's policy of using primary sources as long as it is descriptive. If you wish to add interpretations from secondary sources, that is fine, but do not remove material from primary sources that are consistent with Wiki policy. NN 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If wish to quote the Quran then we must do that exactly. Quote it verbatim. In any case can you show that this verse is indeed related to prisoners of war and military jurispudence. I have already given to you the bible example. We can't interpret the verse of the Quran. It is OR.Bless sins 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins don't be silly you know as well as i that anyone who says the the truth about islam is islamophobic. Hypnosadist 19:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Think about what you just said. We should talk again after you adopt a more civil behaviour geared towards solving the problem instead of creating more.Bless sins 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the Wiki policy on primary sources does not say it has to be verbatim. Check for yourself if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources . What it needs to be is accurate. If a primary source says "John looked up and saw a blue sky" I can write it as "John saw a blue sky on looking up". This is fine though not verbatim. If I write "John saw a red sky on looking up" that would be a wrong use of a primary source. So only way in which you can challenge my use of a primary source is if I describe it to be something it is not. As I refer to 3 translations, I am naturally going to write it once what they report, rather than repeating myself 3 times. Accept the truth, the Koran is being reported accurately. If you cannot accept the truth, then I cannot help you. NN 20:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself: look at the bible example wikipedia gives. Your edits are clearly violating the message conveyed by that example.Bless sins 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just your saying so doesn't prove anything. If you offer objective proof and explanation of how my edits "are clearly violating the message" then I will agree with you. NN 23:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) is a metaphor, thats why its used as an example of when you can't use a primary source. If you don't know the bible you probably don't know why that particular verse was picked Bless sins. Hypnosadist 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat "The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted." Thus the Quran cannot be used as a source for the claim that Islam advocates sex with prisoners (...), because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted.

To Hypnosadist: the Quranic verses in question are also possibly a metaphor. You need to show with RS that these verses are taken literally in Islam and not otherwise.Bless sins 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Its patently not a metaphor its a list of whom it is legal for the prophet to wed and how many, the end of the verse talks about whom the believers may have as their wives. Here's the quote below;

033.050 YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Bless sins find me one source (not even up to full wikistandards) that says this a metaphor not a legal tract writen in plain arabic. Hypnosadist 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The beauty of wiki policy is that I don't have to find you anything. On the contrary, you are under the burden to provide sources to support your POV. WP:ATT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."Bless sins 05:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins your bad faith use of wikipolicies is very boring now, you know its not a metaphor and i'm not going to waste my time even looking for sources that say that. Hypnosadist 09:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're required to abide by wiki policies regardless of my faith. Since you make it clear that you are not about to provide sources, then I shall remove your claims.Bless sins 02:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins wrote "You need to show with RS that these verses are taken literally in Islam and not otherwise." WRONG. The text does not say that "Koran says this, and this it is taken literally". The text only says "Koran says this". If you wish you can add text saying that the "Koran is not taken literally" provided you have references saying so. Of course there are enough Muslim clerics who believe that is a cop out, and the Koran should be taken literally. NN 04:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I once again point you to the bible reference used in WP. You need a reliable source to show how Muslim interpret this verse.Bless sins 04:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And once again I repeat to you, the text is not about "how Muslims interpret this verse". The text is an accurate description of what the translations say, so it is permitted under Wiki policy. The text is not about "how Muslims interpret the verse". NN 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. Your statement reads "It is lawful to have extramarital sex with those "that your right hand possess" (women captives) according to the translations of the Quran ". THus you are saying that the Quran says it is lawful... You need secondary sources for that.Bless sins 04:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying the "Quran says it is lawful". I am saying "translations of the Quran by x, y and z says it is lawful". That is a descriptive statement. NN 04:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

When I first read this paragraph about "sex with captives" I wondered what this has to do with "jurisprudence". Anyway, as a jurist and one of the main editors of the law article, who wrote almost entirely the part about islamic law, I was intrigued by the whole issue, and tried to look at some sources. One book I found in Googlebook and looks very interesting is "The Position of Women in Islam" by Mohammad Ali Syed. In page 35 I read, "Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1946) says that 'those whom your right hand possesses' refers to captives of religious war, or wars led by righty-guided leaders against the persecutors of faith. This is why, pines Yusuf Ali, the previous marriage of these female captives are dissolved and they become eligible for marriage with their Muslim captors. Yusuf Ali's opinion on this matter is supported by 4:24".
According to the above analysis by a secondary source, and the explaining Yusuf gives to his own translation, I think that it is inaccurate just to say that "Islam allows extra-marital sex with captives according to translations of Quran ..." etc. The editor of this section should clarify that according to (at least some these) translators, the marriage of these captives is regarded by Islam as dissolved (and the relation is not regarded as extra-marital) and, that is why sex is allowed. Otherwise, the "legal" (if we accept that there is a legal aspect) analysis is incomplete and inaccurate. This further explanation is thus IMO necessary, and, since interest in this issue has been expressed by NN who laudably tried to analyse the whole issue, it would be also nice if the same editor could try to make the relevant section a bit less stubby. Its current status is encyclopedically "ugly".

