Talk:Jihad

Older comments from the Jihad discussion page may be found at Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4, Archive5, and Archive6

This article should be unlocked

In view of the seeming agreement and/or compromise noted above, there seems no good reason to keep this article locked. Where is the mod who locked the article? Why has this lock been permitted to persist for at least five days at this point? —Ryanaxp 17:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Because this has spawned an ArbCom case and lots of name calling. There is little point in unlocking an article if it will just go back to the state it was before. That said, after some consideration, I have unprotected the article. If I see another revert war I will protect it again. Inter\^Echo 08:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edit: I see Slimvirgin has re-protected the article today due to reverts. The article is now protected again. Inter\^Echo 08:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Inter, I unlocked it in response to the above, but six hours later had requests from both sides to lock it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Muslims

I note that up above, users were challenged to provide evidence of ANY liberal Muslim movements with significant followings. No pro-Islamic editor bothered to do so.

If you have such evidence, please bring it forth. Otherwise, please stop the highly POV edits.Enviroknot 23:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Saying "Liberal" is a matter of personal opinion. If there is the claim that there are "no liberal movements" presently, then that is a matter between what some consider liberal and some don't. Thus, since this is a controversial section, it is imperative that we leave highly unverifiable and unsourced material out. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 23:55, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Not really, no. If you presented evidence of the groups, it would be a start from which an evaluation could be made. As it stands, proof of LACK of following of groups like Free Muslims Against Terrorism was given above and you have yet to refute it with any examples of your own.Enviroknot 23:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just because a group is said to lack support does not classify it as liberal nor does it speak for all other liberal groups. Please stop using anonymous IPs to edit the article or you will be reported again. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I am not using any anonymous IP's. I edit from this account and from this account only.

I am still waiting for you to provide ANY sort of evidence. You seem to refuse to do so. This is no way to resolve a conflict, Anonymous editor. Facts have been given. If you have any of your own, please, PLEASE bring them forth.Enviroknot 00:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The edits you keep making are original research.Yuber^(talk) 00:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please stop thinking that by continuously "demanding facts" you are making a point, Enviroknot. Clearly anyone knows what is considered Liberal is a matter or personal opinion and that basing everything on the success of one small organization is ludicrous. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 00:13, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

If you make an edit, you are supposed to back it up on the talk page. You are steadfastly refusing to do so.Enviroknot 00:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looking at your userpage, it seems you're a well-known sockpuppet. I'm not going to waste my time debating here with you then.Yuber^(talk) 00:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So far, you have made upto 7 edits on the page. I have made 3 in which one was a neutrality tag. You, like always, don't make any discussion and think that personal attacks are the easy way to edit material. I am glad article has been re-protected in a fair state or you would have still put in more disputed, unverifiable material. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have made three edits, all of which were fixing damage caused by Yuber. Please stop acting in bad faith and actually engage in conversation. You are doing no good while you refuse to provide any evidence supporting your removal of content from the article.Enviroknot 00:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can not consider every thing your proven extreme anti-Islamic POV does not agree with "bad faith". Do you seriously want me to show everyone the actual bad faith edits you have made recently against different people, or how about your proven sockpuppetry and editing through anon IPs. Please do not create another atmosphere of conflict as you have done with so many other editors. It is not needed and clearly I was only mediating in this topic from a NPOV. Trust me you do not need another enemy, you have plenty. So lets move on. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Wow!! Why should Anynymous Editor not be permanently banned from Wikipedia? He thinks he's doing Islam a service by blackmailing and threatening people when they ask him to support his edits? Muwaffaq 8 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)

Opinion

I can't edit this article because I've protected it, so this is just an opinion in an effort to sort out one aspect of the dispute. As I see it, the sentence: "However, there are no liberal Muslim movements that have significant power in any Muslim states, nor is it clear that such liberal Muslim movements have significant followings in any Muslim states" is original research, because it's making an assertion, not backed up with any source, in order to build a case. Even if it did have a source, it would still be trying to build a case. That makes it part of the editor's own opinion, argument, or analysis, and that makes it original research.

This is mostly to do with the position of the sentence. If it were elsewhere, in a context in which it flowed more naturally as a pertinent fact, it would be okay, but in this particular passage, it's clear that it's being forced in. Regarding a source, it's Enviroknot who should provide the source if he wants to keep the edit, so as I see it, the sentence violates Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Cite your sources. I hope this helps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what I was saying before. Thanks for clarifying this.--Anonymous editor 02:08, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Also agree. Needs a source to back it up. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The statement is patently true. There are no significant liberal or modernist Muslim movements anywhere in the world. It's simple a fact of life. If you believe that there is a significant liberal or modernist Muslim movement somewhere in the world, then the burden of proof lies on you - you must prove that such a movement exists. It is not up to someone else to prove that no such movements exist, just like it's no one's responsibility to prove that pink invisible elephants dont exist. It's just common sense that there are no significant liberal or modernist Muslim movements anywhere in the world. Everyone knows it, and no one has a counter-example. If you were to say "there are no significant conservative or fundamentalist Muslim movements in the world", I could rattle off half a dozen counter-examples from memory. Anyone who claims that there is a significant liberal Muslim movement somewhere in the world must prove it; until then, it is legitimate to assume that there are no significant liberal islamic movements - just as it is legitimate to assume that there are no invisible pink elephants, though we cannot provide a source for this particular claim. --Zeno of Elea 10:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

look, the "pink Elephants" example is different by the crucial word "significant". We wouldn't need to say "no significant pink Elephants exist" thereby brushing some poor insignificant pink Elephants under the carpet. It is very obivious that liberal Muslim organisations exist. But are they significant? Is significance in the eye of the beholder? If you need to blow up buildings to qualify as "significant" then clearly, no significant liberal Muslim organizations exist. dab (ᛏ) 10:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"It is very obvious that liberal Muslim organisations exist." PLease provid a source. This is not at all obvious to me. Please tell us the names of one or more liberal Muslim organizations, movements, or sects. --Zeno of Elea 11:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

minus the "significant", no problem at all. We have one right here in Zurich, and they are at least of local significance. They are called Vereinigung der Islamischen Organisationen in Zürich (VIOZ) http://www.vioz.ch/ and they recently published a set of principles [1] on non-violence, democracy, and women's rights. Another Swiss group is called Forum für einen fortschrittlichen Islam (FFI), and apparently they are even more progressive [2], [3]. I am quoting Swiss groups because I know them first hand, mind you, I have no doubt there are similar organizations in any number of other countries. dab (ᛏ) 11:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are do wacky Muslim converts keep whitewashing this article?

Anonymous editor, who is an American who once was a fundamentalist Christian but then became a Muslim, and Brandon Toropov, a Russian Jew who emigrated to America and became a Catholic and then a Muslim, bring wacky POV's to all articles about Islam.

Nowhere in the Jihad article does it say that Islam is evil or most Muslims are evil. Far from it. The article is quite balanced, giving a clear history of Jihad.

It is telling that both Anonymous editor and Toropov have gone through multiple religions and/or multiple fundamentalist/extremist approaches to religion. If they had chosen to be secularists or communists or animal rights activists or environmentalists I assume they would whitewash any bad elements of their new belief systems, just like extremists of all stripes tend to do.

Regardless of what this Jihad page says, the non-Muslim world is increasingly aware of violent Jihad against unarmed, innocent civilians. Anonymous editor and Toropov, neither of whom has ever lived in a Muslim country, are hilarious to read.

As for "Liberal Movements Within Islam", it is as laughable as ever. There are certainly some pockets of "Liberal Movements Within Islam" in the Western world, small groups of a few dozen people who put up homemade web free web sites on Yahoo. Of course, there is not a single "Liberal Movement Within Islam" that has established a significant political position or following in any Muslim country.

There are plenty of people in Muslim countries who are nominally Muslim, yet are liberal. These people protest against injustice and in favor of democracy. One need only look at Lebanon and Iran. However, in both Lebanon and Iran, the Muslims who are liberal do not exercise their liberalism in the name of Islam. They are the Muslim equivalent of what Westerners call "lapsed Catholics". The people opposing the Mullahs in Iran are Muslims themselves. However, their political movements are not based in Islam. There are plenty of socialists in Europe who are nominally Catholic, but it would be absurd to call them part of "Liberal Movements Within Catholicism", just like it is absurd to call a secular, non-observant Muslim who protests against his government or in favor of democracy a member of a "Liberal Movement Within Islam".

--PeterChehabi 28 June 2005 05:04 (UTC)

• For the record, I'm not Jewish. I hesitate even to point this much out, because much of what you've written is ad hominem.

• Nor was I born in Russia, but rather in the United States.

• I lived in Saudi Arabia for approximately three months.

• Not that any of this is relevant to the discussion, except insofar as it spotlights a propensity, on your part, for making stuff up.BrandonYusufToropov 28 June 2005 14:35 (UTC)

Firstly, it is irrelevant to attack Anonymous and Brandon because of their religious beliefs and histories. It is only through their revealing it that you know of their history and accuse them on such a shaky basis. I would hope that any editor planning on being taken seriously would not attack the person but their content. If an editor is passing a strong point of view it doesn't matter why they're doing it or what led them to do it. It would be rather presumptuous to think that other editors will be swayed by your attempts to strengthen your view by attempting to give your opponents motives to push a POV. Let's assume you're not a Muslim. Is that any less of a point of view?

Secondly, it would be incredibly difficult to get an accurate count of how many people follow liberal Muslim views. Regardless, the comparison to Catholic socialists is very off. Socialism is a method of running a government, it is not in itself trying to be a religious movement. Unless of course you are talking about Dorothy Day and the Catholic Workers movements and liberation theology which actually would count as liberal Catholic movements that make their decisions based on their interpretations of religious texts. This is what liberal Muslim movements do. They are not secularists claiming an Islamic heritage. They are Muslims who are interpretting the Qur'an (and hadith) in a new light just as has happened in Christianity in the modern era.

Finally, on the issue of Jihad you must be very careful. We are seeing this through interpretation and we must make sure that the quotes use "fight", as we see it, in the correct form. As I know it there are qital, jihad, and harb that can mean more or less fight. As we know fight can mean different things in different contexts so it is our place to see how Muslims scholars first interpret it these followed by what linguists say. Of least importance is the non-scholarly definitions of Jihadwatch whom are not in the position to define Muslim doctrine, nor in the know-how to question the linguistic implications. One cannot just associate something that one calls jihad as a jihad in the sense that the Muslim scholars (and then the linguists and sociologists) have defined. If bin-Laden, completely unnotable in the Islamic theology, declares it is jihad then we must not make this seem to be on the same terms as scholars define jihad if it is not. Jihad has had many interpretations and is used many ways, we cannot equate them all as one and hope to portray a coherent and neutral view of this issue. gren 28 June 2005 05:28 (UTC)

There is no point in using phrases like "liberal movements in Islam." This is terribly ambigious. Let's be honest here. What we really mean is REFORM movements in Islam. IT is undoubtable that there is not a single reformist Islamic sect that isn't a tiny, marginalized group of Westerners. Islam is a relatively new religion as far as human history goes. Islam has not yet reached a stage where there are reformist movements with non-negligable followings. This is a fact of life in the world today, and no amount of obfuscating or complaining about lack of statistics can hide this fact. Religions such as Judaism and Christianity have reform movements with vast followings that have existed for a very long time - this dwarfs anything Islam currently has on offer. This fact will not change by pointing out some Westernized intellectual's personal website that tries to portray a politically correct Islam as if the religion was founded by Oprah. --Zeno of Elea 28 June 2005 07:06 (UTC)

But, Zeno, this is your own personal opinion. There are various moderates in Islam which are regarded as liberal. There are liberals in every religion and who and who is not regarded as Liberal is personal opinion. Just because many do not exist in a massive organization doesn't say anything. And NO, reform movements are not what that article is referring to by saying "liberal", it is usually a reference to moderates or left-wings in any religion. It is very incorrect to say definitely that "only a tiny marginilized group of westerners" are the ones who can be related to this liberal concept, that is absolute speculation. I also agree with Gren's statements and would like to point out that non-Muslims (especially the extreme) are in absolutely no place to "completely" define what is liberal and non-liberal in Islam . Btw, Peter is contradictory in his statement as he says that the "article is quite balanced" and then also saying that I "whitewashed" it; it's an oxymoron. Also I don't know why he is once again resorting to personal attacks about my (and Brandon's) choice of religion when really the only thing I have edited in this article is persistent POV editing by an anonymous IP user (aka the abusive sockpuppet, enviroknot). To Peter: I am very happy being a Muslim (thank you very much for your criticism) but who you consider liberal ("people protesting for democracy") or not is your own personal opinion, and please get your facts straight before blindly resorting to repetitive attacks against people. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 07:28 (UTC)

Zeno, when you say you reform you mean conforming to modern western secular notions right? If this is what you men then say it, because it is very misleading I believe to define reform in such narrow terms as you seem to. The Mu'tazilites controlled the Abassid courts for a while and there was much reform in removing what many saw as their overly Greek influenced doctrines. As I see it the whole creation of what we now know is Sunnis was Islamic reform post fitnah, because as far as I can tell people during that time would not have accepted both Ali and Uthman, in any case, it at least doesn't seem like it would have been typical. Another thing is that it seems like many Muslims take the hadith about not breaking down into sects to heart. This means that most groups do go under loose labels about their beliefs and make sure to show that they are "within Islam" instead of calling themselves the "Reformed Muslim Church" or some name like that. I don't see any problem with my statement that statistics on this are difficult to garner. We don't even know the number of Muslims in totality (even in the United States) and gathering how many view themselves as liberal or follow more or less liberal ideas could only be much harder. If it's true that no government with Islamic based law have what is typically considered liberal thought then that is something that can be quantified and talked about in definite terms. Wait, and aren't people like Iqbal and Qasim Amin from about a century ago reformist or liberal in many ways? I do think you over generalize a lot Zeno. gren 28 June 2005 11:21 (UTC)

yes, that's just essay-writing now. " Islam has not yet reached a stage where there are reformist movements with non-negligable followings." what is that supposed to mean? that statement is meaningless for more reasons I care to enumerate. dab (ᛏ) 28 June 2005 13:23 (UTC)

I'd like to see a count of how many hadith (and quranic verses) use the term Jihad in a military or nonmilitary setting, added to this article. There's only one hadith I know of (and ZERO nonmilitary quranic Jihad references), and it's rightly presented in this article as being of a weak basis. On the other hand, there are at least 164 verses that mention Jihad in a military setting in the quran. I don't have an accurate count on the hadith since various collections of hadith are a dime a dozen and all have different sayings or rewrites of sayings.Enviroknot 29 June 2005 00:49 (UTC)

"Zeno, when you say you reform you mean conforming to modern western secular notions right?" This article is about Jihad, so let's focus on that context. We must first ask, what are the theological reasons that Muslims wage holy war? There are

• 1. War against a foreign invaders
  • This type of war is sanctioned by international law. Islamic law demands that all able bodied Muslim men fight to the last man; defensive Jihad is obligatory until either victory or death is achieved. By making defensive Jihad obligatory, Islam also negates the possibility of non-violent resistance. This kind of rigid militant attitude causes more harm than good. Let is take current day Iraq as an example. The vast majority of Iraqis are not fighting the US invasion, even though they are Muslims. Why is this? Because such Muslims are what one would called "moderate," "liberal," or what have you. But the fact remains that Islam demands that all able bodies Muslims (even non-Iraqis) fight against the invasion until it is defeated, and a small minority of Iraqis are indeed engaging in Jihad against the invasion. The important question is, who is right, as far as Islamic doctrine is concerned? The mujahideen, the "extremists," the "non-moderates," the "non-liberals" (whatever you want to call them) have the moral high ground in this case - they are doing doing what Islam demands, while the rest are disobeying Allah. What is needed here is theological reform. The "liberals" and "moderates" are "liberal" and "moderate" even in cases where Islamic theological doctrine is not. So while there may be "moderates" and "liberal" Muslims who insist that non-violence is okay in Islam, they don't have any sort of actual religious doctrine to base their opinions on. The only way that such "liberals" could have a doctrinal justification for their "liberalism" is if they accompanied their "liberalism" with actual religious reform, by justifying exactly how and why they are rejecting the traditional Islamic doctrine. But as gren pointed out, most "liberal" Muslims "...make sure to show that they are 'within Islam' instead of calling themselves the 'Reformed Muslim Church'" This means that "moderate" Muslims do not even make it explicit that they are rejecting Islamic traditions, so they are a very far way from actually finding a theological justification for religious reformation.
• 2. War for conquest
  • Again, you will find a few "liberal" Muslims proclaiming that holy wars of conquests are no longer neccessary. This is rather convenient - Allah commands Muslims to go on holy wars of conquests for 1,400 years, and when their empire collapses and the wars of conquest end, Allah sends the liberal Muslims to re-interperet Islam and announce that wars of conquest are no longer needed. Well the fact of the matter is that wars of conquest are no longer possible for Muslims or Muslims states, and they probably never will again either. For this reason, I will not bother dwelling too much on this particular type of Jihad. But the fact of the matter is that the only way that this imperialistic aspect of Islam can truly be purged from the religion is through religious reform, and that would require religiously delegitmizing 1,400 years of Islamic conquest and appearing to no longer be "within Islam." Very few Muslims are willing to admit that there is something fundamentally wrong with imperialistic warfare, irrespective of time or place.
• 3. War for re-establishing the Islamic state
  • So long as the concept of the Islamic state is legitimate in Islam, so is holy war in this cause. Thus there are militant Islamist seperatist movements all over the world, from Eastern Europe to the Philippines, and Friday sermons in sympathy for these movements are regularly heard in almost all mosques around the world. Only religious reform towards secularism could stop Muslims from warring against the local infidel government, wherever they form a sizable population. Long ago, Christianity underwent a sweeping reformation where the Church deemed government as inherently evil and agreed upon the seperation of Church and state. Islam has yet to witness such a reformation. In the absense of such a reformation, one cannot claim that there is any significant Muslim opposition to this type of Jihad.
• 4. Assasination of apostates and blasphemers
  • Examples of this kind of international Jihad include the assasinations of Rashad Khalifa and Theo van Gogh, as well the famous death fatwa against Salman Rushdie that was issued by the Iranian government. These form of warfare, in Islam, against percieved enemies has a long history and, according the traditional sources, it goes all the way back to the military activities of the prohet himself. Blasphemy is a capital offense in Islam, and there are virtually no Muslims who would endorse the idea that blasphemy against Islam should be unconditionally tolerated (i.e. that the freedom of speech should be upheld). In the absense of any sort of serious legal reformations in Islam, extremists have complete relgious justification in their murderous violence against percieved blasphemers, and they have the moral high ground as far Islamic doctrine is concerned.

