Talk:Islamic military jurisprudence/Archive 4

Al-Qaradhawi
Al-Qaradhawi is alive and we need to take extra care before we attribute something to him. The BBC link did not claim Qaradhawi said what Matt57 inserted. I would like full quote of what he says below, before we attribute any contentious info (like justifying death of civilians).Bless sins 11:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this from the article and moved it here: "Yousef al-Qaradhawi, argues that killing (or suicide bombing) is acceptable if the goal is to repel the invaders of muslim lands. Innocent Muslim civilian deaths, he argues, are unfortunate but permitted in war. He says such killings are martyrdom, and thus acceptable, since they sacrifice themselves for the sake of a higher goal, and that is to please Allah."

Al-Qaradhawi's statements, as reported by BBC have been included in the article already (see Islamic_military_jurisprudence). MEMRI, the other source, can't be considered reliable (atleast in this case). He has charged MEMRI of misquoting him in the past (see Yusuf_al-Qaradawi). We have to be careful since Al-Qaradhawi is living and WP:BLP applies here.Bless sins 18:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Did MEMRI actually misquote him this time? Who says MEMRI isn't reliable? Did they at any time misinterprit what he said in relation to this quote?  Yahel  Guhan  00:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Secondly al-Qaradhawi's statements, as reported by BBC, belong in the "Combat" section, since has disapproved of suicide bombings against western targets, but justified them in Israel calling Israelis "soldiers". "Soldiers" have to do with "combat" and are not civilians.Bless sins 19:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sefringle/Yahel Guhan, it is you who needs to provide evidence suggesting MEMRI is reliable. Considering MEMRI's misquoted him in the past, they have lost their credibility for the future.Bless sins 02:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Every journalistic entity has misquoted people, at some point. I'm not familiar with this situation, but unless MEMRI is an unreliable source in general, it is still valid. Journalists, newspapers, TV stations - they make mistakes. It happens. That doesn't discredit them forever. --Cheeser1 03:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * MEMRI has also been criticized for portraying Islam in a negative light (see MEMRI). Unless, Yahel Guhan can come up with some reasons why MEMRI is reliable, we can't accept it as a reliable source. BTW, Yahel Guhan, who is the author of this article by MEMRI? What are his/her qualifications in Islam?Bless sins 03:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Although you've convinced me that there might be a problem here, MEMRI appears to be a legitimate journalistic source. I don't see why we can't allow it because they've been criticised for bias. Every newspaper in the world has been criticised for bias. While we have to respect NPOV policies, it's not our job to decide who's reliable and who's not based on what we think of their biases (we're biased too, don't forget). Furthermore, Yahel Guhan does not need to prove to you that the author is qualified to speak on Islam. It's a published piece of journalism, and is cited as such. That's all we require of a source. --Cheeser1 03:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify and expand on why you think that this source is reliable. I mean what makes MEMRI different from some other random organization easily accessible on the web? Are all published sources reliable? Also, I would at least like to know the name of the author (so that I can look him/her up).Bless sins 03:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a translation service for journalists. They translate journalistic sources. The claim you are saying is not reliably sourced has two sources (MEMRI and another). I don't see what the issue is. There are countless conservatives in the US who would accuse the New York Times of being biased (we have an entire article about it). But that does not mean it is not a reliable journalistic source. Once again, challenging the author's qualifications is irrelevant here - it's a published piece of journalism. Journalists need not prove to you their expertise in the study of Islam - it's not necessary for them to do so generally, and it's certainly not your role, or mine, to try to decide which individual journalists are allowed to report what. Please refer to WP:RS if you have more questions along the lines of "are all published sources reliable?" because I don't intend to field such broad questions. --Cheeser1 08:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly take my questions to WP talk:RS. But please answer the following: which part of WP:RS are you using to justify that MEMRI is a reliable source? This way I can enhance my understanding of that particular clause.Bless sins 22:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking you to go to WT:RS, I was telling you to read WP:RS. It's a journalistic source - no source is without bias, journalists included, but they are reliable, published journalistic sources. I don't really see why there's a question - a journalistic source has exactly the authority to say "so and so said such and such" - especially when it's a translation and this source specializes in such translations. --Cheeser1 23:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Journalistic" (meaning pertaining to "journalism") sources include pretty much all news (and a lot of other) websites. It also includes "gotcha journalism". So my question is: what part of WP:RS says that published "journalistic sources" are reliable?Bless sins 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * MEMRI is a tabloid newspaper? Do they run articles on bat-boy and the world's fattest baby? No. It's not up to us to decide which real news sources are reliable or the least biased. They're real news sources. Publication and (true) editorial review are the standards for WP:RS. MEMRI seems to meet these qualifications. The fact that they might be accuse of bias is irrelevant - all sources have bias. A single misquotation, and some ethereal bias towards some point of view - these things happen, it's the nature of news. --Cheeser1 17:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So any newspaper that is not tabloid nor runs articles on "bat-boy and the world's fattest baby" is reliable?

