Talk:Decapitation in Islam/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Footnotes

This may help. Btw, "al-Qaeda" is the correct spelling - see Wiki article on al-Qaeda.

Composing footnotes using the WP cite templates
(Summary of WP:FOOTNOTES section 3.1.)
Please note that bare URL footnotes – i.e. footnotes that contain only the website http address – are susceptible to link-rot, which means that if the website moves to a new domain with a new URL, the link will be broken and readers will be unable to read the citation.
  1. First put the cursor at the point in the edit text where you want the footnote to go, then click "Cite" in the edit strip at the top of the Edit Page, then click "Templates" on the left, and a drop-down menu appears.
  2. Choose "cite web" or "cite news" (for articles and websites), "cite book" or "cite journal", click and a box comes up.
  3. Fill in the all details of the citation, then click "Preview" and "Show parsed preview" to see it looks right. (To correct anything, correct the box entries, then click the two "Previews" again.) In "cite book" remember to add the page number(s) of the book.
  4. Click "Insert" and the citation automatically goes into the edit text. (It may not go in at the exact point where the cursor is if you use Firefox or Chrome.)

--P123ct1 (talk)

The current citations are not formatted in a great manner, and I prefer templates myself, but WP:CITECONSENSUS says: "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged: an article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus". (However, with messy cites like this, I think switching is fine, just not required.) I like the instructions you have above, since those can certainly help editors who haven't figure out templates yet. However, the article shouldn't have been tagged simply for lack of template usage, so I've removed the tag since CITECONSENSUS expressly endorses the lack of templates. IRW0 (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

IRW0: I didn't realise this and hadn't seen WP:CITECONSENSUS. Was there a tag attached to this article? If there was, I did not attach it. Just wanted to make that clear, and I apologise to ShulMaven if what was intended as help was misleading. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
My mistake in thinking you'd added the tag. I removed the one that was added here [1], and confused it with your talk page post. Anyways, your template is definitely useful guidance, though probably best for articles that have bare links and similar issues (rather than just an awkward citation style.) On this specific article, I do think the refs should be fixed so the reference titles are hyperlinked properly, rather than a little link for each URL. IRW0 (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't it be "Beheading in Islam", not "Beheading in Islamism"? 202.155.85.18 (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency

In this article, there's something about a Russian soldier supposedly venerated by the Russian Orthodox Church as a martyr, but upon clicking the link to the article about him, I read that although he became a hero in Russia, it explicitly says that he was not venerated as a martyr by the ROC. Either this article or that article is wrong. Widgetdog (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent reverts

@Good Olfactory:

  • Revert #1 restored Middle East Quarterly, which is NOT a reliable reference. See User:Al-Andalusi/Links to reliable sources discussions. Stating in the edit summary that it "seems reliable to me" is not very convincing.
  • Revert #2 restored uncited content. Yes it is fairly known that SA carries out executions in public, but the additional claim that "most of them" are done in public is one that needs a source. Do I really need to go over the basics and explain why a source is needed for an uncited claim?
  • Revert #3 restored an unreliable source. Fregosi is a journalist, and not a historian or an expert on Islam. He is unreliable as far as the topic of the history of Islam is concerned. The onus is on YOU to establish his reliability on the topic, not the other way around. So please stop with the nonsense that it "doesn't really matter that he is a reporter and not a "specialist" or historian". If YOU have low standards on the topic of Islam and willing to believe anything anyone will tell you anywhere anytime, then know that we don't. Take it to WP:RSN if you have doubts.
  • Revert #4 Restored content that violates WP:OR, from the Qur'an and Al-Tabari. Further, I could not find Al-Tabari's quote in Watt's reference.

The reverts restored content that violates WP:RS and WP:OR. These are core WP policies and you know damn well that you are violating them. How you became an admin on this site is something that baffles me. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Settle down; I don't think it's helpful to assume that another editor knows that they are violating policies in their edits. Rather, we assume good faith. That's a core WP principle too, you know. It's also unhelpful to personally attack other users, as you have attacked me. That's a core WP principle as well.
1: I was not aware of the discussion you have linked to. Thanks.
2: Yes, it needs to be cited. But I think the appropriate step here is to begin by adding a "citation needed" tag, not removing the information completely. Once tagged, it gives users time to locate a citation for it. I've added some citations for part of the sentence.
3: I disagree that this is an unreliable source for these points. I don't think it requires a "specialist" to report that beheadings have been claimed to have occurred after certain battles, but I understand what you are saying. I think a better approach would be to supplement the citations which are included with further information about why these reports from history are questionable, or concocted, or exaggerated, or whatever the consensus of scholars is regarding each incident. If there is no consensus among the experts on that, then the article can say so. Obviously, this requires work. It is easier to just delete stuff, I understand.
4: This is pretty basic stuff with respect to the topic, and there are likely plenty of sources. I've added one now and reworded things. The ambiguity/dispute over the meanings of the Quran and the accuracy of other sources traditionally cited needs to be highlighted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
1. The debate about the MEQ [2] was inconclusive on the journal itself but the discussion decided against the specific author and the article he published prior to the journal being peer reviewed. If this author's work is inadmissible (it was also published prior to MEQ being peer reviewed) it should be based on his credentials. He has a doctorate in Islamic history (Ohio State, 2001). I'd argue his work is worthy no matter where it is published. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Furnish published an abridged version of his article, [3], on History Network News, for which he was a regular contributor. This online journal consists of historians who "put current events into historical perspective." I suggest that Furnish is a reliable and respected expert in Islamic history. We should include the original article as a reference. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Jason from nyc: I agree, the article is a RS although it is arguably WP:FRINGE. The author is a specialist, but not a prominent one, and he himself makes it clear enough that he's advocating a contrarian view ("With such apologetics, Western academics either display basic ignorance of their fields or purposely mislead. The intelligentsia's denial etc"). Hence we should be very careful about due weight. While Furnish strings together a couple of pages of beheading trivia from Islamic history, the point of this exercise is stated in the conclusion section. We can reflect his conclusions briefly, but without giving the source disproportionate weight, either in presenting its view as a prominent one or in copying that trivia into the article. Given the current size of the article, a sentence with attribution seems to be about as much space as it deserves. How about the following: "According to Timothy Furnish, although the use of decapitation in Islamic history is not unusual among the world's civilizations, Islam is the only major world religion today that is cited to legitimize beheadings and terrorists who use it believe that they have religious and historical sanction for their actions." P.S. In fact, if one subtracts the hyperbole and decontextualized listing of facts from a long stretch of history, the point he's arguing for doesn't seem to be particularly controversial. Eperoton (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
His passing sentence about "apologetics" comes after a list of non-academics (with one exception) so it isn't clear that he is fringe. I can't explain why he sets himself up as the one expert who "got it right" but academics have a tendency to claim to be adding something new or something overlooked. It helps their case of doing original research. As a retired academic I'm used to such self-promotion. Jason from nyc (talk)
Your suggested sentence is good. I'd also like something about the difference between non-state actors and legitimate governments. He says, "While outsiders may consider the Saudi practice barbaric, most Saudi executions are swift, completed in one sword blow. Zarqawi and his followers have chosen a slow, torturous sawing method to terrorize the Western audience." He's is clearly arguing that non-state actors are exploiting legitimate texts and that isn't controversial. The contrast in usage helps drive that point home. It's like comparing a government use of capital punishment with a KKK lynch mob. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree, this would be a good addition. It's an almost obvious but nonetheless helpful distinction. Eperoton (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm rushing out the door and won't be back for a few days. If you want to make an insertion, please do. Otherwise, I'll add something when I get back. Thanks for you thoughtful remarks. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Beheading in Islamism → Beheading in Islam – The article discusses beheading throughout Islamic history and thought; it is not limited to a discussion of beheading within Islamism, which is a modern political revivalist movement. A number of months ago, a user performed this move, stating the edit summary that "Islamism is an ideology, it's like naming an article 'Beheading in Liberalism'". The name was stable for awhile, but it was recently reversed by a user who objected to the original move being undiscussed. I see it as a relatively uncontroversial change given the contents of the article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Beheading in Islam is supported by the article and has been the consensus title for a year. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I see no evidence that RSs -- and by that I mean a reasonable sample of solid sources and not one essay of questionable reliability -- treat the disparate elements some editors seem to want to assemble in this article as a coherent topic. These are, to enumerate: 1) Quranic verses that may or may not refer to beheading, depending on who you ask; 2) the use of beheading as one of methods for capital punishment in classical Islamic law, which was entirely unremarkable in pre-modern times; 3) a list of random beheadings performed by Muslims throughout history, also unremarkable in as a phenomenon in pre-modern context; 4) legal practice in modern Saudi Arabia and legal status in some other countries; 5) the recent use of beheading by Muslim terrorists. Most of the article is about the latter category, and we can discuss to what degree this terrorist tactic is influenced by aspects of history and religion (I haven't looked into this topic myself). However, this should be based on explicit discussion in RSs and not on WP:SYNTHESIS by juxtaposition. Eperoton (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. The article's scope goes beyond Islamism. The current title would require that half of the article be culled. —  AjaxSmack  21:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Not really. Some of the first section needs to be moved to Capital punishment in Islam, which is missing any discussion of methods of execution which is missing these details. I don't see a rationale for its being in the same article with terrorism. We don't have articles about "bombing in X" that apply to military campaigns and terrorism, or article about "shooting in X" that cover both legal and illegal use of guns, etc. Some historical incidents belong under List of people who were beheaded, and the rest is just a list of historical massacres classified by religious group to which perpetrators belonged, for which there's no consensus on WP. What's left is an article about the contemporary phenomenon of beheadings by Muslim terrorists, and its title should reflect that. "Islamism" is a broad and vague term which has little overlap with beheadings. Eperoton (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I would not be opposed to some sort of restructuring/diffusion of content as suggested here; it would make sense to me do so. I'm not sure if there would be a broader consensus for it, but I think it would be worthwhile having a discussion about doing so. If the article is renamed as proposed, perhaps it could be done without prejudice to further major changes that would either render the article superfluous, or at least liable to again be renamed if its scope is tightened up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable temporary solution. Like Jason from nyc, I'm about to leave on a trip and won't be very (if at all) active in the next few days, but I'll retract my opposing vote so we can start to move (hopefully) in the right direction. Eperoton (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I agree with the original "liberalism" analogy above. That's not to say that "Beheading in Islam" is the best title, however. In fact, "Beheading and Islamism" (or something similar, that maintains the connection of the two currently-used nouns) may be a better third alternative. Wolfdog (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quranic interpretations