It is abundantly clear that the more "liberal" a "liberal Muslim," in regards to Jihad, the less Muslim that "liberal Muslim" actually is. This is why only 50 people showed up to the Muslim "March Against Terrorism" in Washington DC, even though a Newsweek article about a Koran being flushed down a toilet by an American soldier can cause huge numbers of Muslims to march and riot around the world, in protest. The fact is that Islam has traditionally been a medieval, militant, imperialist, warrior religion. Its earliest adherents were warriors, and for 1,400 years it was a form of totalatarian imperialism. At one point, Islam was the most powerful political organization in the world, due it its inherent imperial, militant nature. And the vast majority of Muslims in the world are still following the same traditional Islam that was developed in the medieval ages, and very little (if any) doctrinal changes have occured since then, on any major scale. This doesn't mean that the vast majority of Muslims are militants, but that is only DESPITE the fact that they are following a medieval warrior religion that has undergone very little change in over a millenium. Yes, there are Muslims on the Internet claiming that Islam doesn't have to involve Jihad and can accomodate non-violence - but with Jihad being the "sixth pillar of Islam," such people are not likely to be taken seriously by most practicing Muslims. --Zeno of Elea 29 June 2005 01:50 (UTC)

Islam is not your interpretation of the Qur'an. It is primarily Muslim scholar's interpretation of the Qur'an followed by secular sociology and critical literary study and the like. If you think that makes them less Muslim then so be it, you can believe that, but your opinion does not make it so. The Muslim March Against terror was disliked by ohter progressive Muslims for many reasons. The primary one being that they argued it was stupid to be the beast of burden for something they didn't do. I'm of German origin, my countrymen slaughtered Jews. I'm not going to apologize for it, I didn't do it. Or if you prefer in the religious sense, I am Catholic, many Catholics slaughtered Muslims, I'm not going to apologize for it. If they started doing it again today I wouldn't apologize for it either because I'm not doing it. You interpret Islam from its primary sources and then claim that is what Islam is. This is now how encyclopedias work, that is called original research. Just because someone says this is Jihad does not mean it's what scholars agree on... you are trying to demonize it because of your own dislike and ignoring what is said about the subject in the literature. Unless of course your literature is Ali Sina and the like, but authors like that are not considered scholarly in the least. gren 29 June 2005 02:36 (UTC)

"Islam is not your interpretation of the Qur'an. It is primarily Muslim scholar's interpretation of the Qur'an followed by secular sociology and critical literary study No, Islam is primarily interpretations of the Qur'an AND Hadith AND Sira, made by CLASSICAL Muslim scholars during the early centuries of Islam. And it has nothing at all to do with "secular sociology" or literary criticism.

"I'm of German origin, my countrymen slaughtered Jews. I'm not going to apologize for it ..." You are misunderstanding the difference between protesting and appologizing. The Muslims who marched and rioted in protest of the Quran being flushed down the toilet were not appologizing for the Quran flushing.

"You interpret Islam from its primary sources and then claim that is what Islam is. This is now how encyclopedias work, that is called original research. Just because someone says this is Jihad does not mean it's what scholars agree on..." Well this is something that we can both agree on. It is the apologists who wish to censor the original sources from the article, and instead focus on sources that consist of the personal homepages of Westernized appologists on the Internet. We all know that Islam's primary sources are not going to portray Jihad as something is that is likely to be agreeable with applogistic Western converts to Islam. For example, it is beyond any doubt that the primary sources command Muslims to wage imperial Jihad in order to expand the Islamic state. If that is what the primary sources say, and if we all agree that Islam is its primary sources, then why does the article mention, at great length, that "some Muslims" don't like this whole imperial Jihad thing?

--Zeno of Elea 29 June 2005 03:23 (UTC)

Clearly Zeno, it seems your definition of a "liberal Muslim" is one the conforms to western interests and western-style themes. Generally, all that you have indicated is that goes against American interest is not a "liberal Muslim" and have taken upon a very "American" and anti-Islamic definition of what Jihad is.

• by making defensive Jihad obligatory, Islam also negates the possibility of non-violent resistance. - Explain how. Defensive Jihad is used to fight armed invaders. There is so much non-violent resistance in the history of the Muslim world. Look at the Iranian Revolution and the recent protests by the Muslim Brotherhood for democracy. Both of these movements were in no way considered "liberal" or reformist by the west and they are still not today. But did they not offer non-violent resistance? These are two movements that the west considers to be far from "liberal", infact they call them "Islamist", but I did't see any Muslim brotherhood members during the recent protest holding guns. What I saw was tens of thousands of people protesting for democracy against the western-supported government of Pres. Mubarak. They stood peacefully under banners with verses from the Quran, under the words of Allah. This was an excellent example of how political "Jihad" took place non-violently, until these people were attacked by government soldiers.

• Let is take current day Iraq as an example. The vast majority of Iraqis are not fighting the US invasion, even though they are Muslims. Why is this? Because such Muslims are what one would called "moderate," "liberal," or what have you." - So what are you trying to say? Any Muslim that offers any resistance to the interests of the United States is not "liberal"??? You are very misinformed on this topic especially. Secondly you say, "they are doing doing what Islam demands, while the rest are disobeying Allah." No, that has absolutely nothing to do with this. Those who are fighting, including those who cite religious reasons, are fighting because they don't want to live under an American-style colony. There are both, political and armed factions opposing the American invasion. An example of a political one is the "Association of Muslim Scholars" (AMS), who although very strongly Muslim, have taken a political role in Iraq and are constantly the target of American soldiers. How do you explain this? The reality is that some groups have chosen to fight with arms, while others have chosen to fight politically. Tell me, if a country invaded the United States, would no one offer armed resistance? Are we to say that anyone who takes up arms is not "liberal" or that not taking up arms goes against the constition? Because this is what your definition would state and is further indication that what a "liberal" is is personal opinion.

• "Allah commands Muslims to go on holy wars of conquests for 1,400 years, and when their empire collapses and the wars of conquest end, Allah sends the liberal Muslims to re-interperet Islam and announce that wars of conquest are no longer needed." - What are your sources on that? Are you simply making stuff up, tell me where does it say that Muslims are to go on "conquest"? When did Allah send liberal Muslims to say anything? Please get your facts straight.

• the fact of the matter is that the only way that this imperialistic aspect of Islam can truly be purged from the religion is through religious reform, and that would require religiously delegitmizing 1,400 years of Islamic conquest and appearing to no longer be "within Islam"."Christianity underwent a sweeping reformation where the Church deemed government as inherently evil and agreed upon the seperation of Church and state." - Really? I see no difference in Christian history, infact I see it worse. Even after Church reformation, imperial kingdoms existed and don't even deny it. Millions of native Americans were killed for these imperial empires. The Spanish and French were overly zealous, they killed natives, built churches to convert them, destroyed the native empires entirely all in the name of "Christ" or some other saint. Why not look through history and see with what treachery, deciet and violence South America was colonialized by the Christians? What about the English empire, what about India where so many people were killed by the British. Tell me where in Islam is forced colonialization of this sort allowed because currently the Christians fit your definition way better than the Muslims. Where was this "christian love" and "liberalism" that we hear so much about? Why is it that so many years after this protestant reformation and separation of church and state, that christians still committed the same crimes and violence against peaceful peoples of the new world?

• Thus there are militant Islamist seperatist movements all over the world, from Eastern Europe to the Philippines" - This is clearly because Muslims are being oppressed. In Kashmir, over 100 000 Muslims have died because of Indian ethnic cleansing. In Chechnya, over 120 000 Muslims have been killed by Russian security forces in two different wars for surpression. How exactly do you explain Bosnia because obviously that is what you are reffering to with "Eastern Europe"? Are you saying the Serbs should have been allowed to "ethnically cleanse" their lands from the Muslims and in doing so they were justified in killing over 20 000 unarmed Muslims. What are Muslims supposed to do, just sit there unarmed while bigotists kill them? How about more recent: in Uzbekistan, so many Muslims protested the current government of Islam Karimov in the streets and in doing so the US-supported government of Islam Karimov killed these so-called "Islamists" in the streets. No denying it, truly any Muslim that protests whether armed or unarmed, even political and defensive, are being killed by those who opress them and the opressors are supported by non-Muslims. What about christian separatist/revolutionary movements in the Indian province of Assam, or how about the Tamil Tigers, Nepali maoist rebels and the IRA?

• The fact is that Islam has traditionally been a medieval, militant, imperialist, warrior religion." - Really? This is the same "warrior" and "medieval" religion that got Europe out of the dark age and into the renaissance. This is the same religion from which much of the greatest research in the fields of astronomy, philosophy and mathematics grew. Based on your "militant, imperialist" definition, as I said before, clearly Christianity is a better fit. ::"they are following a medieval warrior religion that has undergone very little change in over a millenium." - Oh, I forgot christianity changes every other day, right? Funny, because even after the big reformation, Christian countries were still committing the same crimes in everywhere around the world.

• At one point, Islam was the most powerful political organization in the world, due it its inherent imperial, militant nature." - Isn't this exactly why Christian nations were dominating the world in the unfolding of the 20th century: military conquest. On the contrary, Islam spread relatively peacefully through Africa and Islam still spreads fast today without any "militantcy" or "imperialism". In fact even though many Muslims are being bullied by the international powers and missionary work is prohibited in Islam, Islam is growing rapidly without guns, only knowledge of the religion.

Zeno, please learn more about what Jihad actually is without jumping to conclusions from reading material on anti-Islamic sites. You have a definition that was very much like mine before I became Muslim and found out what Jihad really is. Armed Jihad is only a small part of Jihad, but I admit is the one most recognized today by the media and that is what is shaping your definition. Truly by most of the various "evils" of Jihad that you gave above, it seems like Christianity better fits your definition. Regardless of this, I think such point of view should be avoided from this article and hope that you will choose to contribute neutrally to this article. Thank you. --Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 03:36 (UTC)

"Armed Jihad is only a small part of Jihad" The Chinese Communist politican, Zhou En Lai, said that "Diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means." In this sense, Islamist political movements can be seen as being part of Islamic holy war. Similarly, being a spy can be seen as holy war, or being an explosives scientist for the mujahideen can be seen as holy war, etc. Jihad, as in holy war, can be defined as the establishment, defense and expansion of the Islamic state "by any means necessary" (as Malcolm X once said). Holy war, in this sense, is the primary meaning of the word Jihad. For you to insist that your "spiritual Jihad" should be given more attention in this article than the holy war Jihad is nonsensical. If you want to insist that the diplomatic work of Islamist political parties be considered as "Jihad" and given attention in the article, then I should say that such a discussion is more appropriate for the Islamism article. --Zeno of Elea 29 June 2005 07:19 (UTC)

Yes, Jihad also encompasses other meanings, something you have consistently failed to realize. Based on your previous discussion about the "evils of Islam", you were clearly looking only at fundamentalist (Islamist) aspects (e.g. the assasination of Rashad Khalifa). It is very hypocritical to tell me to add my infomation to the Islamism article when you brought up those points. Also don't bring up quotes that have nothing to do with this whatsoever, they don't do the argument any good.

If you want to insist that the diplomatic work of Islamist political parties be considered as "Jihad" and given attention in the article, then I should say that such a discussion is more appropriate for the Islamism - And yet, all you have done is taken fundamentalist aspects and applied them to a Jihad context in order to generalize it among all Muslims and Islam. If everyone was to start generalizing then this would not be an encyclopedia anymore, please realize this. Lastly, I hope that we can move on so that this article may eventually be unlocked for editing, although I am sure that for such an issue vandalism is inevitable. Thanks. --Anonymous editor June 29, 2005 15:24 (UTC)

"Also don't bring up quotes that have nothing to do with this whatsoever, they don't do you any good." Anonymous editor, you are evidently have difficulty understanding my arguments. Frannkly, I find the intellectual level of your discourse to be subpar, and in many cases extremely appologetic, and vulgarly anti-Western, anti-American, and anti-Christian. I see no point in continuing this "discussion." --Zeno of Elea 30 June 2005 00:35 (UTC)

I don't see how me understanding that your quotes have nothing to with anything makes me any of the things you mentioned. Your messages against Islam speak on your behalf. I was not being anti-Christian or anti-American (I am American!), I was pointing out how your specific point of view is based on common right-wing American perspective and lacks knowledge of what Islam truly is. I was showing how your definition connects better with christian history. I speak this way because I was once one of those people. I don't tend to continue this discussion anymore either and I will allow your anti-Islamic comments above to speak for your "intellectual" ability. Your previous comment suggests clearly that you have no way to counterANY of the points I have made. Once again I hope from now on you will base your comments on fact and contribute productively and neutrally to the article. Thanks.--Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 00:46 (UTC)

"our previous comment suggests clearly that you have no way to counterANY of the points I have made." I have not bothered to counter your points because they are not logical responses to the arguments I made. You have not addressed what I said, you just went off on your own rant. Because of this, I do not see any purpose in continuing. As for your claims that you rhetoric is not virulently partisan, anti-American, anti-Western and anti-Christian, I will just present quotes from what you have said:

• " your specific point of view is based on common right-wing American perspective and [therefore] lacks knowledge and lacks knowledge of what Islam truly is"
• "Truly by most of the various "evils" of Jihad that you gave above, it seems like Christianity better fits your definition."
• "I see no difference in Christian history, infact I see it worse."
• "Why not look through history and see with what treachery, deciet and violence South America was colonialized by the Christians? What about the English empire, what about India where so many people were killed by the British." (as if the Church controlled the British Empire).
• " Where was this "christian love" and "liberalism" that we hear so much about? Why is it that so many years after this protestant reformation and separation of church and state, that christians still committed the same crimes and violence against peaceful peoples of the new world?" [note that he is insisting that even though the Church and state are seperate, Christianity is still responsable for the actions of the state.]
• "Are you simply making stuff up, tell me where does it say that Muslims are to go on "conquest"?" [what a joke. He claims that there is no element of imperialism is traditional Islam, blames Christianity for the actions of secular Western governments, and claims that this is an informed and neutral point of view].
• "Based on your "militant, imperialist" definition, as I said before, clearly Christianity is a better fit." [even though the Church accepts seperation from the state]
• "Oh, I forgot christianity changes every other day, right? Funny ..." [does anyone find this funny? because I don't]
• "..because even after the big reformation [sperate of CHurch and state], Christian [sic] countries were still committing the same crimes in everywhere around the world"
• "Zeno, it seems your definition of a "liberal Muslim" is one the conforms to western interests and western-style themes" [looks to me like run-of-the-mill anti-Westernism]
• "[you] have taken upon a very "American" and anti-Islamic definition of what Jihad is." [and, of course, anti-Americanism]

--Zeno of Elea 30 June 2005 23:10 (UTC)

I have not bothered to counter your points because they are not logical responses to the arguments I made. - You know if you were a modest editor you could have just said: "I can't counter your points" and we would have been off with other discussion, but I see you are one of those people off anti-Islamic forums with an agenda to fill. I will just let you push your POV around here and we'll just have the editors counter it and then watch you attempt to counter it again with irrelevant discussion, because all you are here to do is to try and use everything you have against Islam (e.g. your Islam and communism comparison). Btw, I am from the west, you are the one who brought up separation of church and state, which I involved in my discussion as a contrast between two religions. Thanks -Anonymous editor July 1, 2005 12:42 (UTC)

This is the latest ...

• ... in a series of partisan diatribes by Islamophobes whose sources are apparently Fox News, the hate-filled rants of right-wing blogs, and the opportunistic geopolitical stylings of various right-wing "think tanks."

• These sources know a lot more about political opportunism than they know about Islam.

• Gifted Muslim minds (not yammerers like me, but the real thinkers, e.g., Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Reza Aslan and Tariq Ramadan, not to mention the classical commentators of the various madhabs) studied the Qur'an and Sunnah for years in order to address these questions intelligently. Are these people worth consulting?
  • Probably. Why don't you offer up some source material by them then?

• Not according to our friends on the right. Amazingly, they've got all the answers right off the bat, after just a few visits to faithfreedom.org. And the answers our friends on the right offer feature no shades of gray, just the familiar black and white of Boris Badanoff, that reliable, strangely comforting cartoon enemy from the dear departed days of the Cold War.
  • Except that faithfreedom.org and other locations buttress their arguments with Koranic quotations and the writings of Islamic scholars. Therefore it would behoove you to do the same.

• This is not 1962, and we are not Soviets.

• As far as the content of this article goes, I would urge editors with a conscience to beware the instant (and occasionally insolent) certainty of fundamentalists, both Islamic and (just as dangerous) non-Islamic. BrandonYusufToropov 29 June 2005 13:01 (UTC)

Are your personal attacks just about finished so we can have a productive dialogue? Please?Kurita77 29 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)

how were these personal attacks? Where is there even factual disagreement here? Everybody agrees that Jihad has referred to military (this has been in the article for ages, no 'whitewashing' involved), as well as spiritual effort, the so-called greater Jihad, which is not in the quran, but part of muslim tradition. That's all, the rest is really about attempts to take potshots at Islam because they have (surprise) a tradition of warfare (unlike meek Christianity, or the pious USA, I'm sure) dab (ᛏ) 29 June 2005 14:42 (UTC)

Ranting on about "Islamophobes", "partisan diatribes", etc is nothing more than an attack against those who don't agree with him. This definitely is a personal attack.

Casting aspersions on their knowledge is as well, especially when it includes an attack on their motives.

Going on about Boris Badanoff? Strawman attack.

Accusing his opponents of being Soviets? Definitely a personal attack.

Calling people "insolent" is definitely a personal attack.

We don't need that here. It's not helping anything. Nor is your casting aspersions on the freest nation in the world helping. I could make comments about the European inferiority complex, but that would be a personal attack so I won't.