How do I know that MEMRI meets "(true) editorial review"? And where in WP:RS does it say that "Publication and (true) editorial review are [enough] standards for WP:RS"?Bless sins 18:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:RS. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources...In general, the most reliable sources are ... magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. See also WP:V Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. One misquotation does not constitute a bad reputation for factchecking. Editorial oversight seems to be present. The fact that a source might be characterized as pro-Israel is irrelevant - any news source can be characterized like this, but that's not the point. --Cheeser1 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. How do we know that MEMRI has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? What tells you that MEMRI is published by a "respected publishing house"?Bless sins 20:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because its work has been used in major news media? Because it, despite having some criticism as is to be expected, has a real editorial process. A misquotation here, an accusation of bias there, that could be any news outlet. I don't see why you're so opposed to using this news source. I think Fox News has made serious errors in its reporting, but they're still a news source nonetheless. --Cheeser1 20:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which "major news media" has its quotations of Qaradhawi been used in? Also, what makes you say that MEMRI "has a real editorial process"?Bless sins 00:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Try MEMRI for starters. I'm not going to debate with you whether a news outlet is a news outlet. --Cheeser1 01:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok so you are saying that MEMRI is a "news outlet" and therefore reliable. Yet any source discussing recent events can be considered a "news outlet", even a blog. You were saying something about MEMRI having "a real editorial process". Can you show me if it does? Finally, can you name the person who writes for MEMRI? What is the name of the person who wrote the piece on Qaradhawi?Bless sins 01:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to argue this nonsense with you. You're making unreasonable demands of a journalistic source, and I'm not required to answer them. If you object to an otherwise reliable source because you question whether its editorial process is sound, feel free to take it up here. I'm not in the business of proving to people that a newspaper is a newspaper or anything of the sort. --Cheeser1 09:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please assume good faith and not call others arguments as "nonsense". Remember we are trying to reach an agreement here, not a disagreement. I know the MEMRI is a news source. But so is Jew Watch News (which we can agree is unreliable). Thus, as you can see, not all news sources are reliable. You said something about an "editorial process", and I agreed that could prove a source to be reliable. Yet you didn't demonstrate how MEMRI's editorial process was reliable. Also remember that WP:V says the burden of evidence (to find a reliable source, and show that it is reliable) lies "with the editor who adds or restores material."Bless sins 13:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, we're talking about MEMRI. Read up. It's a translation service for other media outlets. If MEMRI is featured in, say, the New York times, then not only is MEMRI's editorial process there, so is the New York Times's. What do you want me to do? Give you a tour of MEMRI headquarters, so you can inspect the editorial process at work and make sure it meets your exacting standards? --Cheeser1 16:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "If MEMRI is featured in, say, the New York times," That's very good! If MEMRI's publication of Al-Qaradhawi's quotes was reviewed by, or "featured" as you say, the New York Times, that would should show that MEMRI atleast deserves to be quoted. Can you provide me with a link?Bless sins 00:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, still waiting for your justification.Bless sins 23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against listing his opinions on this page, but don't approve of the way one of the sections was worded, that he "Legitimized" suicide bombings, legitimized with what power? He has no "control" over Islamic military jurisprudence other than his own opinion, so I have reworded the first part and moved both paragraphs to its own section under the heading "Modern Interpretation". Am open to changes but I do not see it right that his word has legitimacy over others and even to the point that it is an "official" stance as it was listed previously. Mikebloke (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethics of warfare
Cheeser1, can you explain exactly how the section violates WP:OR. The above RfC was to comment on the inclusion of ref format, not claims of OR. Therefore, I'd like it you explained in this section why you think there is original research.Bless sins 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The text makes analytical claims about what the Quran means to say. Such statements cannot be substantiated by simply citing the Quran. Analytical claims require secondary sources, and to take the Quran and draw conclusions from it is synthesis of existing material to formulate original research. See WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:PSTS. --Cheeser1 19:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Quran quotes (II)

 * You have no idea how much I agree with your second sentence. Not only must analytical claims not be made (without citing a secondary source), the Qur'an it self must not be cited without secondary sources. Reliable scholars, and only reliable scholars have the right to cite Qur'an, not wikipedians.
 * Having said said, I have cited secondary sources. Here are the sources cited:
 * Patricia Crone, Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, War article, p.456
 * Micheline R. Ishay, The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era, University of California Press, p.45
 * Sohail H. Hashmi, David Miller, Boundaries and Justice: diverse ethical perspectives, Princeton University Press, p.197
 * Douglas M. Johnston, Faith-Based Diplomacy: Trumping Realpolitik, Oxford University Press, p.48
 * Thus these conclusions have been made by the scholars above. All of them, as you can see, are reliable sources (consider the press that published their work).Bless sins 20:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then cite them on the page, instead of leaving us with stuff like this. I'd do it myself, but I'm not familiar with these sources. The fact that it can be verified doesn't change the fact that it isn't properly sourced in the article. --Cheeser1 22:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * These sources are at the end of the sentence, please click on the following links to see what I mean:
 * Bless sins 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources linked above are "7", "8", "9" and "10".
 * "The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own.[3] Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims[4] and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, [5] but should be stopped[6] if these circumstances cease to exist.[7][8][9][10]"
 * Perhaps we can lump all the Quran references with these sources, so that there is no confusion as to where the Qur'an references are coming from.Bless sins 02:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(Greetings, are you still discussin how to deal w/Quran references or has that been settled? I see strong stylistic advantages and no policy problem (censorship or otherwise) with putting most scriptural citations in footnotes. Indeed, the Jesus article cited above, as exemplifying in-line references, also has plenty in the notes. I'm glad you all agree on the need for secondary sources. But I do wonder if there may be an over-emphasis on the Quran rather than subsequent sources of Islamic law. In good articles on Jewish law, there tend to be relatively few quotes from Bible or Mishnah passages and much more from later rabbinic literature. Hope you don't mind the interruption. HG | Talk 07:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC))