@Good Olfactory: This phrasing contradicts what I've read on the subject elsewhere (can't remember where at the moment), and I'd like to figure out if the contradiction is in the source itself (in which case I'll look for the source I've seen before), or if the summary needs to be clarified. It was my recollection that there's a disagreement between exegetical authorities as to whether these verses refer to decapitation at all or are simply figurative expressions for fierce fighting. I have never heard of any reputable scholar interpreting them as justifying execution of captives, through beheading or otherwise. If it's a disagreement between some fringe terrorist ideologues and everyone else, and if the source makes that clear, we would want to note that. Would you mind sharing the source via quoting or email? Eperoton (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty much consistent what is stated in the source. I think it could be clarified more in the text of our article that the "controversy", such as one exists, is between radicals and everyone else, not really between mainstream interpreters. And/or emphasize the more widely understood meaning. I'm not particularly wedded to using this source, it's just what I had at my fingertips and seemed to be a decent summary. Quoted (pp. 234–35, footnotes omitted):

One could argue that Shari'a and Islam encourage violent jihad in the form of beheading. A debate exists as to whether the Qur'an specifically discusses beheading. The Qur'an contains two Suras which theoretically provide a justification for beheading the context of war. [The two Suras are quoted.]

Terrorists who wish to justify beheading use these Suras to say that smiting at the neck of the unbelievers is analogous to beheading the enemy. However, these Suras are taken out of context. Sura 47:4 does not merely state that one should "smite at the necks" of the unbelievers. It goes on to say that generosity or ransom can and should be an option when waging war. This Sura is referring to meeting the unbelieving enemy in battle. Terrorists may believe they are in a battle against those with whom they capture and behead. However, the historical context of Sura 47:4 provides some refutation to this interpretation. Sura 47:4 speaks of a time when Muslims were highly persecuted. Historical context further provides that Muslims needed to fight in order to avoid being exterminated. The terrorists' reliance on this Sura as a justification for their actions is faulty. There is no risk of extermination in the modem world, which distinguishes the present day context from the historical situation of certain Arabs in Arabia.

Andrew McCarthy is among those who believe, however, that the militants may employ the following interpretation of Sura 47.4: "Execute by beheading first, and show mercy only after the enemy—i.e.,the entire enemy, not the individual captive—has been 'thoroughly subdued.'" While it is possible to use these Suras to justify beheadings if one is intent on doing so, the agreement among scholars is that these Suras mean killing by striking at the neck.

– Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Good Olfactory. I would have preferred to use a source that cites mainstream Islamic interpretations rather than arguing with the "terrorists" first hand, but I don't have other sources on this subject at hand, and this one will do. I've made an attempt to phrase the article so as to reflect what it says more directly. Eperoton (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
A good improvement, thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding my recent change: I'm concerned about the way verse 8:12 is lumped in with all the talk about the other verse, as the quote from the source (above) revolves almost entirely around verse 47:4, and not 8:12. Secondly, the source says "theoretically provide a justification for beheading", whereas the Wiki article says "cited by the terrorists who argue that the Quran commands beheading". Again, this appears to apply only to 47:4 and not 8:12. Finally, the verse is a clearly a command to the angels (who, according to tradition, were sent as reinforcements during the Battle of Badr), and not human beings. This is all based on my understanding of the quote above. If there's anything I missed, do mention it. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

"Islamic scripture" section

I made a change to the wording on the Banu Qurayza events, correctly an error that was likely introduced by user "Good Olfactory", who is yet again showing us his low standards in handling material on Islam and the Middle East. Rather than consult the main articles and sources on the events, and accept the version that is backed by thousands of references, he is now claiming that there is an alternative version somewhere in the primary sources where Muhammad did in fact order the beheadings!