Also, given the weak basis for the only hadith that mentions so-called greater Jihad, I'd say there is serious question as to whether "everybody agrees" that Jihad is both. Thus the disagreements.Kurita77 29 June 2005 14:52 (UTC)

the meaning is current today. Educated discussion could go into the history of the term. But what you are doing does not really qualify as educated discussion. Or the educated parts are buried under all fight-picking and Islam-bashing. Shouldn't you really be blocked for 12h, btw? dab (ᛏ) 29 June 2005 14:58 (UTC)

"This is not 1962, and we are not Soviets." Actually, political Islam (of which Jihad is wholely a part of) has striking similarities to communism. I would recommend that you read the works of the former Communist and famous academic scholar of Islam, Maxim Rodinson. In the epilouge of his monograph titled "Muhammad," Rodinson discusses, at length, the similarities between these two totalitarian political ideologies (Communism and Islamism). --Zeno of Elea 30 June 2005 00:49 (UTC)

Request for quantification, moved from above where it was buried

I'd like to see a count of how many hadith (and quranic verses) use the term Jihad in a military or nonmilitary setting, added to this article. There's only one hadith I know of (and ZERO nonmilitary quranic Jihad references), and it's rightly presented in this article as being of a weak basis. On the other hand, there are at least 164 verses that mention Jihad in a military setting in the quran. I don't have an accurate count on the hadith since various collections of hadith are a dime a dozen and all have different sayings or rewrites of sayings.Enviroknot 29 June 2005 00:49 (UTC)

It seems to me that this ought to be a simple request to answer. It would also be a good addition to the article. The only reason I could see anyone opposing it is that it might reflect badly on their assertion that Jihad is not primarily about warfare. The fact remains that so-called greater Jihad isn't mentioned in the Koran, but Jihad as warfare is.Kurita77 29 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)

164 ayat that use jihad in a military setting? #Excerpts from the Qur'an on warfare says, correctly, that there are precisely four uses, which are:

• 9:24: "Say: If it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that ye have gained; the commerce in which ye fear a decline: or the dwellings in which ye delight - are dearer to you than Allah, or His Messenger, or the striving in His cause;- then wait until Allah brings about His decision: and Allah guides not the rebellious."
• 22:78: "And strive in His cause as ye ought to strive, (with sincerity and under discipline). He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the cult of your father Abraham. It is He Who has named you Muslims, both before and in this (Revelation); that the Messenger may be a witness for you, and ye be witnesses for mankind! So establish regular Prayer, give regular Charity, and hold fast to Allah! He is your Protector - the Best to protect and the Best to help!"
• 25:52: "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an)."
• 60:1: "O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path."

All quotations are from Yusuf Ali's translation, found by searching for the Arabic word with this engine. Perhaps the various interpretations of these passages ought to be mentioned somewhere. —Charles P. (Mirv) 29 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)

164 times the word Jihad is used in Quran ??? U must be joking man

These are the only verses where the word " j-h-d " has been used in various forms ( like Jaahadu or jahada ) & meanings .By the way you can search for the word Strive( & not fight )to get the verses where the word j-h-d has been used ,

2:218, 3:142, 4:95, 5:35, 8:72, 8:74, 8:75, 9:16, 9:19, 9:20, 9:24, 9:41, 9:73, 9:81, 9:86, 9:88, 16:110, 22:78, 25:52, 29:6, 29:69, 31:15, 47:31, 60:1, 61:11, 66:9

If U like to go deeper into arabic , other than Surah Tauba , most of the verses use the word in "struggle" meaning rather than fight meaning . The whole word Jihad (in its noun form) has only been used in the verses quoted by mirv . While the word q-t-l has beenused in other verses in "fight only" meaning .

Also see 25:52

So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them (by preaching) with the utmost endeavour, with it (the Qur'ân).

[4]

Here preaching with Quran hasbeen called Jihadan kabira ( utmost endevour )

About the levels of Jihad .

People were having difficulty in understanding levels/kind of Jihad again & again & again, I thought I should explain what I have read & been taught

1 . JIhad bin Nafs/Qalb

Struggle with heart . Here a person fights against wrong beliefs & prsctices. It hasbeen called greater Jihad because fighting one's ownself is more difficult then fighting others . Any other Jihad without this is not worth while because then it isnt for Allah .

2 . Jiahd bil Lisan

Struggle with tongue ( Verbal Struggle ) . Includes struggle against the evils or wrong doings of society/rulers by speech . Calling others towards the right practices or telling them about evils ( Dawah ) , & speaking against tyrant ( as in the hadeeth quoted ) are included init .

3 . Jihad bil Qalam/Ilm

Struggle with pen/knowledge . This includes all scholarly work . Media , press are also included in it . The diference b/w 2 & 3 is that #2 can be done by anybody while # 3 can only be done by people who are educated on the matter . Making bombs or diplomacy is also included in it .

4 . Jihad bil Yad

Struggle with hand . Implying use of force , or movement . Taking care of parents , doing haj , Spending money ( Jihad bil mal ) & being spy is included in it . Also includes stopping evil by force .

5 . Jihad bis saif

Armed struggle . Difference b/w #4 & #5 is that in #4 U have got no intention of kiling the person in front of you , while in #5 you are armed with an intention to kill .

So first one removes evil from himself , then tell others about it , then uses his experience/education to tell people on a larger scale , then try to stop it with force , then try to stop it with weapons .

I still dont understand what is the big problem understanding such simple facts about Jihad . May be people's minds have been so brainwashed that htey arnt even able to see outside their pre-formed concepts , they like to re-affirm to themselves that nothing exists outside their presumed boundaries of realitiy . Did U guys ever ask any scholar of Islam what is the Philosophy of Jihad . If U did rather that visiting sites made by illeterates , it wouldnt have been so hard for you . I had given a link above for Sunni view of Jihad & inportance of JIhad bin Nafs , if U searched the site , it clearly says that refutation of the Greater Jihad hadeeth comes only from Ibn Tayamia , who is the founder of Salfism , nothing mainstream about him . I wonder why people dont even want to google for "greater Jihad" or "Jihad bin nafs" , & come here saying Jihad bin nafs is some mystical concept . Comeon guys , improve your reading habits .

As for liberals/reformers , I dont know about the west , but in Indian sub-continent , try getting some information about Syed Ahmed Khan , Dr. Muhammad Iqbal , Dr. Hamidullah e.t.c . And what do you say about Mahatir Muhammad , Kamal Ataturk , Pervez Musharraf ?? Ever read any books about Muhammad Ali Jinnah ?? Also any information about Sufism ?? They have got a huge following in Indian subcontinent , central asia , persian speaking areas , east asia , & north africa . If U think Sufis are some monks meditating in caves , you are wrong . Thay have run businesses , universities , a lot of them were jurists & aalims , & sometimes even fought invaders .

AS for a point raised by Peterchahabi, if somebody protestes against injustice , he is doing Jihad , there is no need to get liberal/secular for that( as some funny minds presume ). If Mullahs are opressing anyone , and he is struggling against it , he is struggling in the way of Allah . Nothing absurd about it , just difficult to grasp for some .

I think we should explain each level of Jihad in separate sections , rather than in general rule or general struggle sections . If we explain each level separately , it will be clear that each of them is just a step , with increasing intensity/force in each level , rather then implying ( as in the current form ) two completely different meanings/things.

Farhansher 29 June 2005 19:32 (UTC)

Wow. That is awesome work, Farhansher. Thanks for doing it. (And transliterating it, for the benefit of those of us who still have kindergarten-level Arabic skills.) BrandonYusufToropov 29 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)

Farhansher, I like your idea of explaining Jihad in the different sections that you have enumeratoed above. Well done. But I don't agree with your statement that Kemal Ataturk, Pervez Musharraf or Muhammad Ali Jinnah were Islamic reformists. These three individuals were not really Muslims. Kemal Ataturk was a militant secularist who abolished the 1,400 year legacy of the Caliphate and is considered by Muslims to be one of the greatest traitors in Islamic history. Ataturk founded the secular nation state of Turkey, a country where it is illegal for Muslim women to wear veils or head scarfs in government buildings or institutions of public education. Musharaf is also a militant secularist and he is not reforming Islam, he is merely a shrewd politician who wishes to maintain a modus operandi with the powerful Islamist political factions within Pakistan, while still remaining a major military ally of the US. As for Jinnah, he founded Pakistan the Republic of Pakistan as a secular state. Soon after his death, Pakistan went through political turmoil that led Islamists to gain much more influence (the Republic Pakistan was eventually renamed as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan). Jinnah did not pray, he drank alcohol, his eventually allowed his daughter to marry an infidel. Whatever one thinks of his politics, Jinnah was certainly not an Islamic reformist. Jinnah was a secularist whose people were Muslims, and he made it his business to defend the secular interests of his fellow Indian Muslims. --Zeno of Elea 30 June 2005 02:39 (UTC)

Well this is exactly the kind of disinformation I used to get on faithfreedom.

Perverz Musharraf, Kemal Ataturk, Jinnah & Mahatir are liberals as well as reformer of muslims , not Islam ( There is a difference b/w reforming Beliefs & reforming practices ). While the other names that I gave were Hamidullah , Iqbal , Syed Ahmed Khan, & what I forgot to mention includes Shah Waliullah & Mujaddid alf sani . All the later mentioned guys are reformers of Islam , they were actual scholars , who learnt Islam & tried to change the wrongs that were practiced by muslims of that time .

Jinnah was born in a parsi(Zoraster) family , he lived in UK , nobody authentic eversaid anything about his association with Alcohol . Afterwards he converted to Islam , his wife also accepted Islam . Whether he prayed or not ?? Well this is his personal problem , nobody would know if he prayed inside his home . If I remember correctly , he was seen offering Eid prayer in public once , after the formation of Pakistan .

Secondly , muslims arnt allowed to use the word kafir to anybody who is a non-muslim . And the word infidel isnt a good translation of Kifir . So plz , dont use this word . And yes , he didnt allow his daughter to marry a non-muslim .

Pervez musharraf is again a muslim , what he is doing is under American pressure , & under the current circumstances , his main aim is to improve the economy . Once the same question was put to him in a press conference , & he replied " cant U guys see, we are still alive, our childern are still playing , the americans would have done the same thing to us that they did to Afghanis & Iraqis ". This pretty much explains everything . And extremism isnt a part of Islam , if he is trying to crush it , he too is doing Jihad .

Kemal Ataturk again did what was right in that time . Islam is a vey flexable religion . You can see Sulah Hudabia for this . - Farhansher

Zeno, why all this talk about "Islamic reformists" - what exactly does it have to do with anything? Only zeno considers reformists to be the only type of "liberal Muslim". Liberal can define anyone it all depends on personal point of view. Tell me, Zeno, why exactly does being politically secular make someone not a Muslim? "Jinnah did not pray, he drank alcohol, his eventually allowed his daughter to marry an infidel." - Please state your sources, it seems absolutely absurd and generalized to say that Jinnah did not pray and drank alcohol. Also committing these sins still does not make him a non-Muslim. There are christians who do many things that christianity prohibits, there are many "christians" who don't even do to church, but then why don't we say that they are not christian? Also by saying that he allowed his daughter to marry an "infidel", you show once again how misinformed about Islam you are. Many Muslims marry non-Muslims and no where is this prohibited specifically because his daughter did not change religions either. Also Jinnah was the founder of the Muslim League, a movement in which the rights of Muslims was advocated and Jinnah was seen making pro-Islam statements. Secondly, Pres. Musharraf is a perfect example of a liberal Muslim. Him having non-"Islamist" or partially-secular beliefs does NOT make him a non-Muslim. Just because he is not an "Islamist" doesn't mean that he is not Muslim! In fact he even has been seen praying at mosques in TV documentaries/news. Farhanser named many other liberals, how come you didn't support your point of there being no liberals then, zeno? E.g. Mahatir Muhammad. Once again, being reformist/secularist does not make some-one a non-Muslim and neither are liberal Muslims limited to reformists/secularists. In fact by saying that a reformist is the "only" type of liberal Muslim and yet saying that all secularists/reformist are non-Muslim, this makes your points contradictory Zeno. Hope that helps your understanding.--Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 03:06 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, this is the 3rd time that I'm having to explain to you that I am not at all concerned with the label of "liberal." I was addressing Farhansher's list of alleged Islamic reformists. This has nothing to do with the left-right paradigm. --Zeno of Elea 30 June 2005 03:45 (UTC)

You don't seem to be explaining what reform is. The early Fiqah like Hanafi reformed the much more fragmented system and tried to make a coherent system out of it. Would you count that as reformist? gren 30 June 2005 05:10 (UTC)

Zeno, then this is irrelevant to this article discussion. It is also absurd for you to say that this is "3rd" time when you have had this topic all along (see previous discussions). Just to clarify, even if you disregard the "left-right" paradigm I am still refuting who you classify as reformist and non-Muslim. You said that "These three individuals were not really Muslims." and I am appropriately clarifying to you why this statement is incorrect. Thanks, --Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 04:21 (UTC)

There is no scope for reforms in Islam since you have to follow whatever Koran says. Otherwise you are infidel. It is the most rigid religion in the world which is why it fought and destroyed every single civilized culture that it came in contact with. Give me ONE example of a religion with which muslims did not fight and lived peacefully. Give me one example. Is that asking a lot? AimLess 30 June 2005 09:37 (UTC)

In principle, Wikipedia is hoping to attract editors who already have at least a basic knowledge of the subject they wish to contribute to. Please read any book on the topic. dab (ᛏ) 30 June 2005 11:06 (UTC)

AimLess, in modern times we have been able to divorce the Holy Roman Empire and "Christian" leaders from what Christianity is supposed to be. Hopefully, if you are so ashamed/scared of the Caliphate and other "Muslim" empires then you will be able to separate the two as well. Christian lands did the same thing up until the secularization of the state and "Muslim" lands were colonized or marginalized (as in the decline of the Ottomans) and didn't exactly have great power or the economy which helped produce reform in former "Christian lands". Or... what dab said... gren 30 June 2005 12:38 (UTC)

"AimLess, in modern times we have been able to divorce the Holy Roman Empire and "Christian" leaders from what Christianity is supposed to be. Hopefully, if you are so ashamed/scared of the Caliphate and other "Muslim" empires then you will be able to separate the two as well." THAT is ridiculous non-sense. Christians themselves chose to divorce empire from religion, and agreed to the seperation of Church and state. Muslims have not done so, apart from small minorities. Islam has gone through no such secularization of the state. It can be proven by looking at the classical shar'iah and tafsir that Muslims generally believe (to this day) that Islamic imperialism was NOT and is NOT wrong; they also continue to believe that the state and "the mosque" should be one and the same. It is absurd to suggest that modern Christianity's relation to politics and war and analagous to Islam's relation to politics and war. --Zeno of Elea 30 June 2005 22:47 (UTC)

It's absurd to suggest that "modern Christianity's" politics has anything more to do with Christianity (as in, the religion) than "medieval Christianity's". Don't confuse the religion with its adherents. If madmen with bombs are "modern Jihad", then Guantanamo is "modern Christianity". Both may be related to religious fanaticism, but neither is good theology, or consistent with mainstream religious thought. If you think that enlightenment is the achievment of the Church, you have me laughing tears. Modern society had to be bitterly wrested from the Christian Church by godless secularists. To claim the achievments of modern Western society, whatever their merits, for the Christian religion is wrong from so too many angles for the point to be brought up in even a semi-literate discussion. dab (ᛏ) 1 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)

• "If madmen with bombs are "modern Jihad", then Guantanamo is "modern Christianity". This is patently false. Guantanamo Bay is a US Army base, controlled by the United States Government, a democratically elected, secular institution. The US government is not governed by the Church or by Christian doctrine. On the other hand, contemporary mujahideen are clearly and explicitly motivated by Islamic doctrine on Jihad. --Zeno of Elea 2 July 2005 03:11 (UTC)
• "If you think that enlightenment is the achievment of the Church, you have me laughing tears." I did not state the the Enlightenment is the achievment of the Church. In actual fact, I stated that the Church responded to the Enlightenment by acquiesing to the seperation of Church and state. The Church came to terms with the new status quo by declaring the government is inherently evil and thus it should become the work of the Church. In Islam, the situation is different because Muhammad was a politician, a military commander, and the absolute monarch of a newly formed Islamic state. --Zeno of Elea 2 July 2005 03:11 (UTC)

Mirv, I liked your specifying edit on actual use of "Jihad" in Quran

Hope we can incorporate it when the article is unlocked. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 29 June 2005 16:18 (UTC)

Proposal on Categorization of the Various Jihads

I think Farhansher's division of into 5 different types of Jihad is not bad, but the current dichotomy in the article also has its merit (though it needs refinement). Here is a proposed classification for explaining the various details:

• We must note that there are some authentic hadiths which claim that non-militant Jihad is not equivalent to militant Jihad. We must also note that there are hadiths which state that some things are equivalent to militant Jihad in greatness. Finally we must note that there is a "weak" hadith which claims that the non-militant Jihad is greater than the militant Jihad. Having said that, we can further refine the different kinds of militant and non-militant Jihad:

• Jihad in a non-militant context
  • 1 . JIhad bin Nafs/Qalb - literally, "Struggle of the heart." This means a struggle for piety in one's thoughts and beliefs.
  • 2 . Jiahd bil Lisan' - Struggle with tongue ( Verbal Struggle ) - This means Dawah carried out by the general Muslim public, as well as political protesting.
  • 3 . Jihad bil Qalam/Ilm - Struggle with pen/knowledge - Includes scholarly study and the transmission of dawah through mass media and publication. Also includes non-militant Islamist political activism (such as Islamist political parties)
  • 4 . Jihad bil Yad - Struggle with hand - Taking care of parents, doing haj, and spending money on Jihads 1-3 above.
• Jihad in a militant context
  • 1. Jiahd bil Lisan' - Struggle with tongue ( Verbal Struggle ) - This can include prostylzing of militant ideology by individuals, militant recruiting, the incitement of violence, and other militant Islamist activism involving verbal speech.
  • 2 . Jihad bil Qalam/Ilm - Struggle with pen/knowledge - This includes such things as the study of weapons engineering (knowledge of improvised explosives devices, etc.), military strategy and history, and so forth. It also includes the dissementation of militant propoganda for mass recruiting purposes as well as for political and relgious purposes. Examples include the famous video tapes released by Osama bin Laden.
  • 3 . Jihad bil Yad - Struggle with hand - This includes such activities as military diplomacy, military intelligence (spying), providing financial support to Islamic militants, and other uses of force or power that are not directly lethal.
  • 4. Jihad bis saif - Armed struggle. This involves the use of lethal force, such as in direct warfare, assasination, insurgency, etc.