Hence, my opinion is: a) cite secondary sources as I did (it is not that difficult to find them, you know - research in Google Book is a convenience), b) don't rely only on the vague argument "trnslations of Quran", c) provide further explanation of this expert, d) clarify that for Islamic religion marriage of captive women is regarded as dissolved - otherwise the current reference is IMO incomplete, lacking the necessary scholar backing, and possibly one-sided not quoting the Islamic interpretation of the whole matter.--Yannismarou 09:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What you say about "extramarital" is true. I stand corrected and am changing the article accordingly. Islam indeed regards the previous marriage dissolved. A more accurate way would be to say that Islam regards the previous marriage dissolved, but with or without the woman's consent. That is it enables the man to avoid having sex to a woman not married to him (which no doubt Islam regards as a sin) by saying she is no longer married, but her consent in this is not material. I believe in matters of sex it is always important to discuss whether it has the woman's consent or not. To say otherwise is to say that rape is not a crime.

I also agree that "sex" is blunt, maybe "sexual intercourse" is more suitable. NN 14:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As for primary and secondary sources, there are a few issues. While the primary sources are few in number (translations) the secondary sources are numerous. If all secondary sources are to be given then the article would become huge. Hence summarizing of secondary sources is necessary and opens much argument about whether they are accurate or not. Primary sources as long described accurately seem to serve a useful purpose. So I would say that an informative article would rely on both primary and secondary sources. It is useful to tell the reader what X, Y and Z think the Koran means. It is also useful to tell him/her what the Koran actually says. I understand that many editors (particularly those sympathetic to Islam) believe that the only proper way to look at the Koran is through the interpretations of "scholars", but I do not agree with that, nor is that required by Wiki policy. NN 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that these changes are to the correct direction, and it is nice to see such a rational attitude by editors in Wikipedia. I also hope that those involved this section will improve it, by researching, and then expanding it, properly citing it, and "washing" it from its current stubbiness (it would be nice to know, for instance, why such relations are not regarded as "extra-marital" by the Islamic religion, and it would be nice to have this explanation in the section in question). I hope that those interested in the improvement of this section and, of course, of the whole article will proceed to these encyclopedically necessary additions.--Yannismarou 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Yannismarou, I appreciate your enabling me to correct the error I made about "extramarital". I had mistakenly thought the word to mean "between those not married" rather than the correct "between those married to others". NN 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be a good thing to break up articles on Islam into two parts: 1) Primary Sources: This is what the Koran says according to translations 2) Secondary Sources: This is the meaning of the Koran according to "scholars", "theologians", "experts" etc. Surely both provide information to the reader and are allowed by Wiki policy. Also the reason I included "translations of Koran" in the text was to clearly identify which primary source was being used, so that there would be no controversy or allegations that I was offering my personal interpretations. NN 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

NN, the article is fine as it is. I see you still have not provided any secondary soruces per wiki policy. As time passes by, I am getting more and more convinced that perhaps you don't have a secondary source for the POV you are imposing. Please insert your statements only after finding a source.Bless sins 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For some reason you seem to believe that according to Wiki policy secondary sources ONLY are acceptable, primary sources are not. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources. It says "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge". So what exactly is your problem with my edits? NN 21:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For the nth time, look at the Bible example! You can't use a religious scripture to further a POV. You may definetly use a secondary source to do that. The fact that you can't find a secondary source that furthers the POV you are trying to insert, means that not too many people agree with you.Bless sins 19:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Its an F'n metaphor thats why that verse is used, aaargggh! There is no need for secondary sources for a clear list of who the prophet(1st list) and his followers(2nd list) can marry. One is a list of legally defined states of being such as Ma malakat aymanukum and the other is a discriptive metaphor that most (but not all) scholars agree is not allowing sin to go on in front of you, as opposed to the schizophrenic's who often (and i do mean that) rip thier own eyes out because they have seen a sinful act. Hypnosadist 12:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

1) You vulgar language violates WP:CIVIL. 2) Please find RS that say that the bible verse is a metaphor, but the quran verse isn't, and can be quoted without nay theological interpretation. Until then the quote stays out.Bless sins 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Help me out here. "Jurispridence" implies a judicial assessment, does it not? Why exactly are we excluding such assessments from this section? Would we really insist that only English-language Bible verses be cited to explain technical points at, say, College of Cardinals? BYT 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your question needs to be viewed in context. Maybe before your question is answered you could answer why you persistently delete descriptive material from primary sources, i.e. translations of the Koran. NN 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistently? I think I've made two three edits on this section.

You may view Marmaduke Pickthall's translation of the Qur'an as a primary source, but no qualified Islamic scholar on the face of the earth does.

Howsabout we quote (translations of) the Qur'an in addition to actual jurisprudence -- which is, I believe, the stated topic of the article? BYT 12:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. Using the Quran in addition to reliable secondary sources woiuld be good.Bless sins 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Both primary and secondary sources are useful sources for creating an article that gives an accurate picture to the reader. NN 07:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Balance tag

I tagged the section "Commencing hostilities" with balance because is very POV pushing and one sided.--Sefringle 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)