 * The Quran citations should be in-text, as is the stylistic standard for holy texts. The reason they clutter the article is only because there are many of them, which is only because that section contains synthetic original research. Once that's fixed, they can be properly written into the text. What we do in the meantime is unclear, so I won't fuss about it until the OR is removed/fixed. --Cheeser1 16:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheeser1, please see my comment on 02:50, 24 September 2007. All the information is coming from reliable secondary sources. I have also listed the sources in my edit on 20:16, 23 September 2007. Don't you agree that there is no OR problem?Bless sins 22:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are still several claims that end with a huge footnote containing several Quran references. It's been that way from the start. --Cheeser1 23:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Like what? Point them out, and I'll see to it that they are sourced (or removed).Bless sins 17:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right in the references section. Just look. Items 3-6 and 12, for starters. --Cheeser1 17:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Items 3-6 are sourced to items 7-10, as showed in my edit on 02:50, 24 September 2007. Item 12 is sourced to item 13. As a general rule you can assume that (atleast in this article) a Qur'an ref is sourced to the next set of secondary source(s), which is usually at the end of a sentence.Bless sins 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why are the Quran references still there?? We don't have to cite the Quran that the secondary source cites. That's up to the source. --Cheeser1 18:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You think so? I thought it would be a good idea to cite the source the secondary source cites. But I wouldn't mind removing the Quranic references. I have this question here. To me this is not a burning issue. Also, it is clear that this issue is whether we should include Qur'an refs at all. At this point, I think you agree that there is no original research.Bless sins 19:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. See WP:PSTS. You cite the source you're using, not all of its primary sources. These are the basics of wring with research. --Cheeser1 —Preceding comment was added at 20:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I put this to discussion here and everyone else besides you thinks we should mention the verse. Considering that no one has commented there for some time, I'll assume it is the consensus.Bless sins 00:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Bless sins. I think some of us (me, maybe Cheeser?) are saying that the verses may be footnoted, but it's preferable to use secondary sources. Such sources could be later works of Islamic law or, even better (i.e., from Wikipedia's sourcing standpoint), scholarly explications of the law. Be well HG | Talk 00:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's almost what I'm saying! The difference is I'm saying that we must use secondary sources (not just "preferably"), and put the Qur'an verses in the footnotes.Bless sins 01:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When have you ever seen any kind of literature that cites its own sources and then cites the sources of its sources?? That makes no sense, and is in no way called for by any part of policy. --Cheeser1 01:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheeser1, it makes sense to wikipedians who commented here. Bless sins 01:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Gee, Cheeser1, I'm glancing thru the Journal of Law and Religion and, while most footnotes don't mix scripture and secondary sources, there are plenty of exceptions. On Jewish law, I've seen authors put in layers (e.g., Bible, Mishnah, medieval codes, modern). There's some truth to what you say, in theory, but overall it's often a judgment call. Ok? HG | Talk 02:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The citations, as they existed, were in various places, attached to various claims, and there would be no way for a reader to know whether one is citing the Quran directly, or indirectly through some intermediate source. Citations are not necessary for material we are not citing, and we're not citing the Quran, we're citing whatever article/paper. --Cheeser1 01:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When the user sees two sources in a row (one Qur'an and one secondary) it is natural to think that there are two sources for the same claim.
 * Also a "Notes" section doesn't necessarily mean "citations". It can mean comments on the content as well. Please see WP:LAYOUT. Alternatively, you can consider the Qur'an verses as little "comments".
 * Finally, we put this to the policy talk page and the users there suggested that it is permissible to use Quran citations. I don't see a better way of forming consensus.Bless sins 02:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Ok, thanks Bless Sins for the note, I think I see where you are disagreeing at this point. You both agree that secondary sources are essential -- this is an important basis for good collaboration, so I hope you guys can get past your issues with the verses. You disagree about the value or option of adding, within footnotes, the Quranic verses upon which the secondary sources may rely. Is that right? Well, I hate to choose sides here ;-> but I don't think you need to be dogmatic about it. On some points, a Quranic verse might be so undisputedly crucial that you would want to cite it (as the secondary sources probably do). On other points, you skip the verses and just give the mainstream understandings of the Law. At least in Jewish law, often the current Law is pretty clear (whether described by insider or scholarly sources) but there's disagreement about the ancient sourcing -- for such cases, the encyclopedia can describe the Law and avoid having to choose an underlying ancient text. Isn't Islamic law similar, i.e. that the Quranic basis might be disputed even for a now-uncontroversial rule? Anyway, instead of trying to "win" your view via abstract WP policy, why not look at some distinct points in the text. Is it possible you all could find yourselves with some give and take, citing or not citing the Quran on a case-by-case basis? If so, bit by bit you'll come up with some criteria for collaborative editing. Oy, I'm a bit long-winded, but reluctant to say it should always be one way or another. If I'm not being helpful, press me further, ok? HG | Talk 02:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we can do this. Although I really don't see the problem given the consensus established already. Thus, Cheeser1, are there some cases in which you believe the Qur'an verses are absolutely inappropriate? Bless sins 00:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe they are inappropriate in all cases. I would also ask that you not consider a 2-1 opinion consensus. There were strings of five or six references in a row that were entirely unnecessary, and even the ones that weren't of the form     , they still basically cropped up in large groups. Why do we need to look up what somebody says and then say "what verses is s/he citing?" and then quote them? If there's a particular verse (e.g. the sword verse) that's important, we shouldn't be citing it, we should say "X verse indicates Y " and cite only the source of this information (the secondary one). --Cheeser1 02:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheeser1, I'm trying to co-operate here. All the comments in the RfC (including Yahel Guhan's) seemed to agree that Qur'an quotes should be presented as one way or another. Further we have had two request for commenting on two different policy pages (Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia talk:Citing sources). In each case, there was unanimous agreement (with you as an exception) with including the Qur'an verses. If this was a big issue I would have mediation. Please co-operate.Bless sins 03:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, there's a marginal consensus (2-1 or maybe 3-1) and you're going to call me uncooperative? All I'm saying is that we don't need to cite sources of our sources. It doesn't make any sense to do so. It misleads the reader. It's not in line with policy. IF you want to refer to someone's analysis of a passage THEN you can say "X verse means Y" and cite only the source you're actually using. In-text references to the Quran passage, not citations. In an article full of analysis, we require secondary sources. To present a primary source like the Quran suggests original research (indeed, that's what it was, if you recall). --Cheeser1 04:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the policy talk page [] it was 4-1 (including both me and you). Further on the RfC that happened some time ago (Talk:Islamic_military_jurisprudence), there were three users (excluding me and you) who wanted such verse refs in the article (the difference of opinion was only the location of such verse refs). In another RfC (held on Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not), the two wikipedians that commented also agreed that refs can belong in the notes section. Thus there are a total of 9 different wikipedians (10 if you count HG's opinion that refs maybe important in some cases) who disagree with you.Bless sins 23:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, on the one hand, I'll say that it's less the votes than our clarity about encyclopedic style & policy that matters. On the other hand, Cheeser1, I'm a bit concerned about your view. Granted, the article needs to tone down it's overuse and strings of verse citations. Maybe it's not your intent, but you're sounding a bit rigid: "I believe they /Quranic verse cites/ are inappropriate in all cases." Yes, we rely on secondary sources to interpret primary texts like the Quran, but that doesn't mean we necessarily omit the underlying primary texts from our articles. I don't see where Wikipedia policy justifies a categorical stance against Quranic citations. (Also, I just looked at the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, articles on Islam June 06 and Judaism & war Dec 06. Both articles rely heavily on 2ry sources, yet do occasionally cite the underlying primary texts -- along with the secondary.) Anyway, you are both engaged in a civil conversation, and you've again narrowed the point of dispute, so maybe Cheeser could indicate what dispute resolution mechanism that Cheeser would accept to help decide this issue. HG | Talk 04:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

HG and Cheeser1. I'll be very honest with you here, with what I want. I want a universal solution. If we must absolutely delete Quran verses wheresoever we find them, then we should go that with all articles. If we are to decide, on a case by case basis, whether Quran verses belongs then we should apply this rule to all articles, and define our criteria. I just don't like it when we don't have a standard policy (and just to be clear, neither of you are to be blamed for this).Bless sins 05:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources for article
Greetings. You might find this useful:

|Interpreting the Islamic Ethics of War and Peace by Sohail H. Hashmi (google's cache)

