Talk:Islamic military jurisprudence/Archive 3

Balance tag
I tagged the section "Commencing hostilities" with balance because is very POV pushing and one sided.--Sefringle 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please outline the exact problems with the section. Also quote the relevent wiki policy that the content violates.Bless sins 17:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Islamic jurisprudence prohibits surprise attacks and invasions. The Quran[16] commands Muslims to make a proper declaration of war prior to taking military action against trangressing enemies. However, this rule is not binding if the adversary has already started the war. The Quran had similarly commanded Muhammad to give his enemies, who had violated the Treaty of Hudaibiyah, a time period of four months to reconsider their position and negotiate.[18]Javed Ahmad Ghamidi writes in his book Mizan that after Muhammad and his Companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam. The only valid basis for Jihad through arms is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. Islam only allows Jihad to be conducted by a Government[19] with at least half the power of the enemy.[20][21][22] Some Islamic scholars consider the latter command only for a particular time.[23]"

This is all POV. It presents the pro-Islam bias, but not the anti-Islam bias See WP:NPOV. The balance tag is there for that reason. --Sefringle 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According to NPOV all sources have bias. Our job is to present all biases. Firstly, how do we know that anti-Islam bias (sourced to reliable sources) exists in the first place. What if no serious scholar has criticized Islam (in this particular field)? In order to show that there is an alternate POV, would require your to present that POV. BUt once you find that POV you can add it in the article, and thus the POV tag would be useless. In anycase, the POV tag should not be there. The POV tag would be well suited if you were prevented from adding alternate POVs.
 * BTW, I am removing the POV tag from the header, as one POV tag (specific to the section of alleged POV) is enough.Bless sins 17:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In no Islamic country, and at no historical point of Sharia law, has Qur'an been sole source of jurisprudence
Please append appropriate supporting legal judgments when you reference legal opinions in this article. This is an article about JURISPRUDENCE, not about non-Muslim interpretations of the Qur'an. BYT 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a basic problem I see with many editors. The distinction between "Muslim" and "non-Muslim" interpretations. As per Wiki policy both are equally valid. This is a very good thing to keep in mind. NN 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Presumably you feel an "Indonesian interpretation" of War Powers Act of 1973 would be of equal importance to an "American interpretation" of legal principles in that article? Presumably you feel that a discussion of Indonesian principles of warfare should be granted equal weight there within an article section dealing with the constitutionality of the War Powers Act? BYT 18:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking analogies prove nothing. They are at best illustrative, to help understanding. Your "Presumably you feel" is a presumption, and in fact incorrect as I have no opinion on War Powers Act of 1973. The fact remains that "non-Muslim" interpretations are not invalid as per Wiki policy. I am not saying a case cannot be made for excluding "non-Muslim" interpretations, but not under Wiki policy. NN 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Missed your answer here. Can a case be made, under Wiki policy, for excluding Indonesian interpretations of American law in articles that focus only on American law? A simple yes or no will do. BYT 19:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Define "Indonesian" interpretation? If you mean an interpretation by an "Indonesian" then the answer is No, a case cannot be made. NN 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC on whether it is necessary to cite judicial sources in this article
BYT 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a more appropriate way to ask the question would be "Can the Koran be cited/quoted?" I think BYT is arguing that quoting/citing/describing the Koran without an accompanying "judicial source" is improper. NN 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not at all an appropriate description of what's under dispute here. No one in this discussion is arguing against including citing the Qur'an, which is what your proposed question implies. Question is whether it is necessary, in an article about jurisprudence, to actually, you know, quote jurisprudence when making a point. BYT 18:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You miss the "Islamic" when you talk only of "Jurisprudence" in "Islamic Jurisprudence". That is what makes describing what the Koran says or does not say appropriate. NN 18:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect, you seem to miss the "Islamic" when you avoid citing any opinion from any recognized Islamic authority. Is it because you think your opinion about what the Qur'an says is more relevant than theirs?
 * I thought the Koran would qualify as a "recognized Islamic authority". Also it is not "my opinion" of what the Koran says, it *is* what the Koran says. I am only describing. NN 19:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Would your opinion of the meaning of the Magna Carta be more relevant than a scholar of the Magna Carta?
 * See above. NN 19:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you so squeamish about quoting judicial authorities in this article, or indeed making any discenrably specific reference to any one of them, given what this article is about?
 * Maybe I don't want my brain addled by reading too many "scholarly" opinions. The Koran seems sufficient for my purposes. NN 19:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you believe to constitute "Islamic jurisprudence," exactly, if it's not the opinions and precedents of judicial authorities? BYT 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is indeed all that, but the Koran is also relevant. NN 19:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you respect the Koran, why are you working so hard to hide what it says or doesn't say about a slave woman's consent to sex? NN 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: your "not wanting your brain addled by too many 'scholarly' opinions" -- if that is the case I want to respecfully suggest that Wikipedia may not be the project for you.