@Good Olfactory:, remember when you insisted earlier on restoring uncited content about Saudi Arabia, claiming that you were giving users time to find references? It is quite hypocritical of you not to follow through with this approach here. Rather than reverting the change, I'd expect that you add a cn tag and give time for sources to be added. Or do you only play the waiting game with certain views? As for the Quranic verse, I will reply in the appropriate section above. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The source that is cited states:

To justify these acts, some terrorists cite the beheadings of hundreds from the Jewish tribe Qurayza, in which Muhammad was directly involved. The details of this incident are shrouded in controversy. One historical account is that Muhammad ordered the beheading of at least six hundred Jewish males. Another account is that "[t]renches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance.

I do not understand how we can change the text of the WP article to say that someone else ordered the beheadings while keeping as the source for this statement the above source. This wasn't an issue of adding a "cn" tag—it was an issue of keeping a statement that had no support in the citation that was being retained.
The WP text current states: "In one account, Muhammad is said to have ordered the beheading of at least six hundred males from the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe, while another states that he was merely present and watched the beheadings and mass burial." This seems like a fair representation of what the source above states. You can quibble with the source if you wish, but the source is the source. You can't make this particular source say something that it does not.
I suggest you tone down your rhetoric, though. Attacking me in general terms is not productive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I left the reference for the first sentence: "Justification for beheading has also been drawn from the Siras and Hadiths".
Does the author cite any sources for the "One historical account is that Muhammad ordered the beheading" part? The events of Sa'd's arbitration are missing from Saloom's account, so it is clearly not a comprehensive reference on this particular event, one to be used to dismiss Sa'd's account entirely. Further, Saloom in fact mentions 2 accounts, one where Muhammad gave the orders (I'd like to see another reference to support this claim), and another where Muhammad watched, meaning someone else gave the orders. That makes me wonder why you chose to report only first account, but not the other? the dismissal of Sa'd's arbitration is not a source issue it appears. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I left the reference for the first sentence: "Justification for beheading has also been drawn from the Siras and Hadiths". Yes, but the reference was also left after the sentence you changed, and the content was entirely changed and not supported by the Saloom source.
the dismissal of Sa'd's arbitration is not a source issue it appears. The WP text refers to both accounts now, which I think is an improvement. I don't think the Saloom account is meant to be a comprehensive discussion of the point in question; it is a summary paragraph discussing it in the context of a larger point, similar to the purpose of the section in our WP article. I don't think we need to reproduce the article on Banu Qurayza. As I mentioned above, I'm not terribly wedded to this Saloom source; it's not ideal for all purposes, it was what I had at my fingertips at some point last week. Stuff can be changed in the WP text, but we can't use Saloom as a source for things Saloom doesn't say. That's my primary concern with the edit that was made. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
If you are concerned about Saloom being used as a source for things Saloom doesn't say, then the solution is to retain the text I added about Sa'd and remove the citation for Saloom from it, moving it to the beginning of the paragrpah. Do you agree? The material you added, while sourced, is being directly challenged as being incorrect. Now that you are fully aware of the issues with Saloom's claims, your insistence on keeping the incorrect version and the fact you have not shown any effort to verify the material in light of other sources, all shows this is more of an attempt to push a certain POV than a concern about the placement of a citation. I'm afraid that the half-assed measure of including "both accounts" (as you call it, though sources are unanimous about Sa'd's involvement) is not sufficient here (you are yet to back the claim for Muhammad'd orders with another reference). I do not consider this dispute resolved until the content about Sa'd's arbitration is restored. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
If we have standard references which contradict Saloom's phrasing on this point, relying on those sources to the exclusion of Saloom would be consistent with WP:WEIGHT. We do need other citations to make a change, though, and it would be better to verify them, since the sourcing at Banu Qurayza has some problems of its own. I have some of the sources cited there, and I'll check them in the next couple of days. Eperoton (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It is interesting how historians have told this story throughout history. I usually start with Edward Gibbon’s “The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire” [4].

“A venerable elder, to whose judgment they appealed, pronounced the sentence of their death; seven hundred Jews were dragged in chains to the market-place of the city; they descended alive into the grave prepared for their execution and burial; and the apostle beheld with an inflexible eye the slaughter of his helpless enemies.” (1776).

William Muir, in “Mahomet and Islam,” (p148) writes:

“… proceeded Sa'd, ‘my judgment is, that the men shall be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, and the spoils divided amongst the army.’ A thrill of horror ran through the host; but all questioning was stopped by Mahomet, who sternly ratified the verdict. … In the morning Mohamet, himself a spectator, commanded the male captives to be brought out in companies of five and six at a time. …” (1887)

In J. B. Bury “Cambridge Medieval History: The Rise of the Saracens and the Foundation of the Western Empire” we find: (p294)

“As soon as the besiegers had departed the vengeance of Mahomet naturally fell on the Kuraiza. He did not content himself with pillaging them but, having compelled them to surrender after a brief siege, offered them the choice of conversion to Islam or death. … The number of these martyrs amounted to over six hundred.” (1913)

In Marshall G. S. Hodgson’s “The Venture of Islam,” he writes (p 191):

“Muhammad attacked the Banu Qurayzah … insisted on unconditional surrender … insisted that all the men, about six hundred, be killed.” (1974)

Hodgson indicates that this was the custom at the time. I tend to trust Gibbon most. May I suggest we simply say "Muhammad presided over ..." Jason from nyc (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, some interesting comparisons here. Based on my quick review of half a dozen books and quotes from about as many others, there seems to be a watershed in how academic historians assessed this episode, falling roughly around the time of Montgomery Watt's work, perhaps in part by virtue of his influence, but more likely owing to a general change of attitudes or a combination of both. Watt doubted the traditional story of Banu Qurayza violating a formal treaty, but he also presented an elaborate analysis of the political context which led him to the conclusion that Muhammad "was dealing with a difficult situation in the only tactful way open to him" (this phrasing from Muhammad, Prophet and Statesman; I'm fairly certain he was the first author to use the word "tactful" in describing these events). There's a late statement of the earlier perspective in Francesco Gabrieli's 1968 book, including "reaffirming our consciousness as Christians and civilised men," but among standard references published in the last 50 years or so, even Norman Stillman, who is perhaps the most prominent current representantive of the "anti-apologetics" camp, argues for moral relativism.
I'll give al-Andalusi a chance to respond before commenting on phrasing, but I do want to note something else. We have Saloom's take on how this episode is used to justify terrorist beheadings, which I think we can express more directly. The rest of that quote doesn't seem well aligned with standard presentations, and we can replace it by a very concise summary of the events based on other sources. However, we could still use another source to clarify the "controversy" that's relevant for this article, which is not the disagreement between academics, but rather the one between terrorist and "non-terrorists". I came across this paper by Meir Kister. Its coverage of modern Muslim interpretations on p.63 is rather thin (it's cited by F.E. Peters for its more substantial coverage of medieval interpretations), but we can maybe extract a couple of relevant points from it: "Some Muslim scholars [...] justified it pointing out that the Banu Qurayza [...] had committed deeds of treason. Sa'd's decree, although severe and harsh, was a vital necessity as he regarded the fate of the Jews as a question of life and death for the Muslim community." There's also this characterization of Arafat's work (against which Kister argues at length) from Routledge's Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia (p. 754): "significant Muslim scholars, such as W. N. Arafat, have objected to the notorious tales concerning the expulsion and execution of the Jews of Medina that form an integral part of the Maghazi as ‘‘unislamic.’’" Perhaps someone is aware of better sources for this. Eperoton (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Actually, since I already reviewed the sources, I'll also mention what I found there. It seems to be uncontroversial (that is, of course, excepting scholars who don't think one can trust any details in early Islamic sources) that Banu Qurayza accepted Sa'd as arbitrator and that Muhammad accepted his judgment. The view that Banu Qurayza nominated him themselves doesn't seem to be shared by academic historians. Eperoton (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

