Talk:Jihad: Difference between revisions

the hadith is unreliable, most schoalrs agree it is fake and baseless

The idea that their is a greater and lesser jihad originated from the 11th century book, The History of Baghdad, by the Islamic scholar al-Khatib al-Baghdadiis , by way of Yahya ibn al 'Ala', who said:

The foudners of the 4 schools of islamic jurispidence (shaffi, maliki, hanafi, hanibali) have never reffered or mentioned htis hadith in their rulings. Because these scholars existed in the Year 800-900 and the hadith was invented 300 years later.

Muslims scholars agree that the hadith contradicts the quran

Ibn Taymiyahh

Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani

Al Bayhaqi

Abu Yala al Khalili

Ibn Adi

Yusuf al ‘Uyayree

Ibn Baaz

Dr. Muhammad Amin

• I believe the hadith is given undue weight, the hadith is un othrodox because not a single of the 4 founders of islamic jurispeidence have mentioend it, since it did not exist at their time

"The Qu’ran is unclear as to whether Jihad is acceptable only in defense of the faith from wrong-doings or in all cases. Whoever had said this line please just think, Quran is never unclear of anything.If you are not sure please do not published these lines. We respect Wikipedia for its truth and not for its fabricated story.I'm really hurt with this and will never support Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.165.216.40 (talk)

Firstly, you should not make this a personal issue. Secondly, the statement that the Quran is unclear on the issue is cited from a specific source (the link no longer appears to work, however) so what would probably be appropriate would be providing a link to an appropriate source and showing, appropriately, the different perspectives on the matter. Peter Deer (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has many false lies. Greater Jihad IS fake. there is no such thing as a greater or lesser jihad.

the hadith is completely fake.

"We have returned from the lesser jihad (battle) to the greater jihad (jihad of the soul)." this is a fake hadith

people should know that our prophet never said this. it was his SUCCESOR !

Jihad can only be lead by a person directly appointed by God. Since the prophet Muhammad is the only person who spoke directly to God only he is given permission to wage war in God's name. It is not a pillar of Islam. See Sura 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 60 of the Quran. Jihad is not is most easily compared to Holy War. (which is not 1 of the 10 commandments of Christianity) See document written by Augustine of Hippo on the just war. \ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.148.15 (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad (arab) terms that found in Holy Al Quran. If we want to translated into English means struggle to survive in good path . Al Quran use SEMiTiC ancient language. The most oldest universal language that very easy to learn. Jihad or struggle to survive just like a duty Because Almighty ALLAH created all living things which live out and in entire universe must struggle to survive. no matter how hard life is .if you are jobless go Jihad and find the job dont be a thief or corruptor. If you are poor and hungry and no money .go Jihad and be a beggar .but dont try to be a thief or a robbery . even small bee can attact us if we try to steal honey from its house let alone human being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.180 (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad (dshihaad) does not mean struggle! Jihad is not a verb it`s a noun. There are two related verbs: 1. dshahada (struggle) 2. dshaahada (fighting), so you see "struggle" is a different word. Also look at this pic for the words in arabic script: http://i17.tinypic.com/4mb474m.jpg 62.178.137.216 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad literally translates to "A struggle" since it lacks a definite article (alJihad would translate to "struggle" or "the struggle"). Jahada is a form 1 verb and is thus the word's root (consonant pattern). The second word Jaahada is a form four (I believe) verb and is only tangentially related to either Jihad or Jahada. It's sort of like how Talaba means "to ask" but Taalib means "a student".

72.73.230.75 (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is badly in need of cleanup. For one, there are 2 sections on "Jihad as warfare".Bless sins (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Can someone please fix this sentence in "Origins". The meaning is extremely unclear and seems to be an important jumping off point for understanding historical and contemporary connotations: The struggle for Jihad in the Koran was originally intended for the nearby neighbors of the Muslims, but as time passed and more enemies arose, the Koranic statements supporting Jihad were updated for the new adversaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.21.249 (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please fix this sentence in "Origins". The meaning is extremely unclear and seems to be an important jumping off point for understanding historical and contemporary connotations: The struggle for Jihad in the Koran was originally intended for the nearby neighbors of the Muslims, but as time passed and more enemies arose, the Koranic statements supporting Jihad were updated for the new adversaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.21.249 (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be cleaned up again. Too many definitions. Such is the fate of controversial articles I guess. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article like this does deserve a comprehensive, balanced and fair coverage. There's too many opinions, too much in terms of poorly sourced material (the 'History of Jihad' section which is relatively new is a mass of original research). Obviously with an article as broad as this, many sections will be summarising some of the morespecific articles (such as Islamic military jurisprudence). ITAQALLAH 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to clean-up "History of Jihad" in the near future. So that shouldn't be a big priority.Bless sins (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section "History of JIhad" has been commented out because it is very unablanced, and full of WP:SYNTH material. Some users have tried fixing the problem, and I encourage others to do the same. When the problesm are fixed (we'll know this by consensus) then we can comment 'in' the section again.Bless sins (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a mammoth task really. I actually question whether we have a need for a "history of jihad" section - as it obviously pertains to articles like Muslim history in general, Spread of Islam and the like. In that sense, it's more appropriate to discuss conquests there instead of here, and perhaps include a brief summary in this article. ITAQALLAH 19:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a need of discussing how the idea of jihad evolved. Previously I tried adding some information about the reaction of Muslims jurists (particularly Ibn Taymiyyah) regarding the concept of jihad in the wake of the Mongol invasions and the Mamluk-Ilkhanid war. Recently, there havebeen influential (and controversial) writings on the subject by Maududi and Qutb.Bless sins (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's more an issue of the varying conceptions of jihad rather than the history of all the wars ever fought by Muslims (which is what the section attempts to cover it seems). ITAQALLAH 19:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The section seems to discuss all wars that have involved Muslims. I have renamed the section to "Jihad in historical warfare". While not perfect, at least that's better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmyersturnbull (talk • contribs) 07:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In an attempt to explain the differing opinions as to the reliability of the book 'Umdah al-Saalik I say the following. The book in its original Arabic is summary of the ritual opinions of the Shafi'i school of thought. The differing begins, I believe with its translation into English. I read a good deal of the translation, entitled 'Reliance of the Traveler', and observed that the translation is significantly interspersed with supplementary material. This much, perhaps can be agreed upon: that the book 'Reliance' is a translation of 'al-'Umdah' and that it has a lengthy introduction and appendix. The differing would then relate to the content of the additional material present in 'Reliance.'Supertouch (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twice now my references to the ‘Umdat al-Salik have been removed, claiming it is not a reliable source. I base my reliance on it on Major Stephen Collins Coughlin's Master's Thesis "To Our Great Detriment": Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad (reference to which has also been removed by the same person). Coughlin states:

The ‘Umdat al-Salik is a standard Islamic legal reference whose translation into English was vetted and approved by designated national authorities from no less than four Arab states: the Imam of the Mosque of Darwish Pasha, Damascus; the Mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces; a member of the Islamic Fiqh Academy, Jedda, Saudi Arabia; and Cairo’s al-Azhar University. From the most prestigious and authoritative institute of Islamic higher learning, al-Azhar’s endorsement is particularly on point: “We certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of Orthodox Sunni Islam (Ahl al-Sunna wa alJama’a).”

Assuming proper citation, the rebuttable presumption will be that the English language text of ‘Umdat al-Salik accurately represents the official Arabic equivalent which, in turn, is recognized as an authoritative statement of Sacred Islamic law as actually understood, explained and implemented in the Islamic world. Hence, when properly cited, the burden of proof will shift to those dissenting from the cited point of law to prove that the English language translation is erroneous or that the ‘Umdat alSalik’s statement of law is in error, is non-mainstream, or is otherwise defective in a material way. In other words, those opposed to positions that rely on the ‘Umdat al-Salik for authority will have to show that al-Azhar is wrong when it states that the translation “correspond to the Arabic original” or that the law does not “conform to the practice and faith of Orthodox Sunni Islam.” To the extent it can be shown that predominantly Muslim countries recognize Islamic law in some official capacity, especially those countries that endorsed the ‘Umdat al-Salik, the English language reader will be allowed the presumption that positions grounded in the ‘Umdat al-Salik reflect the current understanding of that same law in those countries that claim Islamic law as a basis for law. Thus, the ‘Umdat al-Salik serves as a bridge between English speaking readers and the actual operation of Sacred Islamic law as understood and practiced inside the crucible of Middle Eastern Sunni Islam.

- pages 48-50 (original) or 52-54 in the PDF available at http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf

To answer whether 'Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) is a reliable source in the context Islamic law I would suggest we look to what authorities in Islamic jurisprudence say about that. In Umdat al-Salik we find various endorsments and probably the most important is from Al-Azhar University which is the chief centre of Arabic literature and Sunni Islamic learning in the world,[1] and Al-Azhar certified in 1991 that Umdat al-Salik "conformes to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community" (Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, p. xx (20) [2]). Based upon this I will claim that Umdat al-Salik is the a reliable source of reference in the context of Islamic practice and faith. Davidelah (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the burden of proof falls on others to demonstrate that the ‘Umdat al-Salik is so flawed that it does not deserve to be cited here. Jwbaumann (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not respond to your message, but I will say that the Wikipedia policies are clear: the burden of proof for inclusion lies with the person who wishes to include content. If you wish to include material in this article, it is up to you to prove why it belongs in, it's not up to others to prove why it doesn't. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "IASC" appears to be a 'think-tank' of unknown credibility, as is Stephen Collins Coughlin (what is his expertise in the area of Islamic studies, for example?). I have doubts as to whether he is a reliable, scholarly source.

As for `Umdat al-Salik (eng trans: "Reliance of the traveller"), it is a classical Shafi'ite jurisprudential primer. Wikipedia relies upon the use of academic, scholarly sources (secondary or tertiary). It is generally not appropriate here to cite classical texts directly, which themselves may be primary sources, due to problems associated with original research or misinterpretation that may arise. So you're probably better off using the comprehensive academic references available such as Rudolph Peter's Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam or Reuven Firestone's Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam.

Lastly, Jihad in jurisprudence generally does refer to combat, because the jurisprudence concerns itself with the rules and ethics of combat, the pre-conditions, its pillars, and so on (and because the other categories of jihad are more 'tazkiyya' related - there's less "rules" associated with them). Jihad connotes combat against non-Muslim combatants (not simply "non-Muslims", which is extremely misleading) or even rebels or groups who are/claim to be Muslim. ITAQALLAH 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the following paragraph from the article:

Major Stephen Collins Coughlin's Master's Thesis ^[2] meticulously documents the status of Jihad in Islamic Law, and provides powerful evidence that Jihad cannot be separated from Islam.

Saying that he provides "powerful evidence" for a certain thesis is a personal opinion, and as such doesn't belong in the article. If this is to be included, it has to be rewritten. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Coughlin's biography can be read at [3]. Information about IASC is at [4]. One of IASC's founders is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania [5]. I can find no source that suggests there is any other Islamic expert at the Pentagon, other than Major Coughlin, or that he is/was not the leading Islamic expert. There are thousands of matches on a Google search that uniformly refer to him as an expert on Islamic Law. He has a Masters in Strategic Intelligence, with a focus on global terrorism and Jihadist movements. His thesis speaks for itself - I suggest you read it. If this does not qualify him as a verifiable source, then 90% of Wikipedia's content needs to be removed.

As for the Umdat, you, in your rebuttal, have confirmed it is a verifiable source. Regardless, I am incorporating the "legal definition" into my citation of Coughlin's work. Jwbaumann (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You evaded the question of Umdat al-Salik. What does being a "verifiable source" have to do with whether it is reliable?