"The Doctrine of Jihad: An Introduction" by Noor Mohammad in Journal of Law and ReligionVol. 3, No. 2 (1985), pp. 381-397. (JSTOR link)

Just War and Jihad: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on War and Peace in Western and Islamic Traditions, eds. Kelsay, John and Johnson, James Turner. 1991

Thanks. Take care, HG | Talk 15:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the above seem to be scholarly sources. your input is much appreciated. Feel free to to improve the article, by the way.Bless sins 16:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

History
It would be helpful if this article had more history related material.Bless sins (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination
I am objecting to the GA nomination for three reasons:  Yahel  Guhan  08:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Excessive POV. This article is has a clear pro-Islam bias.
 * 2) Unsourced introduction.
 * 3) No images
 * This is wrong. You are one of the major contributors to the article. GA review is to be done by those who haven't made significant contributions to the article.Bless sins (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not only should this article not have been reviewed by a contributor, but the review is not in line with the GA criteria. First, per WP:LEAD, introductory sections do not require in-line citations except in extraordinary circumstances. Second, you need to give examples of biased statements if you're going to make that claim. Last, per the criteria and the comparison of the GA and FA criteria, images are not required for GA status. Only the proper licensing of any images present is. Please refrain from reviewing articles to which you have contributed, and make sure to stick to the GA criteria and the Manual of Style when reviewing. Thank you, Van Tucky 21:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yahel weren't you the one who pointed out to me that there existed many FA class articles that didn't have any sources in the lead?
 * Regarding images, I should put images, if they are available. So far I haven't found any. Frankly I don't know what an image relevant to Islamic law would look like.Bless sins (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My main opposition to this becomming a GA is because it is very bias. Virtually every view presented says killing innocant civilians is prohibited, war should be avoided at all costs, peace should be negoticated at all costs, no torture, hardly relevant mentions of forgiveness, etc. All are clear pro-islam bias statements. Second, vertually no contrary view presented within this article. For those reasons, it is bias.  Yahel  Guhan  01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "pro-Islam"? Such things can also be found in the Geneva conventions. Also, there are views of non-Muslims, like Patricia Crone, Micheline R. Ishay, Douglas M. Johnston, so this article seems balanced.Bless sins 01:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pro-Islam, meaning it is propaganda for why Islam is "so great." "you should convert to Islam because Islam is so great, for example X", "Islam is so perfect because X...", "Islam is the one true religion because X," "Islam is peace and Islam opposes violence except in justified cases, and supports morality and forgiveness in these cases, examples are X..." (this is the basic summary of this article). That is what I mean by pro-islam. It takes more than just views of non-muslims to be included to make it neutral. Anyone can be selective when quoting, and only post views which support one POV, when multiple POVs on the topic might be presented. They can also choose to select authors who present a favorable POV, which seems to be what you did when you wrote this article.  Yahel   Guhan  02:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Try WP:UNDUE. Osama Bin Laden's perspective on Islam should not be given as much weight as scholars published in reliable sources. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yahel: woah, woah, woah. Hold your horses! When did I say "you should convert to Islam because Islam is so great, for example X"? And when did I say any of those other things? Please provide the diff.Bless sins (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheeser1, agreed.Bless sins (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, when did I say "Osama Bin Laden's perspective on Islam"? What I am saying, is that scholarly perspectives that say violence is acceptable in Islam should be presented, and they are not. Secondly, the summary I wrote above as example of the pro-islam bias in this article specific to this article is: "Islam is peace and Islam opposes violence except in justified cases, and supports morality and forgiveness in these cases, examples are X..."  Yahel   Guhan  04:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Find such a reputable scholarly opinion, and present it, and it will be integrated into the article. You can't just invent an opposing opinion and expect that it be presented in an article with equal weight. "Islam is peace" is a well studied aspect of Islam. We can't just say "but some scholars assert that Islam is war" - it's not true, and even if there were some WP:FRINGE source making such a claim, we don't put WP:UNDUE weight on it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) All of this seems irrelevant debate to the contents of this article. If there are specific passages that anyone objects to as biased, please bring them up. But so far the debate here doesn't have anything to do with how this article can be improved, or how the article fails to meet the GA criteria. Van Tucky 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought neutrality was part of the GA criteria. I am saying the article is one sided and isn't neutral for reasons stated above. It isn't that I necessarily object to what is presented, but rather only one view (the muslim POV) is presented.  Yahel  Guhan  06:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well find a reliable source to verify this mysterious other point of view. Otherwise, it's only something you imagined might exist, and per WP:UNDUE (or WP:OR) there's no way that belongs in this article. The fact that every opinion has a negation doesn't mean there are reliable sources supporting each one equally. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "but rather only one view (the muslim POV) is presented". I already told you, that we have here the views of non-Muslim scholars.Bless sins (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

On hold
I put on hold tag on the article. I think there are some problems in this article.

-- Seyyed(t-c) 10:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) There are different religious codes for the fights between Muslims and between Muslims and non-Muslims. Mudelung says about these codes which established in the Battle of Camel:"Fighting Muslim opponents in regular battle was a new experience in Islam... Ali ordered at the beginning of the battle that wounded or captured enemies should not be killed, those throwing away their arms should not be fought,... These rules were to become authoritative in Islam for the warfare against Muslim rebels..." (Madelung (1997), p.179)
 * 2) It's written The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own. This sentence is not clear. It's clear that Muslims don't treat pagans as they treat another Muslim community.
 * 3) Incomplete: There are several issues which haven't been mentioned. For example some especial codes for Muslims who killed in the battlefield(Shahid).
 * 4) Rearrangement: The article should be rearranged on the basis of the type of Jihad. Offensive Jihad and Defensive Jihad have different jurisprudencial codes. What's written in "Criteria for soldiering" is not true for Defensive Jihad, at least on the basis of the Shia fiqh. As I know whoever can fight should participate in such a battle and who can't find should help with their property. Also you can find Sunni fatwa about such a battle here.