False claims

Claims about "decapitation in Iran" has no basis either in Iranian law or Shia hudud. There's official website of Parliament of Iran with every single law passed in past 100 years, and if searching for "decapitation" (Persian: "سربُریدن" or "گردن‌زدن") there's absolutely nothing in criminal law. Beside it, there's no any photographic/video evidence. --MehrdadFR (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Beheading has never been used by the Islamic Republic, but according to the sources in the article, it is a legal punishment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Book refers to FIDH, and FIDH to some "Amnesty report" (ref. 119) without any link, proper title or date. If there's some good source with precise law chapter which can be verified online in legal archives (I read Persian so I can help), then it can be restored. But I'm afraid there's no such thing, so we can not say "it's legal punishment". It's more likely speculation or misinformation given by some militant anti-government group (like PMOI), taken uncritically by Western websites. --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Aren't we venturing into original research issues here? We have a book, published by Oxford University Press, which is clearly a reliable source. It's possible that it may be wrong. But that isn't really our job, is it?—our job is to report what is in the reliable sources, not to do research on our own to determine where the reliable sources get it wrong. I admit that it's a tricky issue and can be counterintuitive. (I'm finding a few other reliable sources that also say it is legal in Iran. I want to do a bit more digging with the sources, but if I find anything that I think is worthwhile, I'll post it here.) For the time being, I'd be fine if the parts in dispute were surrounded with <!-- --> so that they are not visible, but I would prefer it if they were not outright deleted just yet. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
What I'm finding from a lot of sources is this: judges are given a fair amount of discretion in imposing the means of inflicting the death penalty. Very occasionally, it is reported that judges have chosen beheading, and a handful of beheading executions have been carried out. Is it not possible that although the laws passed in Iran do not specifically set out beheading as a possible means of execution, there are laws which give the judges wide discretion in specifying the mode? If so, then I think it would still be fair to say that beheading can be a legal punishment in Iran. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with MehrdadFR. @Good Olfactory: Are not you venturing into original research issues here? The material will be removed until you find a reliable source directly supporting such a challenging claim. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Yes, and I made that exact point about OR above. But the article has always had a reliable source to establish the claim. I was simply commenting that it seems to be a justifiable statement for the source to make and is not way off base. This assessment is based on OR, but the claim in the article is not. You deleted the apparently reliable source from the article. What evidence do we have that it is not reliable? Only the OR mentioned by MehrdadFR above, which I countered with other OR. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Good Ol’factory: The source used here is highly dubious, or at least in contradiction with Iran law. As you saw, I inserted another source (which you deleted mistakenly assuming your good faith) where there's no mention of Iran when it comes to beheading. That dubious mention in Amnesty report "without any link" is not really enough to have such a challenging claim in this article, specially when there's nothing as such in Iranian law, as shown by Mehrdad. Please avoid further revert and edit war and instead try to carry the WP:burden of proving it's verifiablity (per that guideline, "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You can also use other methods such as RFC to determine whether we can mention Iran in the list or not. Thanks Mhhossein (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It's only dubious if one accepts the premise of Mehrdad's position, which is that if beheading is not specifically mentioned in Iranian law, it must be not allowed. That is not a sound premise, especially when we have evidence to the contrary in a reliable source (a book published by Oxford University Press is a reliable source). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I've reworded it to state that it is reported to have been carried out by state authorities in Iran as recently as 2001. That way, the reliable sources can still be used while not drawing the conclusion that it is therefore legal, which seems to be the underlying concern. I feel that this is a fair compromise, especially when we have a reliable source that states point blank that it is legal in Iran. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't care what MehrdadFR's position is, the thing I know is that not all what's published by reliable sources are correct. Recently, I was dealing with a carelessness of reliable sources which caused a dispute and we concluded that those reliable sources were not reliable in that case! So, having something in 'Oxford University Press's book' does not guarantee it's inclusion. Btw, do you know what WP:UNDUE says when you've just one source making such a dubious claim? Mhhossein (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
See this article by the Guardian (which is in contradiction with your claims): "According to Amnesty, the methods of execution used in Saudi Arabia in 2014 were beheading and via firing squad, while in Iran those sentenced to death are hanged." Mhhossein (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
That source does not contradict my claims in the least. I have never claimed that Iran has used beheading in 2014 or since that date. It appears that you misunderstand my position completely. It's set out above, you could review it. The reason I thought you cared about what MehrdadFR's position was that you stated above, "I'm in agreement with MehrdadFR", without specifying which parts you disagreed with or didn't care about. As for WP:UNDUE, as I've stated above, the claim is not limited to one source. In any case, I've attempted to write a compromise into the article, so I'm not sure what good continuing to harp on the issue will do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Which laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran authorize execution by tank-main-gun-barrel or tow-truck-crane-boom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.148.148 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Merge/split/renaming discussion, part 2

