Talk:Islamic views on prisoners of war

Untitled
How much more biased can this article get? Fucking hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray harris1989 (talk • contribs)
 * How is it biased when more than one cited sources has been stated - the Quran plus the other two links? In fact, by stating negative comments with reasoning is not helping to improve here - that's not constructive criticism. You have to give reasons why a particular matter is good or bad. There are more than two website links made to this article and I can see that the users are trying to analyse the article the best way possible. So what makes you think that this article is bias? Give me reasons. --Fantastic4boy 03:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources mentioned are from extremist websites, and are NOT Reliable sources. You might want to take a look at WP:RS. The sources are in my opinion Islamist propaganda, which seems to be the purpose of this article. --Sefringle 03:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I LOL so hard at this article. Who made this? An another Muslim extremist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.186.57.2 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Rights of prisoners
I acknowledge that in Islam prisoners are not only to be fed well, but also not to be physical, sexually and emotional - where can I get a credible source of information from regarding this? I read some document on prisoners that they are allowed to be tied up when they cause some kind of trouble in prison but I haven't got the article and I'm not sure whether I'm giving out the right information. I heard that they can be tied up. When is it that the prison guards are allowed stop the prisoners, hit them up and tie them up? --Fantastic4boy 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Islamic jurisprudence might had some rules to deal with them, but to the best of my knowledge, a major source of slaves within the institution of slavery at the advent of Islam were the prisoners of war. The Qur'an rooted this out by legislating that prisoners of war should be freed at all costs, either by accepting ransom or as a favour by not taking any ransom money. No other option was available to the Muslims (kindly see ). And also there is no punishment in Qur'an or hadith that is related to prinson. Hence, I personally believe that this question is not raised at all. For more information, kindly see "Slavery" in Mizan. Cheers!  TruthSpreader reply 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above post is almost entirely wrong. Read Lewis' book on Slavery and Islam. Arrow740 18:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Copy
Anyone interested can benefit from a lot of information from very reliable sources on the Islamic military jurisprudence article. Look under "Prisoners of War". If anyone needs more info, feel free to contact me (User:Bless_sins, bless_sins@yahoo.ca), as I can pull out some resources on the topic.128.100.53.151 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrible article
There are schools of thought that say prisoners must be killed, it says this in the Quran. The women can be raped. Arrow740 18:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * the article conflicts with your POV (which seems to be rather ill-informed), and thus it must be "terrible." right.  ITAQALLAH   18:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Quran aside, according to fiqh, Muhammad killed prisoners and had sex with women he captured so it's just great in Islam. You know it. Arrow740 18:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the OR and lies from a non-notable website. Arrow740 18:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * non notable website? it seems to be a reasonable resource for Islamic jurisprudence, especially as qualified Islamic jurists write for the website. they are "lies" to you, yet you have brought forth no academic material to prove it. your understanding of "fiqh" is extremely superficial. i have removed the recentist section which is completely irrelevant to what Islamic law says about the treatment of prisoners of war.  ITAQALLAH   00:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "your understanding of "fiqh" is extremely superficial" If your response is going to be merely an ad hominem there's no point in posting it. Arrow740 18:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * my response wasn't "merely" that though, was it?  ITAQALLAH   18:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The part of your post where you replied to the argument I put forth in my second post was merely that. Arrow740 19:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems with rewritten article