Can you provide some details about Coughlin from reliable sources? Preferably from ones he is not affiliated with?

If I can chime in real quick here, Coughlin as a source is about as reliable as John Esposito is. Basically I've never come across anything that either has said that is factually incorrect. Interpretation can sometimes be worrisome while still being factually correct, but that's another matter. And I feel that Reliance of the traveller is a very reliable source. Walbe13 (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we are talking about reliable, not "verifiable", sources. His qualifications seem to show that he has no formal training in Islamic studies. Neither do we know how Coughlin is viewed by other academic scholars, nor whether this work has undergone appropriate peer review.

Presuming he is an expert, I see nothing of value being imparted by the material apart from long-winded personal opinion, itself presented in a skewed manner. I think most people know that jihad is a part of Islam. So what? The insertion as it stands violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. ITAQALLAH 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes to make the passage relatively more neutral. I am still unsure as to whether a) he is actually a reliable source; and b) whether these opinions actually merit coverage alongside established academic scholarship on Islam. ITAQALLAH 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the material cited to the "master's thesis" entirely. There is no evidence that I am aware of that this thesis was published. There is no evidence that I am aware of that this thesis was peer-reviewed. There is no reliable third party evidence of the author's credentials. Indeed, the very paper itself is revealing in this regard--it's a master's thesis, which indicates that the author does not (yet) hold an advanced degree in the subject. The very idea that Wikipedia can and should use unpublished masters theses (or perhaps even published theses, depending on the publication and peer review process) as sources is out of line with WP:V, WP:NOR, and/or WP:RS. The burden to show why to include the material falls on the editor wanting to include it. Here, that burden is a large one given the number of questions regarding the source. · jersyko talk 16:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from simply having no source for the claims containing, this paragraph simply has no use. What do the crusades have to do with Jihad? There's an extra article about them, we don't have to mention them here. The paragraph should be deleted, especially because it's content is not sourced and - at least partially - wrong. --Devotus (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Why isn't there any paragraph about the early Muslim conquests? And the development of the Jihad doctrine in the Fiqh after the death of Muhammad?

The reason crusades are mentioned is an attempt by some Radical Islamist organization, or someone informed by the lesser, that Jihad is an exceptable lashing against Christians. Also' take note the section on the lesser Jihad. There is much discussion in that particular section about jihad against robbers, etc.. Yes, muslims only go after the "bad guy" the oppressing type,but of course.

"So fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush the using stratagem of war." Koran 9:5

Anyone who does not subject themselves to muslim law is considered an infidel and a non-believer or disbeliever. Here is what the internally struggling allah has to say about those people he holds so near and dear.

"So fight them until there is no more Fitnah and all submit to the religion of Allah alone." Koran 8:39

Fitnah means non-muslim, not theif, robber, bad person, non muslim military member EVERYONE that does not pay tax or convert to Islamic belief. This website is liberal, multiculturalist garbage. Wikipedia, please attempt to keep the anti-western establishments off the website who cloud truth with information that is completly inaccurate. <Educated Memeber of Society, Koran, Library of Literary Capability>

I am skeptical of the statements in the caption to the first image in the article, esp. "White flags with black lettering symbolically represent 'Dar al-Salam/Islam' and Black flags with white lettering symbolically represent 'Dar al-Harb/Kufr.'" This ought to be sourced, not merely asserted. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 19:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that this conversation should be moved to Islamic flags. But, here are some links. However, I will actually join an Islamic forum, IslamicAwakening, and ask for clarification.

1. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22On+the+wall+behind+this+black-masked+Hamas+terrorist+is+a+poster+of+Osama+bin+Laden&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
2. http://www.flags.de/fotw/flags/islam.html
3. http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/meaning_of_flag.htm
4. http://www.solopassion.com/node/4704
5. http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/ch04_the_mahdi.htm
6. http://fawstin.blogspot.com/2008/05/black-flagwhite-flag.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Warrington Thomas (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 October 2008

The links (which I've numbered) do not support the caption.

1. This links to a Free Republic forum with many photos, unsourced quotes, and speculation. (I just discovered that Free Republic is blacklisted on Wikipedia.)
2. Flags.de is the best online resource I've seen, but it does not support our caption. See below.
3. The PASSIA website may be authoritative, but only covers banners up to the 12th century, and contains no information supporting our caption.
4. Solopassion.com is a blog post ("Turning the Enemy's Black Flag White") linking to a cartoon image that seems to presume the facts represented in our caption. It is hard to take this seriously.
5. The link to Answering Islam (probably not a reliable source) is to chapter 4 of Will Islam Be Our Future? by Joel Richardson. The text refers to apocalyptic lore about the Mahdi, and to traditions about Muhammad and the early caliphate. The text does not refer to a "flag of Islam," and does not describe current practice, so it does not support our caption. (The author has another book to his credit, Antichrist: Islam's Awaited Messiah, which suggests an alarmist bias.)
6. The last link is the cartoon image referred to in no. 4.

Flags.de (mirrored at flagspot.net) has several discussions about flags that use the shahada as a design element [6], but none of those flags answer to the description given in our caption. The site is devoted to vexillology, seems to be remarkably current, and pays attention to the banners of active extremist groups. Although very little of its information is sourced, it seems comprehensive. The site refers to black and white flags each bearing the shahada, and the black flag is described as the "flag of jihad," but these emblems are associated with the Caliphate (Khilafah), which no longer exists [7]. I can imagine extremist groups adopting and reinterpreting the symbols of the Caliphate in the manner described in our caption. But until we can verify that this is actually done, I am deleting the image and caption, which appears to be based on imagination. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 15:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have problems with two issues here. The first one is where the article states that: ...although conversion was not generally demanded of "Peoples of the Book," this too could be forcibly imposed on non-"Peoples of the Book" I would like to know when and where non-Muslims (People of the book or not) were forced to convert to Islam. Please cite a reliable source or remove this. The second issue is this concerning Saladin: He did this through the creation of Jihad propaganda. It stated that any one who would abandon the Jihad would be committing a sin that could not be washed away by any means." Again, I request a reliable source for this. One thing that I would clarify here is that in Islam, running away from the battle field other than for tactical reasons is strictly prohibited and considered one of the greatest 7 sins. It is explicitly stated in the Quran and in the Hadeeth. So if you are saying that Salahudin said anything other than that, then please provide a reliable source. Thank you. Enigmie (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consulted this article to find out if or when jihad (or jihadist) ought to be spelled with a capitalized initial or whether there was a difference for jihad as struggle and Jihad (?) as 'holy war' since I noticed some consistency in that respect but not a great amount. If you look at capitalization of this word in this article (other than where it starts a sentence) you will see no apparent consistency here either. I can't quite believe that these spellings should be totally arbitrary, so can anyone give guidance? —Blanchette (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I also came to this article with the same question. Jihad is capitalized consistently in an article in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (Uncovering the Dark Web: A Case Study of Jihad on the Web 2008 59(8)). However the word is also used consistently to mean violent war. Mellen22 (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference number 17 stating the hadith of Muhammad contradicts the source. Possible the source was used for just the hadith itself and not the meaning found in the source page, but regardless those who are trying to find more information about the history or veracity of this hadith this is a not a genuine source. I suggest finding a source that matches the purpose, not contradicts it.

Section from Wikipedia: Some Muslims believe that Muhammad regarded the inner struggle for faith a greater Jihad than even fighting [by force] in the way of God,[16] and quote the famous hadith, which has the prophet saying: "We have returned from the lesser jihad (battle) to the greater jihad (jihad of the soul)." [17]

Section from Source: 10. The saying, "We have returned from the lesser jihad (battle) to the greater jihad (jihad of the soul)" which people quote on the basis that it is a hadith, is in fact a false, fabricated hadith which has no basis. It is only a saying of Ibrahim Ibn Abi `Abalah, one of the Successors, and it contradicts textual evidence and reality.

http://www.religioscope.com/info/doc/jihad/azzam_caravan_6_conclusion.htm 24.205.201.178 (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think whatever i write here CIA gonna cut my balls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.51.29 (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The muslim term traditionally translated as The Holy War is not Jihad but al-Jihad. Talk about jihad merely meaning struggle ignores that the correct term is al-Jihad. Adding al, which means The, is important. The Muslim phrase commonly translated as "There is no God but God" is actually "There is no God but The God". Or no Lah but al-Lah. This is just an example, prefacing a word with al(the) matters and the difference between Jihad and al-Jihad matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.28.105 (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's Illah. not Al-lah. also you might have been thinking of Allah. -Ayanle a. Mohamed.

Is "he term jihadist, technically a derogatory term for mujahid"? I have heard it many times, but I never interpreted it as being derogatory. Could someone source this?--Kiyarrlls-talk 04:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the neutrality tag to this article, because I feel that the article has a considerable Western bias, in particular emphasizing military jihad over spiritual, when most Muslims understand that "greater jihad" is more important than "lesser jihad". To start ameliorating this problem, I've changed the order of appearance for greater jihad and lesser jihad, to show that the former is more significant in Islam than the latter. In our current global political climate, it is vital that a website like Wikipedia - which is often people's first stop for information on any subject - be objective and exhaustive in its approach to this subject. —Godheval^{T C W} 15:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The emphasis placed in the article on Greater Jihad vs. Lesser Jihad is incorrect. Most Muslims know that the hadeeth cited in the article is given a grade of "fabricated" by the 'ulama. This is not a real issue and it is only propagated by certain minor sects within Islam and Western journalists. The hadeeth has two narrators that are not strong. Here is the hadeeth and its grade: ((We have come back from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad)). Baseless; "Al-Asraar Al-Marfoo'a" (211), and "Tazkirat Al-Mawdoo'at" by Al-Fitni (191)

Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyyah said in Al-Furqan PP. 44-45: "This hadith has no sources and nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelivers is the most noble of actions and moreover it is the most important action for the mankind."

Al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi reports it is daeef (weak) due to the narrator Khalaf bin Muhammad bin Ismail Al-Khiyam. Al-Haakim says, "His hadeeths are unreliable". Abu Ya'la Al-Khalili says, "He often adulterates, is very weak and narrates unknown hadith." (Mashari-ul-Ashwaq, Ibn Nuhas 1/31).

There is also the narrator Yahya bin Al-Ula who is a known liar and forgerer of hadith (Ahmad). Amru bin Ali, An-Nasai and Ad-Daraqutni state, "His hadith are renounced." Ibn Adi states, "His hadith are false." (Tahzeeb-ut-Tahzeeb 11/261-262)

Ibn Hajar said, "He was accused of forging hadith." (At-Taghrib). Adh-dhahabi said, "Abu Hatim said that he is not a strong narrator, Ibn Ma'een classified him as weak and Ad-Daraqutni said that he is to be neglected."

This hadeeth also contradicts clear verses of the Quran. Allah says:

"Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward; Degrees of (higher) grades from Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. And Allah is Ever Oft*Forgiving, Most Merciful."