@Al-Andalusi, Good Olfactory, and Jason from nyc: I'd like to move to the next planned stage of our article naming discussion, namely separating the content relating to beheading as capital punishment and its use by terrorists into separate articles. I got the impression that there was general agreement with this plan, but let me know if we need to discuss this premise further. It seems clear that Capital punishment in Islam is the right place for content pertaining to capital punishment. There are several possibilities for naming the other article. "Terrorist beheadings", "Jihadist beheadings", and "Islamist beheadings" are all terms that seem to be in use and may satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. Of these, the latter strikes me as the most problematic based on precision (WP:CRITERIA), since the term is commonly applied to governments and all sorts of non-violent movements (the opening paragraph in Islamism needs to be fixed, but there's better coverage of its usage in Islamism#Definitions). "Jihadist beheadings" wouldn't have that particular problem, but there's another concern. While the term Jihadism is used by both journalists, and to a lesser extent academics, it's a recent and vague neologism and there are very few RSs discussing the term itself. Based on my recent experience in cleaning OR from that article, some editors seem to have trouble distinguishing it from Jihad, so I'm concerned about making the article an OR magnet. Hence, I personally prefer the first option. What do you think? Eperoton (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I have some concerns with regard to splitting the article. I conceptually distinguish between legal capital punishment by governmental authorities and vicious criminal acts by non-state actors, and I've helped to make this distinction in the article. My concern is that we are, perhaps, inadvertently doing original research in a novel way, an anti-synthesis. If the sources discuss these together, and they often do even when differentiating, perhaps we should keep them both in one article for now. We have a non-state actor section with good sources that explain how this isn't an example of the more honorable tradition. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, what sources did you have in mind? There are many sources discussing each of the following categories separately: 1) beheading as capital punishment in the history of Islamic law; 2) modern status of beheading as capital punishment; 3) terrorist beheadings. I'm aware of a couple of essays which discuss these together, and which loosely correspond to the scope of our current article, but these seem to be a small fraction of the total. Am I missing something? Eperoton (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm basically going by the sources within this article. Rudolph Peters reviews criminal law and punishment. In essence we have a very brief paragraph on government punishment using beheading merely to inform the reader that it is allowed by Islamic law. This is fitting in that there are articles on Islamic legal punishment. We already have Islamic criminal jurisprudence, Capital punishment in Islam, Hudud and others. We then briefly state historic examples. The abuse by non-state actors is of recent interest and takes up the rest of the article. We explain how it differs from permitted beheadings. It still needs improvement. For example, the "Condemnation by Muslims" (which are four sources reporting the same event) don't make clear if the condemnation is for beheading itself, non-governmental beheading, or the manner and occasion of beheading. The article needs more work. I think it benefits from doing it all in one article to compare and contrast. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
So, let me ask again, now with reference to our current citations: which sources support the current scope of the article, treating the role of beheading in Islamic law, "historical occurrences" of random Muslims beheading people, and recent use by terrorists as a coherent topic? The Slate essay and the section in Robertson & Das are both sketches of beheading in world history whose goal is to correct the misconception that beheadings have a historically disproportionate association with the Muslim world. We need help from Good Olfactory to know more about Saloom, but based on the abstract, it appears to discuss the role of beheading in Islamic law. This is quite different from our subject of "Islam" as civilization, and juxtaposing discussion of sharia or scripture with historical incidents that have no established connection to either one is a major source of implicit synthesis in the current article. The only source I can see which does match our current scope is Furnish. Our explicit use of this essay is in line with NPOV, but in a way the article seems to be based on it exclusively. Eperoton (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Let me ask the opposite question, what reference supports a division? What reference distinguishes between beheading in Islam, beheading in islamism, and beheading by non-state actors? The notion of non-state actors goes back to Cicero in his treatment of Just War in Des Officiis (in his discussion of pirates, for example.) It is not clear from the discussion in our sources in this article where this distinction arrises in the context of Islam. The condemnations in the last paragraph makes no distinction and gives the impression that beheading is wrong in Islam period. Are we adding a Western distinction where it doesn't apply? It also isn't clear that ISIS is a non-state actor. They did establish a de facto state. I fear we are treading on the boarder of OR. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Almost all of our references, and many others besides, support existence of capital punishment in Islam and terrorist beheadings as two distinct subjects. The citations in Beheading in Islamic law are about capital punishment and not about terrorism, at least the scholarly ones. I've recently read a number of standard academic references on Islamic law, and I'd be happy to elaborate on how the sources treat the subject. Classical sharia and modern state legislation are the core of the subject, as is their application. Classical mazalim courts [5] and Qanun (law) are somewhat tangentially related, but are also commonly discussed because they've been theorized as a compliment to sharia. I haven't come across anything like our "historical occurrences" and their likes in those sources. One might ask if ISIS may be a state actor applying its own version of sharia, but that's not a question for us to answer. It should be covered under capital punishment to the extent that it's covered by RSs discussing the subjects of capital punishment and Islamic law. Their designation as "non-state" is an artifact of this article, which would not arise if we separate its content.
Likewise, there are many references supporting terrorist beheadings as a separate subject. We're citing many news stories. The condemnation citations are just about beheadings by Zarqawi's group and ISIS -- that's quite obvious from the sources. There are also academic sources: Terrorist Beheadings by Brahami, which we're citing; also this article [6] and this not very authoritative but frequently cited publication.[7] Eperoton (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The Lentini & Bakashmar tends to support the coverage of jihadi beheadings in the same article as other Islamic beheadings. As the abstract says it arrises in “religious and cultural contexts” with the “religious terrorists' desires to please a deity and secure a place of honor.” As warped and distorted these actions may be, they are attempts to be Islamic. They note both the role of inspiration (“to recruit future jihadists … [from] the global Muslim community”) and as a deterrent to UK Muslims supporting the UK.

Jihadi beheadings are not duly authorized, proper punishments, nor properly carried out. I don’t think that the locus of beheadings within the Islamic context can be viewed as accidental. The self-styled use by non-state actors and self-proclaimed states are still an outgrowth of the cultural and religious context in question. The religious intent of radicals and use by illegitimate regimes is still Islamic in nature even if not properly Islamic. It’s important to the understanding of jihadi action both in its motivation and failure to be in accord with proper doctrine. That sheds light on proper doctrine (by counter-example) and the illicit use by non-state actors or illegitimate regimes. Jones does a comparison. It seems wise to discuss both at the same time. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to address your concerns, but I just can't recognize this as a policy-based concern to making this an article about terorrist beheadings with two sections removed. These sources frame their subject as terrorist/jihadist beheadings and they discuss the religious context of this phenomenon. Following the sources in how they frame and treat the subject would be a policy-compliant way to use them. If RSs happen to discuss how the terrorists are influenced by Islamic law (rather than simply scripture), or, say, Saladin's beheadings of Raynald of Châtillon, we should discuss it too. Some of the contextual material we now have scattered around the article, such as comparison with capital punishment in Saudi Arabia, would then properly belong in the "background and context" section, since it's treated as such by RSs. If you disagree with that, please help me understand your concern. On the other hand, using their discussion of religious context to construct the subject of "Islamic beheadings" violates OR, which is the basis of my concern. Eperoton (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
While I give this more thought, let's hear from other people. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jason from nyc: Should we continue this discussion? Eperoton (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I've been busy. I'll have to return and review where we left off when I'm back. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jason from nyc: Let's get this wrapped up, please. Eperoton (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Let me review the sources and put my head back into the frame of reference of this topic (after spending several months on the history of birth control!). The topic is still a source of confusion for many readers. Note the quote here: United Nations Human Rights Council#Saudi Arabia. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I've looked up the quote and also UN Watch#Reception history. The organization may be a notable voice, though it doesn't seem to have a reputation for impartiality like well-known human rights watchdogs. One can't tell from the quote if the statement was motivated by a belief that beheading represents a special class of human rights violations apart from other methods of execution, or was simply used as a rhetorical device to link Saudi Arabia to ISIS. In any case, it's a specimen of criticism of Saudi captital punishment practices and if it's notable enough to mention in other articles, it would go under the rubric of capital punishment. Eperoton (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I reviewed all the sources in the article. I’ll review our arguments above at another time but first I wanted to get a fresh look after some time. The sources present a broad range of approaches. Academics largely tell us that beheading is normal in Islamic history. Reference #1 quotes Haider Ala Hamoudi that beheading was used “throughout Islamic history … [as the] default [and] less painful” form of capital punishment. Sheikh Khaldun Araymit adds it’s appropriate only ‘after a trial’. Nina Rastogi in #8 says it is prevalent in Islamic history as does Peters in #12, #13, also see #23 #24 and Furnish in #37. I don’t think its historic acceptance is in doubt.

With respect to contemporary contexts there are a variety of views. In reference #4 Jasser Auda says ‘Islam has nothing to do with these beheadings … beheading is not the way that the Quran … ‘ and not the proper way to deal with ‘prisoners of war.’ The article notes that Zawahiri viewed beheadings as “bad publicity” and had al Qaeda stop the practice (see also #41). Reference #5 & #6 (both from the same AP report) has many condemnations from Muslims including Saudi Arabia. Overall, criticisms range from (1) categorical denials that beheadings are permitted in Islam, to (2) qualified criticism of manner, cause, and due process to (3) the superficial “it’s bad publicity, so let’s stop” type of expediency arguments. These views fall on a continuum. (One other view is the one that is put forth by opponents of capital punishment, where they conflate traditional use by governments for criminal punishment after a trial with the vicious use by terrorists seeking publicity. We should ignore this view and remove the few references that are polemics.)