 * These are just some of my criticism and I haven't pay attention to the criticism of other wikipedians yet. In addition I haven't checked the GA criteria. -- Seyyed(t-c) 10:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Yes, that was the idea I created the section on Insurgency. However, I couldn't develop it since I didn't find much reliably sourced content on it. Perhaps you can provide me with some?
 * As I know it is not limited to insurgency. All of the wars between Muslims follow these rules.
 * 2. The sentence is sourced. Perhaps you can find some opposing sources? It makes sense, and it happened at the conquest of Mecca. No one was killed or hurt, and leaders (like Abu Sufyan) were not only spared, but allowed to attain positions.
 * I think the sentence is not wrong but it doesn't mean that Muslims treat other Muslim society and non-Muslim one the same way. Non-Muslims should pay Jazye, any non-Muslim who captured can be solved as slave, although it's not the same as slave notion in west and today it has been abandoned, Muslims own the property which they have been captured through battle and so on. I just asked for clarification. I found ambiguity. Also Abu Sufyan accepted Islam.
 * 3. That's a good point. I'll add the legalities regarding shahid.
 * 4. "Criteria for soldiering" is actually a small section, so I advise against splitting it. But the section on "hostilities" can be split up as such, provided enough content in presented.Bless sins (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Rearrangement: My problem was not just soldiering. Almost all of the issues differ in these two kinds of Jihad. small section is a bad excuse for a GA nominee.

I propose this structure which I think more compatible with classic jurisprudential texts. You can ask Ittaqallah too. International conflict(It should be splited into two sections):
 * 1) 1 jurisprudential sources
 * 2) 2 Legitimacy of war
 * 3) 3 Ethics of warfare
 * 4) 4 Codes of offensive Jihad
 * 5) 5 Codes of defensive Jihad
 * 1) 6 Jihad against non-Muslims
 * 2) 7 Jihad against Muslims

I think we can put most of the other issues under these sections. If some issues such as Civilian areas and Baqy remained, then we make a separate section for it.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I would certainly like Itaqallah's input on this. Also, Sa vakilian, you are proposing that we re-format the entire article. Is there not a way to reform the article in an easier manner?Bless sins (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. I think we should use more technical approach toward the issue. For example it's written below International conflict :International conflicts are armed strifes conducted by one state against another, and are distinguished from civil wars or armed strife within a state.


 * But this is a modern definition. Initially we should describe the Islamic viewpoint on the basis of the Islamic terms such as Dar al-Harb then we explain how Islamic jurisprudence deal with modern terms and definitions. For this reason I proposed a new arrangement which let us use technical approach. -- Seyyed(t-c) 04:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok I added material about dar al-harb and dar al-Islam.Bless sins (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There are some problems with your categorization. For example, "defensive jihad" can be against either non-Muslims or Muslims. "Offensive jihad" can be against non-Muslims. Furthermore, I have classified the article into domestic (i.e. between Muslims) and international between different abodes (e.g. dar al-islam vs. dar al-harb).Bless sins (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposal: We already have a section on "international" (between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb) and "domestic" strife. This is similar to "Muslim" and "non-Muslim" jihads. the section on legitimacy of war can be divided into "defensive" and "offensive" jihads. HTen the article will be similar to the format you are suggesting. What do you think?Bless sins (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What about war between Muslim countries. There are several verses in Holy Quran about such wars like Wa en taaefatane men al-Momenin eqtataloo. -- Seyyed(t-c) 04:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * War between Muslim parties may be regarded as "domestic". Throughout history, most violence between Muslims has been government vs. rebels. In anycase, are the rules of war different when its fought between Muslim countries? IF yes, can you specify?Bless sins (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Failed
I usually stay for on hold articles at least two weeks, but this article has so many problems that I don't think you can solve them even in a month. I propose using technical jurisprudential sources of Shia and Sunni Fiqh to improve it. Not only should you rearrange the article but also you should rewrite some part of it.

Due to necessary rearrangement I prefer not to check GA criteria.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you evaluate it for the GA criteria, that is considered standard practice. Most reviewers usually use, "Template:GAList", and I'd appreciate it if you used it as well.Bless sins (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I usually do (See Fatimah and al-Farabi). But the article should be changed a lot.-- Seyyed(t-c) 05:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing that you usually use the GA criteria. However, please do it now as well. It is convention, It gives a much better idea for the reasons of failure.Bless sins (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Notes:
 * 1) I don't judge about prose due to I'm not a native speaker.
 * 2) I prefer not to judge about neutral point of view due to using unsuitable subtitles. It doesn't mean the article is POV but it can misinform readers.
 * 3) This article doesn't need any image at this stage.-- Seyyed(t-c) 07:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Made-up sources"
Yahel Guhan accused me of putting into the article "made up sources".

Which sources I have "made up"?Bless sins (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My version reads:

"Abdulaziz Sachedina believes differntly. He states that the Qur'an requires Muslims to establish overall public order. This can be established though offensive measures. Thus offensive jihad raises questions about whether jihad is justifiable on moral grounds. Quranic verses, like Qur'an 8:39 revealed in the latter part of Muhammad's career require Muslims to wage Jihad against unbelievers. Wars of expansion in the Islamic empire, he argues were considered jihad by Sunni scholars, but under close scrutny can be determined to be political."

Your version reads: "Abdulaziz Sachedina argues that the original jihad was permission to fight back against those who broke their pledges. Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces. The Qur'an also requires Muslims to establish just public order, increasing the influence of Islam, allowing public Islamic worship. Although this can be said to be 'offensive' jihad it has been complicated by early wars of expansion. Although viewed by Sunni scholars as jihad, under closer scrutiny the hostilities were political in nature. Moreover, the offensive jihad points more to the complex relationship with the 'People of the book' than their conversion"

For one, the source : never says anything like "original jihad was permission to fight back against those who broke their pledges.Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces." Secondly, it doesn't say "Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad it has been complicated by early wars of expansion." This statement is taken way out of context. Rather, the source says the following:

"It is not difficult to adduce a strictly moral justification for the permission given to retaliate with force against attacks upon them. The qur'an, thus, justifies defensive jihad by allowing muslims to fight against and subdue hostile unbelievers as dangerous and faithless, because they are inimical to the success of God's cause. Furthermore, the Qur'an requires Muslims to strive to establish just public order overall. At this point jihad becomes an offensive endeavor to bring about the world order the qur'an seeks."

"Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only, because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers 'until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods' (8:39). The question of offensive jihad is not a simple one. It is complicated by wars of expansion that were undertaken by Muslim armies up to the end of the Umayyad period. (eighth century A.D.). These wars are regarded as jihad by Sunni Muslim scholars. However upon careful scrutiny, these wars appear to be political, with the aim of expansion of Islamic hegemony without the qur'anic goal of 'religion being entirely God's.' Moreover, offensive jihad against 'those who do not believe in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden and do not practice the religion of truth, from among those who have been given the Book until they pay jizya [poll-tax]' (9:29) points more to the complex relationship and interdependence of religous-moral considerations in the policy of Islamic public order vis-a-vis the 'people of the Book' than to their conversion to 'God's religon,' Islam." -- Yahel  Guhan  03:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All of my additions are supported by the source.
 * My version:
 * "original jihad was permission to fight back against those who broke their pledges."
 * The source:
 * "The ordainment of jihad, according to Muslim exegetes, occurred the first time in Medina, when Muslims were given permission to fight back against the 'folk who broke their solemn pledges'."
 * My version:
 * "Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces."
 * The source:
 * "The Qur'an, thus, justifies defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight against and subdue hostile unbelievers."
 * My version:
 * "Although this can be said to be 'offensive' jihad it has been complicated by early wars of expansion."
 * The source:
 * "The question of offensive jihad is not a simple one. It was complicated by the wars of expansion that were undertaken by Muslim armies upto the end of the Umayyad period."
 * Thus, I make clear that my version is according to the sources. Bless sins (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, "The ordainment of jihad, according to Muslim exegetes, occurred the first time in Medina, when Muslims were given permission to fight back against the "folk who broke their solemn pledges" does not appear in the text.

Second, the source say s "unbelievers" not "forces," showing a clear attempt to lighten the language and thus provide a lightened version of his belief.

Third, "Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad" and "it has been complicated by early wars of expansion" are two seperate ideas. The source doesn't put them together for one, and for two, the source doe not say "Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces. Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad" as it would read in your version. When you seperate the ideas and thus take him out of context, it appears you are right, and everything is sourced properly, but when you observe context,it is a made up interpritation.

Now for my version. (you can notice the sources are in the order presented by the author, unlike your version):

Me:"He states that the Qur'an requires Muslims to establish overall public order. This can be established though offensive measures. "

Source: "Furthermore, the Qur'an requires Muslims to strive to establish just public order overall. At this point jihad becomes an offensive endeavor to bring about the world order the qur'an seeks."

Me: "Thus offensive jihad raises questions about whether jihad is justifiable on moral grounds"

Source: "Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only"

Me: "Quranic verses, like Qur'an 8:39 revealed in the latter part of Muhammad's career require Muslims to wage Jihad against unbelievers"

Source: "because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods" (8:39). "

Me: "Wars of expansion in the Islamic empire, he argues were considered jihad by Sunni scholars, but under close scrutny can be determined to be political."

Source: "The question of offensive jihad is not a simple one. It is complicated by wars of expansion that were undertaken by Muslim armies up to the end of the Umayyad period. (eighth century A.D.). These wars are regarded as jihad by Sunni Muslim scholars. However upon careful scrutiny, these wars appear to be political, with the aim of expansion of Islamic hegemony without the qur'anic goal of "religion being entirely God's." "