Qur'an [4:95-96]

There are very few scholars more reputable than the ones provided here, and the ones who are would agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.133.100 (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 28, 2009 Juat a few days that Jihad resolve to bargain for vatican artifacts for the Islamic movement concerning their religious incupulation to Islamic terrorism. The fact that remains is outsourced from intel of world domination of their culture and has been ever present in the Koran especially in the movement of Iranian scarcism throughout the entire region in observance of everyday living for al Queda. The vast majority of power is within the huge monetary indiction of lost currency that has been since collected for the safety network of foreign intervension. The only missing objection is the outsource of where the Jihad travels which is silent and not real only in thought and not able to terrorize physically only mentally. The physical endowment of the Al Queda is invisible and nuclear from patterns of transfering only proccesses intelligence that will super lead the terrorist into actions other than their own acceptance of power realization thus causing the terrorist movement to be able to be recognized as the intel progresses. Amjhai is the Iranin prime minister that has the removal of a general that has been resurrected to a higher position in the fight against terror in the world. In the fight against terrorism, there are factors involved in the safty net that in the course of medical diversity controlable to the induction of new administrations and staffing keeping the same names and changing the numbers as so explained in the partnership.org website; for the most, this action is prevalient and progrefs into the acquiring of a better understanding of UN peace keeping and UN Police. As the matter of fact, this obligation is by far the removal of religious interdiction by the Amj Jihad. Then, the recreation of Islamic beliefs will have the opportunity to see, hear, and feel the New Era that has been forgotten and now in the present to the future of rememberances now left behind. The very capable are connected to what has happened in the community as a guideline to Homeland Security. Amj Jihad Reshom has shown the leaders of its' world dominations just to recap the full engagement to combat terrorism where it may be and for the most survive the major to minor peoples of the United States and it's allies in war. Amhai Recush nabar rusun nebushir undirjahdi dirusa humdefar kirishr hindi dirumjha nabr da. Narud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.188.35 (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference of 'returning from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad' attributed to Muhammad (saws) cannot be supported by the reference given. In fact, the refernce given explicitly states that that this is an unreliable, possibly fabricated statement. Either a reliable source crediting this statement as reliable needs to be allocated, or this statement needs to be removed.

In my experience, I have found no basis for such a claim distinguishing a lesser or greater Jihad. If one were found it is best to be documented in the authentic collections of ahadith to be used ligitimately as a primary supportive claim.

The section on lesser and greater jihad needs better primary source (Qur'an and Sunnah) references if it is even to be maintained. See section on controvercy. It may also benefit from opinions of well respected scholars from the early islamic period along side the contemporary opinions.

and Allah knows best

Lewcow (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the hadith quoted about lesses jihad and greater jihad is a false one. in fact if you check the quran and authenticated hadith you will find that the only jihad spoken of is military jihad.

Yshuman (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}}

The iman ( [[iman]] ) link needs to be replaced with iman ( [[Iman (concept)|iman]] ) - 58.8.15.66 (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done diff  Chzz  ►  20:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 58.8.15.66 (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason why an image of that letter has been chosen to head that section? The caption on it would seem to give the impression that it was placed there because critics of Islam cite it often. Or am I just imagining things? Peter Deer (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu fascists often quote, on the wikipedia and elsewhere, Sir Jadunath Sarkar; the pseudo-historian, fascist sympathiser until it became untenable to him to sustain that position at the end of 'appeasement' when Britain came to be at war against the Axis powers, and Hindu-fascist propagandist until his last breath.

They have done it again: on this page, section 2.5.

NPOV = Equal time to Hitler???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.181.131 (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparitive "duties" in other religions should be mentioned: In Judaism, we read in Scripture "You shall annihilate them - the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites - just as the Lord your God has commanded. ^[3] I'm sure that similar duties exist for Christians, and some other religions too. Also, remove the reference (eg in the see also) to the "Crusades"; these were wars, not religious duties such as the Jihad; perhaps Jihad was used in some Islamic wars to start them, then the reference may be noted at that article section as a christian equivalent to these Islamic wars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.79.192 (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first chapter of the article mentions four kinds of jihad: jihad against one's self, jihad of the tongue, jihad of the hand, and jihad of the sword. Modern Muslims ignore the jihad against one's self and the jihad of the hand and emphasize the importance of the jihad of the sword as a communal obligation. Bill Warner, one of the foremost scholars of Political Islam, distinguishes four kinds of jihad: jihad of sword, pen, tongue and money. source: http://actwestnashville.com/?page_id=544. Bat Ye'or mentions three kinds of jihad: "Jihad may be exercised by pen, speech or money." source: http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_lecture_10oct2002.htm. Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld emphasizes the importance of the jihad of money (Al-Jihad bi-al-Mal). source: http://frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=9283. I agree with Ehrenfeld. In my opinion, at least 90% of the global jihad is the jihad of money. Terrorist networks are not simply bin Ladens and al Zawahiris. They are also passport forgers, messengers, secretaries, financial supporters, recruiters and propagandists working as jihadists of sword, pen, tongue and money.

According to the Hanafis, jihad is “extreme and strenuous warfare in the path of Allah, with one’s life, wealth, and tongue — a call to the true religion [Islam] and war to whoever refuses to accept it”; according to the Malikis, jihad is “when a Muslim fights an infidel in order that Allah’s word [Sharia] reigns supreme”; according to the Shafi’is, jihad is “fiercely fighting infidels”; and, according to the austere Hanbalis, it is “fighting infidels.” source: Arabic manual called Al-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw’ al-Kitab wa al-Sunna (”The Jihadi Upbringing in Light of the Koran and Sunna”), written by one Sheikh Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil, http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/words-matter-in-the-war-on-terror/2/

The chapter titled "Sufic view of Jihad" does not mention the most famous Sufi: Imam al-Ghazzali (d. 1111), the greatest Sufi master, Islamic intellectual, and revivalist of Islam, who is considered the second-greatest Muslim after Prophet Muhammad, wrote of Jihad: "One must go on Jihad at least once a year… One may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire on them and/or drown them… One may cut down their trees… One must destroy their useful book [Bible, Torah etc.]. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide…" source: http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1816

According to Bukhari, jihad of the sword is obligatory duty of every Muslim: “Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.” sources: 1. http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/59458, 2. Koran 2:190 Footnote, King Fahd Complex translation 3. page 580 of the Islamic University of Medina’s translation of Sahih al-Bukhari’s Hadith; it opens Bukhari’s Book of Jihad

According to Sharia law jihad is obligatory for every Muslim who is able to perform it, male or female. source: Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8AD3D2F1-FD2C-4E78-B233-2F97FCF97B94

It is generally believed that 270 million kafirs were killed by the jihad of sword. source: http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad. In my opinion, the actual figure is about 300 million because the Black Death was the result of Muslim biological warfare. source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no9/01-0536.htm

“The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law.” - Bernard Lewis

"No Muslim leader can survive in a Muslim country if he announces the end of Jihad against non-Muslim countries and states that all references to Jihad in Islamic law do not apply today. Treating non-Muslim neighboring countries and individuals as equals, with respect and in peace without trying to convert them to Islam, is simply against Islamic Law." - Nonie Darwish (source: http://www.islam-watch.org/Nonie/Roots-of-Gaza-Conflict.htm)

"Many Muslim leaders tell the West in English they are against violent jihad; but in private, in Arabic, they praise the jihadists." - Noni Darwish

"Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam." - Sheik Saleh Al-Fawzan (member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia's highest religious body)

"Muslims may not join the Jihad, but... cannot oppose it and continue to be Muslims." - Greg Swann (source: http://www.presenceofmind.net/GSW/Islam.html)

"The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power in this world that tries to get in the way of that goal Islam will fight and destroy. In order for Islam to fulfil that goal, Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution. This is jihad." - Abu Ala Mawdudi, founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami, from the book "Jihad in Islam" source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/17/islam-religion

John Esposito is a propagandist working for his Saudi paymasters, so he should not be quoted in this article. Quinacrine (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia may not use propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, political, religious, or otherwise. So why does this page remain unchanged??? Thriving1 (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Thriving1[reply]

I have removed this entire sectionfor a number of reasons: 1. It is more appropriate that this section be summerized and moved to the greater jihad section. 2. The language of this section is horrible and in need of a complete overhaul; "One scholar analyzes this hadith and considers?!?". 3. The author attempts to discuss technical religious concepts while entirely ingnorant of even the basics, case in point: "It does not appear in any of the six collections of the sahih sittah, it is not even part of the collection that this hadith is a forgery." The six cannonical collections are not referred to as 'sahih' nor is a hadith being found in them a criterion for its authenticity. 4. The formatting is atrocious. 5. The only legitimate reason for beginning a section on fabricated hadith woulb be to list more than one example. Supertouch (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix the formatting. Only so that you dont delete it, we need a neutral point of view —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did not fix anything: "It does not appear in any of the six collections of the Hadith," As I said previously, this does not prove anything, there are numerous collections of hadith other than the six most well-known. "this hadith is considered a forgery by many scholars." Who are these scholars and where did they say this? You need references if you are going to make such a claim. At the very least you can quote what Shu'aib Hasan said in his book on hadith terminology, or if you know Arabic you can quote the author of one of the books of fabricated hadith. Does this "Islamic Scholar Ibn Taymiyyahhas said in his authority:" mean that Ibn Taymiyyah actually said the statement beginning: ""There is a Hadith related by a group of people which states that the Prophet [peace be upon him] said after the battle of Tabuk..." Your language is unclear. "One of the counter-hadith with a better chain of transmission (and the author quotes others as well) goes like this..." What is a counter hadith? I have never heard this term. "A man asked [the Prophet]: "...and what is Jihad?" He [peace be upon him] replied: "You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield)." He asked again: "What kind of Jihad is the highest?" He [peace be upon him] replied: "The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood." This: "^[4]" is hardly a proper reference for this hadith. ...therefore I have deleted this section again. Supertouch (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i am sorry. I just wanted a neutral point of view. I was shocked when i found out thay our prophet never said anything about lesser jihad thing, but there it is on wikipedia. That is why i wanted to show alternative views, i am not going against the lesser jihad thing , thats why i didnt delete the section. Please help me improve it, what do you want me to do? get sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 18:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all. in my opinion, your section on fabricated hadith would be best placed as a subsection following the Greater Jihad Lesser Jihad section - sort of a clarification that what has proceded in those two sections is not definitve. Secondly, you MUST clean up the language. Some of it so unclear that another Wikipedia user, such as myself, is unable to fix it. THIS is why I keep deleting your entry. Thridly, references - I gave a decent reference in English, and I know that book is on-line. I will leave the section as is for a little while to give you a chance to clean it up before I delete it again - followed by you reposting it, followed by me deleting it... Supertouch (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic books, ok i dont understand arabic. i will try to find more books as references, also book are you talking abut. do u have a link? i guess i have to do mroe research. please dont delete it even if i dont find more reference, i feel it gives an EXTREMELY big neutral point of view, since the only group of people who agree witth the hadith are mainly SUFI Islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 11:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i added a bbc.co.uk reference, very reliable source.--Admit-the-truth (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok i have now added the books of many arabs,, i have also found this this hadith is CERTIANLY FALSE. 10000%, noone has arrtibuted it to the prophet. ONLY ON WIKIPEDIA HAVE PEOPLE ATTRIBUTED IT ! ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 12:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the question is not whether the hadith in question is a "fake" but how influential it has been. You can even call the Quran a "fake" (how are you going to prove Muhammad really had visions), but that is irrelevant because the Quran is influential, not because it has literally been dictated by an archangel or whatever. The idea of lesser jihad was also influential, or you wouldn't have thugs with kalashnikovs jumping about calling themselves "mujaheddin". You need to read and understand WP:TRUTH.