 * Re: "the Qur'an is also relevant" -- of course it is, and I'm not saying, and have never said, the Qur'an is not "relevant" -- I'm saying that you appear to envision a variety of "jurisprudence" that relies only on the Qur'an. Citing verses from it independent of Sharia is, in this article, wholly inappropriate. Yet that's what your edit pattern is showing -- despite repeated attempts here on the talk page to actually get the article to focus on its stated topic, namely, Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., precedent) with regard to warfare.  BYT 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "respecfully suggest that Wikipedia may not be the project for you." Is there a Wiki policy saying that an editor needs to read a minimum number of "scholarly" opinions, or did you just make that up? NN 07:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Point, which I can't imagine you didn't grasp, is that this article is about "scholarly opinions." That's what Islamic law is based on -- the opinions of judges and scholars. If you don't want to clutter your mind with their opinions, this is not a good article to work on.


 * Now then -- I have offered a citation demonstrating Islamic jurisprudence requiring consent from females captives before sexual activity takes place. Will you remove same when I reinsert it, and insist that the article focus, not on judicial precedent, but on whatever Qur'anic verses you select? If so, I believe our next stop here will be mediation. BYT 12:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why I have to explain the same point repeatedly. The Koran is a valid primary source. Whether some citation by someone who is not Muhammad says that "consent from females captives before sexual activity takes place" does not invalidate or make irrelevant what the Koran says. Mediation would be good. NN 13:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

But here's the problem -- you're not talking about what the Koran says, but what it doesn't say -- and (as I have just turned up in research) you are fast-forwarding what it actually does say about this topic.


 * Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 6, Number 2304:
 * Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:


 * Musaykah, a slave-girl of some Ansari, came and said: My master forces me to commit fornication. Thereupon the following verse was revealed: "But force not your maids to prostitution (when they desire chastity)."

That's referencing Qur'an 24;33, by the way. Can you clarify for me, given the above citation, how you believe the passage under dispute in the article should read? (As in, what sequence of words would you recommend putting in the article?) This is, I think, a clearly focused and relevant question for you, NN. Perhaps if it can be addressed directly mediation won't be necessary. BYT 13:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The qur'an alone is not a valid primary source for wikipedia. The qur'an does not say anything on its own. People interprit it. It is full of contradictions, and can easily be interprited as saying something else. For purposes on wikipedia, provide a secondary source that agrees with your interpritation. Otherwise it is WP:OR. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam#The_Qur.27an... here].--Sefringle 23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Like, for instance, the hadith I just quoted above? BYT 00:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * yes. alone, it is WP:OR.--Sefringle 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sefringle wrote "The qur'an alone is not a valid primary source for wikipedia." Can you clarify why this is not so? I understand that you say that "it is full of contradictions". But this is what Wiki policy says specifically about primary sources "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." Note that it doesn't say anything like the primary source should not be self-contradictory. It appears that you are setting a special standard for the Koran. Has there been any prior vote, mediation, arb com etc. which has decided that the use of the Koran as a primary source is invalid? I think this is an important question as it affects many Islam related articles. Would you, for example, want to exclude a direct quote from the Koran because it "is not a valid primary source"? NN 06:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We both understand that we are not trying to just randomly quote the quran in this article. We are writing an encyclopedia. To talk about what the quran says about Islamic military jurisprudence is to interprit the qur'an. And as you said the policy says about primary sources, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source."--Sefringle 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You need not to burden me with your "understanding", that is speak only for yourself and not me. There are two obvious problems with your position:
 * Who is to decide what is "randomly quote"? Apparently you believe that the disputed text is that, however there has to be an objective standard.
 * You write "To talk about what the quran says about Islamic military jurisprudence is to interprit the qur'an." To quote is to interpret? Interesting!
 * NN 02:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the disputed text is "descriptive" and "can be verified by a non-expert". To help come to a resolution of this matter I am offering a compromise of changing the text "There is no mention in the Qu'ran for the master to require consent of the female captive for sex" to "The Qu'ran does not address the issue of the master requiring or not requiring a slave woman's consent to sex". If you find this insufficient we should move on to other means of dispute resolution like mediation and arb com. Please also see the discussion between Grenavita and me on the same subject at. NN 05:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request made
Those who said they were open to mediation should accept the opportunity to engage in it to resolve this matter. 