As you can see, my version is completely within context, and not made up, while your version takes Abdulaziz Sachedina out of context and makes up interpritations.  Yahel  Guhan  04:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can't read the text of a webpage, then there's nothing I can do about it. The text is present whenever I open the page, and I will believe my eyes.
 * Secondly, you don't need to justify your version, since I never removed your version. I added to your version. You, on the other hand, removed content I added.Bless sins (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * you completely removed my version. Where is the mention in your version of verse 8:39, or that offensive jihad brings question about the justification on moral grounds, or the part that reads "the Qur'an requires Muslims to establish overall public order. This can be established though offensive measures" in your version? It isn't there, because you are censoring it out, taking him out of context, and making up sources. I'll check one more time for point 1, but for point 2 and 3, my issues still remain important and correct, even if you are right on point 1.  Yahel  Guhan  04:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, you are right about point 1, but the surrounding context needs to be given.  Yahel  Guhan  04:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In my version it reads:
 * "The Qur'an also requires Muslims to establish just public order, increasing the influence of Islam, allowing public Islamic worship."
 * Your version says, "the Qur'an requires Muslims to establish overall public order"
 * My version reads: "Although this can be said to be 'offensive' jihad"
 * Your version says: "This can be established though [sic] offensive measures"
 * I don't see where the problem is?Bless sins (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that your version leaves out that offensive measures can be taken in order to allow the establishment of the "public order...," and that is what offensive jihad is, not the establishment of the order itself. Offensive jihad is the offensive measures to allow the establishment. How about responding to the rest of my comment now.  Yahel  Guhan  04:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Does my version not say "to establish just public order"? Regarding the removal of the verse, it was decided quite some ago that verses shouldn't be mentioned. Though I'm open to both sides (and personally prefer mentioning verses), we have to maintain consistency here.Bless sins (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What I have a problem is your removial of the 'Offensive jihad being offensive measures' statement, being used to justify the "public order". Second, it was "decided" that verses can be mentioned if they are quoted by a secondary scholar. I prefer mentioning verses as well. We have a consensus here, then. The issue was weather to use them as footnotes or in the article itself. Now can you respond to the rest of my comment?  Yahel  Guhan  05:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But I already have that in my version, written one after the other. Regarding the verses issue, I don't feel like reviving such a trivial dilemma, when a user has proposed we re-format the entire article. To remove verses, even those cited by secondary sources, was decided here.Bless sins (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I already stated that your version doesn't mention that; not to my satisfaction. Rather it ignores the issure, hopping around it. It is important to state that it offensive jihad is an offensive measure, not the bringing of the public measueres. Your version gets it backwards.  Yahel  Guhan  05:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The word "offensive" in "offensive jihad" already shows that it is offensive. We need not say "offensive war" is offensive. Also, you removed other sourced content, you haven't justified that.Bless sins (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is necessary in this case, because it isn't clear, and it gives the wrong impression about what Sachedina said. Offensive war doesn't need to be clarified, but jihad does. Jihad means more than just war or violence, so clarification is needed to show that he is talking about violent jihad against non-agressors.  Yahel  Guhan  05:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But the author uses the term "offensive" only once. Furthermore, "violent jihad against non-agressors" is your OR not in the sources. The author says "jihad as an offensive endeavor" which is the same as "offensive jihad". But I'll change it if you wish.Bless sins (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, this isn't going to work. It is not "said to be jihad "as an offensive endeavor" Sachedina states "The Qur'an requires Muslims to strive to establish just public order overall. At this point jihad becomes an offensive endeavor to bring about the world order the qur'an seeks. Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only, because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods"." This is not the same as "Qur'an also requires Muslims to establish just public order, increasing the influence of Islam, allowing public Islamic worship. Although this can be said to be jihad "as an offensive endeavor" it has been complicated by early wars of expansion". This takes three different ideas and merges them into two unrelated sentences. "Allowing public Islamic worship" is never mentioned. Getting back to the statement, what he is saying is the quran requires muslims to wage jihad in order to establish a just public order overall through an offensive endeavor. Offensive Jihad must be waged against unbelievers until they convert to islam, and therefore it brings question to the morality of jihad. "it has been complicated by early wars of expansion" is a completely different topic point.  Yahel  Guhan  06:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a few things you don't understand. We mustn't simply copy and paste the source here, but must summarize it. This is what I'm doing. "Merging" is the way to go here. We must also ensure that one man's opinion doesn't dominate the article.
 * "Allowing public Islamic worship" is mentioned as "where Islamic acts of devotion are publicly observed". I think "worship" is a better term than "acts of devotion".
 * "Offensive Jihad must be waged against unbelievers until they convert to islam" The source doesn't say that. Infact the source says "the jihad that jurists treat in their works is undertaken to subdue the forces of unbelief, rather than to convert individuals or even groups to Islam."
 * The complication is a clearly relevant point.Bless sins (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Selective summaries are not acceptable summaries. That is what you are doing. Selective summarizing, meaning you take the views you like and include them, while downplaying the views you don't like. Deny it all you want, anyone who actually checks the sources can tell that that is what you are doing.
 * The source doesn't say as you claim in relation to that quote. Rather it says "Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only, because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods" In other words, Offensive jihad requires muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers until the religionh is entirely Islam. So yea, it does say Offensive Jihad must be waged against unbelievers until they convert to islam.  Yahel  Guhan  01:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No you are providing a selective summary. Your summary omits much of the content my summary has. Look carefully and you'll realize that. <My summary includes every thing your summary includes, and then some. "religion is entirely gods" doesn't mean Islam. At best it can mean all religions that believe in a god (note the lower case denotes any god, and not the one God Muslim, Jews and Christians believe in). In any case, I already told you that the author has said that the jihad's purpose was not to "to convert individuals or even groups to Islam."Bless sins (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your additions include removial of my additions, selective quotfarming, misquoting, andtaking things out of context. Specificly the line in dispute, you censored out, because it doesn't conform to your POV. God can be of any religion in most cases, but in this context it is obviously the god of Islam. The book is about Islam, he mentions the qur'an, the holy book of islam, and if you could actually read the source, you would know he is talking about the god of Islam. You told me I already told you that the author has said that the jihad's purpose was not to "to convert individuals or even groups to Islam, but you are still incorrect, and anyone who has the ability to read the source can tell that.  Yahel  Guhan  04:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please tell me what I'm removing? I don't see anything. But I do see you removing plenty from my version.
 * He is talking about various religions (see "People of the Book"). If you had significant knowledge you would know that Islam tolerates the existence of monotheistic religions (Judaism and Christianity) and some scholars even say this applies to other religions such Zoroastrians.
 * On the conversion issue, I'm quoting straight from the source. You on the other hand are interpreting the source as you like.Bless sins (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do I have to explain everything to you? Your version leaves out that the establishment can be established though offensive measures, that offensive jihad raises questions about whether jihad is justifiable on moral grounds, and that the qur'an requires muslims to wage Jihad against unbelievers.
 * He is talking about various religions  Again, you take him out of context. He is directly quoting the qur'an. It is obvious he is talking about Islam. If you had significant knowledge I do not appreciate these personal attacks. I know how to read, and I know how to properly interprit sources, and I know what a reliable source is. And what you just said is not written in the source.
 * You are not. You are making things up, as usuaul. You have a long history of bizarre interpritations of things that are straight foreward and common sense. Just about every source you mentioned which I double check you gravely misinterprit. You did it on islam and antisemitism, and you are doing it here.  Yahel  Guhan  05:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please quote the exact passage that you accuse me of removing.
 * If you look carefully at the page, he talks about "People of the Book and their conversion to God's religion". I'm no longer going to entertain your denials. In the past, you have repeatedly denied seeing the most blatant and obvious sentences.
 * Do your eyes not see the following passage in the source "the jihad that jurists treat in their works is undertaken to subdue the forces of unbelief, rather than to convert individuals or even groups to Islam."?? Please read carefully. It's in the book.Bless sins (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I already told you exactly what you removed. How many times do I have to repeat myself, but just to make it chrystal clear, I'll do it one more time, and only one more time. From the source, you censored out the following: Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only, because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods" (8:39). 
 * I'm no longer going to entertain your denials. In the past, you have repeatedly denied seeing the most blatant and obvious sentences. Speak for yourself. You have done this far more times than I have. The exact sentence that mentions "people of the book" reads fully: Moreover, offensive jihad against "those who do not believe in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden and do not practice the religion of truth, from among those who have been given the Book until they pay jizya [poll-tax]" (9:29) points more to the complex relationship and interdependence of religous-moral considerations in the policy of Islamic public order vis-a-vis the "people of the Book" than to their conversion to "God's religon," Islam. It is therefore clear that you took that out of context. It is a totally different and unrelated sentence that does not come into conflict or change the views presented in the other sentence.
 * OK, now you are back to selective quoting. Fully, it reads: Accordingly, the sphere in which this jihad was to be waged was designated the "sphere of war" (dar-al-harb) with the essential aim of uprooting unbelief and preparing the way for the creation of Islamic order on earth. On the other hand the jihad that jurists treat in their works is undertaken to subdue the forces of unbelief, rather than to convert individuals or even groups to Islam. As you should be able to see if you read without selective quoting, he is comparing the two beliefs, not just the one which you are propagating.  Yahel  Guhan  03:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yahel, I don't see the following in your version: "Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only, because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods" (8:39)." You are not adding this.
 * What you are adding, is this: "Thus offensive jihad raises questions about whether jihad is justifiable on moral grounds. Quranic verses, like Qur'an 8:39 revealed in the latter part of Muhammad's career require Muslims to wage Jihad against unbelievers. Wars of expansion in the Islamic empire, he argues were considered jihad by Sunni scholars, but under close scrutny can be determined to be political."
 * Anyways, I've restored your version, by sacrificing my version. I have removed the verse link per cheeser.Bless sins (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar
The article on Islamic military jurisprudence, presents matters related to war and the military from the perspective of Islamic law. Certainly, many people have perspectives on war (and non-martial violence), and Taheri-azar is one of them. Yet he is not a reliable source on Islamic law. Therefore his opinions belong on an article devoted to him, and not this one which aims to discuss the opinions of prominent Islamic jurists and relevant scholars (whether Muslim or non-Muslim, doesn't matter).Bless sins (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Negociations
Bless sins, you wrote "Islam does not permit Muslims to reject peace and continue bloodshed "