Of course, if notable authors have called the hadith "fake", we can also report that. But whatever is going to be in the article must be in acceptably correct English. As long as you keep adding material in broken English, it will be reverted only on these grounds. --dab (𒁳) 14:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok i understand what you are saying. i will try to improve it, i agree it has been influential. but what am trying to do here is show people alternate views. I guess i am doing that poorly as of now. i will try improve it. what do u want me to do?--Admit-the-truth (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure, we can try to cover this properly. One step at a time.So you basically want to claim that it is a common opinion that "jihad" actually refers to warfare exclusively or primarily. That's fine. I hvave put your additions under "controversy". But they need to be cleaned up. First of all, you cannot give "references" in the form of naked urls to places like "peacewithrealism.org". You also give quotes with attributions like "Ibn Taymiyyah said in Al-Furqan PP. 44-45" Now Ibn Taymiyyah is fair enough, but what is "al-Furqan"? The article on Ibn Taymiyyah does not contain the string "furqan", so some clarification would be appropriate. And if "Al-Furqan" is a work by Ibn Taymiyyah, I would imagine it is in Arabic. Whose translation are we quoting, then, and what is the pagination "pp. 44-45"? Give the publication details of the edition of this translation, ideally with ISBN, and we are talking. Otherwise, "Ibn Taymiyyah said in Al-Furqan PP. 44-45"" is a pseudo-reference. What good does it do to give a "page number" if it isn't made clear which book we are talking about? Similar remarks go for the rest of your "references". Present your case based on actually verifiable sources, or leave them out.

As far as the BBC article goes, it has

This quotation is regarded as unreliable by some scholars. They regard the use of jihad as meaning 'holy war' as the more important. However the quotation has been very influential among some Muslims, particularly Sufis.

of this, you chose to make "It does not appear in any of the six collections of the Hadith, this quote from the hadith is considered a forgery by many scholars" which is hardly an accurate rendering of the source's content. Note how the "some scholars" seamlessly become "many scholars" because they support an idea that appeals to you, and how the BBC immediately qualifies that regardless of "unreliability" the concept has still been "very influential". This isn't neutral editing. You need to fix your references, and you need to report the content of your references accurately and neutrally. --dab (𒁳) 16:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also, I just note that the article already had the perfectly acceptable "Middle East historian Bernard Lewis argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists [i.e., specialists in the hadith] ... understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."

It isn't clear at all what you are trying to say that would go beyond that crystal clear statement. You are just adding material in bad quality that says the exact same thing that is already in the article, just in good quality. Sometimes itwould really help to read an article before engaging in an edit war over it. --dab (𒁳) 16:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided loads of soruces. In the other sources it says many scholars.NOT SOME !!! Furthermore, you said that i need ISBN for quoates and not just page numbers. However i have given references to wesbites with the quaotes. but still that is not good enough i need better citation and i agree with you about references, i will truy to find some better references. but if i dont please dont delete the section, i have at least given pesudeo references as you say with links to wesbites.

Furethermore i wud like to thank you for helping improve the page. i want to clean that page up without causing problems. can u help me?--Admit-the-truth (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

websites are not "sources". You can use google to locate websites which in turn provide sources, but you cannot just give the url and claim you have presented 'a source'. Read WP:RS. I don't quite see how you can argue that giving "page numbers" without revealing which book these numbers refer to is in any way helpful. It still isn't clear what point it is you are trying to make beyond the "quotation is regarded as unreliable by some scholars" already in the article. From your username, and the gist of your edits, I gather the general aim of your edits would be something like "admit it: Islam is a religion of bloodthirsty thugs to the core". But of course things are never that simple. Just like Christianity, the history of Islam combines blood-soaked medieval geopolitical power-struggles with deep spirituality, and we need to cover all aspects. We have a lot of "Muhammad was a baby-eating pedophile who is rotting in hell" material at criticism of Islam and Islamophobia, since much of this is notable, but obviously we aren't going to give this the ring of "truth" simply because Wikipedia is not interested in the truth. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what, the turth is the truth, even if it hurts or is offensive. also people use to get married at the age of 10 just 60 to 100 years ago. whats wrong with getting married at young age.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.223.124 (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spreading the misconception that Jihad means holy war. This is VERY wrong. I can cite several sources to reinforce this fact.

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

As my last source clearly points out, The word "Holy War" would translate to a word with "Qudus" and "Qital". Infact, the word "Holy War" is not even MENTIONED in the Qur'an. The introduction to this article itself says that it also means holy war in another context.I feel this should be removed. Consensus? Torque3000^Talk 10:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are scholarly. Given the amount of scholarship on the subject, there's no reason not to stock with the highest quality sources. Rklawton (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, there's a similar amount of technical literature stating that such a translation is false. There's at least one or two references in the article of that particular literature.--Devotus (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are innumerable sources that can be found on the web. As Devotus pointed out, there are some sources which can be considered reliable. In fact, it can be safely concluded that the meaning of jihad in other contexts can often be misleading. Clealy, we need to reach a consensus.Torque3000^Talk 19:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why is it there? is it for the reason of al-Jihad bil nafs (Self-Defense)?

9K58 Smerch (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is there, I believe, because each Muslim has a duty to prepare himself to fight if need be. Rklawton (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. 1st - it can be linked to any means of struggle for any cause to acheive personal or social goal.
2. 2nd - In the islamic translation, Jihad in the way of God, is one translation.
3. 3rd - WIKIPEDIA translation, should not only focus on the islamic meaning for the word Jihad.
4. 4th - Jihad, applies to other religions, for example; the Jihad of jesus christ prior to his crusification and throughout his preachings...The Jihad of the Jews during the 2nd world war... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.39.4 (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article title is "Jihad" - then all the meanings of "Jihad" should be included. On the other hand, if we are going to constrain the topic, then we should make this clear. For example, "Jihad in Islam" or "Jihad in the Qur'an" or "Jihad and terrorism" - etc. Rklawton (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest removing the line "According to scholar John Esposito, Jihad requires Muslims to 'struggle in the way of God' or 'to struggle to improve one's self and/or society' " as well as the sentence following it. Esposito does not have a reputation among scholars of Islam making his statements important enough to include such a sentence. In every book counting as standard among the technical literature regarding this subject - from Noth over Peters to the article in the Encyclopaedia of Islam - such claims are rejected: "The idea of fighting has a clear priority over the idea." (Watt: Islam and the Integration of Society, p. 62) Fact is also that the division of this concept into four categories is a product of later development of which neither the prophet nor classical islamic jurisprudence knew of. (cf. Khadduri: War and Peace in the Law of Islam, p. 56 f.)--Devotus (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Esposito isn't respected in the field. However, we need to take care not to use exclusively Western sources, and not to introduce undue weight. Following your reversion, Bernard Lewis's opinion was given undue weight.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 07:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 --What evidence is there that Esposito is not respected in the field?Cookielady357 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about citing Western or Muslim sources, but about whether a) the source in question is respected in academic circles b) the theory is representative for the current state of scholarship. Esposito's statement diametrically contradicts the latter. You might also want to consider the fact that there are several Muslim academics participating in modern orientalism, e.g. Fuat Sezgin or Mahmud Ayoub.--Devotus (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll better explain my concern. Currently, the paragraphs are as follows:

Brief definition.

It is a religious duty.

In the Qur'an, it implies warfare.

In Islamic jurisprudence, it consists of warfare

In Western societies, it is translated as 'holy war'

It is universally understood as a holy war.

Oh, and Gallup showed that most Muslims consider it an internal spiritual struggle

The first 4 "real-content" paragraphs discuss warfare, and for 2 of those, we treat the opinions of two (relatively controversial) scholars as absolute fact despite lack of scholarly consensus, and one opinion (Firestone's) contradicts actual data. We only discuss what is the primary meaning in the 7th paragraph. This results in undue weight.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 22:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the Quranic usage of jihad implies warfare is incorrect. The Quran never uses the word "jihad" or any verb of its root to refer to war. Cookielady357 (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.intellnet.org/news/2003/02/14/16788-1.html

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/algeria.php

http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00002862.aspx

http://www.milnet.com/2nd-indictment-hayat-dist-court.pdf

http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/spirituality-sufism_caucasus.html

http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/Public/Login.html?url=%2Fapp%3Fservice%3Dexternalpagemethod%26method%3Dview%26page%3DMainSearch&failReason=

http://www.theforgottenrefugees.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=39

http://www.sportsinteraction.com/popUnders/index.cfm?x=1&section=hockey09popunder&prid=15806&hit=1

Gimbo Vales (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devotus changed the article in very significant ways. The series of edits removed the assertions of John Esposito, which were phrased neutrally in the article. It replaced them with assertions by Bernard Lewis, which are not phrased neutrally. For example:

According to scholar John Esposito, Jihad requires Muslims to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society."

This was removed and replaced by:

In the Koran, the Holy Book of Islam, and the prophetic example (Sunna) the word jihad implies warfare in the large majority of cases.

See the difference? In the first instance, the article states that John Esposito said it. In the second, the article implies that it is true. The decision on whether to trust an authority should be left to the reader. Not everything that Bernard Lewis has ever said is fact. In at least one instance, the assertions of "truth" contradict fact. For example, this was added:

The term "Jihad" used without any qualifiers is, as Reuven Firestone points out, "universally understood as war on behalf of Islam.

Firestone's argument simply contradicts fact. Data] from Gallup showed that jihad is not "universally understood as a war on behalf of Islam". Some quality content was also removed. The edits were not entirely one-sided, but I think they worsened the article overall. Any thoughts?  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 20:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I retract my statement that it was better before. There was some strong POV on both sides that Devotus kindly removed. I have fixed some of Devtus's non-neutral language, and I re-added the statement by John Esposito.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 21:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Esposito's statement see my arguments above. Lewis' statement sums up what is current state of research in modern orientalism. Cf. Watt's statement, as cited above, or Albrecht Noth's "Der Dschihad: sich mühen für Gott", p. 23 f. Firestones statement is also in accordance with current theories in academic circles regarding the way classical as well as most Muslim scholars today view the concept of Jihad: "It is (...) very much more usual for the term djihad to denote this latter form of 'effort' [military combat]" - Encyclopaedia of Islam, s.v. "Djihad". How regular Muslims view it is a different subject.--Devotus (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that some submit to the rules mandated for making an encyclopedia. I comment Devotus and Dmyersturnbull for reaching consensus.--Kiyarrlls-talk 14:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In paragraph one, the article states "Jihad appears frequently in the Qur'an and common usage as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)." This statement is false and misleading. The sources cited in support are a dictionary entry and an encyclopedia article. There is no reference to the Quran at all. The word "jihad" appears only four times in the Quran. although it is used by Muslims,the phrase "jihad fi sabil Allah" does not occur in the Quran. It is clear that no one with knowledge of the actual text of the Quran wrote this piece.

The article also states "Muslims use the word in a religious context to refer to three types of struggles." This too is incorrect. Here, the source cited is the BBC. The fact is that Islamic scholars recognize four types of jihad. Once again, it is clear that the author of the entry has no subject matter knowledge and relies on inaccurate tertiary sources.

These are serious inaccuracies. The entire article needs to be reviewed and revised by someone with knowledge of primary sources and reliable secondary sources. Cookielady357 (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I corrected the sentence. For future, reference, if you spot a good edit to make, you can go ahead an make it. Be bold. :)  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 06:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At 171kb, this article is almost twice the length of a typical long article. Now, I confess that the recent explosion in size is my fault. I dumped in a long list of wars/jihad that had previously been in the article Islam and violence. That article was too long and I needed to find a place to put the stuff that was more coatrack than helpful to the theme of the article (i.e. the relationship between the Islamic religion and violence). Since this article already had a coatrack, I figured it wouldn't hurt to add a second one temporarily. However, there is a reasonable argument that this article should focus on jihad as a concept and not get into providing a list of every jihad-like incident in Islamic history.

And so, I propose that we create at least one, maybe two additional articles. One would be Warfare in Islamic history. The other could be Jihad in Islamic history although it could be difficult to come up with a clear definition that differentiates between an incident that is "jihad" and one that is "warfare".