Please do not insert text for which there is no consensus. Please do not insert text that does not cite actual jurisprudence. BYT 08:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, use Arlandson -- at least he's an external source
Arlandson is not a reliable source, searching religious text for reason to attack is does not make you a scholar. Read his work, and follow what he covers. He is more than "bias", James Arlandson bases his opinion on anything he can find to feed his anger and hate. This is obvious when you read the rest of his papers. James shows absolutely no criticism of his own religion, and has no positive view of Islam.

Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for attacking a religion you oppose, there is not related text to offer an alternative view, because it is not a subject, or part of the religion.

James Arlandson writes articles and blogs on several websites such as, answering-islam.org, www.americanthinker.com, www.muslimhope.com,www.islam-watch.org, www.jihadwatch.org, and www.dinocrat.com, all with a similar anti-Islam theme. Many other site like, theamericanmuslim.org, www.quransearch.com, www.muslim-responses.com, offer Rebuttal to the articles written by James Arlandson. James Arlandson does not offer an objective view of Islam as a scholar, he in fact aggressively searches for anything offensive in Islam, while at the same time feverishly defends Christianity, as seen in all his "articles", and noted by his students..

http://www1.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=539179 Mt. San Jacinto College:Philosophy 12/7/06 phil104 "A good teacher if you want an easy class, not so good if you want to learn about religions. I found him a bit to biased, presenting a Christian point of view rather than an objective one. I wouldn't recomend him unless you are looking for an easy filler class."

http://www1.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=867557 Riverside Community College: Humanities 8/25/06 Hum10 "Attend class,complete homework,study a bit = A! This teacher wants ALL his students to Pass & He is extremely Helpful. You won't know everything about Religion after this class, but a better understanding."

http://www1.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=643123 Riverside Community College - Moreno Valley Campus: English 8/15/05 ENG "If you are a good writer but concerned about grammar and the rules, take this teacher. He will teach you how to write a academic paper. He's very very laidback, really funny, not too strict. He's often late to class. Really cool, take him."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/10/slavegirls_as_sexual_property.html " The Quran in Sura 23:5—6 says:

5 [Most certainly true believers]. . . guard their private parts scrupulously, 6 except with regard to their wives and those who are legally in their possession, for in that case they shall not be blameworthy. (Sayyid Abul A'La Maududi, The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 3, p. 237)

The key words are 'those who are legally in their possession.' Maududi (d. 1979) is a highly respected commentator on the Quran, and he interprets the plain meaning of the clause, saying that sex with slave—girls is lawful. "

The claim of the key words here, is only an attempt to justify Maududi's interpretation and distracts from the huge jump he makes in his claim from "guard their private parts scrupulously" to "sex with slave-girls".

Sura 24:33 "Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/why_i_write_hardhitting_articl.html

The roots of his studies, expose his bias view. James Arlanson: "Maybe a few readers wonder why I bother to write about Islam. After all, 9/11 is so long ago." ..."Before 9/11, I had not paid much attention to Islam"

Conflict of Interest. James Arlandson:"Why I write hard-hitting articles on Islam"... "Christianity must be defended and explained."..."The New Testament disagrees, so I disagree. That's why I write my articles."

Bias Spin. James Arlandson:"Two Muslim scholar—apologists are inaccurate when they assert"... "In contrast, the widely respected historian and Islamologist W. Montgomery Watt paints a more accurate picture"

James Arlandson:"...ALL of Islam must be exposed to the world, and so must biased and tendentious Muslim scholarship that shaves off the unpleasant aspects of this religion with the possible goal of converting unsuspecting seekers."

James Arlandson is very quick to attack Islam while he ignores and "shaves off the unpleasant aspects" in his own religion.

Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

Deuteronomy 20:13 "And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoils thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself;..."

Dr. Ingrid Mattson (isnapresident@isna.net) is an actual scholar of Islam, maybe you can get her opinion.