The use of beheading in Islam is well established. There is no clear consensus in our sources about all the terms and conditions. That it is acceptable (under some terms and conditions) by legitimate governments for punishment doesn’t tell us about insurgents seeking to replace governments (perhaps illegitimate governments) by force, which is the greatest point of contention.

This brings me to #40 Anthony N. Ceslo, and #41 (which quotes Pete Lentini and Muhammad Bakashmar, Timothy R. Furnish, Max Abrahms, Peter Neumann.) They debate the reasons today’s insurgents engage in beheadings. Ceslo, Lentini, Bakaschmar, and Furnish argue that the religion has a role regardless of whether it is correct or a distortion. Abrahms and Neumann don’t see any relation to the religion but more to do with accidental factors. Ceslo has the most ambitious attempt to deal with terror in jihadism in the contexts of both Islam and 20th century secular terror movements.

Ceslo sees a radical ideology that is religious driven, i.e. “illogical theological imperatives,” a “religious fundamentalism;” it is radically Islamic but still Islamic. Jihadism “has roots in Islam [but] it is a conceptually distinct doctrine …” He sees a combine historical “defense and expansion" doctrine, Salafist but influenced by Western totalitarianism. He sees it evolving starting with Qtub etc. He notes a turning point when 1980s religious scholar Abdullah Azzam rejected traditional limits to fight in Afghanistan, India, and Israel, and evolving to present day insurgents.

This suggests that both legitimate and illegitimate use of beheading are part of a continuum of practices that occur in an Islamic context worth discussing together. Our whole article seems to me to be very much a special topic, an interdisciplinary topic, where no one expert is currently doing a thorough job. While I appreciate the danger of the “original research” problem of “synthesis,” there is no problem as long as we don’t make any conclusion that’s not already made in the sources. The section on non-state actors (perhaps, better called insurgents) should include the views of our sources, which vary, without our picking a preferred conclusion. We have enough links to Wikipedia articles that go into greater depth. Let the experts iron this out in the years to come. Some ambiguity reflects the sources. I can’t see our breaking this apart without making judgments that are unfair to all the sources.

(Here’s a diff to remember the article numbering [8] for future readers. Let me now review what we said months ago and see what I forgot.) Jason from nyc (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Re-reading our past discussion above, I believe we were led stray by the use of the phrase "non-state actor." That could include pirates. The better term would be insurgents; unlike pirates they seek to establish a new order. Al-Qaeda dreamt of doing that and ISIS actually succeeded for a couple of years. The sources approach the beheading by jihadist insurgents as a tool of war aimed, in part, at invoking fear in the enemy. When it backfire and only invoked disgust it was abandoned by al-Qaeda. Abrahms suggests it resurgence by ISIS was to contrast ISIS with al-Qaeda, “widely seen, even among jihadists, as a failure.” (#41) But Ceslo argues that such barbarity will always alienate the general population.

This still doesn’t answer the question about the title of the article. Perhaps a better title would be “Beheading in Islam and Islamism.” As you noted in the very 1st paragraph, words like jihadism are problematic and I’d add Islamism is no different. Ceslo notes the problem with the word jihadism on page 5 yet uses it in his title. Still, the expanded title will signal that the article covers a broad range of both traditionally legitimate and more recent controversial practices. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the careful source review. It would great to incorporate these details into the article.
I basically agree with everything you write, except the two paragraphs concluding your two comments, and that's because your discussion of sources seems to me to point to a different conclusion. What we have there are works whose subject is the contemporary phenomenon of jihadist/etc beheadings, and they do indeed propose a variety of views about how it is influenced by religious and cultural factors. This is evident from their titles and the way they approach the topic. This is exactly the sourcing we need for an article about jihadist beheadings which does justice to the various views about its nature. As far as I can tell, none of them, except Furnish, take as subject the history of beheadings performed by Muslims, bringing together sources devoted solely to beheading in Islamic law, those devoted solely to beheadings performed by Muslims outside of the sharia system (e.g., Saladin), and those discussing contemporary jihadist incarnations. That's an umbrella subject whose scope does not correspond to the scope of a significant proportion of cited sources. That's a concern both in terms of policy and practical implications. While your thoughtful contributions have given me confidence in your sense of perspective, there's nothing stopping Google-savvy passersby from listing every "Muslim beheading" recorded in history books in this article, because we don't have a body of sources whose scope matches the scope of the article on which do base decisions about inclusion or exclusion of material.
I still can't quite grasp your policy-based concerns about the proposed split, which I would need and like to address in order to reach a consensus. Am I doing a passable job of articulating my own concerns? Eperoton (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I see two points. One point is an important concern for many articles, that it might become a WP:COATRACK for indiscriminate insertion of irrelevant material. That's always a concern for controversial topics especially if the history is not properly understood. I just removed irrelevant material about ransoming, which might be useful for the ISIL article but not relevant for this article which is about a choice in capital punishment technique within a cultural context. It's true that books devoted to the subject can help to avoid this problem. We have mainly articles, a few which compare insurgent usage with that by legal authorities. Some do it badly, such as those whose purpose is polemical in the service of opposing all capital punishment. Others note the difference in manner, purpose, and context but all too briefly. Pete Lentini and Muhammad Bakashmar note beheading has “religious and cultural symbolism” in what was ref #41 but fail to explain how. It's true that none give a full discussion of the many dimensions. We have imperfect and incomplete sources. They don't always know where to draw the line between legitimate use and illegitimate use. None of the sources discuss the rules of war in general and in particular for insurgents. As such their discussion is incomplete and we can't do original research. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The problem is rather that arbitrary beheading episodes aren't irrelevant to the current topic. For articles whose scope matches the scope of available sources, selection of material and question of due weight are determined based on the sources. On the other hand, when the available sources do not correspond to the scope of the article, it swings open the doors to further synthesis by montage.
Anyway, as we don't seem to be making progress toward consensus, and the other participants aren't jumping in to push the discussion towards it, I see no point in continuing this exchange. Eperoton (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I support this proposal to separate the topics of capital punishment in Islamic law and terrorist beheadings. As it stands, this article is a somewhat artificial topic, meaning one that essentially has been put together through synthesis. A split-off of some of the information to Capital punishment in Islam and renaming this article something like "Terrorist beheading(s)" seems like the best route, though I would be open to discussing alternate names. But basically, I support the proposal made by Eperoton (talk · contribs) in the first paragraph of this section. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: I think I'm leaning towards Eperoton's suggestion. There are basic concerns over regarding those acts by terrorists, Islamic, although they allege to act based on Islamic rulings. --Mhhossein talk 15:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Should the article say beheading is done in Iran?