So, I throw it out to the Wikipedia community. Should we have Warfare in Islamic history, Jihad in Islamic history or both?

--Richard S (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Al-Andalusi has suggested that the article Qur'an and violence should either be merged here or renamed. Given that both Qur'an and violence and this article are very long, I don't think a merger is a good idea. However, I do think there is merit in the idea of renaming Qur'an and violence to Qur'an and jihad or Qur'an and war. Please take a look at the discussion at Talk:Qur'an and violence and provide your input. --Richard S (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The structure of the article is not clear to me. What is the difference between "Historical warfare" and "Past holy wars"? What about "Current holy wars"? 77.127.119.55 (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a mess and it's my fault. Read the section above titled "This article is too long - proposal for new subsidiary articles". I moved stuff here from Islam and violence but really all I did was move text that was a problem in one article and made the problem in this article bigger. If you have any ideas for fixing the problem, I'd love to hear it. --Richard S (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the stuff that has been added recently (looks like it was by Pseudo-Richard) has nothing to do with Jihad and reads more like propaganda; much of it just violence that happened to be by Muslim. Many of the sources appear dubious, if not completely inappropriate for wikipedia. This article is long winded enough without people reciting every far-right pro-Israeli website they can find. I suggest someone who is non-bias looks over what has been added over the last month or so and make a attempt to remove all the irrelevance and POV stuff that makes up 50% of the article. Lordrichie (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff that I brought here came from Islam and violence originally. I'm trying to merge the two lists which admittedly are both laundry lists of every nasty thing ever done by Muslims. I'd love to have a conversation about where all this stuff belongs in Wikipedia. The obvious candidates are this article and Islam and violence. But there is also the question of whether there needs to be a single laundry list with every massacre, forced conversion, etc. in the history of Islam. Please read the section above titled "This article is too long - Proposal for new subsidiary articles". Let's talk. I've been waiting for someone to care enough to join me in this dialogue. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there are several points that need to be addressed.

1. Which of these examples constitutes Jihad, what constitutes Islam and violence and what is neither.

2. Whether it is appropriate to create a separate article for examples or include them in this.

3. Whether it is necessary to list every crime committed by Muslims (I don't think this has been done on wikipedia for any other group of people).

4. Whether the things listed exist elsewhere on wikipedia (as many refer to Israeli Arab conflict, they most likely do).

5. Making sure what is added is factually accurate and NPOV.

6. Making sure the sources are appropriate.

One solution might be to move the information to a new article so it doesn't clutter up this one; it might just be temporary. Clearly much of it doesn't belong here as it has little or nothing to do with Jihad. There is also a difference between violence committed by a person who is Muslim and violence committed by a person because they are Muslim; for many of the examples, religion isn't the motive and is neither Jihad nor Islam and violence. Moving the information to this article has just made it more difficult to edit it. I think creating a new (temporary) article for it would be the best way to edit it and find a more permanent place to put anything worth keeping. That way this article doesn't get cluttered up. Lordrichie (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with creating a new temporary article is that we would have to come up with an article title that is defensible and not likely to get nominated for deletion or be the subject of merger proposals. I have moved the laundry list to [[

User:Pseudo-Richard/Islamic violence]]. Join me at User talk:Pseudo-Richard/Islamic violence to continue this conversation. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} This is an English article, so there shouldn't be Arabic words in the middle. In this case, Allah was used in both, Arabic and English text. So please change X to Y, from the introduction, so that there will be a clear understanding of what it means. It's not enough to have the first Allah connected to the Allah page in Wikipedia, as people wont open to read it.

X: "striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)" Y: "striving in the way of GOD (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)"

Thanks for supporting the truth! Adamrce (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)AdvertAdam[reply]

 Not done: Requested change is inside quote marks. See WP:MOSQUOTE. -Atmoz (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} Dear Sirs,

Of course, the details are hard to change as there's different opinions with different translations. I prefer that the introduction be more clear why do many scholars believe that Jihad is not a holy war, like Holy Roman Empires, or that it allows to suicide in the name of God. It's clear that Muslims follow the Koran, and the Koran clearly states to NOT kill yourself. Therefore, please replace X to Y to provide a clearer explanation with the sources. X: "Scholars of Islamic studies often stress that these words are not synonymous." Y: "Scholars of Islamic studies often stress that these words are not synonymous; the Koran strictly orders not to kill yourself (Koran 4:29), like those suicide bombers."

This is very important, as it shows to the readers a stronger source, instead of a Book written by human. The 1.6 Billion Muslims believe in the Koran, but they don't all support those books that were referred to in this page.

Bless you! Adamrce (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)AdvertAdam[reply]

 Not done: The statement as written is correct. The Koran is not a reliable source for this sentence, because it's a primary document. Its interpretation and meaning are (obviously) highly debated; as such, we can't use it as evidence either way. Note that our job here isn't to persuade Muslims of some truth--it's simply to present the information provided by reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

My point here, is that Islamic laws are from the Koran. And the original sentence sounds like it's scholars' personal opinion. As long as the Koran is the Islamic laws, followed by all Muslims, then a clear statement in the Koran should be the strongest prove. Maybe it can be changed to the following, having two citations instead?

{Scholars of Islamic studies often stress that these words are not synonymous; as Islam's book of law strictly orders not to kill yourself[13][14], like the suicide bombers.}

Adamrce (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)AdvertAdam[reply]

quran is open to intepretation. ==Your edit request on jihad==

a reponse to you request made here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jihad

I would like to tell you that on wikipedia we can not use the quran as the only source, you want to add something which says "suicide bombing is forbidden, because quran says not to kill yourself, this is found in verse blah blah blah", again this is impossible to do, as somone else can come along and say something different. if you use the quran as a reference, you must give a secondary source with an opinion.

and as evidence that there are different opinions of suicide bombing, you will find many muslims scholars support it (such as yusuf al qaradawi) , and others are against it.

a fatwa from yusuf al qaradawi in support of it (with support from the quran and hadith): http://www.religioscope.com/pdf/martyrdom.pdf

fatwa against it (with support from the quran and hadith): http://www.fatwaonterrorism.com/

(hope you understand)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir for your reply, however, the speach of Al-Qaradawi was totally mis-understood by western reporters. I'm an American Muslim and I listen to Al-Qaradawi because he gives fair judgments and well known. He talked about fighting an enemy in your land who's is trying ot did occupy it. You know that Iraw was an occupation, as it wasn't agreed by th United Nation, Iraqi people, nor Arab Nation; different to what's happening in Libya now, which the fighting people are considered Jihadist and the Libyan president a terrorism. These fighting is allowed in the Old Testament and Quran, which is clear to be defending themselves. The suicide bombers are terrorists and Osama Bin Laden is not a Muslim leader, being abbanded from the Muslim world way before September 11th. Anyways, to get to my point, the following is a clear statement on BBC from a known scholar, and I re-confirm that Al-Qaradawi NEVER allowed terrorism attacks. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8544531.stm adamrce (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You have confused the names. The scholar who is in support of suicide bombing is Yusuf al Qaradawi, his fatwa is found here http://www.religioscope.com/pdf/martyrdom.pdf

The scholar who is against suicide bombing is Tahir ul qadri, his fatwa is found here http://www.fatwaonterrorism.com/, they are not same person friend. ANyway, i am happy that you understood the problem. Also you can add their opinions to wikipedia but wikipedia does not allow point pushing, so you can not present opinions as facts.

The community on wikipedia agreed that primary sources should nto be used without secondary sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Primary_Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i think the user Adamrce accidentally removed some data from the "lesser and greater jihad" section, i have added back this part, "Some Islamic scholars dispute the authenticity of this reference and consider the meaning of jihad as a holy war to be more important." which was removed"

Adamrce reason for removing it was, "BBC itself said that this is from an unreliable source! How can it be in an encyclopedia", but then his words did not match with your actions, i did not understand why he then went on to remove that part. I would have expected him to remove the entire "Lesser vs greater" jihad section as he does not seemto consider it reliable, instead of removing the part that says it is unrelaible--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Adamrce,

Also, i think you misunderstand what bbc is saying. i am thinking english isnot your first language? bbc is saying that the quote is unreliable. in other words the quote "i have returned from the lesser jihadto the greater jihad" is fake, according to bbc--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote #58 consists only of a page number. RJFJR (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the contributor meant the same same book of ref 59, as it also gave a page number only. However, page 226 is not available for free on Google Books. I wrote the author and book name on both (58 + 59). AdvertAdam ^talk 06:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of Jihad in the classical manuals of Islamic jurisprudence needs to be better represented or emphasised in this article. Bernard Lewis is cited and his opinion is that in most of the recorded history of Islam, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense. I would suggest it would be better and more authentic to quote straight from Islamic law. In 'Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) for example, the connotation of warfare with Jihad is made clearer:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad.

``We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

-1- ``Fighting is prescribed for you (Koran 2:216);

-2- ``Slay them wherever you find them (Koran 4:89);

-3- ``Fight the idolators utterly (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

``I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

"To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it." Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.) [...]

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29) [15]

(Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, p. 599 [16])

As to whether this book is a reliable source I will point to that in Umdat al-Salik we find various endorsments and probably the most important is from Al-Azhar University which is the chief centre of Arabic literature and Sunni Islamic learning in the world,[17] and Al-Azhar certified in 1991 that Umdat al-Salik "conformes to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community." (Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, p. xx (20) [18]), and also here Davidelah (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the BBC these are the very strict rules of war in jihad:

• The opponent must always have started the fighting.
• It must not be fought to gain territory.
• It must be launched by a religious leader.
• It must be fought to bring about good - something that Allah will approve of.
• Every other way of solving the problem must be tried before resorting to war.
• Innocent people should not be killed.
• Women, children, or old people should not be killed or hurt.
• Women must not be raped.
• Enemies must be treated with justice.
• Wounded enemy soldiers must be treated in exactly the same way as one's own soldiers.
• The war must stop as soon as the enemy asks for peace.
• Property must not be damaged.
• Poisoning wells is forbidden. The modern analogy would be chemical or biological warfare.

BBC does not, however, provide any soucres to support these points (and BBC is not an institution that holds authority in Islam).

Islamic law manuals also provides rules of wars that seems to differ from the ones of BBC and even to contradict them.

In Reliance Of The Travelller the rules of war is set out thus:

The Rules of Warfare

It is not permissible (A: in jihad) to kill women or children unless they are fighting against the Muslims. Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or if killing them will help defeat the enemy. It is permissible to kill old men (O: old man (shaykh meaning someone more than forty years of age) and monks.

It is unlawful to kill a non-Muslim to whom a Muslim has given his guarantee of protection (O: whether the non-Muslim is one or more than one, provided the number is limited, and the Muslim's protecting them does not harm the Muslims, as when they are spies) provided the protecting Muslim has reached puberty, is sane, and does so voluntarily (O: and is not a prisoner of them or a spy).

Whoever enters Islam before being captured may not be killed or his property confiscated, or his young children taken captive.

When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.

When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen.

It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy's trees and destroy their dwellings.[19]

The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29), [...]

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya)) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49)). [...]

It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph's permission (A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required) [20]

As can be seen there seems to be some differences in these points and also some ambiguities in the termonology that is used.