Get a clue people, you need to research these topic that you're discussing. James Harold.

Just make sure the text you insert describes why his opinion should be regarded as notable here. Let's work from there. (He's certainly not the only voice on this issue, but at least he's talking about jurisprudence. Kind of.)

You're right, it's not a blog. He is a published author. BYT 11:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether he is notable, which after a quick search of his name on google, he appears to be so. I will create an article about him when I get the time. But for this article, the real issue is whether he is a scholar.--Sefringle 21:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ... and scholarship is what this writer lacks. he has no qualifications in Islamic studies, and his theories which are unsupported by mainstream academia point us to WP:REDFLAG. see the ongoing discussion at Talk:Ma_malakat_aymanukum.  ITAQALLAH   22:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Controversial scholars are still scholars. What his qualifications are remains to be determined. That appears to be where the discussion is going. I would like to see some .edu source or something similar to determine what his scholarship is.--Sefringle 04:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He has no degreee on Islam. He himself says he has personally studied Islam after 9/11. Having read an article from his, I think I know more of Islam than him. --Aminz 04:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said. We need to find some outside proof of what degree he has (if any).--Sefringle 05:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There isn't any Wiki policy that says an author requires particular degrees to be a RS. WP:RS says ""Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.". So Arlandson only has to be "authoritative" OR "trustworthy", and American Thinker needs to have a "reliable publication process". NN 09:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.". - this is a reliable source. If anyone is claiming James is not an RS, this is what you have to disprove. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * see Talk:Ma_malakat_aymanukum and Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources, which confirm that the source is not reliable. you have to explain why it is a reliable source and why it conforms to those stipulations. other experienced editors don't seem to think so. please stop re-inserting this unencyclopedic material.  ITAQALLAH   09:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

PhD in womens rights in early christianity who has then studied islam and womens rights in that subject. And the links you provided don't say "other experienced editors don't seem to think so".Hypnosadist 09:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alanderson himself says: "Before 9/11, I had not paid much attention to Islam, other than a few facts in my Humanities courses, such as its contribution to science in the Medieval Age. (But current thought is now questioning the extent of Islam's contribution.) After 9/11, I decided to read through the Quran. I did it from Friday afternoon through Sunday. I was shocked at the violence I found."
 * He is clear about himself and his knowledge about Islam after he got his PhD. --Aminz 10:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, does getting a PhD make one reliable?Bless sins 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "does getting a PhD make one reliable?" YES. On another point is a PhD is not the end of a persons education, they continue to study and learn, hence when the world changed on 9/11 he started to study islam and as he said "I was shocked at the violence I found" just like i was when i tested the claim it was a Religion of peace. Hypnosadist 04:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh but "they continue to study and learn" mean nothing in wikipedia, unless it is formally recognized. I too have learned a lot, but that doesn't mean I am a reliable source, does it? In anycase, as others have pointed out, Arlandson's PhD wasn't in Islamic jurisprudence. Unless, you find other ways of showing Arlandson reliability, he can't be used.Bless sins 02:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So according to your logic Steven Hawking knows nothing about black holes because they had not been even thought of when he did his PhD in the Big bang, LOL! try again. Hypnosadist 05:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hypnosadist, his knowledge of Islam is no different from that of other amatures including our wikipedians. Some of us have may have some PhD degree and have studied Islam out of interest. --Aminz 05:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Find a source that says it is wrong to have sex with your slave girl then put it in this section (this may take awhile though). The ayats and hadith are VERY clear that sex is only permitted with your wife and "what your right hand posseses".Hypnosadist 06:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, they can have sex. But this "According to the eternal and unchanging scripture of Islam, men are permitted to treat them as sexual property regardless of their wishes, under certain specified circumstances" is polemical writing. Do you have a quranic verse to that effect? --Aminz 09:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Re:Stephen Hawkings: Hawkings is recognized as an authority in black holes etc. Find me scholarly sources that publish Arlandson's views, or scholars that reviewed his work, and found it credible. Bless sins 21:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why we apparently need an expert in womens rights to say "If shes a slave she can't concent therefore its rape". I would have thought that obvious but i suppose not.Hypnosadist 07:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * a PhD in 'women's rights'?? more accurately- a PhD on the status of women in early Christianity. that doesn't make you an authority on Islam any way you try to look at it.  ITAQALLAH   22:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "status of women in early Christianity" yes what rights they had! Could they own property? Could they be someones property (ie a slave)? etc etc and now he has studied islam for 5 years to find what rights women have according to the source documents of that faith. As a PhD in this field he clearly knows how to handle sources and multiple translations (early Christianity covers such diverse languages as Ethipoian, Armenian and Greek). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs) 10:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
 * having a PhD by itself in any old subject doesn't make you an expert on Islam or on how to analyse the Islamic primary sources (see WP:RS: "A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology"). not only is he unqualified in this field, none of the articles he has writen have ever appeared in academic publications, nor been reviewed by respected academics (another indicator of reliability). i think you're clutching at straws here.  ITAQALLAH   15:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He studies the legal rights of women in the texts of religions and he still is doing that. Notice you still have not found a source to say that slave girls can consent (under a modern definition of the term) to having sex with there owners.Hypnosadist 15:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * your second comment is a red herring, the issue here is Arlandson. your first comment doesn't prove reliability, he is qualified in the field of women in early Christianity (that's the topic of his only real published book in fact). whatever else he claims to study is irrelevant. he is well out of his field here, which is why no academic publishers consider nor review his work. there's not much else to discuss here.  ITAQALLAH   16:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He has a PhD in the field of religion and teaches "introductory philosophy and world religions" . How is he out of his field when he writes on Islam? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * what's his PhD thesis in again, precisely? several administrators and experienced editors have confirmed he is way out of his league (eg. ). i think we've already had these discussions before.. do feel free to go back and review them. i for one see no need to repeat them again here.  ITAQALLAH   17:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