 * "it strictly forbids keeping female slaves as a means of sexual enjoyment and luxury" please provide the full context in which this interesting statement was made.
 * "One traditional opinion holds that executing prisoners of war is strictly forbidden; this is the most-widely accepted view." Again, full context.
 * "Most contemporary Muslim scholars prohibit altogethor the killing of prisoners and hold that this wsa the policy practiced by Prophet Muhammad." Is this a joke? Have these "scholars" heard of the Banu Qurayza? Full context needed. Arrow740 18:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing us of misrepresenting the sources, or are you saying the sources are not reliable?Bless sins 16:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The quote for the first one. "This verse explains why one is pemitted to have conjugal relations with one's slave-girls besides the wedded wives ... This, however, does not mean that the Divine Law has provided the rich an opportunity to purchase as many slave-girls as they tike for their carnal indulgence. This is in fact how the self-seeking people have exploited and abused tire Law." The other two I will provide later.Bless sins 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"The second trend considered unbelief to be a serious crime, but it is not sufficient cause for execution. After teh fourth/tenth century it is clear that the second trend becomes the prevailing and predominant view. Among the important trends ... is a school of thought that argued that under no circumstances could a prisoner be executed."Bless sins 19:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Renaming
I suggest renaming this article to Prisoners of war in Islam. The proposed title has two advantages. First, it will be more descriptive (the article is about prisoners of war, not all prisoners). Secondly, it will be free from the restrictive and arguably POV word "rights". Beit Or 19:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That is much better. Arrow740 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. It should be moved--Sefringle 04:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * that seems reasonable.  ITAQALLAH   14:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Source for the article
Itaqallah, you indicated that your source for this article was wikipedia, is that true? Arrow740 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ? what are you talking about?  ITAQALLAH   19:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "relocate from Islamic military jurisprudence" in an edit summary. Arrow740 19:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * the content was forked from that article to here.  ITAQALLAH   20:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Maududi
This is becoming a POV piece for him. Arrow740 08:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Female Slaves and Sex
The Wiki article says it is allowed for a master to have sex with his female slave. If this is incorrect then corrections need to be made to both articles. NN 04:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, men and women are allowed to have sex with one another after they are married in Islam, and if I'm not mistaken one Koranic passage stating something in details that goes like this: 'as long as it's not in the anus and in the vagina'. I've forgotten what verse it is. Anyway, we need to look at the Koran in details regarding this matter because I don't want to make bias statements on this matter. Some people say it's based on some hadith or Koranic verse, but it may not turn out to be true (they may have made it up and edit it and take words randomly from different verses). --Fantastic4boy 09:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are quoting a Sunni hadith now, which purportedly explains the Quranic verse in which a woman is compsred to a field in which a man can sow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.75.147.42 (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Female, children and male prisoners in Islam
Let me get this straight - whoever typed up the statements, are you implying that women and children cannot be killed but adult men may be executed? So, are you saying that adult men can be killed but women and children cannot? What if an adult woman is as guilty as the adult male? Is there a punishment to that? How are the disobedient children prisoners are dealt with? --121.217.54.245 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Freeing of prisoners if they teach 10 Muslims to read and write
I have removed the rather dubious source and replaced it with "Citation needed". For this kind of thing we really need a Sahih Hadith or a page number from Ibn Ishaq's Sirat. I looked in Ibn ishaq and I could not find anything about this, I also did a search for hadiths on Sunnah.com that have the words "read and write" "Badr", etc. And could not find anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.224.168.151 (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Not Appropriate to Class a Source as Unreliable On the Basis of Being a 19th Century Scotsman
User:Al-Andalusi, I get why you would object William Muir's views on Islam on the basis that he was a "19th-century apologist of empire and mission." Even so, I don't think that's a good reason for characterizing the quote below as "outdated and unreliable."

"In pursuance of Mahomet’s commands, the citizens of Medîna, and such of the Refugees as possessed houses, received the prisoners, and treated them with much consideration. “Blessings be on the men of Medina!” said one of these prisoners in later days; “they made us ride, while they themselves walked: they gave us wheaten bread to eat when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates.”"

- William Muir, The Life of Mahomet



Substantively, the quote isn't all that important, though it does do a really nice job of illustrating humane treatment of prisoners by Muhammad's followers. But I'm troubled by the argument for excluding it based on Muir's personal views and historical setting. Your concern - at least as expressed - appears to have nothing to do with whether it is an accurate representation of facts or whether the quote is applicable in the context. As far as I can tell, you're not suggesting that it is substantively incorrect or biases the discussion in any way. Rather, the objection seems to be entirely based on the author's point of view and time period.

Muir clearly had a point of view. If anything, it makes this quote more powerful, because this is positive reporting from an author who is generally critical towards Islam (and the quote was clearly attributed, so that readers weren't mislead as to where it was coming from). The article uses pro-Islamic sources from a variety of time periods. In historical writing, unlike the hard sciences, it's routine to use older sources as well as more recent ones. Despite its admitted flaws, Muir's Life of Mohammad was a massive and influential work. To categorically disregard everything in it because we find the world view of the author objectionable is needlessly limiting. EastTN (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)