To show further how these points BBC has given uses different terminology some points are contrasted to some of the ones above. Some points even seems to be contrary to classical Islamic law:

• The opponent must always have started the fighting. "The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians ... until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax"
• It must not be fought to gain territory. (does that mean that the caliph cannot take land when fighting non-muslims?)
• It must be launched by a religious leader. "military expedition against hostile non-Muslims ... if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required"
• It must be fought to bring about good - something that Allah will approve of. (what will Allah aprove of?)
• Every other way of solving the problem must be tried before resorting to war. (what is the problem?) "...until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax"
• Innocent people should not be killed. (who is innocent?)
• Women, children, ("unless they are fighting against the Muslims") or old people ("It is permissible to kill old men") should not be killed or hurt.
• Women must not be raped. (Is it rape when she is a slave and not married?) "When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled."
• Enemies must be treated with justice. (What is justice?) "When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy."
• Wounded enemy soldiers must be treated in exactly the same way as one's own soldiers. (Is that medical treatment?)
• The war must stop as soon as the enemy asks for peace. (What kind of peace?)
• Property must not be damaged. "It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy's trees and destroy their dwellings." "Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or if killing them will help defeat the enemy."
• Poisoning wells is forbidden. The modern analogy would be chemical or biological warfare. Davidelah (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, BBC is a respected source, therefore, they make sure that they have reliable scholarly sources. Their credibility doesn't require them to link their sources in public.

I'm not sure if it's worth the time to go through all of your points, which I will if you insist. I can provide reliable sources to each of the BBC's point, which differ to your interpretation. Your source JUST gives additional details, but you should not add assumptions by yourself.

I'll just mention two major points here:

(1) "The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians ... until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax" is actually a law under the Muslim-ruled lands. Therefore, it's not considered a war; that's just a translation error. It's just an enforced law, like any other law, and is not valid all over the world. If so, you'll find the 1.6 billion Muslims fighting to do so! That's a lovely amount of money anyone would love to get :p

(2) Regarding, "When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled." The Qur'an and all other sources clearly states that Muslims can only marry those slaves with mutual agreement (NOT by force), after giving them all of their financial and marriage rights. The only difference with normal marriage, is that they may have husbands that ran away from war. So, if the captured women wants to get married, she's considered automatically divorced by the law of distance. AdvertAdam ^talk 22:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you could provide some sources actually, to back up BBC's points, and BBC is not sufficient if it is contrasted with a more reliable source e.g. to an Islamic law manual. But I think there is a problem as I mentioned that the terminology of BBC is not in Islamic terms and seems to be inaccurate in this context. And also to address some of your points:

The term war was translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller a specialist in Islamic law so why should that not be accurate then? And I believe the article is firstly about doctrines in a particular religion and not about what people actually do. And just as another detail, the (jihad) war in this context is a communuial obligation so it doesn't have to be 1.4 billion muslims and there is no caliph in the first place. (And you're right that would be a lot of money!)

About the assertion that "Muslims can only marry those slaves with mutual agreement (NOT by force)" is not what what the point was about, it was about BBC's assertion that "Women must not be raped" and female captives can be used for "sexual purposes" without necesarily being married to the slaveholder. Davidelah (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBC says that they're not responsible for external links here, so they are responsible for internal links. This is not a news page, but an information page that the well-known respected organization of BBC maintains. Of course these information cannot be gathered without Muslims involvement. It's their responsibility to make sure the information is accurate, for their credibility, not yours or mine. Anyways, the following two points prove that your interpretation is in-accurate. Do you still need resources for the rest of the BBC list?

{Btw, I never knew that London has soo many Muslims, as I was shocked to find a Halal Subway in the centerr of London. If you don't know, Jews and Muslims aren't allowed to eat animals that are tortured while killed, so Halal and Kosher is slaughtering in a humanity way.}

(1) First of all, Nuh Ha Mim Keller is a Sufi, where the majority of Muslims are Sunni--follow the rule of the Qur'an and examples of the Prophet (any religious activity added on that by human is considered false). I won't dispute his words based on that, but I'm clarifying that those rules are only valid in a Islamic state. Jizya is like an exemption tax, as non-Muslims are obligated to pay because they're excused of military service and Zakat tax (to get their full citizen rights, except praying to idols in public). Here's a small source that says so, link. Does it make sense for Muslims to have a war with people living in a Muslim land?! Therefore, Muslims can't start a war to pursue Jizya tax, because it's only valid in their land. {And ya, the Roman Empire would of turned to Islam and got more money and power, too :p}

(2) If adultery is not allowed and having sex is not allowed unless in mutual acceptance concubine or full marriage, then it's accurate to say that women must NOT be raped. THe Quranic versus are totally clear in Quran(4:24-26), and Ghulam Pervez also explains the limits of slavery in the "III. Slave Girls" section here, as a secondary source. AdvertAdam ^talk 03:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article would still need more sources than BBC to these points because it seems to be, in some cases, contrary to what is in an Islamic law manuel, so you would still need some other sources to support BBC's points. And regarding your two points:

(1) If "those rules are only valid in a Islamic state" then this would be the caliph state against those people who a not under the caliph, so the BBC's assertion that "The opponent must always have started the fighting" seems to be inaccurate because the rule in this manual is "The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians ... until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax." The rulings in the manual regarding this hypothetical caliph state in relation to non-muslims outside of such a state is also clear in this manual: The first [state in relations to non-muslims] is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, ... meaning upon the Muslims each year.[21]

(2) If the "Quranic versus are totally clear" then there at least appears to be some differences in interpretaion of the status of unmarried captive women in the Quran. For example the mainstream interpreter Ibn Kathir is very claer that a female slave can be used for sexual purposes on Quran 4:3 "then marry only one wife, or satisfy yourself with only female captives"[22] or another Al-Suyuti "or, restrict yourself to, what your right hands own, of slavegirls, since these do not have the same rights as wives."[23] Nor does the sources you provided refute the status of captive women that is outlined in these interpretations or that marriage to a slave has to be consensual. Davidelah (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what's your point, adding personal assumptions and taking texture out of context. You still didn't prove these two points wrong with your interpretation over your source.

(1) Don't you realize that it's more logic to read "O9.3" before "O9.8", which says Jihad is permitted "when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims...people, provisioning them, and readying them for war". Therefore, logic says that the war against non-Muslims is when they're in danger and called to war. So they will fight like you said, but self-defense. That's what happened with Crusades, when they kept slaughtering Jews and Muslims. Do you still think your objection is valid?!.

(2)Anything in the Quran is important, and can't be ignored. Whatever you want to called it "concubine" or "slavegirl" in the versus you mentionsed, has to be according to the previous verse and source I gave you. Therefore, when sex is not allowed unless with mutual agreement, then commonsense says it's not rape. Do you still believe your objection here is valid, too? AdvertAdam ^talk 03:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if these quotations from Islamic law manuals is "adding personal assumptions and taking texture out of context" you should provide some reliable sources that would show this. And as for your two new objections:

(1) Section o9.3 states: Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male or female, old or young) when ... non-Muslim forces entering Muslim lands is a weighty matter that cannot be ignored, but must be met with effort and struggle to repel them by every possible means[24]. It says that this is also jihad and does not exclude the very clear command, in this manual, to invade non-muslim countries by definnition as section o9.1 states: ... there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can).[25]

The second defensive state also seems to be without restriction against the enemy in this manual, as I have highlighted, and again these teachings are very poorly reflected in BBC's rules of "jihad" war.

(2) The sources in your original point does not say that a slaveholder has no right to use a female captive for sexual purposes. The Quranic verses and their Islamic interpretation I provided show that they have, at least according to these two maintream scholars.[26][27] Here is another Islamic interpretation of another verse 4:23 note 64[28] Davidelah (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the Islamic Law Manual's personal assumptions, hence, I said yours. I assume that English is your second language. Taking texture out of context is what you're doing, ignoring one part of the manual and quoting another. I think it would be better if any third party reads those rules and comment. I don't see anything in this manual that conflicts with BBC's summary. I'm not gonna explain it over and over again, so I recommend asking a Native English speaker to explain it to you. Regarding my objections, they're not new:

(1) Can't you realize that what is called second state says, "when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one". Therefore, it's considered self deference out of your land, fighting for your existence, exactly as described in (O9.3). Concluding, the first state is self defense in your land and the second state is self defense out of your land when surrounded or threatened by an enemy calling for war, so the BBC's summary is valid by saying, "The opponent must always have started the fighting" (meaning DON'T oppress, as the Quran says "God hates the oppressors"). What'syour objections???!

(2) You can't take one part and ignore another. My explanation is still valid even with your sources, sir.Your first source also explain that salve-girls have certain procedures,not just sex nor adultery. Verse 24 in your second source also states the same thing, confirming mutual agreement. Your sources is valid, but your assumptions aren't. Your own sourcesconfirm BBC's summary, "Women must not be raped", too. What's your objections???! AdvertAdam ^talk 22:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the discussion should be about the subject and the assertion of ones opinion made here should be verifiable. So that is why I would not agree with your allegation that it was "adding personal assumptions and taking texture out of context" when simply quoting a source and comparing it to the article. Your contention that you "don't see anything in this manual that conflicts with BBC's summary" is for example not an arguement that is verifiable. And personaly i cannot see that your objections against (only) two of my points are the same statements. I will of course answer them anyway:

(1) Section O9.0 states: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, ... warfare to establish the religion. Section O9.1 on "The Obligatory Character of Jihad" states; ... there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can). Your claim that "the first state is self defense in your land" does not reflect these quotationes, it doesn't use the word "defence" in respect to the communal obligation, or that enemy is attacking them. If this is the case then show where in the manual it explains how the caliph can make peace with non-muslim countries who are not militarily hostile or invading them.

(2) You have not objected to the fact that those sources claim that the slaveholder has right over his female slave to cohabit with her and that he can marry her off without her consent. Do you then acknowledge this? Here is another example of these rules. Davidelah (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Oxford dictionary, the adjective of "summarize" is not including needless details or formalities; brief. BBC made a summary of the rules, so you can't take one piece of the manual and compare it to it. Therefore, this summary is a short list to be easily understood by readers. A summary can't be verified until you read and understand the whole chapter in the manual, without ignoring any of it's points and conditions. We're going into the same closed cycle, turning a discussion to philosophy. I'm freezing the discussion at the end.

(1) Hmmm, so my commonsense turned out to be nonsense, I guess? I'm guessing that the following doesn't mean self-defense, according to your source: "O9.2 Jihad is personally obligatory upon all those present in the battle lines and O9.3 obligatory for everyone when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims (people, provisioning them, and readying them for war)."

The first state states the word war in your land, so doesn't that logically mean you're under attack? The second state: "The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can)." Peace with "who are not militarily hostile or invading them" can't be written in a warfare manual, sir. There is no relations. Peace in war is mentioned in O9.16, Truce: "In Sacred Law truce means a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam." The Qur'an also recommended peace when you're stronger, to not be considered a surrender: "So do not be faint-hearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost" (Qur'an 47: 35).

(2) That's what you assume it means when you ignore the verse I gave you that insists her consent, forbidding adultery. That's what you're avoiding. I guess you don't like your first source anymore, so you abandoned it. I object with the phrasing of the second source you put for three reasons: It's against the Qur'an (4:24), which anything against it is invalid for Muslims; It's against your first, more reliable, source; and It's against the first scholarly source I gave you. Therefore, being against three sources + BBC makes it invalid! Furthermore, your link is actually not the original book that was written by Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, so maybe the conflict is because of the many editors and translators (written on its cover). Both ways, it's still invalid according to my previous reasoning. AdvertAdam ^talk 11:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I am quite bewildered by some of the statements you have written. You wrote "We're going into the same closed cycle, turning a discussion to philosophy" because I quoted the whole section on "The Rules of Warfare" and, among other things, pointed out that BBC writes "old people should not be killed" and that this is contrary to the only statement that "It is permissible to kill old men." In our discussion you wrote that "I don't see anything in this manual that conflicts with BBC's summary." I feel that you will have to clarify your position on how compatible these two "Rules of Warfare" are with one another, because this is either a printing error or something more dishonest.