First of all, this is anything but a neutral statement. Second, please provide the full quote. Third, obviously POV statements like this need attribution.  Yahel  Guhan  05:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What's not neutral? How's this POV? This can be affirmed directly from the Qur'an: "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace" (Qur'an 8:61). Nothing extra-ordinary about this.Bless sins (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that the dispute pertains to this sentence primarily. Yahel Guhan, did you look at what you were reverting? If so, didn't you see that I had established attribution as you requested ("According to Maududi, Islam does not permit Muslims to reject peace and continue bloodshed.")? Do you also not see that you are also making some inappropriate changes (as I explained to you in the summary), such as spelling mistakes ("... differntly ...", "... established though offensive measures..."), removal of reliably sourced material (Asfaruddin's comments on territories, more specific elaboration of Sachedina's comments), as well as non-existent distinctions (i.e. between bondage and slavery)? That is largely obscured by the strange relocation of sections. I intend to restore the relevant changes while Maududi's passage is discussed.  ITAQALLAH   18:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so it is a primary source apparently. I thought there was agreement that the quran needed a secondary source. Where does Maududi state this? Show me the full quote with context. What's not neutral? How is it neutral to state that muslims must not "reject peace and continue bloodshed." This is the exact pro-islam bias I was talking about. This is the most rediculously bias statement in this entire article. It does nothing but attempt to poison the article by stating that islam is this perfectly peaceful religon. It isn't a scholarly statement, it is propaganda. The topic itself means there are two views; either war is allowed or war is not allowed. This statement says try stop whatever war you are in no matter what. Thus it is bias and POV.  Yahel  Guhan  05:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When did I say that this is a primary source? Maududi is a secondary, not primary source. If you want a Maududi quote, may I suggest you read his tafsir? This way you'll gain a much better understanding of the issue. Also, I never said "islam is this perfectly peaceful religon". Please don't accuse me of making such statements.Bless sins (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so you aren't going to provide a quote. Very tipical of you. How am I supposed to know you aren't making up this source as well to further some POV? You may not have directly stated that "islam is this perfectly peaceful religon," but you implied it when you added this one line.  Yahel  Guhan  06:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As I know there are two interpretations. As I heared in one of the jurisprudential sermons of Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi, the Quranic verse which is base of this sentence can be interpreted in two different ways. One of them is what Bless sins has mentioned. The other one is completely opposite. -- Seyyed(t-c) 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yahel, you have so far not been co-operative, but nevertheless, as a gesture of good will, I shall provide for the quote.
 * "Therefore, you should boldly face the enemy both in war and peace. When the enemy desires to have talks with you, you should be willing and ready to negotiate with the other party wihtout any hesitation. Do not reject the offer on the plea that the other party is not sincere and has treacherous intentions, for no one can have knowledge of the correct intentions of others. If the other party is sincere in its offer, it will be wrong to reject it [peace offer] and continue bloodshed. And if the enemy has treacherous intentions, then Allah will protect you from them because of your courage and moral superiority."
 * I hope, you will co-operate with me in the future, just as I have done now.Bless sins (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't take a look at the article recently but at the time of its nomination for GA, I believe, it had a pro-contemporary-Muslim bias(bullet 3 below). Islamic view of Jihad underwent developments over time. I think three periods should be distinguished and classified:

1. The Qur'anic view of warfare and peace is different from those developed by later jurists (e.g. see EoQ, War and warfare article, and Peace article; you can see ). I believe the Qur'an's view should be mentioned but together with other ones.

2. Influenced with their military power, later Sunni jurists created a doctrine of Jihad whose goal is to create world-wide Islamic empire, something that seemed to be possible to achieve at that time. For Shias, the absence of a divinely appointed leader closed the door of such forms of Jihad, so like mystic Muslims they stressed on the other spiritual types of jihad.

3. In modern times, a new interpretation of Jihad was proposed in which warfare can be only defensive (driven by the same forces that once created the traditional doctrine of Jihad). This view is adopted by most Muslims but not all of them. The sentence "After Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam" in the article is coming from this POV.

I think the article is a tough one and requires much work before becoming GA. --Be happy!! (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why, then, don't you help us clean it?Bless sins (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems we have a consensus here that we do have a pro-islam bias right now. It is my opinion that this particular line is the biggest contributor to the problem, as I have stated above.  Yahel  Guhan  04:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You are the only person saying that there is "pro-Islam" bias. Aminz is saying that there is bias towards modern Muslims, giving not enough weight to medieval Muslims. The line, is not contributing to the problem - you are. I've already provided for you the quote.Bless sins (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I restored the line, with further attribution.  Yahel  Guhan  04:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article is heavily biased, since it is entirely written from a pro-Islamic perspective; it does not analyze, in particular, where Islamic rules do in fact conflict with international law.

However, to re-write it would be a huge, ungrateful task: it's probably better to leave it as it is, since its bias is so blatant that it does not allow for any sort of ambiguity.(Giordaano) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giordaano (talk • contribs) 10:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you show evidence of Islamic law contradicting with International law? Please use reliable sources to back yourself up. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a new reader of this article, and I'm with Bless sins on this one. This article is about Islamic military jurisprudence; it is not about what Muslims do in the modern world or have done in history, or even necessarily about what the average Muslim believes the laws of wars are. We're talking about legal scholarship and commandments from a religious text, not about behavior or anything else. For instance, you could talk about Jewish dietary laws in isolation from what Jews may or may not now eat or have eaten in times past. --GenkiNeko (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Fighting for Kaffir Armies
While discussing the military draft, two of my Muslim friends here in the United States mentioned that Islam prohibits them from fighting in Kaffir (non-Muslim) armies. I was hoping this article would shed some light on this but unfortunately it did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.174.241 (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Image
I can understand the lack of images in the article. Quality images are needed.

However, irrelevent and politically charged images should not be used. An Afghan soldier displaying spoils of war, may have more to do with "spoils of war" etc and less with Islamic military jurisprudence. For example, can you show which reliable sources call the Afghan soldier's actions as conforming with and encouraged by Islamic law of war?Bless sins (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Quranic verses regarding warfare
Can we include some quran verses that refer to the sermon, and the ethics of warfare in islam? Faro0485 (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)