Maintain status quo unless and until there is any WP:RS that explicitly states something to the contrary of the statement under debate.Light❯❯❯ Saber 13:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article points to Iran as a country where beheading is carried out. The sources of this claim is a report by Amnesty international which is also reflected in footnote in a book by OUP. This is while there's no such a thing in official website of Parliament of Iran, where Iranian passed laws be it old or new exists, or any other legal outlets regarding capital punishments. Should we keep that point regarding Iran? --Mhhossein talk 17:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: Amnesty international has provided no link for his claim and it appears that the group has been criticized for its allegedly false claims on numerous occasions. See Criticism of Amnesty International, [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] and [17]. There are no other sources supporting the this claim which has no place in Iranian law. The book by Oxford has just carelessly reflected the claim in footnote referring to Amnesty. I say carelessly because Iran has no province names "Far" and the book by Oxford writes "...in Far province, Iran in January 2008." The act of beheading has never been reported to carried out in Iran as a capital punishment or as a result of court decision. --Mhhossein talk 17:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the part about "Far" is just a misspelling of Fars. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Support: I generally oppose relying on advocacy groups, even those that usually do good work. I see no other independent sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Jason from nyc:As far as I understood your comment, you are supporting removing that pointing to Iran. Right? --Mhhossein talk 10:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Doing a further search I see mention of beheading in the legal code. Shahid M. Shahidullah (p425) mentions it is allowed in his book [18] as does Terance D. Miethe, Hong Lu on page 63 [19]. These are academic books. At a minimum we should mention it is in the code. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, show it if there's something about it in the legal code. --Mhhossein talk 17:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I checked both of the sources. This one is based on Amnesty in a partly manner. The book, the linked part at least, is a real bullshit and seems like a joke. It claims that beheading with sword had been a capital method of punishment in Iran while sword have had no place in Iranian penal code. The second one has similar situation. I could find the full text of Islamic penal code of Iran in a governmental website. It's in Persian and you can check or ask a bilingual to check it. I can tell you for sure that there's no such a thing in Islamic penal code of Iran. --Mhhossein talk 19:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I have no first hand knowledge of this subject. Shahidullah cites the code by section number. He's an academic. What more can I do without original research? Miethe & Lu also satisfy the criteria for good sources, academics published by Cambridge University Press. I'd have to assume they know their subject even if they don't give citations for everything they write (the Amnesty citation is not relevant to the penal code.) As an editor I believe we have to reflect the sources, not our own knowledge. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not it's specifically mentioned in the penal code is a bit of a red herring. This is because in many cases the mode of execution is not specified by law but rather is left up to the discretion the sentencing judge. In these cases, the judge can choose any form of execution he chooses, which by implication makes beheading a (theoretically, at least) legal form of punishment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I should tell you that penal codes, have not left any such spaces for the judges to use such methods. At least, you need a reliable source saying that 'one has been sentenced to death penalty via beheading in Iran due to judge's discretion stemming from the "red herring" characteristic of penal codes'. --Mhhossein talk 07:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Your last sentence suggests that my comment was not fully understood. I'm not even sure where to begin .... There are sources which state that the mode of punishment is at the discretion of the judge. I'll leave it at that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not fully understanding your comment. could you please reword that so that I can understand it. Tnx. --Mhhossein talk 10:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that you are not going to find it written anywhere in Iranian law that beheading is a legal punishment, because that's not how Iranian law works with setting out capital punishments. The law simply gives the judge the choice, or the discretion, of how the capital punishment is carried out. So the reason beheading is at least theoretically a legal punishment in Iran is because the judge can choose any method he wants to that will result in the death of the accused. That's what I meant by saying it is a "red herring" to look to the written penal code to see if beheading is or is not specified. But just because you're not going to find a law that says "beheading is legal" doesn't mean that it is not. Anyway, it's kind of side point and not the main issue in question here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Jason from nyc: Reliability is context dependent. The source could be lying or making mistake for any reasons, in this special case. There's no such a thing in Islamic penal code of Iran per governmental sources. Check the section number. --Mhhossein talk 15:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. What the article actually says beyond the lead is, "Beheading is reported to have been carried out by state authorities in Iran as recently as 2001, but as of 2014 is no longer in use." I think that's a fair representation of what the sources referred to there say. Using the "reported to have been carried out ..." language avoids the black-and-white, it-has-to-be-all-or-none approach and recognises that it is a situation of nuance and uncertainty. It is true that it remains a potentially legal punishment, since in many cases the judge has very broad discretion to choose/assign a method of execution. But I think it's safer to just say what the sources say about it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Good Ol’factory: Yes the writing is neutral. But please note that I questioned the reliability of that "advocacy" group. --Mhhossein talk 16:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. I'd prefer to just rely on the sources rather than original research. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but the last OR was presented by you on this page. I mean the point regarding the "broad discretion to choose/assign a method of execution". --Mhhossein talk 03:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep existing wording which appears to be supported by high-quality reliable sources and the cited article. Clean Copytalk 12:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@Clean Copy: As far as I see, the book fails the test for factual accuracy in this case. I checked the sosurce used by the book. The book is making false claims, i.e is saying something you can't find in the source. --Mhhossein talk 16:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Oddly, reliable sources trump editors' editorial judgements. See WP:Truth But if you can find (or even yourself publish through a peer-reviewed press) an article demonstrating that this claim is false, we can update the article accordingly. Clean Copytalk 18:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
@Clean Copy:That's fun! but the book is obviously making a false claim in this case. For example suppose that a book, mistakenly or on purpose, says per UK laws, beheading is a part of its capital punishment and you refer to the official documented laws of UK and see nothing as such! What do you do in this case? Do you need another source saying otherwise or do you question reliability of the source in this specific area? --Mhhossein talk 19:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Good question. Normally, other reliable sources can be found to correct such a misapprehension. Editors may legitimately insist that the one source that contradicts the majority of authorities is included, however, while noting that it is an exceptional claim. Really what we are looking for here is reliable sources that substantiate the current state of affairs.
Incidentally, it is perfectly valid to cite the Iranian code of law here; there is nothing that says that the source need be in English. But the concerns mentioned above are valid: there seems to be considerable latitude for judges to determine the form of an execution. Clean Copytalk 20:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Why would the editors insist on recording a such a false claim from an unreliable source (in this context) do you think? That's completely weird! Really, what we have are 2 sources that are recording things that do not exist. Reliable sources can make mistake, but that occurs seldom. It's absolutely clear that UK has nothing as 'beheading' in her governmental law. Why should we write it, unless for the article on 'false claims by book xxxx'?
By the way, that self made "latitude for judges to determine the form of an execution" is restricted in law to some defined choices. For example, in some cases, the judge is allowed to choose between 'exile', 'prison' and 'fining'. There's no completely out of order freedom in law. If so, that would be so ridiculous! What would the law mean then? --Mhhossein talk 20:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
See your talk page for a reply. Clean Copytalk 00:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Clean Copy I can't figure out why you are insisting on telling me what a RS is! check my contributions to see if I'm familiar with them or not! What you are apparently failing to understand is that reliability is something relative and context-dependent. So, when there's an obvious mistake in a source, be it reliable, the editors usually ignore that. --Mhhossein talk 05:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Do any of the sources of the "beheading has been used as capital punishment in Iran..." claims actually cite a source for this? Video, local news reports, eyewitnesses? Even an anonymous source? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Someguy1221: The Amnesty report alleged that it had received a report, without talking about the details. →That's in clear contradiction with the official documents available. --Mhhossein talk 08:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The source we have in the current lead paragraph cites two sources, one being a trusted individual from within Iran. The two books that I mentioned above give broad reviews by experts and they don't have to include a full bibliography. They often rely on private discussions with other experts and give a selected bibliography. We are being asked here to do the research instead of relying of secondary sources. Mhhossein may be right. If he publishes, refutes current sources, and becomes the new academic consensus, we could and should use his work as a secondary source. We can't do original research. Wikipedia is little more than a "reader's digest" of secondary sources. We have to go with what we have but we stand ready for better sources that correct the record. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Someguy1221: The sources are:a) based on an ambiguous report by Amnesty without any clues for supporting their allegation. I showed how controversial Amnesty reports had been in other occasions and how often it was criticized, b) two books, one of which alleges that beheading by sword was a part of capital punishment in Iran (it seems like a funny joke, sword!). There's absolutely nothing in the book to support the claim. The author of the other book alleges that it's explaining Islamic penal code of Iran. Thanks God we've got the exact version the author is talking about. It's interesting that there's absolutely no mention of beheading in any of the sections and articles. I checked the entire document. Mhhossein talk 13:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Jason from nyc: I'm troubled that you're trying to tell me what OR is! Please answer this question: Suppose that we've got a reliable source on the US. The book mistakenly says that US is consisted of 40 states, while we already know that it's not right. Yes the book is reliable, but we've seen an obvious mistake which could happen due to many reasons. Do you write in the WP that ' US is consisted of 40 states'? --Mhhossein talk 13:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Reliable sources are not infallible. I can conceive of such a typo. Of course, we know that's wrong from the overwhelming number of reliable sources that get it right. Use those! Jason from nyc (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Jason from nyc: Thanks, can you find overwhelming number of reliable sources saying that beheading is not a part of capital punishment in the United States? --Mhhossein talk 15:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Apparently it has been and that has ended according to reliable sources: see Decapitation#United_States. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
If the evidence Amnesty and these books base their claim on is of such a non-public variety, it seems it would be reasonable to frame this as a claim, rather than a fact. "According to blah blah blah..." Someguy1221 (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Jason from nyc: In fact, I meant to say that we don't need to find sources saying "US is not consisted of 40 states" for rejecting this "obvious mistake", do we? Similarly, when no such thing as beheading is mentioned in various sources and official documents we should have real concerns over the reliability of Shahidullah's dubious allegation in his book. In other words, country X governmental law says A, while a book writes that the law says B. We can't accept books allegation per existing sources, can we? Mhhossein talk 12:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge with "Capital punishment in Islam"