General hint, This article is rather unclear in when consensus in the muslim country exists, and eg. influences the signing of treaty's. Otoh it makes rather individual or even subjective assumptions over the purposed tactical consequences in islamic fighters, as such i wonder if it will be very helpfull in understanding what would fundamentally influence islam ethics in war. There is good points to, eg. that it is made obvious that jihad primarily is a word that occurs in the mind for a defencive arangment. (this is a joke, someone wants to get islamic fighters killed (or cartooned) covers much of the critics. I would be surprised if islam doesn't have similarly ruthless modern filosofy as our seek and destroy.)77.248.56.242 03:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is this line repeated?
"in the way of Allah of the Muslim community (Ummah) against oppression from the Meccan Quraish as well as in the subsequent wars of expansion. General armed conflicts and feuds are not covered by the term." Is it a quote or something? --AW 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
For anyone intrested, please comment on the peer review: WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Islamic military jurisprudence -- Sef rin gle Talk 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Quran quotes
The quran verses should not be in the references section. They shuold be presented as part of the article content, without being censored as footnotes.-- Sef rin gle Talk 00:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sefringle please look at the definition of "censor". I have NOT removed the quotes. I have only moved them along with other references in the "Notes" section. This is mainly to avoid clutter, so a reader can read one sentence without going over three or more external links.Bless sins 03:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * you removed them to try to hide them. They are less visable to our readers in the notes section, and it requires an additional step to view the verses. Thus it is censorship. Quran quotes are not standard external links; they are special, as they are part of the content of the article.-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not part of the content, as the secondary sources themselves cite the verses as "references" so as footnotes or endnotes. Some sources may put these verses in brackets but they never emphasize them as content. To discuss whether this is censorship, I have opened a thread here.Bless sins 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The qur'an quotes themselves are not references. They are article content, or that is how they are being used in the article. If they were being used as primary sources, yes, then they would be references, but with secondary sources, they are just part of the article content.-- Sef rin gle Talk 01:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Qur'an quotes are not content. Can you please tell me what "3:14" tells the user about Islamic military jurisprudence? Nothing. But it does tell the reader where to look for, if he/she wishes to consult the sources from which scholars have derived content.Bless sins 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 3:14 tells the reader that verse 3:14 is related to the topic of of islamic military jurisprudence. Thus it is part of the content. The scholars use it as content, to further their arguement, not reference.-- Sef rin gle Talk 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't noticed this article is not about "List of Quranic verses relating to Islamic military jurisprudence". 3:14 only tells the user where to look, should he/she desire the sources for the content given. I've already said this. Another third party has called your argument as "probably the worst ever".
 * Just think about this one thing: if the Notes section creates censorships, then it would never be advocated by wikipedia in the first place(see WP:LAYOUT).Bless sins 11:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You missed my point. My point was 3:14 tells the reader that the scholar says X because of their interpritation of 3:14. "another third party" whom hasn't responded to my other points, doesn't really matter. Besides, WP:LAYOUT says nothing about qur'an qoutes being or not being content or references. Instead of filling up policy talk pages, you are probably better out filing an WP:RFC.-- Sef rin gle Talk 02:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point. What difference does it make if a an interpretation is based upon "3:11" or "3:12". For that matter you could put "6:66", "66:6", "100:1", "9:11", "7:7" and it would make no difference. The only difference it would make is when the reader wanted to investigate the sources on which the content is based. For that there is the references/Notes section.
 * There appears to be consensus there. The only two users who responded there (besides you and I) agree that it is not censorship. These users can be considered as third party (i.e. they are not like you, I, Beit Or, Aminz, Arrow 740... users who are involved in disputes in Islam related articles). I hope you respect that consensus.Bless sins 22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And I think you missed my point. My point is it is censorship because you are hiding article content. Verses are not references; they are content. It isn't as visable to the reader, so it is censorship. Anyway, claiming there is a consensus before the discussion is over is not consensus, so I'm going to file an rfc on this issue. It is better for formalities sake to have the discussion on this talk page anyway. Sef rin gle Talk 22:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Until there are neutral and third party users who do believe that this is censorship, we'll consider the views expressed on Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not as consensus. Bless sins 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There has not been a consensus reached there yet either, so we will have to continue discussing this. —- Sef rin gle Talk 22:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC

 * Note: RFC tag deleted by GRBerry, saying "RFC need ended when the OR was eliminated" HG | Talk 08:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Should Qur'an quotes be listed in the references section or in perenthesis as part of the article content? See above section. Sef rin gle Talk 22:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not consider it censorship to not do so, however it is common practice (as far as I know) to cite Holy texts (of whatever religion) parenthetically. See [|here] for an example. I don't know of any MoS rules about this - maybe there are some. Otherwise, I'd say keep them in-text as parenthetical refs. I see no reason not to. --Cheeser1 00:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that simple sentences are transformed into interrupted and discontinuous ones. Which one is more readable?Bless sins
 * "The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own. Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, but should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist."
 * OR
 * "The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own. Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty,  but should be stopped  if these circumstances cease to exist."


 * This is the best you can do with inline refs:
 * "The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own. Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, but should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist."
 * However, with these many refs, it is preferable to include them in the Notes section via ref tags. Is the use of primary sources in this manner appropriate? With no refs to secondary sources, is it not OR to make the conclusions that are being drawn from the verses? → AA (talk) — 14:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a fundamental problem with your example: if one is quoting the Qur'an, one is quoting the Qur'an, one section at a time. Long lists of Qur'an references should not be supporting statements one makes based on them. That is original research. The references at the end of the paragraph in question should support such analytical claims. So, this is a bad example. They should only be occurring one-at-a-time, and they should be just fine referenced in-text, as is standard for religious texts. (Note: AA and I were writing our responses at the same time.)--Cheeser1 15:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * RFC response - go with the first method. It's much more readable, and the quotations get in the way. Put them all in a ref tag. The Evil Spartan 23:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Bless sins, please do not consider this a majority-rule decision. There is a clear precedent and standard way to cite holy texts. Doing otherwise is inappropriate. There is clearly an issue of clutter in the one section, but that is due to the analytical claims that are being made as synthesizing existing material. This is inappropriate, as it is clearly original research. Please respect the fact that holy texts have a standard citation format. If there is clutter, due to OR, then I suggest cleaning up the OR. I will do so when I can find the time, however, I am not knowledgeable about this subject (I'm here from the RfC) and would prefer a primary editor of this article would clean up the OR instead of botching the standard holy text citation format. --Cheeser1 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please address all OR related comments to this section. Bless sins 19:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also the precedent for putting sources as footnotes in a "Notes"/"References" section is far stronger.Bless sins 19:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't skirt this discussion elsewhere. The issue here is the sheer volume of citations of the Quran, which is due only to the original research. Once the original research is removed (either cut from the article, or fixed by providing a secondary source), there will be no issue here. Citations to holy texts should only occur one at at time, and are not obtrusive in that sense. The precedent for ref sections is for refs in general. Holy texts are cited in a different fashion. Please note that I am not the only person to bring up both of these points. --Cheeser1 19:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)