(1) The first state in relation to non-muslims is talking about "when they are in their own countries" and this refers to the non-muslims being in their own countries. The word "they" isn't used about Muslims in this Book 9, but only about the non-muslims. And in section O9.8 on the objectives of this relation to non-muslims it doesn't talk about defence, but that "The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians ... until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax" (not until non-muslims stop attacking muslims). You still haven't addressed the very first section of Book 9 that describe to the offensive nature of the "Jihad" “Fighting is prescribed for you (Koran 2: 216) “Slay them wherever you find them (Koran 4: 89), “Fight the idolators utterly (Koran 9: 36) “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah... These quotes would seem pretty strange to bring forth if this warefare is totally defensive (What's your objections???!).

(2) Your sources do not "insists her consent" to cohabit with her slaveholder (if it does quote it), and my sources don't either[29][30][31] (if it does quote it). This issue has already been settled in Wikipedia "A Muslim slaveholder was entitled by law to the sexual enjoyment of his slave women"[32] so your stance is also a minority in this forum. (What's your objections???!) Davidelah (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To expand a little further on the rules of war in Islamic law manuals here is an example from Minhaj al-Talibin, a classical manual on Islamic Law, by Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi, who is a pillar of Shafi'i fiqh.:

It is lawful to besiege infidels in their towns and fortresses, and employ against them inundation, fire, and warlike machines; and to attack them unawares at night, without having regard to the presence among them of a Moslem prisoner or merchant, for whom these general methods of destruction may be equally dangerous. This is the doctrine of our school. By virtue of this same principle one may even shoot women and children, if the infidels continue the combat while hiding behind them.[33] ... It is lawful to destroy the houses and plantations of infidels, where this is necessary from a military point of view, or if it renders the victory easier; it is even a good thing to have recourse to this measure in all cases where it is unlikely that the houses and plantations will one day become our [Muslims] property.[34][emphasis added]

This is just to show some examples where the tendencies in the Islamic laws differ from BBC's points, at least on the face of it. So these points of BBC should at least be supported by some authority within Islam and be accompanied by some classical views also. Davidelah (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to expand, while you can't even prove your previous claims! You're still taking texture out of context. To object on a summary, like BBCs, you need to read all rules to claim it valid or not. If you want to challenge BBCs summary, reread the sources you bring closely or let a Native English Speaker explain it to you. Hint, some paragraphs on the same page of your source denies what you're saying and agrees with BBC. AdvertAdam ^talk 22:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not really made any claims, I just contrasted BBC's rules of war with the Islamic rules of war (according to that manual). You should verify BBC's claims by this manual or the other if you feel they are compatible. And I think that by "denies" you mean that the manual says that under some circumstances these measures don't have to be taken. For example in regard to "destroy the houses and plantations" where there is a chance this will one day become the Muslims' property it says "Where this is probable it is better not to proceed to destroy them." So BBC's claim that "Property must not be damaged." is at best a misleading halftruth. In regard to your "Native English" argument I would like see if you could show that, for example, to "shoot women and children," in an english dictionary is really synonymous with "give them a hug,"! What exactly is your objection? Davidelah (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is heading toward a closed cycle. I'm requesting to freeze it for a mediator to review both, (1) the credibility of BBC and (2) the claim of inaccuracy of its context, comparing with the Islamic Manual of Jihad. Thanks AdvertAdam ^talk 11:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Davidelah! Hi, Adam!

David, I've read through what Adam rightly calls this "endless discussion", and I'm very sorry to have to explain that you're in the wrong on the point you're debating. No one likes to be told that, though, so may I please try to explain why I say so?

David, it looks like you're arguing that what we call a "primary source" should be used instead of a "secondary source". You wrote, above:

"I would suggest it would be better and more authentic to quote straight from Islamic law. In Reliance of the Traveller for example..."

As I understand your statement in this case, this book of Islamic law would be a "primary source". If there were a commentary on it, that would be a "secondary source". Likewise, the BBC article that you've both spoken of would be a "secondary source", too. And although it's hard to understand at first, we have to write our articles based on secondary sources, not on primary ones. The policy that's relevant to your dispute with Adam about this matter can be found here.

That link will give you a lot of text that looks confusing, if you're not already familiar with it, but what it means is that we only put into our articles what someone else has said, what some reporter or book author has said, for example, about an original source document like the Qu'ran, or the Bible, or other books that religions take as Holy. The reason for that is that we are not to put ourselves in the position of a mullah or a rabbi or a priest, and figure out for ourselves what the original Holy books mean. We can only tell our readers what someone else, some reliable source has told us it means.

This principle works all throughout Wikipedia, not just with Holy books or religion. In medical articles, for example, we can't report the results of individual research studies, because those are considered a "primary source" (see the link I gave, above). We have to rely on so-called "review papers", instead. Those are papers where some scientist or expert looks at lots of different research papers, and draws a conclusion from them, and then writes a "summary" or (same thing) "review" paper about his conclusions. He doesn't do any actual research in a laboratory himself, only in a library, reading about other people's laboratory research, so he can summarize it for others. The laboratory papers are "primary sources". We can base our articles only on "secondary sources", where someone else has already done all the interpretation for us. When we instead make the mistake of trying to use primary sources in our articles, we violate our no original research policy. We can't give our own opinions here, can't "do our own research". All we can do is tell our readers what "secondary sources", like the BBC, or books about Holy books tell us.

Or maybe this will be easier to understand in the area of politics. A video recording or a transcript of a political leader's speech would be a primary source. We couldn't each read that, and start writing what we think it meant into the encyclopedia. We'd have to wait for newspaper and television commentators (or certain internet-based reliable sources ) to review the speech first, and give their opinions. Their statements would be a secondary source that we could use as a basis for our articles. ( That makes Wikipedia what journalists call a "tertiary" source, by the way. You probably know that "tertiary" means "third level", in this case. But forget I said that, if it confuses you. )

I know this must seem kind of backwards, and it does take time to understand all our complex policies here, but Adam is right in this case. If either of you are having trouble in the future figuring out the difference between what's a primary source and what's a secondary source, the friendly volunteers at the help desk are happy to answer questions. It depends on what time of day you post a question there, but you'll usually get a response within ten to thirty minutes, especially for simple policy questions like "Is this a primary or secondary source?" The volunteers there are usually very experienced Wikipedia editors, by the way.

I should tell you both that I'm just a regular volunteer editor, like you both are. I've been around for a while, though, and I do understand our policies pretty well. I won't say for sure that I'm the last word, the one true authority about any of this, of course. I could be wrong, in other words, because I don't know the Holy texts of Islam. But I think I'm right, about your specific case, and I'm certain I understand our policy on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources properly, of course, too. Oh, also, David? I left a brief welcome note for you on your talk page, along with a colorful template that will help direct you to useful resources here.

Oh, one last thing. My apologies in advance if I've misunderstood, and you both know everything I said above, already! Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OhioStandard is mostly correct in that we can't use primary sources as a source for our own argument and that we must rely on secondary sources for information to include in our articles. However, there is an exception. We can use a primary source as an illustration. So, for example, if a secondary source is basing it's argument on a specific Surrah we can repeat and cite the argument along with the supporting secondary source, and we can include the quoted Surrah itself as an illustration - but (of course) not as a basis for making additional arguments not supported by the secondary source. Rklawton (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, OhioStandard. I would thank you for clarifying the policy of sources and for the welcome note. I can understand the problem of primary sources and I will probably look into the policy on this issue. I do wish to clarify something of this discussion also. The discussion above was also about particular Islamic doctrines in relation to the Islamic law manuals and BBC's article, so I hope that this isn't what is being addressed here.

I can certainly see that one shouldn't compare primary texts like the Quran, the hadiths or for that matter the Sira with BBC's points, and it is true that a news station, like BBC, would be better suited to give a summary of religious teachings. I would like to address one thing though, and that is about some of the analogies that were made in relation to the manual of Islamic law. I would argue that the manual is not quite the same as a primary religious text, but rather an exposition or "summary" of religious texts and teachings, maybe a little like a catechism or a canon. So it is not so close to a transcript of a political leader's speech as it is to a program of a political party. It represents the fiqh rulings according to the Shafi'i school of jurisprudence as can be seen here. Certainly it is quite voluminous and deals with many different topics, but the section of each of these topics is brief and in my opinion aren't that hard to comprehend. One doesn't has to read the whole book to understand the section "The Rules of Warfare" for example. I know BBC is a respected news station and so on, but the ambiguities compared to the section "The Rules of Warfare" seems problematic to me, if we take that the manual is indeed a summarising of various topics, including the rules of warfare

I guess what I'm advocating is that these views should at least be included in the article in some way, and maybe BBC's reliability and some of its points challenged on this subject. And with respect to the other debater's earlier comment that there isn't "anything in this manual that conflicts with BBC's summary" seems a little one-sided to me, but I hope that some third party could comment as the other debater suggested, if it be decided that the Islamic law manual could be used for reference on the various topics it covers, divided in each of its sections. Davidelah (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope everyone had a great weekend. Just a quick comment on the overall topic:

First of all, BBC is not solely a news station. The news station is part of BBC, as you can see the branches of BBC here (They also provide political, historical, and religious information). When different sources have conflicts, we should compare them with credibility not quantity. Slavery in Islam article is full of false information, and thanks for showing it to me: I need to invest alot of time to get it straightened with stronger more reliable secondary sources. For your personal information, when you compare primary sources in Islam, the Qur'an is the strongest primary source---no questions asked. Therefore, when our discussion contained "Ibn Alkatheir"'s commentary on the Qur'an, no other source can override that. Whatever does is automatically invalid, as long as you read the surrounding versus without taking texture out of context. The bloody versus you mentioned are all following a condition of war. Likewise, we can't say that Judaism is terror because of "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed" (Exodus 22:20) OR "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:17-18), as it's consider texture out of context.

I disagree about your comparison to canon, not even alittle. Islam is extremely stricted with scripture. So there is no cannons like other religions, because no-one has the authority to produce fixes or editions on Islamic holy scripture.

Back to the point, I froze the discussion because whenever you object on a point in the BBC's summary, I bring you a statement from your same source that is closer to BBC's point: a certain statement that you probably passed when reading. Therefore, when we got to the debate on the same point the forth time, I told you "I don't see anything in this manual that conflicts with BBC's summary", based on my previous explanation on your objections (you can't pick a statement you like and ignore the rest that explains it). Anyways, we can see if we get further opinions within the couple coming days. Take care AdvertAdam ^talk 01:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A little rebuttal: That statement about slavery in Islam was incidentally from one of the most respected scholars on the subject, Bernard Lewis, in this article. And the verses I mentioned was actually not mentioned by me but by the Islamic law manual, so they are the one taking verses out of context and not making it clear that these are entirely defensive, but I belive we have discussed the offensive/defensive matter above.

I know a canon has different methods coming to its conclusion, but this manual still represent a consensus, ijma, based on scriptures, and ijma is also a binding that can't be changed as recognised by all the leading scholars in the Amman Message,[35] that it is "religiously legally binding," so this seems to be a kind of fixing.

I beileve that I tried to address the statements that you found supportive to BBC, and not just passing by. I apologise if I quoted you unfairly but you seem to accept that this is your position (based on your explanations which I have also responded to). Davidelah (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So nothing in this article discusses jihadism, i.e. "jihad" as understood in modern Islamic fundamentalism since the 1980s? The discussion ends with the Muslim brotherhood of the 1920s? Was this article written in 1950 or something?