I came across the Capital punishment in Islam article and it seems redundant to have a separate article just on beheading. Beheading in Islam should be a section under Capital punishment in Islam. KuroNekoNiyah (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There was a long merge/split discussion on this talk page from a few years ago that ended without consensus. One might revisit it, but the issue with the specific merge you're proposing is that most of the content in this article isn't about capital punishment (legal killing), but rather terrorism (illegal killing). Eperoton (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Eperoton: When you say legal, it has to be legal as per Islamic law. Otherwise, it is unrelated to Islam. KuroNekoNiyah (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
If an Islamist terrorist beheads someone in the name of jihad, I would say that's related to Islam. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
But finally "Capital punishment" has its own meaning. Also, being related to Islam does not mean the Islamic law endorse that. --Mhhossein talk 05:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
That's why perhaps the article should not be merged to the capital punishment one. There are beheadings in Islam (meaning, prompted by a person's Islamic beliefs) with are not legal under Islamic law. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Should this article be explicitly about capital punishment under some Islamic law, then it should be merged with the Capital punishment in Islam article. If it's article on extrajudicial killing, war-crime, terrorism, etc. than "in Islam" part of the title has to go.--౪ Santa ౪99° 22:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The above is correct. This article is correctly a confused mishmash between two totally different subjects. Either this is about capital punishment as understood to be sanctioned by Islam in certain contexts, or it is about extrajudicial beheadings perpetrated by self-proclaimed Islamist groups, which are routinely roundly condemned by Islamic scholars the world over. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and copied the relevant material on legal usage by state-level actors across to Capital punishment in Islam. I'll to propose a move here. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 30 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. More discussion prior to the next request may be helpful to determine the best possible title. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 19:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Beheading in Islam → Beheading and terrorism – As laid out in the merge discussion on this page, this articles currently has a confused scope, being one part legal execution (in Islamic states), the other part being extrajudicial killing by terror groups (which are generally regarded as un-Islamic). As it stands, the bulk of this article refers to the use of beheading by modern non-state terror actors, while the relevant material on legal beheading in an Islamic context has already been copied to Capital punishment in Islam. I therefore propose to simultaneously rename/rescope this article to Beheading and terrorism, which will allow it to address the bulk of its content head on, while not confusing legal state-level beheadings and illegal terrorist group-level beheadings. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Separating executions by state actors from terrorist actions is appropriate; some sources suggest that these beheadings have inspired terrorists, or normalized beheadings in their value system, but they do not connect the two, and many sources consider them to be separate, with the former being legal under Sharia, and the latter being illegal.
This proposal has a second aspect that needs to be considered; expanding the scope beyond Islamic terrorism. Some sources support this, comparing it to beheadings by non-Islamic groups such as the Mexican drug cartels, and arguing that the beheadings are not tied to Islam.[1] However, other sources disagree, saying that the greater role of religion in terrorism has increased the willingness to execute captives, and that terrorists choose beheading because of its symbolism in Islam, in an attempt to increase their own legitimacy.[2]
Looking at other articles on terror tactics, this is the only one that is separated by religion, but there is a connection between this tactic and Islam that doesn't apply to any of the others and may justify a separate article.
I support a move as the current title is not appropriate, but I am not certain whether the proposed title or Beheading and Islamic terrorism would be the better option. BilledMammal (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I ummed and ahhed on that distinction. As you say, there are two distinct scope directions in which to take this, both with pros and cons. Beheading has a fundamental shock value that has been used by various terrorist groups for this very reason. I came down on the side of not including the adjective 'Islamic' largely because it passes a non-neutral value judgement that implies violent extremist Salafi-jihadist groups are fundamentally 'Islamic' - a position that is not without controversy. Within an Islamic context, a more precise title might be something like "Beheading as a means of terror in violent extremist Salafi-jihadist circles", but we'd be leaving conciseness at full gallop if we went in that direction. This paper, as a counter example, even though seemingly largely about applications in the Middle East calls it a trend in terrorism based on the advent of the camcorder and internet, without mention of the word 'Islamic'. Here is another neutrally worded paper sample. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:53, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This article is about beheading in Islam. There is already a separate article about Islamic State beheading incidents. But it makes sense to refer to it in this article, since Islam is the justification used by IS for their actions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Necrothesp, the current scope of the article is not just Islamic terrorism. Vpab15 (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Zech, Steven; Kelly, Zane (25 May 2015). "Off With Their Heads: The Islamic State and Civilian Beheadings". Contemporary Voices: St Andrews Journal of International Relations. 6 (2). doi:10.15664/jtr.1157.
  2. ^ Lentini, Pete; Bakashmar, Muhammad (1 April 2007). "Jihadist Beheading: A Convergence of Technology, Theology, and Teleology?". Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. 30 (4): 303–325. doi:10.1080/10576100701200140.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Decapitation_in_Islam/Archive_1&oldid=1185389595"