--Zeno of Elea 30 June 2005 13:28 (UTC)

^Who wrote the above info? Please clarify. Thanks.--Anonymous editor June 30, 2005 05:13 (UTC)

It was Zeno, who is apparently eager to leave the implication that mainstream interpretations of Islam support OBL and view his activities (here stealthily identified as recruiting and propaganda) as sanctioned under Islamic law. This despite mountains of evidence to the contrary from reputed scholars condemning his crimes.

I would like to add my voice to the chorus of people encouraging to Zeno to

• read in considerably more depth about this topic before trying to create any summary, here or elsewhere on WP, of "What Muslims believe" or "What Islam teaches" concerning Jihad.

Specifically, it would be helpful if Zeno

• Reviewed the many authoritative condemnations [5] of Osama Bin Laden's actions by responsible mainstream scholars. Here is another [[6]] of many, many such condemnations citing both Qur'an and hadith.

Additionally, I would encourage Zeno to:

• Set up a talk page (the better to be quickly distinguished from certain sockpuppets, which is an important consideration here.)

Finally, Zeno, if you have some specific reason for advocating that the most militant, deviant, and destructive aspects of Islamic thought should be bolted forcibly into the body of this article as though they were mainstream beliefs, I would like to encourage you to explain to us what that reason is.

Would you write an article on the Just war theory within Christianity by citing, as representative of Christian recruitment and public discussion, the writings of Eric Robert Rudolph and Christian Identity? (Not a rhetorical question.) BrandonYusufToropov 30 June 2005 14:29 (UTC)

• As usual, you have failed to remain on topic. It is completely unclear why or even if you are objecting to my proposal for classifying Jihad into these various categories. Nevertheless, I will address your rant.
• "Zeno, who is apparently eager to leave the implication that mainstream interpretations of Islam support OBL and view his activities" I suggest you carefully read what I said instead of trying to put words into my mouth. Nowhere did I imply are you are claiming I am implying. I mentioned Osama bin Laden's VIDEOS as an example of how the Mujahideen use mass media to further their cause. Whether or not you agree with Osama bin LAden's actions (as if anyone really knows WHAT his exact actions are or were), the fact remains that Osama bin Laden is an example of a famous mujahid (a militant Islamist who went on Jihad). On the one hand you and your coreligionists are all too eager to insist that there is nothing wrong about Muslims fighting against non-Muslim invaders. We know for a fact that Osama bin Laden was a wealthy young man whose belief in the ideology of Jihad led him to go to fight in the Afghan Jihad against Soviet invasion. Clearly, Osama bin LAden is a legitimate example of a "mujahid" (holy warrior). If you would like to discuss other holy warriors as well, then feel free to do so. The discussion of holy war and holy warriors is pertinant to the article on Jihad, regardless of your extreme POV that it is not.
• "read in considerably more depth about this topic before trying to create any summary, here or elsewhere on WP, of "What Muslims believe" or "What Islam teaches" concerning Jihad." This is a personal attack and is absolutely unacceptable. If you wish you my argue against my statements. how ever you may not resort to argumentum ad hominem. You have no right or reason to insinuate that I have not adequetly studied the Islamic religion. I suggest you conduct yourself in a manner that is not contrary to Wikipedia policies.
• "Finally, Zeno, if you have some specific reason for advocating that the most militant, deviant, and destructive aspects of Islamic thought should be bolted forcibly into the body of this article as though they were mainstream beliefs, I would like to encourage you to explain to us what that reason is." Refer explictly to which statement you are referring. Your claims about what i have said are erroneous, and you have not provided any evidence to support your claims. There is no mystery as to why you have failed to support said claims.
• "Would you write an article on the Just war theory within Christianity by citing, as representative of Christian recruitment and public discussion, the writings of Eric Robert Rudolph and Christian Identity?" Please provide a list of contemporary Islamic holy warriors whom you believe are resprestative of Jihad.
• "Set up a talk page (the better to be quickly distinguished from certain sockpuppets, which is an important consideration here.)" I don't know what you mean by "set up a talk page." THIS IS a talk page, and I do not intend to create a new one just because you are demanding that I do so. As for your accusation that I'm a sock puppet, I suspect that it is you who are the sock puppet, probably a sock puppet of Yuber/Alberuni/Anonymous Editor.

--Zeno of Elea 30 June 2005 22:32 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I'm not going to bother with a point-by-point on this. It should be obvious enough by now to editors with a real interest in this subject what your objective is here.

• I do want to draw the attention of interested parties to the following facts:

• Zeno has been editing since only June 16.

• Zeno's very first edit was here on Jihad.

• Zeno has a fixation on Yuber's work, because ...

• Only two days after Zeno's very first edit, he filed this [7] comment on an RfA, which is odd for a newcomer in a couple of different respects. My attention was drawn to this remark:

• In the 3 days between 11 Jun 2005 and 13 Jun 2005, Yuber made 4 reverts of the article.

• Please consider those dates closely, editors with conscience. Not only does this new user Zeno immediately start in on the Jihad article, but Zeno also gives clear evidence of having watched the article closely, and of already being familiar with 3RR, and of disapproving of a given user's conduct, all before even making a single edit on WP.

• After only two weeks as a user, Zeno not only knows what a sockpuppet is (I certainly didn't at two weeks)...

• ... and not only accuses me of being one ....

• ... but also knows the names of three specific editors to throw into the accusation!

• Note also that, at just two weeks old, Zeno has developed the odd habit of insisting that any form of disagreement constitutes a personal attack, and lectures editors on (supposed) WP policy.

• So --- does Zeno remind us of anyone we've run into before? BrandonYusufToropov 1 July 2005 10:17 (UTC)

Reminds me of our ol' pal enviroknot, but I'm sure there are plenty that she could be. The bringing up of totally irrelevant topics, extreme hostility against Yuber and Islam hint enviro though.  ;) -Anonymous editor July 1, 2005 13:50 (UTC)

• Has anyone else noticed that EVERY TIME a new editor confronts BrandonYouSuckToropov's whitewashing, his first instinct is to scream "sockpuppet"? He did it to Enviroknot, he's doing it to Zeno. He does it to any newcomer. He did it to Kurita77. He tried it on Klonimus. He's nothing but a frelling idiot crying wolf, or rather "sockpuppet", as an ad hominem attack.24.73.99.21 1 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)
  • Five bucks says BrandonYouSuckToropov tries to send me a message or leaves one here asking "how long have you been editing Wikipedia?" as his next action. 24.73.99.21 1 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)

User:24.73.99.21, Enviroknot and Kurita77 are both proven sockpuppets and have been banned by numerous administrators. This shows that if Brandon did indeed call them sockpuppets then he was absolutely correct! As for me, five bucks says that you are enviroknot evading a block. --Anonymous editor July 2, 2005 03:07 (UTC)

• "After only two weeks as a user, Zeno not only knows what a sockpuppet is (I certainly didn't at two weeks)..." BrandonYusufToropov, just because you might be a slow learner does not mean that everyone else is. Aspects of Wikipedia editing, such as policies, sockpuppets, and personal attacks, are all documented on Wikipedia and are available for all editors to read. I started with editing the Jihad article because I have a personal interest in the subject, and have read a great deal about it. Learning about the editors I encounter on Wikipedia, being able to learn quickly, and having specialized knowledge does not make me a sockpuppet, despite yours and Anonymous editor's ridiculous accusations.
• "Zeno has developed the odd habit of insisting that any form of disagreement constitutes a personal attack" BrandonYusufToropov, this is hyperbole at best, and libel at worst. As far as I can remember, this is the first time that I have accused someone on Wikipedia of personally attacking me. You told me to "read in considerably more depth about this topic before trying to create any summary, here or elsewhere on WP" - this is CLEARLY a personal attack. I would advise that you refrain from making personl attacks in the future, and restrict yourself to attacking my arguments. --Zeno of Elea 2 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

The perfect exemplars

I've been mulling over the continuing problems with this article, the accusations re whitewashing, and I just want to make some observations, rather than enter the skirmishing. I'm just not up for the aggro.

I think that the critics who are yelling "whitewashing" are zeroing in on something that the Muslim editors aren't facing directly.

Those of us who are religious want to believe in a teacher who was a perfect exemplar of what he taught, one teaching that is perfect and trustworthy, a time and place where everything was right. If our lives now are confusing and miserable, if society seems to be falling to pieces, all we have to do is imitate the teacher perfectly, live by the perfect teachings, revive the perfect times. Whether it's Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, Confucius ... somebody had the answers.

Most Muslims believe that Muhammad and his early followers had the answers. They are the ones to be imitated. But what did they do? They conquered much of Asia and Africa. Blood, destruction, pillage, slavery. Now there are Muslims who want to revive those heady days when Muslims were the biggest baddest guys on the block. There are other Muslims who say, No, no, that's not what we want to do, that's not how we want to relate to other religions. But ... they aren't saying what's different between then and now that makes Umar right and Osama bin Laden wrong. I've heard Muslims say that the early Muslims were just fighting in "self-defense". C'mon, you don't conquer half the known world in "self-defense". The Muslims who are saying that Islam isn't about violent jihad should be able to explain why violence is no longer an option -- or say that Muhammad and his followers made a terrible, bloody mistake in understanding the will of God.

Me, I think they made a mistake. I don't think that completely invalidates Islam, myself, because I don't think that there's a perfect religion, or a perfect teacher. I think it's enough for a religion to be useful. But then I'm a Zen Buddhist, and we're notorious for saying things like "If you meet the Buddha on the road kill him". That's my POV ...

In any case, you might be able to come to some consensus in the article if you can focus on "what's different between then and now" and the various answers that Muslims make to this question. Zora 1 July 2005 10:58 (UTC)

Zora -- you've spotlighted an important issue that troubled me a great deal ... until I went back and read some of the history. Key distinction here to bear in mind is that "Muhammad" is not the same as "Muhammad and the rightly-guided caliphs."

We (I) believe Muhammad was the Messenger of God, and that he was that rare (unique?) incarnation of spiritual leader, statesman, and general. Not claiming divinity, of course, but rather pointing out that his life in these three realms, despite extraordinary hardship, played out in exemplary terms.

Who can say such a thing about any of the early caliphs? They faced serious political and military challenges, and it is not at all clear to me that they made the decisions that the Prophet would have made in dealing with those challenges.

(Later addition, wish I'd thought of this at the time, better late than never, though:) I note in particular his habit of turning away from conflict and avoiding bloodshed, even at times when doing so cost him (as it were) politically by alienating his followers, who frequently expected much bolder action against the enemies of Islam than he was prepared to authorize. (BYT)

Certainly, the nature of the organism changed at the time of his death. Personally I don't know what the geopolitical situation would have done if he had somehow lived another hundred years. All I'm saying is that it's a mistake to assume that his leadership should be regarded as identical to theirs.

The historical sections of Reza Aslan's fine No god but God do a superb job of separating the Prophet's mission from the skirmishing that followed, and should, I think, be required reading now.

Short answer is we may need to look more closely and with greater specificity at how the doctrine of jihad evolved, and how it was applied in situations the Prophet never had to face. Abu Bakr, in particular, may need to get ready for his close-up. BrandonYusufToropov 1 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)

Brandon explained the issue that Zora brought up quite nicely by making distinctions between certain caliphs and the Prophet Muhammad. Many strategies used by some of the caliphs were entirely unlike the Prophet himself because they were faced with different challenges and conditions. In the entirety though, I think we are disregarding the peaceful expansion of Islam and focusing in primarily on the "violence, bloodshed". Zora brought up another point about the "critics" yelling "whitewash". Let's be honest here, many of the "critics" here have shown that they have an hostility against Islam overall and are generalizing beyond knowledge.

Frankly, I think every religion has fundamentalists and being a former evangelical Christian, I know the stuff I was taught was way more fundamental than I have or could ever witness in Islam. I think the many actions of modern "fundamentalist Islam" is very different from many of the Caliphs as there is incorrect interpretation of religion itself today which causes fundamentalism, whereas some of the Caliphs and the later skirmishes did what they had/could in a time of continuous conflicts between tribes, unset boundaries and other conditions in the region. Overall, the Prophet Muhammad did exceptionally well what he had to do in his time to defend against the hostile tribes of Arabia, and he tried to do it peacefully and diplomatically but in those few occasions upon increasing hostility he had no choice, armed warfare was always a last option. But remember Caliphs and the "followers" were different from the prophet and a number of their later actions can be explained but are distinct from those of the prophet himself. Thanks, --Anonymous editor July 1, 2005 14:24 (UTC)

Yeah - Wiping out an entire tribe to the last man, making a girl watch him chop her dad's head off, raping her, then claiming it was a "marriage" the next day is REALLY a great example to set. Whoops! That was Mohammed what did that!

There's no time to get into an exhaustive list of what he did wrong, but let's face it, Mohammed was more like Genghis Khan or maybe Caligula than he was like Siddhartha or Iesus. Follow a bloodthirsty prophet and you get a bloodthirsty religion.66.69.141.248 1 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

Hi 66.69.141.248 -- I have a rule about discussing these (familiar) subjects on WP: only do so with people who aren't anonymous. So log in with a real name and meet me at my talk page and we can discuss this there if you want. BrandonYusufToropov 2 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)

Zora, the scope of the problem that you have identified goes beyond religious imperialism. First of all, there is the issue that Muhammad raised an amry and founded a state. Islam thus teaches that Muslims must form a single state that is governed by Islam. That system of government is known as the Caliphate, or Khalifa in Arabic. Therefore, if the present system of government, in some place (especially a place with a large Muslim population), is not Khalifa then it means that the government is an obstruction to the practice of Islam and so the government must be changed into an Islamic one. Muslims attempt to bring about Islamic governments by various means. Some take part in the democratic process by forming parties and standing in elections, such as in Pakistan (more extremist elements believe that taking part in the councils of a non-Islamic government is forbidden). Others use terrorism in an attempt to bring about change, such as in [[Saudi Arabia]. Others form militant seperatist movements (such as in the Phillipines and Chechnya). Because Islam is a political religion, "defending Islam" involves battling secular and non-Muslim governments which enact laws that are contrary to shar'iah. It is only when such an Islamic state is founded, and becomes powerful enough to attack in neighbours, that the question of imperialism comes into player. Of course Islamic law does explicitly mandate a policy of imperialism. There is much talk about how the actions of the "four rightly guided Caliphs" were not the actions of Muhammad himself. It is true that the biggest imperial expansions of the Islamic state only occured after Muhammad's death, under the command of the Caliphs. This is somehow supposed to absolve Muhammad, Islam and shar'iah of their Islamic imperialist mandate. But the fact of the matter is that Muhammad himself engaged in imperial conquest numerous times. For example, soon after conquering Mecca, Muhammad and his army invaded the towns of Tabuk and Ta'if, eventually bringing the entire Hijaz under his power. The two major religious centers of pagan Arabia were Mecca (where the Kabba is located) and Tai'f (where the famed temple of the pagan Arab godess Al-Lat was located). Upon conquering Ta'if Muhammad had the temple of Al-Lat destroyed, and upon conquring the Kabba in Mecca, Muhammad destroyed all the idols in the temple and turned it into the center of his own religion. There are some Muslims who argue that Muhammad only conquered Mecca (Muhammad's home town) because the Meccans had persecuted the Muslims. But this argument cannot explain why Muhammad had to conqeuor the Arabian peninsula and (near the end of his life) even send invasions into the Byzantine empire. In the case of Tabuk, this was a Jewish town north of Medina. Medina was also originally a Jewish town, and when Muhammad arrived there it had three Jewish tribes. Eventually, Muhammad beheaded all the male members and enslaved all the women of one of the Jewish tribes, and he expelled the other two tribes from Medina. The two Jewish tribes that were expelled from Medina took refuge in Tabuk. Muhammad then layed seige to Tabuk, until its inhabitants agreed to surrender their land to Muhammad but continue to live on and farm the land as long as they gave a percentage of their produce to Muhammad, as tribute. It is ridiculous to suggest that Muhammad conquered half the Arabian peninsula, destrouing any pagan temples or idols that he encountered, in self-defense. Neither he, nor his small band of followers, were threatended by the whole peninsula, nor were they threatened by temples and idols. Furthermore, the only reason that the Caliphs were able to conquer half the known world was because Muhammad set this into motion by conquering the Hijaz and the Najd regions. So the imperialist actions of the Caliphs were not fundamentally different from Muhammad's actions. --Zeno of Elea 2 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)

Zeno, you're SO sure you know what Islam should be, and you're not even a Muslim! I agree with you that if Muhammad is taken as "the exemplar", his actions are troubling examples, and that present-day Islamists have some reason to point to them and say that their campaigns are justified. But ... Muslims don't have to follow your reasoning, and it's clear that there are Muslims right here who don't. Furthermore, you're still assuming that any problematic actions on Muhammad's part completely vitiate the religion based on his words and deeds. But it is possible to pick and choose! Sunnis already do. They say that Muhammad as a prophet is right, but Muhammad as a man was sometimes wrong. Liberal Muslims go even further and say that Muhammad taught what seemed right to him as a man of his place and time, and that some things that he advocated were right only for that place and time. Or may even have been mistakes, but just the best they could do then. This is what liberal Christians do too, BTW.

Allow me to give an example from my own religion, Buddhism. The Buddha took for granted what was a fairly new institution in his time, the wandering ascetic. The original Buddhism made a sharp distinction between Buddhist monks and nuns, and laypeople. Monasticism was the ideal, lay life was second-best. Now I'm a member of a Zen Buddhist group that is all lay. We've got spouses and jobs and kids and all the things that the Buddha gave up. Have we completely messed up Buddhism, or are we taking it in the right direction for this place and time? Time will tell. In any case, having meddled with the foundations of my religion <g> I can't really get all huffy if other people chose to rethink their own religions in the same way.