Yes, you need to take care that recent use of the term doesn't dominate the article. But nothing about the past 30 years? Not a single brief paragraph? With a suggestion for a brief WP:DUE treatment reverted within the minute? This article is truly held hostate by a stale war between the Islam-bashers on one hand and the PC apologists on the other. Just create a section on modern Islamism and confine discussion of jihadism to that. It isn't acceptable to let this topic pervate the entire article, but neither is it acceptable to simply ban any mention of it. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A term that was made-up by radicals, less-than 1% of the religion's population, doesn't make it related to Jihad. As long as the major Muslim scholars didn't announce it, it's not a notable term. Minority actions have no place here. It has a scary article, btw :) AdvertAdam ^talk 05:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these groups of radicals call themselves things like Islamic Jihad, but do they have support for their actions? Here is a major Muslim scholar that identifies "suicide operations" with "jihad" in, for example, Israel and Iraq. And the justification, from less than 1% of the adherents of Islam, for some kind of jihadist suicide operation is actually a bit higher, for example 20% in Bangladesh, 34% in Lebanon and 16% in modern moderate Turkey view suicide bombings as often/sometimes justified[36]. A significant trend? And about specific "jihadist" attakcs, a poll taken in June 2006 for the Times of London newspaper suggested that 13 percent of British Muslims believe the July 7 London bombers were martyrs[37]. Other mainstream dictionaries, that has not been influenced by apologetics, of course address this issue, for example here and here. Davidelah (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i plan of adding a primary source from a well known unversity about the rules of jihad. the rules of jihad from the book "reliance of the traveller"

found here, press ctrl+f "*2*Chapter O9.0: Jihad" http://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Islam/Reliance.html anyone object

I don't know how is the above comment unsigned; This link was used in the dispute below, so please follow-up there. AdvertAdam ^talk 04:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bbc opinions is only 1 pov, so i am adding POV of 4 schools. object or not? if so why

you claim that if i want to add the opinion of the schools of islam, you say that is POV because i am adding a few i.e 4 "out of 10" you said, actually, the 4 i want to add are recognised as the major schools of islamic thought, wikipedia only wants the major world view. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC) i think it is fair to remove the bbc quote as i find it contrversial since it only gives 1 pov, that is if you refuse to add the 4 other major POV.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you also continue to say jihad is only for self defense, i can see who is trying to push a POV here. many different schools of islamic thought have different views than you --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Yusuf Yaqub ibn Ibrahim al-Ansari (d. 798) was a student of legist Abu Hanifah and helped spread the influence of the Hanafi school. He was appointed Qadi (judge) in Baghdad, Iraq, and later chief justice (qadi al-qudat) under Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid. He writes about Jihad:

BATTLE PROCEDURES

It seems that the most satisfactory suggestion we have heard in this connection is that there is no objection to the use of any kind of arms against the polytheists, smothering and burning their homes, cutting down their trees and date groves, and using catapults, without, however, deliberately attacking women, children, or elderly people; that one can yet pursue those that run away, finish off the wounded, kill prisoners who might prove dangerous to the Muslims, but this is only applicable to those on the chin of whom a razor has passed, for the others are children who must not be executed.

As for the prisoners who are led before the imam, the latter has the choice of executing them or making them pay a ransom, as he pleases, opting for the most advantageous choice for the Muslims and the wisest for Islam. The ransom imposed upon them is not to consist either of gold, silver, or wares, but is only an exchange for Muslim captives.

...

For my part I say that the decision concerning prisoners is in the hands of the imam: in accordance with whatever he feels to be more to the advantage of Islam and the Muslims, he can have them executed or he can exchange them for Muslim prisoners (pp. 302-303).

Whenever the Muslims besiege an enemy stronghold, establish a treaty with the besieged who agree to surrender on certain conditions that will be decided by a delegate, and this man decides that their soldiers are to be executed and their women and children taken prisoner, this decision is lawful. This was the decision of Sa'ad b. Mu'adh in connection with the Banu Qurayza (a Jewish tribe of Arabia) (p. 311).

^[5]

According to the famous Muslim law book of the Shafi jurisprudence, Umdat al-Salik wa Uddat al-Nasik (the reliance of the traveller)^[6], the rules of warfare are as follows:

O9.10: The Rules of Warfare
It is not permissible (A: in jihad) to kill women or children unless they are fighting against the Muslims. Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or if killing them will help defeat the enemy. It is permissible to kill old men (O: old man (shaykh meaning someone more than forty years of age) and monks.
O9.11: It is unlawful to kill a non-Muslim to whom a Muslim has given his guarantee of protection (O: whether the non-Muslim is one or more than one, provided the number is limited, and the Muslim's protecting them does not harm the Muslims, as when they are spies) provided the protecting Muslim has reached puberty, is sane, and does so voluntarily (O: and is not a prisoner of them or a spy).
O9.12: Whoever enters Islam before being captured may not be killed or his property confiscated, or his young children taken captive.
O9.13: When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.
O9.14: When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy. If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen.
O9.15: It is permissible in jihad to cut down the enemy's trees and destroy their dwellings.....continued
Reliance of the Traveller, Section 9.1

^[7]

Ibn Qudamah (1147-1223) was a noted Islamic scholar of the Hanbali madhhab, author of many treatises of Hanbali jurisprudence and doctrine, including al-Mughni (the most widely known textbook of Hanbali fiqh). He writes about Jihad:

Legal war (jihad) is an obligatory social duty (fard-kifaya); when one group of Muslims guarantees that it is being carried out in a satisfactory manner, the others are exempted.

The jihad becomes a strictly binding personal duty (fard-'ain) for all Muslims who are enlisted or whose country has been [invaded] by the enemy. It is obligatory only for free men who have reached puberty, are endowed with reason and capable of fighting. Jihad is the best of the works of supererogation. ...
Naval expeditions are more meritorious than campaigns on land. One must fight under every leader, whether it be a respectable man or a corrupt man. Every nation must fight the enemies that are its immediate neighbors. A full stint of service in a frontier post (ribat) is of forty days' duration. ...

No one can engage in jihad without the permission of his father and mother, if they are alive and Muslims, unless the jihad is an individual duty that strictly obliges. Only elderly women are permitted to venture into the war zone in order to replenish the water supply and to care for the wounded. No one should enlist the services of an infidel except in case of need. ...
It is permitted to surprise the infidels under cover of night, to bombard them with mangonels and to attack them without declaring battle

^[8]

Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (1126-1198) was an Andalusian Muslim polymath; a master of Islamic philosophy, Islamic theology, Maliki law and jurisprudence. He was born in Cordoba, Spain, and he died in Marrakech, Morocco. He writes about Jihad in his book "Al-Bidayah"

The legal qualification (hukm) of this activity and the persons obliged to take part in it

Scholars agree that the jihad is a collective not a personal obligation. Only 'Abd Allah Ibn al-Hasan professed it to be a recommendable act. According to the majority of scholars, the compulsory nature of the jihad is founded on [K 2:216] "Fighting is prescribed for you, though it is distasteful to you."That this obligation is a collective and not a personal one, i.e., that the obligation, when it can be properly carried out by a limited number of individuals, is canceled for the remaining Moslems, is founded on [K 9:112]: "It is not for the believers to march out all together, and, lastly, on the fact that the Prophet never went to battle without leaving some people behind. All this together implies that this activity is a collective obligation. The obligation to participate in the jihad applies to adult free men who have the means at their disposal to go to war and who are healthy, that is, not ill or suffering from chronic diseases. ...
The enemy
Scholars agree that all polytheists should be fought. This is founded on [K 8:39]: "Fight them until there is no Fitnah and the religion is entirely Allah's." ...
Damage allowed to be inflicted upon the different categories of enemies
Damage inflicted upon the enemy may consist in damage to his property, injury to his person or violation of his personal liberty, i.e., that he is made a slave and is appropriated. This may be done, according to ijma [the consensus the Shariah authorities] to all polytheists: men, women, young and old, important and unimportant. ... Most scholars are agreed that, in his dealings with captives, various policies are open to the Imam [head of the Islamic state, or caliph]. He may pardon them, enslave them, kill them, or release them either on ransom or as dhimmi [nonMuslim subjugated to the Muslim regime], in which latter case the released captive is obliged to pay poll-tax (jizya).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidelah (talk • contribs) 13:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC) [Bidayat al-Mudjtahid, Chapter on Jihad]

^[9]

I ain't going through the same mess that happened in the above discussion in the past. To save my time and yours, I'll try to make this short.

This is not a tic tac game to make a deal between two options! All of the primary sources you provided have a section that explains the reason of war, which you excluded. And what do you know about Jihad to accuse me of pushing my POV. You're the one who's taking texture out of context to push yours.

I said tens of schools, not ten. Meaning 20, 30, 40, 50..., I don't know. BBC is not 1 pov because it's simply not an Islamic school. If you follow BBC's documentaries, you'll see where they get their information from: the general public, not from your.

You want to compete with BBC? Bring a secondary source! There's a big sign at the header that says, "No original research --AdvertAdam ^talk 09:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The famous quote of David Coke is bias. If he didn't see Arabic, Persian, and Urdu scholars writing about nonviolent Jihad doesn't mean that there isn't. This is an Arabic scholar, and a Persian scholar's writings. It's just an example that the quote is invalid, and I'm not sure if it should be removed or justified under it. It's a total bias POV. Hope to get editors' opinions. AdvertAdam ^talk 04:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

its davids cook opinion, and he is notable, and it doesnt need to be true. as many things in that jihad article are not true or white washed--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine. I guess I'll be adding some opinions of Arab, Persian and Urdu scholars, so the readers don't take it seriously. AdvertAdam ^talk 07:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaking, Misconceptions2. I quoted a secondary source on the introduction of the section. It's a BBC article confirming the reason that the general public made those revolutions. I added another source anyways, if you didn't like the first one. I don't care what you read about "Best Jihad", quote your dispute with reliable sources. The only two Hadiths I heard about "Best Jihad" is (1) a word against an oppressing ruler (2) and, a female's completion of hajj. AdvertAdam ^talk 04:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you added the references after.

A man asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) “..and what is Jihad?” He replied: “You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield).” He asked again: “What kind of Jihad is the highest?” He replied: “The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood.” [Narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad 4/114 - Hadith sahih. Al Haithami states: “Narrators upheld it.” Majmauz Zawaid 1/59]

source, pg19

https://edisk.fandm.edu/wri/MSE2002.pdf --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're taking texture out of context, sir. I can't and won't believe that you actually read the source you attached, as it's totally against your intentions. It said that the west is misunderstanding Jihad by taking textures out of context. I personally encourage you to read it, to help you organize your thoughts. The statement was in a war, as described in your source. So, would you think the prophet should of said, "running away is better"?!

By the way, FYI, that source is not even published. It's a manual of academic student essays for training purposes. AdvertAdam ^talk 07:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the meaning of the whole article. Those are rules of warfare Jihad, not the rest of the nonviolence types of Jihad. This article is tagged as controversial article, so please discuss major edits with talk-page first AdvertAdam ^talk 04:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's logical to add two schools out-of tens, which is pushing a minority POV that confuses users. If you'd like to add them, you need to be fair regarding the other schools too. I suggest putting them on a soapbox before adding an unfinished insertion on an important article. Adding texture out of context is not a way to contribute. Those are primary sources and you excluded the paragraphs that mention it's for self-defense. Anyways, original resource is not allowed, and the article is already tagged with too many quotes! AdvertAdam ^talk 04:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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