Insisting that Muhammad be perfect is like a kid wanting a perfect parent, who is perfectly trustworthy and reliable and fair. When you're a teenager and discover that your parents are fallible, you may freak and decide that they're worthless. But perhaps you grow up a bit more and discover that they have good qualities despite their faults. Maybe the Muslims who are writing here have grown up. Zora 2 July 2005 05:23 (UTC)

Zora, one does not need to be religious in order to study any religion, including Islam. But in order to understand the beliefs of Muslims, one must read the literature that collectively represents what one would consider to be Islam (in some specified sense of the word, such as in traditional sense). Traditional Sunni Islam begins with the Qur'an and the hadith - these two sources are the highest sources of religious doctrine, in Islam. Classical scholars such as Tabiri and later Ibn Kathir wrote exgesis of the Qur'an, based on the hadith literature. These interpretations of the Qur'an are known as tafsir literature. The tafsir of Ibn Kathir is the most popular in the Muslim worlds; as the Wikipedia article on the subject confirms, "Tafsir Ibn Kathir is famous all over the Arab world and American mosques, and is one of the most widely used explanations of the Qu'ran today." In addition to Qur'an, hadith and tafsir, one must study the Sira (biography of the Prophet). The first biographer of Muhammad was Ibn Ishaq, and all Siras written after him were based almost entirely on Ibn Ishaq's work. The Sira is the sole source of biographical information about Muhammad, and is critical to understanding Islam (it should be noted that Tafsir makes use of the Sira). At this point, one must study shar'iah, for an understanding of how Muslims have traditionally derived legal principals from the Islamic doctrine. This entails a study of fiqh (jurispudence). In Sunni Islam, there are 4 schools of fiqh (madhabs), founded by 4 classical jurists - Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali. Sunni Muslims believed that all 4 schools of fiqh are correct teachings (though they may occasionally be in contradicion with one another on the finer points of the law). The Shi'ite have their own school of law, called Jafari, founded by Imam Jafar. All of these texts have been translated into English, to one degree or another (often with multiple translations existing for added clarity), and all this can be studied by literate non-Muslims and Muslims, alike. Such a course of study can then allow one to know what Islam's traditional teachings on holy war are. Further insight can be gained by studying the Tafsirs and other scholarly works of popular modern scholars such as the tafsirs of Syed Qutb or Maulana Maududi. Finally, one can consider the opinions of minorities groups of modernists, reformists, and liberals, who may variously reject all of Islam (everything from the Qur'an to fiqh), or who may reject significant portions of it such (such as Quran Aloners who reject everything except the Quran), or individuals who disregard the classical tafsirs and madhabs, and choose to invent new interpretations of the Qur'an and Islamic law (these interpretations are usually designed to be more compatable with modern secular humanism, and are usually propogated by Western or Westernized Muslims). This is what you are referring to when you speak of Muslims who "pick and choose" various aspects of their religion. Since (almost?) all of the Muslim editors on this article are from the category of Muslims who "pick and choose," I think that particular kind of interpretation is more than adequetly represented here. But just because there are various Muslims who reject the traditional tafsirs, madhabs, sira, hadiths, and even part of the Qur'an itself, does not mean that we cannot make mention of the tafsirs, madhabs, etc., since these are the beliefs that most Muslims adhere to (and not the "pick and choose" strategy). Taking the four madhabs, for instance, (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali), there are entire countries and governments which officially endorse one of these schools of law as the legal doctrine of the nation. And, of course, the Shi'ah controlled country of Iran follows the Jafari madhab. So clearly the traditional interpretations, such as those found in the schools of fiqh, are AT LEAST as important as fringe elements who may variously throw out half or all of traditional Islam and replace it with their own contemporary views which are not shared by the orthodox majorities. It is neither biased nor inaccurate to explain Jihad in terms of the traditional schools of Islamic jurispudence, known as the madhabs, which are adhered to by the majority of Muslims and Muslims scholars. There are inevitable deviants who do not hold the traditional views of the majority, and these cases should be duly noted, but it does not mean that we must abandon all discussion of any aspects of traditional Islam. It is the sad and bizarre case here on Wikipedia that the Muslim editors have themselved abandoned and avoided any discussion of what the tafirs or madhabs have to say on the subject of Jihad. If an orthodox Muslim scholar of Islam were to begin editing this article, the playing field would rapidly change. --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 01:12 (UTC)

Okay, exactly why isn't this material better for a forum or a blog? Seriously I don't know why Wikipedia space is being wasted on this irrelevant discussion and long lectures by Zeno on what she thinks Islam should be or is when it is unrelated to this topic. This was a very small dispute and we don't need any more attempts by Zeno to tell us how to think or what type of Muslims she thinks we are or maybe even what to wear... Zeno you can probably cut that entire paragraph to two lines.But seriously, please avoid continuing this massive type of a discussion here so we can get back to the actual issues. Thanks. --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 01:28 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia space is being wasted on this irrelevant discussion and long lectures by Zeno on what she thinks Islam should be or is when it is unrelated to this topic" First of all, I am not a "she." Secondly, I have not described what I think Islam should be or is. Rather, I have described a methedology for determining what Islam teaches. This is highly relevant to the topic at hand, since Jihad is part of what Islam teaches
• " please avoid continuing this massive type of a discussion here so we can get back to the actual issues." What exactly are "the actual issues?" Isn't the whole problem that you and others like you, who are constantly being accused of "white washing," seem to be in disputes involving trying to determine what it is that Islam teaches? Do you have some sort of objection to a systematic methedology for answering such questions? Or do you object to the methedology that I have outlined above, in which case please let us know what alternative methedology you can suggest. --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)

Firstly, yes, Jihad is a part of Islam, but all you have done for the last few days on this talk page is lecture us on what Islam is in definite. The dispute was never this large and you have only extended it by constantly exercising your anti-Islamic point of view. Secondly, I don't care who accused me of "whitewashing", as I didn't even make any edits to this article besides reverting the line which the vandal user (now banned from editing) persisted to insert without any discussion or regard for it. So before you fill up anymore space with this let editors address the issues productively. I think Zora was right when he said "Zeno, you're SO sure you know what Islam should be". Seriously, if you are trying to get every angle possible to attack Islam, this is not the best place. There are designated areas for that on the internet. Thanks. -Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 01:55 (UTC)

Well, there's something here we can rescue for the article, which is elaborating on the distinction between what the ulema officially teaches (which varies wildly) and what actual practicing Muslims believe (which also varies wildly). Zeno seems to be under the illusion that religion is something you do by the RULES, and you can figure it out by reading the RULEBOOKS. To take an example of yet another religion, the Roman Catholic church has very clearly defined rules, which many Catholics reject or ignore -- especially US Catholics when it comes to matters re sex (birth control, abortion, divorce, clerical celibacy). To write an article about US Catholicism which ignores the disjunction between the clergy and the laity on these issues would be a distortion. Ditto Muslims and jihad. Zora 3 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)

Zora, I have pointed out numerous times here that no matter what Islam teaches on Jihad, and no matter what goes on in the world, the vast majority of Muslims will not engage in Jihad, because it is human nature to instinctively avoid nesserary, materially unrewarding, and highly life-threatening situations. So yes, when the traditional Islamic doctrine of Jihad is described, the vast majority of Muslim will not carry it out, even though the majority claims to believe in traditional Islam. In fact the disjunction between Catholic clergy and modern Catholics pales in comparison to the disjunction between Islamic doctrine of Jihad and modern Muslims, because the whole concept of a holy Islamic war is totally impractical in the modern era and veryfew people would consider it regardless of what the traditional scriptures and scholars may have said. I've acknowledged this many times, so I'm clearly not trying ignore this fact nor do I suffer from some paranoid illusion that the orthodox Muslim majority is suddenly going to start following the violent orthodox doctrine of Jihad. --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)

"Firstly, yes, Jihad is a part of Islam, but all you have done for the last few days on this talk page is lecture us on what Islam is in definite. " Thank you, Anonymous editor, for admitting that Jihad is part of Islam. Could you please explain what exactly you mean by "lecture us on what Islam is in definite," while providing specific quotes from what I have written, and also explain what is wrong with describing "what Islam is in definite?" Thnak you in advance. I look forward to hearing less generalizations about myself from you and more specific argument with evidence and rational debate. --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 02:20 (UTC)

Zeno, I am impressed by your knowledge of Islam. It is sad that instead of your questions getting answered, you are facing personal attacks. I'll try to answer some of your questions. Muwaffaq 4 July 2005 01:58 (UTC)

Of interest

[[8]] BrandonYusufToropov 3 July 2005 01:26 (UTC)

Nice (finally) :). But Brandon do you think this needs to be posted here? May I remove?--Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 01:31 (UTC)

It may be relevant to current and future discussions on this page; unless anyone objects, I'd like to leave it here for reference. BrandonYusufToropov 3 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)

Kemal Ataturk - Islamic Reformist Mujahid?

There are a number of Muslim editors who are now claiming that Kemal Ataturk was an "Islamic reformist," and deserves mention as one in the context of the subject of Jihad. This is what the article on Ataturk has to say about his exploits:

• Mustafa Kemal regarded the fez (which Sultan Mahmud II had originally introduced to the Ottoman Empires dress code in 1826) as a symbol of feudalism and banned it, encouraging Turkish men to wear European attire.
• The hijab (veil) for women, while never formally banned, was strongly discouraged; and women were encouraged to wear western apparel and enter the country's workforce.
• From 1926, the Islamic calendar was replaced with the Gregorian calendar.
• In 1928 the government decreed that the Arabic script be replaced by a modified Latin alphabet, which resulted in a dramatic rise in existing levels of literacy (citizens between the ages of six and forty were required to attend school and learn the new alphabet, which was much easier to master than its predecessor).
• The conservative clergy fiercely opposed these reforms, trying in vain to maintain its traditionally strong influence. As a result of these reforms, literacy increased dramatically.
• Visual representation of the human form was banned during Ottoman times in accordance with prevailing Islamic norms. Mustafa Kemal opened new schools, where, as part of the curriculum, fine arts were taught to boys as well as girls.
• Girls had been traditionally excluded entirely from education, but now a universal system of education was introduced for children of both sexes.
• He also lifted the Islamic ban on alcoholic beverages: Mustafa Kemal had an appreciation for the national liquor, raki, and consumed vast quantities of it. In 1934 he promulgated a law requiring all Turks to adopt surnames. The Grand National Assembly gave him the deferential name Atatürk, meaning "father of Turks," and assumption of that name by other men is still forbidden by law.
• Seeking to limit the influence of Islam on Turkish political and cultural institutions, which he regarded as one of the principal causes impeding Turkish development, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk abolished the 1300-year-old Islamic caliphate on 3 March 1924 and established a western-style separation of church and state ("mosque" and state) in Turkey.
• While promoting a secular Turkish state, Atatürk maintained the traditional Ottoman tolerance of religious diversity and freedoms, but viewed these freedoms in the western Enlightenment sense of freedom of conscience. Atatürk prized science and rationalism as the basis of morality and philosophy.

Clearly Kemal Ataturk, and other heads of state like him, were far from being Islamic reformists. Ataturk did not attempt to reform Islam, he attempted to remove its influence on Turkish politics and culture and tried to Europeanize and secularize Turkish politics and culture as much as he could. Saying that Ataturk was an Islamic reformist is like saying that Voltaire was a Christian reformist. I am making a call for sanity. The same people who insist that Kemal Ataturk and Pervez Musharaf should be noted as important "Islamic reformists/liberals/moderates" also refuse to give the name of a single person who can be considered an actual mujahid (holy warrior).--Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)

Zeno this is not relevant to this article at ALL. Please find a blog somewhere to post your opinions of Islam. No one cares who anyone else thinks is a reformist or not as this is personal opinion, irrelevant to the article and you have no intent besides wanting to start a flame war. Being a reformist has nothing to do with being a mujahid, you have been confident that there should be a link. Thanks.--Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 01:45 (UTC)

• " No one cares who you think is a reformist or not as this is irrelevant to the article " Anonymous editor, it is you and your friend who insisted on bringing up Kemel Ataturk as an example of a supposed "Islamic reformist." In the future, if you do not want anyone to spend time refuting such ridiculous claims, then please do not make such claims.
• "you have no intent besides wanting to start a flame war. Thanks." This is a personal attack. Slandering my intentions in this way, is not acceptable civil behaviour. PLease restrict yourself to attacking my arguments, not my intentions or character (as outlined by Wikipedia policy). --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 02:06 (UTC)

Seriously, you are trying to take every little thing and use it against Islam. You probably wake up everyday and think about what else you can try to use against Islam. No one considers the reformist to be a "Mujahid" and you are the one who brought this strange idea of reformism to this talk page. Please stay on task and not being side tracked later by every little word that you write. --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 02:00 (UTC)

• "Seriously, you are trying to take every little thing and use it against Islam." More personal attacks about by intentions and what I am TRYING to do.
• " You probably wake up everyday and think about what else you can try to use against Islam." Further personal attacks, this time about what I di when I wake up everyday.
• "Please learn the etiquette of staying on task" Please read the Wikipedia official policy on 'Personal attacks. --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 02:06 (UTC)

Okay none of this constitutes as personal attacks and I also see you removed your "personal attacks" against me after you made that last comment. You are sneaky, I'll give you that. Anyways you need to stay on task and read that policy while you are at it too, because I think you might be a "little" misinformed. Thanks. --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 02:18 (UTC)

"Okay none of this constitutes as personal attacks" I strongly suggest that you review the policy article on Personal attacks. Trying to discredit my views by attacking my intentions, calling me "anti-Islamic," and attempting to make light of my personal life by speculating about what I do when I wake up everyday, are all examples of personal attacks. I suggest you seriously consider the consequences and ramifications of making personal attacks on Wikipedia, and refrain from them in the future.

"I also see you removed your "personal attacks" against me after you made that last comment" I object to your accusation. I did indeed re-organize my statements into two different sections, since you seemed to be confused about what my main question was (re: who are the mujahideen). But I do not recall making personal attacks against you. If you believe I have done so, then please explain exactly which statement of mine you are referring to.

"You are sneaky, I'll give you that." And here we go again. Can you please stop calling me names, in this manner? Do you have some difficulty understanding why negative statements directed at a person's character are personal attacks? --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)

Anti-Islamic does not constitute as a personal attack that is your way of thinking, anyone will see that to some degree. Btw, you removed your statement about my "ettiquette" (spelled wrong too) after you hypocritically replied to my next message instructing me to refrain from personal attacks. But its allright, if playing at your own game offends you then I will refrain, I have no intentions of making so-called "attacks" against you. I just want to solve the issues in this article and hope you will refrain from being side-tracked by your lectures. Thanks. --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 02:38 (UTC)

"Anti-Islamic does not constitute as a personal attack" The personal attack of "anti-Islamic" comes under "Political affiliation attacks, such as calling someone a Nazi" which is explicitly identified as a type of personal attack by WIkipedia policy [9]. Calling someone "anti-Islamic" in an effort to discredit that person's arguments is a type of ad hominem logical fallacy and also a personal attack under Wikipedia policy. I would recommend that you stick to discussing specific statements which you feel are anti-Islamic, by quoting them and explaining what you think is "anti-Islamic" about it. You may call a particular statement "anti-Islamic" in order to logically further your own arguments, but you may not call another person "anti-Islamic" and hope to simultaniously avoid logical fallacies and policy violations. --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 03:53 (UTC)

Who are the Muslim holy warriors in history?

Mujahid is the Arabic word for "holy warrior" and is derived from the word Jihad (the plural form of mujahid is mujahideen). In any discussion of Jihad, we must consider who examples of the mujahideen are. Please explain why you think that the mujahideen are irrelevant to a discussion about Jihad. I believe that the discussion of the practice of Jihad must be accompanied by the discussion of the practitioners of Jihad (and indeed, the article has always had a section briefly discussing the history of the mujahideen). A religion must be, to at least some degree, be exemplified by its followers. I ask the Muslim editors here to do everyone a favour and provide a list of Muslims who they believe were or are actual, legitimate holy warriors. I'm not just talking about the Prophet and his companions. The history of Jihad is certainly not limited to a 50-year period in medieval Arabia. Many Muslims have expressed strong objections to my portrayal of Jihad. I would like to know who they think the real "jihadis" have been, throughout the 1400+ year history of Islam. So I ask persistantly confrontational Muslim users, such as Anonymous editor to provide a list of groups or individuals who they believe are mujahideen, or explain why they believe such considerations are irrelevant. --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 02:06 (UTC)

One question: why? This was never the issue. I never even mentioned mujahideen only you did. Just to please you: I think everyone is a "Jihadi". Hope that helps and now we can get on with facing the actual issues besides dwelling on every other topic that you bring up on a minute-to-minute basis. Thanks. --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 02:23 (UTC)

• "One question: why?" A discussion of the practioners of Jihad is just as important to this article as a discussion of the theoretical practice of Jihad. This puts Jihad in a historical perspective and also helps us understand what Jihad is. I remind you that you strongly objected to my referring to Osama bin Laden as a mujahid. If you have such strong opinions about who is NOT a mujahid, then you should also have opinions on who IS a mujahid.
• "I think everyone is a "Jihadi" I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused. There is no such word in Arabic as "jihadi." I am speaking specifically of the "mujahideen," which is the Arabic word for Islamic holy warriors. Clearly, everyone is not an Islamic holy warrior.
• "Hope that helps and now we can get on with facing the actual issues" If there is some issue that you feel is important and that you must face, then feel free to begin a discussion on that issue. --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)

No reason to be hypocritical, here is what you first wrote: I would like to know who they think the real "jihadis" have been . Then you wrote: I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused. There is no such word in Arabic as "jihadi.". . Okay, then don't bring up words that you yourself are going to retract later this is very hypocritical.

I remind you that you strongly objected to my referring to Osama bin Laden as a mujahid. I think you are mistaken once again, please actually read the messages as I never said anything about Osama bin Ladin as a mujahid. I hope you will avoid putting words in my mouth in the future. Thanks.--Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 02:44 (UTC)

"Okay, then don't bring up words that you yourself are going to retract later this is very hypocritical. " Any literate person can see that when I used the word "jihadi" above (in quotes), I was explicitly referring to the mujahideen. Even the topic of this section is "Who are the Muslim holy warriors in history?" Nevertheless, you chose the ignore the obvious fact that by "jihadi" I mean "mujahid," and you declared that everyone is a "jihadi." It doesn't seem that you are interested in actually discussing anything pertinent to the issue at hand.

"I never said anything about Osama bin Ladin as a mujahid." Yes, sorry. I am mistaken here. It was BRandon Yusuf who made the objections re OBL. --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)

Any "literate person" can also see that I put "Jihadi" in quotes. Also any other editor can also see you wrote jehadi before without any quotes.

Nevertheless, you chose the ignore the obvious fact that I mean mujahid by "jihadi" and declared that everyone is a "jihadi." It doesn't seem that you interested in actually discussing anything pertinent to the issue at hand. - Hmmm. Let me see, now I am supposed to be able to read your mind and see that you meant mujahid instead of "Jihadi"? Maybe then I can change my meanings to mujahid later on too? But I accept your apology about the OBL thing and hope that you will actually discuss an issue rather than what you personally deem pertinent to this article. Thanks. --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 03:01 (UTC)

Well, I hope that it is now abundantly clear to you that I am referring to "holy warriors" when I say "jihadis" (i.e., "mujahideen"), as the title and content of this section clearly indicates. It is absurd to suggest that "everyone is a mujahid." NOT everyone is a mujahid ("jihadi"). I find it difficult to believe that it has required so many words to explain such a simple concept to you. --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 03:58 (UTC)

I can't believe it took you so many words to get your point across after so very many sections of complete redundancy and you still are mingling around with "Jihadi" and "mujahid". Oh well, I am sure that you will eventually sidetrack this discussion even more although I hope you won't. Regardless, I still don't see the point of this. Is this another attempt to get people to name people they think of as mujahids and then have you write long essays on why they can't be considered that? I surely hope this isn't another irrelevant section like so many before. Thanks. --Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 04:18 (UTC)

"you still are mingling around with "Jihadi" and "mujahid"" Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with discussing mujahids in an article about Jihad?

"I still don't see the point of this. " I have already explained, in great detail, why a discussion of actual individual or groups of mujahideen (holy warriors) in Islamic history is relevant to the discussion of Jihad (holy war). You have not countered my arguments as to why this is relevant. Instead, you simply keep asking the question without addressing the answer when it is provided to you. --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 05:04 (UTC)

Zeno, I don't think Anonymous Editor wants to discuss anything meaningful with you. That's why he's trying to assert that Jihadi and Mujahid are two words with different meanings. I think it is pretty obvious that Jihadi is an anglicized form of Mujahid. You have raised some important questions pertinent to the article. It is quite subjective who can be called a Mujahid. In my opinion OBL is a Mujahid/Jihadi, since he is doing what a Mujahid should according to the Quran, although he is clearly violating some principles of Quran. Muwaffaq 3 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)

---

Since no one has provided a list of mujahideen, I propose that the following groups are "mujahideen" (holy warriors - examples of people who believe in and and practice Jihad, as in Islamic holy war)

Current

• Al-Qaida
• Abu Sayyaf (1991-present; Islamist separatists; the Philippines)
• Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Late 1970s-present; Islamists; Egypt)
• Armed Islamic Group (1992-present; Islamists; Algeria)
• Ansar al-Islam (December 2001-present; Islamists; Iraq)
• Al-Qaeda (1988-present; Islamists; Afghanistan, Pakistan, and worldwide)
• Asbat al-Ansar (early 1990s-present; Lebanese Sunni Islamists; southern Lebanon)
• Hamas (1987-present; Islamists and Palestinian nationalists; Israel and the Palestinian territories) *
• Hizbollah (Lebanese) (1982-present; Lebanese Shiite Islamists; Lebanon and worldwide)
• Hizbul Mujahideen (Pakistan/Kashmir)
• Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's network, operating in Iraq
• Egyptian Islamic Jihad - Egypt (active since the late 1970s)
• Harakut ul-Ansar (HUA) - Pakistan and Kashmir
• Islamic Movement of Central Asia - Central Asia
• Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan - Uzbekistan
• Jaish-e-Mohammad - Pakistan
• Jemaah Islamiyah - Southeast Asia
• Lashkar-e-Toiba - Pakistan
• Maktab al-Khadamat - Afghanistan
• Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group - Morocco and Spain
• Muslim Brotherhood - international
• Palestinian Islamic Jihad - Gaza Strip/West Bank/Israel
• People Against Gangsterism and Drugs - South Africa
• Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat - Algeria
• Takfir wal-Hijra - Egypt/Sudan/Algeria
• Hofstad Network - Netherlands
• Al Barakaat, an international money wiring organization accused of funding Al-Qaida
• Benevolence International Foundation, a charity that U.S. authorities accuse of diverting funds to terrorist activities, including those of Al-Qaida
• Global Relief Foundation, accused of funding Islamist terrorists
• Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a charity accused of funding Hamas
• Konsojaya Trading Company, accused of providing financial assistance to local Jemaah Islamiyah plots and Al-Qaida plots in Southeast Asia

Past Movements

• Saudi-Wahabbi alliance and the Saudi conquest and unification of Arabia under Wahabi doctrine
• Aghan Jihad
• Ottomans, other conquesting Muslim dynasties
• Early Caliphs
• Muhammad

any objections?

--Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)

Yes, I have strong objections. A great many Muslims would NOT regard those groups as holy warriors, saying that they are not defending Islam, they are besmirching and defaming it. I agree that there are also many Muslims who support today's Islamists, but it is not clear to me that they outnumber the ones who are horrified at the violence. It's as if I were to say that whatshisname, the abortion clinic bomber, represented all Christians. Zora 3 July 2005 07:43 (UTC)

Can we all agree that these groups believe themselves to be holy warriors, and profess to be partaking in the practice of Jihad? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that all of these groups have a similar militant Islamist ideology, derivted from a common religious traditions? --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 08:35 (UTC)

Nope, Zeno -- outside of the Prophet, sorry, I don't agree. If I proclaim myself to be Napoleon, I don't get a writeup at Napoleon.

By the way, are you 66.69.141.248? BrandonYusufToropov 3 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)

Other examples to consider: the Afghan mujahideen, Saladin, and Abd al-Qadir. Muhammad Ahmad and Mohammed bin Abdullah (the "Mad Mullah") also considered their wars to be jihad. The Algerian War of Independence, though led by the socialist FLN, has later been interpreted as a jihad. The 1920 uprising against British rule in Iraq was considered a jihad at the time. And so forth. —Charles P. (Mirv) 3 July 2005 15:20 (UTC)

"Nope, Zeno -- outside of the Prophet, sorry, I don't agree." BrandonYusufToropov, what does "outside the Prophet" mean? Are you saying that the only mujahid in history was Muhammad? That is neither consistent with the opinion of historians, nor is it consistent with the beliefs of Muslims. Do you have a source? Or are you here to invent your own Islamic sect and then insist that no one can write anything that deviates from your strange beliefs? Mirv certainly doesn't agree with you, and he has identified some very important historical mujahid movements and mujahideen. Is saying that Saladin was a mujahid the same as saying that you are Napoloean? I think not.

"By the way, are you 66.69.141.248?" Unless you have evidence that I am using sockpuppets, I suggest that you stop side-tracking the discussion with your frivolous accusations. --Zeno of Elea 3 July 2005 20:44 (UTC)

(left again) Mirv certainly doesn't agree with you, and he has identified some very important historical mujahid movements and mujahideen.—(Mirv is not a Muslim either, but that's beside the point here.) As Zora already pointed out, not all groups which claim to be waging jihad today have anything like unanimous agreement or support, and in some cases (e.g. the Armed Islamic Group and the Islamic Salvation Front) they have been at violent odds. (And I doubt the inhabitants of Aleppo considered Saladin's jihad legitimate either.) Likewise the November 1914 proclamation of jihad by the Ottomans didn't have anything like universal support even within the empire, and did not stop the Arab Revolt—this despite the fact that the Ottomans were still the legitimate caliphs. Many people and organizations have declared jihad; few, besides perhaps Muhammad and the Rashidun, have had anything like universal support. —Charles P. (Mirv) 3 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)

No one is saying that anyone has universal support. Not even the Rashidun ever had the universal support of the Muslims, and I would refrain from saying that even Muhammad had the universal support of all those who joined his religion. But despite the lack of universal support (something that is impossible), if a group of people declares Jihad then that should be objectively noted. We can all understand that these groups are motivated by or make use of Jihad ideology, and it is usually in the context of either new conquests, reconquering lost Muslim lands, or re-establishing Islamist rule. In the case of the Arab revolt against the Ottomans, one should remember that this was largely led by the House of Saud, who emerged triumphant in Arabia because they allied with the Wahabis and used Islamist Jihad ideology to win support against the Ottoman and establish their rule in what is now Saudi Arabia. So there are even cases of states and organizations declaring Jihad against eachother - this does not mean that neither party can be objectively seen as utilizing the ideology of Jihad. --Zeno of Elea 4 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)

To Mirv: yes, indeed the Algerian fighters of the Algerian War of Independence are universally termed mujahidin in Algeria. I don't think this is entirely retrospective either, despite the governing secularist ideology: the term mujahidin is commonly used as a general-purpose way to praise any Muslim fighters whose cause one thinks is just. One might as well try and make a list of "freedom fighters". - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

We can all understand that these groups are motivated by or make use of Jihad ideology, and it is usually in the context of either new conquests, reconquering lost Muslim lands, or re-establishing Islamist rule.—which just about covers all the usual motivations for warfare: wars for conquest, wars for liberation, and wars for ideology and/or personal power. If any Muslim who believes the cause of a war to be just can call it a jihad, then a list of those who called "mujahideen", by themselves or by others, would be so broad as to be meaningless: it would include everything from Muhammad's earliest battles down to the Iraqi insurgency—akin to listing, in the article on just war theory, everything from the Battle of Chalons down to the present-day occupation of Iraq. —Charles P. (Mirv) 4 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

that (the Algerian use) sounds like a factoid worthy of inclusion, i.e. partial secularization of the term. If mujahidin translates to "freedom fighter", it would follow that possible translations of jihad would include "freedom fight", or "just cause". dab (ᛏ) 4 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

Zeno has added this text

Like all human beings, the vast most of Muslims are naturally more concerned with their own material well being than with voluntarily fighting and dieing in distant conflicts, in defensive of foreign peoples, for purely religious reasons. However, there is a small minority of Muslims who do voluntarily fight and die in far away wars for no material gain, or for purely spiritual reasons. Examples of such Muslims include the mujahideen who traveled Afghanistan from all over the world, to fight in the Afghan Jihad in defense of Afghanistan against Soviet invasion. Similarly, there are also reports of so-called insurgents who are infiltrating into Iraq, from Muslims countries, in order to defend it against US occupation. There are various other regions of conflict, such as Chechnya, Bosnia, and the Philippines, where militant Muslims from around the world also go or have gone, to fight for militant Islamist groups. However, as it was noted, Muslims to take such action are very rare due to the very nature of human beings and of war.

• Does this belong in the Jihad article?

• Another way of asking this question is, is the Jihad article fundamentally different from the Just war article, and if so, why? Even the briefest perusal of Just war yields the conclusion that a discussion of current conflicts would be strange there.

• Is this level of writing up to WP standards? (Please don't let's play "Well, why don't you edit my text into shape, then"?)

Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 6 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)

the intro is an essay. it should be cut already for "the vast most" part. The rest, well, we may need a section of Islamist use of "jihad". We cannot deny that fundamentalist use of the term exists, and differs significantly from mainstream theology. We can do a brief summary. However, every militant action done by fundamentalist Muslims qualifies as "jihad", in their eyes, so it should be enough to just point to Islamism. I have tried to link to Islamism from the intro now, since that use is certainly notable, but it shouldn't be allowed to clog up the rest of the article. dab (ᛏ) 6 July 2005 14:57 (UTC)

Anybody else have any thoughts on this text? BrandonYusufToropov 7 July 2005 00:23 (UTC)

"Does this material belong in the article?" Why wouldn't it belong? The fact that most Muslims, and indeed most people, are not moved by radical, revolutionary, militant ideologies is pertinent to a discussion on jihad.

"Another way of phrasing this question is: Is this article fundamentally different from Just war, and if so, why?" That is clearly NOT a way of rephrasing your first question. Furthermore, this article is about Jihad, it is not about the Just War Doctrine. Just War Doctrine refers either to modern, secular, international law, or to ancient Greek philosophy, or to Catholic doctrine. Jihad is not synonymous with the Just War Theory. This is just an attempt to BrandonYusufToropov's part to insinuate that there is nothing unjust about cause of militant Islamists and the means by which they further their cause.

"Is the level of writing in this passage up to WP standards? (And no, I personally don't feel like rewriting it.)" The occurance of typos or spelling erros is not a legitimate reason for trying to suppress information that fails to portray Jihad as something that Oprah Winfrey or Gandhi would have thought up. --Zeno of Elea 02:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems rather chronocentric to me... examples ranging from 1980 to now... I also see what looks like two dichotomies. Altruistic Muslims and those that look for their "material well being". It sets up jihadists and altruistic and then subtlely makes you realize "oh, they're killing American troops", etc. It seems to avoid that obvious that many don't fight, not for their material well being (which, naturally, is a side effect), but because they don't agree. Or... did nobody else think of that? gren 7 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)

translation

you are right, the only acceptable literal translation is "effort" or "struggle". I don't know if "holy war" is a mistranslation any more than "just cause", both are circumlocutions of aspects of the concept. "holy war" may actually be an adequate translation in some cases. It is just universal substitution of jihad with "holy war" that will lead to mistranslations. dab (ᛏ) 6 July 2005 16:22 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's rather important how the term came into widespread English-language-country knowledge because that influences why many translate it as holy war... and it does capture some of what Jihad is... the problem is when that is used to imply Jihad is a Crusade of the Christian-middle ages type. Very loaded words. gren 6 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Translations are always open to interpretation if one isn't going for literal meaning - it's the same as if one were to interpret jihad to mean "spiritual struggle" - interpreting jihad to mean "holy war" is not so far off at all. This is precisely how religious zealots are able to justify their atrocities. SouthernComfort 7 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)

As I said they are loaded words and the connotation of holy war seems to me to have a strong bias towards painting Jihad as a tool of (aggressive) violence, which is not its primary function. gren 7 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)

I agree with you, as jihad does not literally mean "holy war." That's why I also disagree with labelling these extremist groups as "fundamentalist" since they do not adhere to a literal interpretation of the Qur'an - it always amazes me when, for example, the media calls the Taliban "fundamentalist" when there is nothing in the Qur'an to justify their actions. AFAIK, there is nothing in the Qur'an which states that women must cover themselves up entirely and have no right to education and so forth. And then when you have Muslims who want to adhere to actual Qur'anic principles, they are called "reformist" or "liberal," which is nonsense as this implies that there is something inherently fanatical about Islam. Obviously a lot of people would disagree with me, but that's my POV.

BTW, from what I understand, there is no support for so-called "offensive jihad" in the Qur'an. Shouldn't this be noted in the article? I mean, I think it should be made sufficiently clear that the Qur'an is the penultimate authority, and that these other concepts are "add-ons" from self-styled "Islamic authorities." Many non-Muslims may get the impression that if some "cleric" gets up and proclaims a fatwa against so-and-so or some nation or community, that all Muslims are obligated to follow through or some other such nonsense. Just my opinion. SouthernComfort 7 July 2005 09:32 (UTC)

this is about terminology, not factual disagreement. Christian "fundamentalists" sure also have wacky ideas, with tenuous connections to the Bible, at best (at least the quran self-describes as "word of God". The Bible certainly makes no such claim, except when God/Jesus is actually quoted verbatim). We are writing about 'jihad' in general here, not about 'jihad in the quran'. So if the term is part of some wacky fundamentalist terminology, that use shall be included too. We just need to make explicit the history and development of the term, and its present polyvalence. The literal translation is "struggle", not mental, not military, just "struggle". Anything else is interpretation, and current usage. dab (ᛏ) 7 July 2005 09:44 (UTC)

So perhaps there should be a section called Jihad in the Qur'an (with etymological analysis) to separate that from non-Qur'anic interpretations (e.g. jihad in the hadith), or would that be redundant? SouthernComfort 7 July 2005 10:08 (UTC)

the etymological discussion should be outside any other sections, since it is not 'quranic' in particular. But I agree "jihad in the quran" should be a separate section. dab (ᛏ) 7 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

"jihadist"

we may need to discuss usage of the term "jihadist", as it is being used in connection with the 7 July 2005 London bombings. We can also not ignore the fact that several terrorist groups are using the term, i.e. we need a section "jihad in Islamist movements", separate from the quranic/hadith sections. dab (ᛏ) 7 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

I think a section on contemporary usage of the term "jihadist" by terrorists and members of the media could certainly be helpful. I think a section describing murderers of civilians as "jihadists" would be deeply biased (and would suggest a fundamental lack of knowledge of Islam that is evident among both Islamists and members of the media). BrandonYusufToropov 7 July 2005 13:26 (UTC)

of course, and here would be the place to point out as much. The terrorists and their victims paradoxically/tragically seem to agree in their use of "jihad", i.e. the victims are taking over the distorted usage of the attackers. This is a semantic shift that is taking place at the moment, and we have to document it. That doesn't change the parallel and historical meanings of the term, of course. dab (ᛏ) 7 July 2005 13:32 (UTC)

Agreed. What do other editors think? BrandonYusufToropov 7 July 2005 14:02 (UTC)

IMHO, I think the whole article could use a major overhaul in clarifying all these points (that have been discussed in this talk). Some sections to me simply seem convoluted. Especially with a topic such as this (where there is such confusion), clarity should be the primary concern so as to distinguish between all these points, i.e. what is literal, what is historic, what is modern, etc. SouthernComfort 7 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)

My major concern is on emphasis. I have been told (and rightly so) not to over emphasize Qur'an only viewpoints because they aren't widespread. I think the same applies for Jihadist as we see it today related to violence against civillians. The only major difference I see is that we care about violence because we see all of the blood and guts on TV, but we can easily ignore the Qur'an alone time. So, this article shouldn't be overtaken by a minority view even if it is the most prominent vision of Jihad that Westerners see. 7 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)

Questions

Re: this addition ---

Historical Occurances of Jihad

By World War I, the Ottoman empire was the only remaining Muslim empire in the world. As a result of the war, the Islamic empire was dismantled and the newly formed state of Turkey came under the leadership of Kemal Atatürk who subsequently abolished the institution of the Caliphate. Militant Jihad became associated only with a number of rebel, insurgent and terrorist groups, dispersed throughout the world. In the view of many Muslims, the religious legitimacy of such groups became questionable. In the 19th and 20th centuries, almost all of the Muslim world was either a territory of some empire (either Western or Ottoman). Western imperialism has led many groups of Muslims to begin Jihad movements against the foreign occupiers. With the end of World War II and the subequent fall of Western imperialism, the Muslim world became seperated into a huge number of independant Muslim states. At the same time, Israel was founded as an independent Jewish state, which immediatly spawned an exceptionaly deadly conflict between Israel and its Muslim neighbours and inhabitants. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict, along with the Soviet invason of Afghanistan, French conduct in North Africa, and the plight of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, has inspired many Muslims around the world to engage in militant Jihad (including targeted attacks on innocent, non-combatant civilians) against Israel, the United States, European Union member states, and other non-Muslim states around the world. Furthermore, the establishment of various secular or dictatorial, independent Muslim states angered leaders of Islamist movements who felt that their states ought to be ruled by a more religious establishment. This caused Jihad movements in former colonies, that were once aimed against foreign Western occupiers, to be aimed against the local secular establishment. Notably, the tactics used by Jihad groups against Israel, the United States, and European Union member states, the Philippines, and non-Muslim persons in Muslims states suh as Egypt and Turkey, has not led to a large outcry against the religious legitimacy of such groups. A small but signifanct number of Muslim fundamentalists around the world continue to sympathize with and provide aid to groups that claim to be carrying out Jihad. As a result of the recent American invasion of Iraq, popular media has at times claimed that Jihad movements have become been revitalized with recruits and sympathizers as the Jihad insurgency momvement in Iraq is easily seen as a just cause by Muslims who believe that US is a foreign non-Muslim invader that must be fought against as a matter of religious duty. Nevertheless, it is not apparent that the opposition to the American invasion of Iraq is substantially different from the resistance of various groups in non-Muslim states to invasions by outside forces.

• Does this material belong in the article?

• Another way of phrasing this question is: Is this article fundamentally different from Just war, and if so, why? Even a brief visit to Just war suggests that the inclusion of contemporary conflicts there would be jarringly out of place.

• Is the level of writing in this passage up to WP standards? (And no, I personally don't feel like rewriting it.) BrandonYusufToropov 7 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)

no, it bloats the article. "Historical occurrences" should just be a list linking to conflicts which already have their own article. dab (ᛏ) 7 July 2005 13:24 (UTC)

"Does this material belong in the article?" Why wouldn't it belong? It is obvious that historical occurances of jihad are relevant to a discussion of jihad.

"Another way of phrasing this question is: Is this article fundamentally different from Just war, and if so, why?" That is clearly NOT a way of rephrasing your first question. Furthermore, this article is about Jihad, it is not about the Just War Doctrine. Just War Doctrine refers either to modern, secular, international law, or to ancient Greek philosophy, or to Catholic doctrine. Jihad is not synonymous with the Just War Theory. This is just an attempt to BrandonYusufToropov's part to insinuate that there is nothing unjust about cause of militant Islamists and the means by which they further their cause.

"Is the level of writing in this passage up to WP standards? (And no, I personally don't feel like rewriting it.)" The occurance of typos or spelling erros is not a legitimate reason for trying to suppress information that fails to portray Jihad as something that Oprah Winfrey or Gandhi would have thought up. --Zeno of Elea 02:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Standard Translation Used?

This is just a minor point, but I've noticed that in many, if not most, of the Islam articles, the translation (of Qur'anic verses) is typically not mentioned. Considering the sometimes major differences between various English translations, wouldn't it be proper to identify the specific translation, or is there a public domain translation that is in use in all these articles? SouthernComfort 7 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I believe different people use different translations. We should note which one is being used in any given case. The most common here and elsewhere is probably the Yusuf Ali translation. I don't believe that's in the public domain yet, but brief quotations of it are typically held to constitute fair use. The Pickthall translation is in the public domain, but I don't like it.

Here is my [| favorite site] for parallel translations -- it includes transliteration, someone's (generally responsible) literal, nongrammatical rendering of the ayat in question, and then (whoa) all of the standard English translations of the ayat in question. Quite impressive.

The Qur'an is notoriously resistant to translation; it seems unscholarly, but a variety of different translations may be more of a benefit than a disadvantage. It is impossible to catch the meaning fully in any translation. I'm not sure that it would improve things much to standardize all the WP articles to a single English edition. BrandonYusufToropov 7 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning which translation is used in an article is important - honestly, I can't believe this hasn't been stressed considering the position of translations in Islam (that interpretations of Qur'an, which is what translations are, cannot take the place of the Arabic original). Having more than one would obviously be more helpful considering the complexities of the Arabic language, but I think would only be necessary where translators differ greatly on specific points (e.g. where one translator interprets a certain word one way, and another an entirely different way). As for the Pickthall translation, you're right, it is incredibly bad (I've found it to be almost unreadable) - probably why it's in the public domain in the first place.

In regards to this article specifically, I think the essential meaning can be fully conveyed (more or less), so long as the Qur'anic meanings are presented clearly and accurately. SouthernComfort 7 July 2005 15:45 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Pickthall is used for many articles on this site.Heraclius 7 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

Really? If this is so, then it is unacceptable. Some might prefer it due to it's public domain status, however, that doesn't help at all in establishing accuracy. BTW, my point above, regarding the importance of Qur'anic meanings and being clear about them, I feel is especially vital in order to prevent anyone from trying to establish the terror groups as being somehow "fundamentalist" since this implies that such extremists are adhering to a literal interpretation of Qur'an, when in reality they are not. This goes to the heart of so-called "liberal" Islam - why should those who adhere to proper Islam (and there is a distinction between proper Islam and Islam that is distorted to promote an agenda - "offensive" jihad, for example) be labelled anything other than simply being Muslims? SouthernComfort 7 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)

• I can't tell you how many times I have tried to make this point with (well-meaning) non-Muslims who insist on referring to terrorists as "Islamic fundamentalists."

• If they were really "fundamentalists," in any responsible sense of that word, they wouldn't be $%^&*() blowing people up.

• There is a cultural issue here to contend with. In the US, "fundamentalist Christian" usually means a Protestant who takes a literal approach to the (King James translation of) the Bible. But there is no parallel fixation on the "literal" meaning of the Qur'an among "rank-and-file" Muslims, only degrees of (often equally blind) adherence to various clerical interpretations.

• Seems like a minor quibble? Well, it's not, because the media fixation with supposed "Islamic fundamentalism" misses the point that qualified scholars are the only people with a track record of getting brainwashed pseudo-jihadis to renounce groups like al-Qaeda.

• Can you guess how they do it? By drilling these pseudo-jihadis in what the Qur'an actually teaches (as opposed to what OBL says it teaches, which is quite different).

• SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....

• To the degree that the US/European/Australian media supports the increasingly pervasive notion that "fundamentalist Islam" is responsible for "jihad" (by which they mean unspeakable things like what happened today in London)....

• ... the media perpetuates public hatred against mainstream clerics ....

• ... resulting, not infrequently, in their being trumped up on bogus charges ....

• ... and reducing their willingness to participate in the vitally important job of deprogramming al-Qaeda zombies!

• Pissed off, yet again, at both sides, I remain, yr humble obdt BrandonYusufToropov 7 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)

Well said! I agree with every word you wrote! And even learned a few new things while reading! --Striver 7 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)

• "I can't tell you how many times I have tried to make this point with (well-meaning) non-Muslims who insist on referring to terrorists as "Islamic fundamentalists." - as they are Fundamentalists in the sense that they are insistent that their version of Islam should conquer the world, you're mismaking your point. Par for the course for Islamic Apologists.
• If they were really "fundamentalists," in any responsible sense of that word, they wouldn't be $%^&*() blowing people up. - You tell THEM that. Oh, right. Actually going into an Islamic country and DOING that would get you killed. It's like going into China and talking about their human rights violations. Instead, anytime someone legitimately wants to deal with the bad sides of Islam you and your fellow Islamist Apologists are there to call them names like "Islamophobe."
• There is a cultural issue here to contend with... - Yes, there is. Unfortunately, the ROOT problem - that the Quran, Hadiths, and various commentaries making up Shari'a are not the "word of God" but, if ANYTHING, are the "word of god" filtered through a bunch of barbaric tribal demagogues and totalitarian leaders whose MO was not peace, but tribal warfare and conquest.
• ...qualified scholars are the only people with a track record of getting brainwashed pseudo-jihadis to renounce groups like al-Qaeda... - Can we get some of these qualified scholars to talk to you and "Anonymous Editor" for a few minutes? PLEASE?
• Can you guess how they do it? By drilling these pseudo-jihadis in what the Qur'an actually teaches... - Again. Can we get them to read it to you, like a bedtime story perhaps? You might learn a few things. You obviously haven't read it before.
• the media perpetuates public hatred against mainstream clerics - Yeah, when "mainstream clerics" go around telling people that the Jews control the media, that Jews were warned of 9/11, that Jews actually PERPETRATED 9/11, that Jews are the cause of the world's problems, YEAH. WE MIND.
• resulting, not infrequently, in their being trumped up on bogus charges - Meanwhile, Islamist Apologists like you work hard to get laws passed in Eurotrash nations and Australia such that even sneezing in a Mosque is an "insult to Islam" and free speech criticizing Muslim religious practices becomes "hate speech" that results in prison terms.
• Come back when you get a clue, BYT.

BYT certainly has more of a clue than you, mr. anon, and I agree with his point, but what term do you suggest should be used instead of "fundamentalist Islam" or "Islamist"? "brainwashed Al-Qaeda zombie" will probably not do, in articles. "Islamist" includes a lot of movements that are pretty stubborn, but do refrain from blowing up civilians (because they have actually read the quran). So what should we call them? The media came up with "Jihadist", and it is my impression that the term is going to stick. "Islamist terrorist" is a possibility, but suffers from "-ism" overload. Suggestions please! dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 09:06 (UTC)

HTML-commented content

Why are the first two paragraphs under Treatment of Prisoners of War (which begin "The U.S. military's 2003 invasion of Iraq has sparked violent retaliation...") commented out in the source? It's been that way since this anonymous edit on June 21st. - dcljr (talk) 7 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)

See also: User:Yuber and POV Pushing.

Because, when covering a topic which spans ~1400 years and a multitude of cultures, it makes no sense to start off with a lengthy examination of the last two years in Iraq. Just war contains no mention of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo—or, for that matter, of the massacre of French captives at Agincourt. Neither do laws of war, military occupation, or even Third Geneva Convention mention the Bush regime's policies over the last four years. This is as it should be; events in Iraq merit maybe one sentence in that section, with a link to the article that goes into detail. —Charles P. (Mirv) 8 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

So why is it in an HTML-comment? Nevermind... it isn't anymore. I've removed it and present it here for anyone to do with as they wish. - dcljr (talk) 8 July 2005 09:38 (UTC)

The U.S. military's [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] has sparked violent retaliation by a wide variety of opponents, some of who are relatively secular in orientation, others of whom are Islamist. Some of the groups have captured and murdered Iraqis and foreigners, as well as deliberately targeting innocent, non-combatant Iraqi civilians in bombing and shooting attacks that has killed up to several dozen people at a time. The beheading of civilians, even those involved with the United States military, has been denounced by some Islamic religious leaders. For example, in the Muslim world, the killing of [[Nick Berg]] was condemned by some. Scholars at [[Al-Azhar University]] in [[Cairo]], a state-run university, issued a declaration of condemnation [http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-05/12/article08.shtml], as did numerous Muslim groups in the West including the [[Council on American-Islamic Relations]]. [[Shiite]] [[Islamist]] group [[Hezbollah]] and [[Palestinian]] [[nationalism|nationalist]] group [[Hamas]] denounced the murder. Hezbollah issued a statement calling it a "horrible act that does an immense wrong to Islam and Muslims by a group which falsely pretends to follow the precepts of the [[religion]] of pardon."

Some Iraqi [[conservatism|conservative]] and [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] religious leaders also denounced the killing. Muthanna al-Dhari, a member of the Board of Muslim Clergy, said the act "does disservice to our religion and our cause. Even if he was military personnel he should be treated as a prisoner who, according to [[Sharia|Shari'ah]], must not be killed." Iyaad Samarrai of the Islamic Party commented "This is absolutely wrong. Islam does prohibit the killing or the maltreatment of prisoners." [http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-05/12/article03.shtml]

On the good side . . .

I apppreciate whoever pointed out that jihad has two different meanings, which explains all the confusion about the word.

2000 people dead in the US, over a hundred in Madrid and now hundreds more injured in London and you ask why I link the word Terror? Andycjp 8th July 2005

the question was connected to the fact that terror is a disambiguation page. You should link to terror instead. dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 08:59 (UTC)

I wish edit to intro weren't happening immediately after (during?) a bout of vandalism

... as this may encourage future disruptive behavior. That said, I can see the sense in making some reference to terrorism, as it is certainly what people are linking this word to.

What about this:

The term jihadist is usually restricted to militant Islamic groups, including but not restricted to Islamist terrorism (c. f. Jihadist organizations and Rules of war in Islam).

that looks fine. My suggestion is unrelated to the vandalism, I was pondering it when the vandals came along, so I had to deal with them first. dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

Understood. We had indeed been talking about something like this. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 8 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

although — the "rules" article doesn't appear very developed, and basically just points back here. Maybe some of the stuff here should be merged to Warfare in Islam. dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 15:23 (UTC)

That would be a better title for it. I copied material from Muhammad as a warrior that seemed apropos; there should be something outlining/quoting relevant ahadith that we can link to from here. Whatever we call it, it does need to be beefed up. BrandonYusufToropov 8 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)

Could we also clarify the bits about "liberal" Muslims and "offensive jihad," (in other words, orthodox Muslims, regardless of being "conservative" or "liberal" reject such an interpretation) and add the section on Jihad in the Qur'an (which should come first in the article, I think), in regards to my previous concerns? BTW, is it just me, or does it seem like that NPOV tag will never be able to come down since there will always be someone who will dispute the neutrality here? Because I think this article is headed in the right direction as it is, and becoming increasingly free of bias. SouthernComfort 9 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)

Are you saying that Muslims, regardless of being liberal or orthodox, reject the concept of offensive Jihad? --Zeno of Elea 01:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

From what I gather he's saying that as rule rule that is true. Islamic militant theology is not the rule, it's the exception. gren 01:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I'm saying. Gren puts it wonderfully when he calls it "Islamic militant theology," though with al-Qaeda I think "extreme revisionist theology" would be more appropriate (or something along those lines). Certainly to state that orthodox Muslims (regardless of whether they are liberal, conservative, traditionalist, etc) support any concept of "offensive jihad" is not only POV, but false. There is nothing in Qur'an to support "offensive jihad."

al-Qaeda is like an insane cult, not unlike some of these so-called "Christian" Identity groups. Their theology is not based on the Qur'an or even any legitimate hadith (if you've ever read hadith, you know that there is a lot of nonsense out there that is not widely accepted), but on their own fringe belief system. Terrorists like al-Qaeda kill for the sake of killing, it's the whole purpose of their existence. It should be made clear that there is nothing orthodox about them whatsoever. One of the reasons al-Qaeda is so rampant in a country like Pakistan is because the students in the madrassas there have no knowledge of Arabic at all - they can recite Arabic, but they have no idea what they are saying, and so they have no understanding of Qur'an. They rely on their self-styled "teachers" to interpret the Arabic for them. We have to be very clear about such facts. SouthernComfort 12:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"al-Qaeda is like an insane cult" This is not NPOV. Wikipedia is interested in objective facts, not someone's particular POV. The objective fact is that al-Qaeda's actions are motivated by religion. You may think that they are an "insane cult," but others believe that they are quite sane and aare righteous soldiers of Allah. There are clearly differing points-of-view on this; there is no reason to endorse your POV while ignoring or suppressing the POV of others. Moreover, claiming that those who do not share your POV are wrong because they "have no knowledge of Arabic at all ... so they have no understanding of Qur'an" does not mean that your POV is now an objective fact and that every other POV must be wrong. Firstly, there are Arabic speaking supporters of Al-Qaeda, and secondly not knowing Arabic does not make someone wrong by default (those who say that one must learn Arabic in order to understand Islam are willing or unwilling proponents of Arab imperialism, and there is no room for such linguistic/cultural prejudices on a site like this). --Zeno of Elea 20:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Once again, a talk page does not have to be NPOV. You may consider Al Qaeda to be mainstream Muslims and righteous soldiers of Allah fully inspired by the Qur'an but that is your view and should not be included in this article. Perhaps you would be more interested in editing specific articles such as Islamist terrorism and Militant Islam.Heraclius 20:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• "You may consider Al Qaeda to be mainstream Muslims" I did not make such a statement.
• "You may consider Al Qaeda to be ... righteous soldiers of Allah fully inspired by the Qur'an but that is your view and should not be included in this article" This is not MY view, rather it is the view of Islamist terrorists and those Muslims who sympathize with Islamist terrorists. Why should the views of those who commit such acts be excluded from this article? You clearly wish to push your POV into the article, while completely censoring the POV of Muslims who disagree with your POV. That is clearly NOT neutrality in any sense of the word. --Zeno of Elea 21:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any Muslims here sympathizing with Al Qaeda and trying to push POV into this article.Heraclius 22:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

SouthernComfort makes some excellent points about Al Qaeda -- they are, as he points out, not mainstream. If you think otherwise, go to any 100 masjids in the US, listen to the khutbah, and talk to the imam. Count how many militants you found advocating for unified global assault on the American military and a return to the caliphate. I predict the number will be zero.

Are things different in Saudi Arabia? You betcha, but even there, support for Al Qaeda assaults on civilians is not the same as purple anger at American foreign policy, and you will find if you visit there, a hell of a lot more of the latter than the former. Exploiting that rage is OBL's mission. Why we're giving him so much material to work with is the mystery of our young century.

Yes, there are bad guys. Just like there are KKK members and abortion clinic bombers and other murderers of civilians. Problem is OBL is so much more ruthless, and so much better at staging high-profile catastrophes, than KKK or Christian Identity. That ability does not, however, make him mainstream, and it certainly doesn't mean his twisted view of Islam should determine, for anyone else, what jihad "is."

peace, BrandonYusufToropov 14:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• "Yes, there are bad guys [al-Qaeda] ..." This is as far from NPOV as it gets. --Zeno of Elea 20:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

How so? (Not that talk pages need NPOV, but it seems like a statement very few people would disagree with.) BrandonYusufToropov 20:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC) (Heraclius, you and I were making exactly the same point at the same millisecond. :>) BYT

"it seems like a statement very few people would disagree with" That a particular POV is shared by a majority does not suddenly make it NPOV. --Zeno of Elea 21:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall reading that a talk page has to be NPOV. Looking at the history of this talk page I can see that is clearly not the case.Heraclius 20:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

BrandonYusufToropov is pushing his POV as the criterion for determining "what jihad is," in the talk page for the article on jihad. There is no single interpretation of Jihad, yet Brandon portrays his POV as the definitive view, while criticizing other POVs as the "twisted" views of "the bad guys." If this is his attitude in the talk page, then it is also the attitude that he will (and DOES) carry over into his edits of the article. Neither the talk page nor the article itself are appropriate places for POV pushing. --Zeno of Elea 21:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

So you feel that it is wrong to label Al Qaeda as the "bad guys"?Heraclius 21:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

This is an encylopedia, it is not a religious inquisition. --Zeno of Elea 21:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Anyways, about your edits, I think you should edit one section at a time instead of putting in a ton of unsourced information. First of all, the intro should include the world Islamist terrorism because there has been much reverting in the history of this page and hopefully the inclusion of that word will make the anti-Islamic people a bit happier. As for your section on history, you have to source much of what you wrote or it will read more like an originally-researched essay.Heraclius 20:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius' Mass Reversion War

Heraclius, you are justifying your mass reverts by claiming that your questions (pertaining to my edits) have not been answered here. I do not see any questions, pertaining to my edits, that you have asked. How can I answer questions that you have not answered? Your only comment on my edits is your vauge comment: "As for your section on history, you have to source much of what you wrote". As I have pointed out, almost all of the information has been sourced to Wikipedia articles, and whatever is not sourced is common knowledge. If there is something in particular that you think is inadequetly sourced, then SPECIFIC comments and questions are welcome. In the mean time, I ask that you cease your revert warring - you are doing mass reversions with practically no reasoning or justification. Instead of simply reverting any edits I do, I suggest that you make your objections explicit by discussing specific aspects my the edits, instead of merely reverting all and any edits that I make. --Zeno of Elea 00:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not the only one that has reverted you, so please don't personally target me. Another thing, some of your sources are obviously POV (I checked the faithfreedom one) and the whole section contains many errors in punctuation and spelling. I urge you to edit little by little instead of adding a huge section in so your edits can be looked at closely.Heraclius 01:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• "I'm not the only one that has reverted you, so please don't personally target me." Heraclius, YOU are reverting ALL of my edits, and as your justification for this revert war you are claiming in the edit summaries that I have not answered YOUR questions. This is why I am specifically addressing YOU, since in actual fact you have not asked any questions (nor has anyone else, for that matter).
• "some of your sources are obviously POV (I checked the faithfreedom one)" The Faithfreedom source is nothing more than a web page that contains relevant excerpts from the tafsir of Maulana Maududi. Are you claiming that Maulana Maududi is an "obviously POV" source in regards to well-known facts in the context of shar'iah and prisoners of war?

Uh ... yeah. If I may quote from the WP article:

Maududi has been an intensely controversial figure. Criticism has come both from secularists and from within the Islamic religious establishment. Many of the ulama who were involved in the founding of the Jama`at-e Islami left shortly afterwards in protest against Maududi's policies and leadership style. Traditional Sunni Muslims have viewed Maududi and his group as a particularly pernicious branch of the Wahhabi movement. Both Barelwi and Deobandi ulama have accused Maududi of having turned Islam upside down.

This may not be the guy whose opinions this article should be built around. I wonder why ff picked him as a representative of Islamic thought over say, Tariq Ramadan. Birds of a feather ...BrandonYusufToropov 14:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• "the whole section contains many errors in punctuation and spelling." Firstly, please specify WHICH section you are referring to. Secondly, please take careful note that punctuation and spelling errors do not constitute suffucient reason for reverting edits - you are encouraged to fix any spelling or punctuation errors, but you are not encouraged to revert edits on such a basis.
• "I urge you to edit little by little instead of adding a huge section in so your edits can be looked at closely." Heraclius, the truth is that I did indeed make edits little by little, in a systematic way, only editing one section at a time. However, you are not acting cooperative - instead of taking a close look at my SERIES of edits to SEPERATE sections, you have merely reverting ALL edits to ALL sections. Then, when your mass revert was overturned, you claimed that it is ME who is not editing one section at a time (while the truth is that I have edited each section one by one, while you have simultaniously reverted all edits). I suggest that you follow your own advice and edit "little by little." Though you can look at the edit history and see for yourself which sections I have edited (if you were so inclined), I will nevertheless list the sections that I have edited, for your convenience. Firstly, I have added a section titled "Historical Occurances of Jihad," which is a brief summary of the evolving nature of Jihad over the 1400 years course of Islamic history. Secondly, I have edited the "Treatment of Prisoners of War" section, and I have explained my edits in the edit summaries. Finally, I have made a small edit to the "Excerpts from the Qur'an" section. I remind you that I made these edits one by one, but that you did not revert these edits one by one (rather, you chose to engage in lame mass reverts without discussion). Again, I encourage to look more closely at my edits, and raise specific concerns.

Calm down please, Zeno. The problem arises when people make "mass edits" for which no consensus exists, because the specifics either haven't been discussed, or have failed to attract support, on the talk page. If you want to avoid people reverting your stuff, "massively" or any other way. talk about the points you plan to address here first. BrandonYusufToropov 01:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

*"Calm down please, Zeno. " Such a comment is uncalled for. I have not engaged in any uncivil or uncooperative behaviour.

*"talk about the points you plan to address here first" You can find explanations of my edits in the edit summaries, if you are actually interested in cooperating. I have also explained, in detail, why a discussion of the historical occurances is pertinent to the article (and, indeed, any rational person can see that a mention of the historical reality of jihad is highly relevant to the article). As for claims about consensus, it is not neccessary for me (or anyone else) to seek your permission in order to make edits that are fully explained and supported with detailed sources. --Zeno of Elea 02:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Treatment of Prisoners of War

I shall first address the "Treatment of Prisoners of War" section, as it originally appears in the article. I will do this point-by-point:

• "The treatment of prisoners of war under Muhammad himself appears to have been notably more humane than that of later generations of Islamic leadership.
  • This claim appears in the article without a source. It is also far from being common knowledge or obvious in any way. Thus, it must be treated as original research, which is of course inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.
  • It is also a POV statement, as not everyone will agree that Muhammad's treatment of POWs was humane; indeed, in the light of modern ethical principals, one cannot neutrally maintain that enslaving POWs (including children) for forced labor and sexual slavery (once again, including children) is a humane practice. Whether or not Muhammad's treatment of POWs was humane is a value judgement - the only NPOV way of dealing with this issue is to refrain from making any mention that Muhammad's treatment of POWs was either humane or inhumane. Encylopedias are not in the business of making value judgements, they are in the business of stating objective facts.
• "According to accounts written by Muhammad and his followers, after the battle of Badr, some prisoners were executed for their earlier crimes in Mecca, but the rest were given options: They could convert to Islam and thus win their freedom; they could pay ransom and win their freedom; they could teach 10 Muslims to read and write and thus win their freedom."
  • Again, I point out that no source is given for this information.
  • This implies that the only option, under Islamic law, is to free POWs (either by making them convert, or by making them pay a ransom through monetary means or through educating Muslims). This is a false implication, since the truth is that the it is up to the discretion of the Islamic state to decide whether or not a POW can be allowed to gain his or her freedom. Moreover, an important fact missing from the article is that POWs could also (at the discretion of the Islamist state) either by turned into slaves or could be turned into concubines (in the face of females). In addition, the article ommits any discussion about the question of WHO can be taken as POW (only adult males? only adult males and females? The reality is that shar'iah allows the taking of POWs regardless of age or gender). Certain people want to suppress these facts only because they are embarrassing to liberal Muslims. Such embarrassment is not a reason for censoring factual and sourced information. It is a well documented fact that Muhammad and his followers engaged in such practices, and that such practices continue to this day (indeed, it is well documented that mujahideen in Chechnya and Sudan enslave prisoners of war for the purposes of sexual slavery and the traficing of humans for monetary profits needed to support their causes. Furthermore, the supereme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Ibn Baaz has issued statements clearly saying that "slavery is a part of jihad" and he called for the re-legalization of slavery, which was abolished in Saudi Arabia in the 1950s).
  • The statement also contains a serious error: it refers to "accounts written by Muhammad." Muslims believe that Muhammad was illiterate, which means that he could not have possibly written an account of anything. Furthermore, non-Muslims do not know of anything that can be definitevely said to have been written by Muhammad.
• William Muir, a historian who is generally critical of Islam, wrote of this period: "In pursuance of Mahomet's commands the citizens of Medina and such of the refugees as possessed houses received the prisoners and treated them with much consideration. 'Blessings be on the men of Medina', said one of these prisoners in later days, 'they made us ride while they themselves walked; they gave us wheaten bread to eat when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates."
  • The statement of one prisoner is annecdotal evidence from ONE prisoner. How about all the other POWs in the long and illustrious history of jihad?? What about the female children whom Muhammad turned into sex slaves and gave to his soldiers as spoils of war (to reward them for their military service)? Do we have any annecdotes from child prisoners who were enslaved and raped by Muhammad's men? Why should one man's annecdote be given precedence over the Islamic legal principals governing the treatment of POWs?
  • Annecdotal evidence it is not a subtitute for shar'iah rulings on the general legal principals concerning the treatment of prisoners of war. We should only be concerned with the general legal principals of the treatment of POWs as outlined in the various interpretations of shar'iah. This is not a disccussion of specific historical events, and certainly not a collection of anecdotes from POWs; it is a a discussion of general legal principals which transcends time and place (i.e. we are interested in what shar'iah says about how both medieval and modern mujahideen are to treat POWs). For these treasons, I believe that the quotation from William Muir has no relevance and is, in fact, highly misleading and only conductive to a certain, biased POV.

As it is, this section of the article is riddled with a complete lack of sources, factual errors, a systematic and misleading omission of facts, and it commits the fallacy of using annecdotal evidence. In order to address these problems with this section of the article, I have re-written it. Following is my edited version of the "Treatment of POWs" section:

The legal principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs), in Islamic law (in all schools of Islamic jurisprudence), closely (and naturally) mirrors the accepted norms of the Arabian peninsula during Muhammad's time. Both male and female, and both adults and children, can be taken as prisoners of war, under Islamic law [10]. In general, a POW can either be enslvaed [11], turned into a concubine (in the case of females) [12], or sold into slavery or cocubinage, or ransomed to the enemy in exchange for money or prisoners [13], all at the discretion of the Muslim military leader. Sometimes, the ransom took an educational dimension, where a literate POW could secure his or her freedom by teaching ten Muslims to read and write.

Heraclius has raised concerns (above) about the faithfreedom.org source which I have used here. He claims that the source is POV. Firstly, this is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad hominem - saying that such and such website cannot be used a source because the authors of the source are "POV" is a case of arguing against the source instead of arguing against the content of the source. It is undeniable that sources cannot be discredited through the use of ad hominem arguments. And anyway, the actual content of the faithfreedom.org source is nothing more than a series of relevant exceprts from the tafsir of Maulana Maududi, an Islamic scholar who is considered who is considered to be a modernizer of Islam and whose works are widely popular in the Muslim world. By questioning the credability of the faithfreedom.org source, Heraclius has actually questioned the credability of Maulana Maududi. While it is true that many Muslims may disagree with certain aspects of Maududi's work, in this case Maududi is only reporting well-known juristic rulings of the five madhabs of shar'iah. Furthermore, the faithfreedom.org source is only included for redundancy and for convenience - the fact is that the other sources I have used also contain the same information, and thus the sources corroborate with eachother. What I have written in the POW section is completely factual, is rigorously supported with highly credable sources, and is also common knowledge amongst scholars of Islam and educated laymen.

Please state your objections, concerns, or questions below, if you have any. I would especially like to hear from Heraclius and BrandonYusufToropov who have been persistently reverting my edits to the POW section without reasonable cause, and upon whose request I have gone through the trouble of explaining my edits to the POW section in such excruciating detail. I hope that these two users will try to be more cooperative and will discuss their concerns instead of merely reverting anything that is embarrassing to their liberal sensibilities. --Zeno of Elea 03:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The point is the content of the site. You are trying to linking to Muslim sources in the middle of a POV nightmare. You are directing people to a fervently anti-Muslim POV site that is not exactly scholarly in content (Ali Sina often uses ad hominem attacks regardless of his semantic word play wit the definition of "human"). You do not see that as a problem? Linking to a Martin Luther King's speeches on a KKK site would probably create similar problems ~_~ gren 18:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Comments:

If you feel that the Muir quote needs balancing, then feel free to add another quote by a similar orientalist that shows a contrasting viewpoint.Heraclius 04:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that the Muir quote needs to be balanced with a similarly flawed quote. The Muir quote is anecdotal evidence, which is different from objective facts about legal principals in Islam. --Zeno of Elea 04:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It is "anecdotal evidence" recorded by Muslim jurists about Muhammad's own practice. Have you heard of sunna? - Mustafaa 00:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, this link directly contradicts what you have written on enslaving POWs

[[14]]

... so I think perhaps more discussion is in order..

(relevant excerpt follows)

The Qur’anic verse does not mention a third choice, namely the enslavement of captives; the Qur’anic text explicitly forbids it by limiting the choice to only two alternatives – free dismissal or ransoming – without referring to enslavement. Thus enslavement is not involved in the choice.

Moving to the Prophetic Tradition, we shall again find that the Prophet never enslaved a free man throughout his reign. His Companions did take some captives among the spoils in the conquest of “Bani al-Mustaliq” and turned them into salves. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did not explicitly prohibit them from doing that, but his own action (of setting free a prisoner) prompted them to release their captives.

This implies prohibitions of enslavement although it is not explicit.

There emerges the disctinct possiblity that faithfreedom.org, in quoting whoever it may choose to quote, and writing whatever it may choose to write, may not accurately reflect mainstream Islamic thinking, history, or practice.

Its relevance as a source for this article is therefore in question.

Hope we can discuss this constructively with the input of other editors. BrandonYusufToropov 03:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hah, I think any official Islam article linking to a faith freedom critique is laughable. That is not scholarly, NPOV work that we can quote. gren 06:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but the Muslim men can capture and rape as many women as they feel like as long as it's in the name of Jihad.

Shows what you know, Brandon YouSuck Islamist Toropov.

Leave it in, I don't care. I think it's representative of the level of dialogue associated with the edits he's advocating. Note that he doesn't even have the nerve to sign with a pseudonym. BrandonYusufToropov 00:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi BrandonYusufToropov. You have presented a link which you claims is proof that POWs cannot be turned into slaves according to Islam. The argument presented in the link is based in a single verse of the Qur'an. This is not sensable, as Islam is more than just the Qur'an. Arguments based on Qur'an Aloners type arguments cannot be sustained as evidence about mainstream Islam. I have presented at least 6 sources of evidence, supporting the widely known fact that Islam allows the enslavement of POWs for the purposes of forced labor or forced concunbinage. My sources correspond to the works of early Islamic scholars, such as Ibn Kathir (whose tafsir interpretation of the Qur'an is found in almost every mosques in the world that has a sizable collection of books. In addition, I have cited contemporary sources on the subject - these sources are books written by esteemed and celeberated academics and publish in monograph form by credable publishers such as the Oxford and Cambridge University Presses. Meanwhile, you have only provided one source. Your source is a link to a web page. The web page contains some wild claims that are easily refuted. Who is the author of your source? The only author information given on the web page is that it is a online "fatwa" written by "group of Muftis." The names of this "group of Muftis" are not given in the link. So, in summary, your source is a link to a web page containing a wild claim written by an anonymous author. I have already explained the credability and accuracy of my sources. I think perhaps you should explain your argument in more detail. It seems to me that you have just googled for the first web page that supported your POV and posted it here as a challenge my claims about POWs. Do you have a more credible source? Has anyone ever published a book that supports your claims? The practice of taking prisoners of war is as old as war itself. It was practicied by Europeans, it was practicied in America, and (believe it or not) it was practiced by the medieval Arab bedouins (both before and after Islam was founded). Slavery existed in medieval Arabia when the Qur'an was "revealed" and so was the practice of taking POWs as slaves. The Qur'an talks about slavery as a permenant reality (in no way does Islam abolish slavery). These are ancient practices that Islam inherited from its medieval Arabian founders. --Zeno of Elea 09:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow. To say "all madhhabs" is very very wrong. If you mean all of the four traditional Sunni madhhab's that is different, however to say all madhhab's is laughable, especially since you discuss how Qur'an alone followers often disagree. You are also taking a historical view of this and whether right or wrong that should be noted. Predominant points of view of our time should be mentioned, not your ignorant and selective choice of sources and little offhand quips showing your anti-Islamic points of view. The version you overwrote is rather irrelevant hearsay but your view is generalizing about Islam in an attempt at demonization and is far more POV than the first. As with other religion articles contemporary views must be discussed first (the Catholicism article does not start out in a historic Inquisition mentality) and then historic items must be put in context of their time. I have reverted firstly because of your horrible over generalization about "all madhhabs" which obviously desperately needs qualifiers attached to it. At least be kind enough to fix that massive oversight before you change it back. ~_~ aksldfjasl;fs gren 12:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

OK then, I just restored the previous version, with changes according to your suggestion. -- Stereotek.